Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Prudhoe Bay Oild Field final enviromental impact statement Vol 2 1980
frepared by: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Prudhoe Bay Oil Field Waterflood Project Prudhoe Bay, North Slope Borough Alaska June 1980 u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska D.istrict P. 0. Box 7002, Anchorage, AK 99510. Information Contact: {907} 752-3861 (Ben Kutscheid) Cooperating Agencies: National Marine Fisheries Service U • .S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wil~life.Service Technical Assistance Provided by: Dames & Moore, Anchorage Volume 2 APPENDICES Last Date to Accept Comments: 21 July 1980 [M]£00~£ c rn:OOIA\®©© Susitna Joil'lt Venture Document Number Please Beturn To DOCUMENT CONTROL LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A RESULTS OF SCOPING B APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT --DETAILED DESCRIPTION C PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL OCE.'.NOGRAPHY D HYDRODYNAMIC AND WATER QUALITY MODELING OF SIMPSON LAGOON AND PRUDHOE BAY. E MARINE BIOLOGY F FRESHWAT-ER RESOURCES G ACOUSTICS H ENTRAPMENT, IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT IMPACTS I COASTAL PROCESSES J ASSESSMENT OF ICE FORCES, ICE OVER-RIDE AND EMBANKMENT STABILITY K RESERVOIR ENGINEERING L TERRESTRIAL HABITAT MAPPING AND EVALUATION M THE RELATIONSHIP OF INCREMENTAL OIL FROM THE PRUDHOE BAY FIELD TO THE U.S. ENERGY BALANCE N ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COORDINATION 0 AUTHORIZATION 10 DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM . P PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) OF AIR QUALITY APPENDIX A RESULTS OF SCOPING REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: ~AEN-PL-EN Dear Participant: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 7002 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99!51 0 13 FEB 1980 n,e Alaska District, Corps of Engineers has completed the seeping pro- cass for our environmental impact statement now in preparation for the proposed Prudhoe Bay Unit Waterflood Project. This process consisted of various meetings involving the public, other agencies and the oil industry. Through an analysis made of comments and concerns exchanged at these meetings and through our study of the proposed project, the attached list of issues has evolved. It is premature, at this time, to provide a detailed ranking of concern for each issue. However, effects of the proposed action relative to the causeway extension into the· Beaufort sea, social and economic conditions, and cumulative changes in the area clearly rank high in our consideration. • As you review the list please feel free to contact us by wri:ing or by calling Mr. Ben Kutscheid :at (907) 752-2572 to suggest any changes. 1 Inc! As stated -~t?L f\-1 LEE R. NUf\fJ COlonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer · PBU. Waterflood Environmental Analysis List of Issues GRAVEL SOURCES AND USE Subissues: a. Quanti~y needed and cumulative impacts Waterflood Gas Conditioning P1a~t Gas Pipeline Beaufort Sea Development Miscellanecius (mining, recreation) Prudhoe Bay expansion, Kuparuk field, Colville, etc# b. Source location(s) Putuligayuk oxbows most probable c. Methods and effects. of removal; stockpiling requirements Direct habitat loss Effects on wetlands and surface water d. Rehabilitation, potential use as fish or bird habitat, reservoirs, etc. e. Detailed gravel placement plan A-2 SOCIAL~ CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC Subi s·sues: Impacts of Construction and Operation: 1.. Local a .. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i . j. k. 1 • m. n. o. p. q. Can existing camp facilities handle extra personnel? What if gas conditiofiing plant construction is coincident? Any additional service company facilities required? New shops, etc.? How many extra trips up Haul Road? Program for Native/local hire? Any impact on barge traffic to DH-3? land ownership Effects on cultural resources, i.e. archaeological, historical, religious Effect on the sense of .. homeu felt by the Eskimo ' Effect on subsistence hunting and fishing and related traditions, Eskimo diet, and traditional transportation routes. Effects on lifestyle, rate of cultural change. Long-tenm effects of project abandonment. Effects on tax base. Effects on fuel availability and cost .. Any plans for multiple use of causeway? Compatibility with NSB interim or-dinance. Incremental recovery cost of production. Land ownership status --all State-owned, oil company leased but some Native selection. A-3 2 .. ... 3. State a. Employment b •. Tax base (royalties) c. Consistency with CZMP, gai-ning. of other permits. d$ Energy costs and availability e. Effect on conservation of energy reserves~ Nat.ional a. Need for project •. b. Effect on conservation of energy reserves. c... Effect on na tiona 1 need for energy .. d.. Effect on U.S. dependence·on foreign oil and gas including national security implications. e. Effect on cultural diversity. A-4 ICE PROBLEMS . Subissues: a. Design constraints imposed by ice I nta·ke: physi ca 1 damage from kee 1 i rag, bottom scoring, effects of frazzle and slush ice Discharge: effects on buried pipeline, discharge effects on ice thickness Causeway and treatment plant: ice forces used in design b. Effects of ice override c. Effects on ice movement d. Probability, magnitude and severity of ice override A-5 RESERVOIR CONSIDERATIONS Subissues: a. Effectiveness of waterflooding b. Alternative recovery methods, field management. Will waterflooding preclude recovery (later) by other me'thods? . c. Effects of delay of waterflooding (e.g., one year, five year·s, 10 years) .. d. Effects of interrupti on of wa terfl ood i ng (e.g. , one day, one month, six months). (Important in considering alternative intake locations, reliability requirements, etc.) e. Effects of alternative configurations of onshore facilities f. Seismic implications g. Effects on production rates, life of field, cost/bbl h. Land subsidence potential {would accelerate coastal erosion?) · i. Plan for produced water {increased volume due to water- flood). j. Thermal effects of injecting cold water into warm formation --any effects on permafrost thickt'less? A-6 ' • TREATMENT PROCESS AND DISCHARGE Subissues: a. Nature and use of chemical additives biocides anti-foaming agents coagulants . corrosion inhibitors . b-Nature of normal discharge (include annual cycle) Backwash procedures {frequency, water source) Temperature TSS BOD Chemicals {specific constituents and concentrations) Potential for freezing of discharge li.ne c. Physical behavior of discharge Dilution, diffusion (four seasons) Build-up of solids, BOD (under ice) Effects on ice formation Effects of local currents, scouring, etc.? d. Biological effects of discharge . Acute taxi ci'ty Long-term effects Behavioral effects (attraction to discharge) e5 Compliance with WQ criteria; mixing zone size. f. low pressure line evacuation I Conditions requiring discharge; probability of occurrence location of discharge Voiume and nature of discharge; resultant impacts g. Effects of fouling in discharge line h.. A1 ternative locations; back-up contingencies if discharge damaged. i. Evaluation of effluent treatment alternatives, i.e., achievable reductions in effluent volume (esp. solids) and toxicity {e.g., biocides), and associated costs, energy requirements, and displaced impacts (e.g. of land disposal). A._7 iNTAKE CONSIDERATIONS {EXCLUSIVE OF CAUSEWAY EXTENSION) Sub issue: a. Alternative intake locations and designs; rationa'le for selecting preferred alternative be Detailed intake design . c., Magnitude of impingement and entrainment problem d. Backup measures if intake inoperative. e. Clean Water Act Section 3l6B requ·irements? A-8 CAUSEWAY EXTENSION. Subissues: a. Feasibility of alternatives that·would obviate the extension. b. Physical effects on circulation, WQ, flushing of Simpson Lagoon, nutrient and sediment transporto c. Effects on wave regime impacting Stump Island~ d. Biological effects of "b" and "c". ee Barrier effects to movement of fish, birds (include ~bove ground power lines), marine mammals, recolonization by invertebrates. f. Feasibility and effects of breaching~ both shoreward and seaward of DH-3. g. Legal ·status of existing and extended causeway; compliance with ACMP. h. Effects of erosion and ice action . . • i. Effects of extension on future cargo handling needs or other uses. j. Probability, magnitude, and severity of wave events that could affect causeway stability. k. Any other plans for causeway extension? A-9 WETLANDS AND TERRESTRIAL ECQLOGY Subissues: a. Direct destruction of habitat; cumulative losses to entire North Slope. b. Alternative routing~ especially between Pad E and Term Well A. Include discussion of plans to integrate this road into future development plans for the field. c. Alternative construction methods --use of insulating layer d. Effects of dust, increaser. traffic, road maintenance. e.. Effects on caribou migration; include· irreversible and irretrievrhle loss of habitats mitigative measures, etc. f. fffects on drai n·age patterns g. Effects of saltwater spill h. Effects on rare and endangered species (e.g., peregrine falcon) . . i. Cumulative impacts on bird and manmal distributions (e.g;~ Kaktovik Village contention that duck and fish harvests have declined in recent years} j. Effects on barrier islands k. Effects on terrestrial productivity, use by water oriented birds, grazers, energy contributions to fresh water ecosystems A-10 "WETLANDS AND TERRESTRIAL ECGLOGY Subissues: a. Direct destruction of habitat; cumulative losses to entire North Slope. b. Alternative routing, especially between Pad E and Term Well A. Include. discussion of plans to ·integrate this road into future development plans for the field. c. Al t.ernative construction ~nethods --use of insulating layer d. Effects of dust, increased traffic, road maintenance. e. Effects on caribou migration; include irreversible and irretrievable loss of habitat, mitigative measures, etc. f. Effects on drainage patterns g.. Effects of saltwater spill h. Effects on rare and endangered species (e.g., peregrine falcon) . io Cumulative impacts on bird and mammal distributions (e.g;, Kaktovik Village contention that duck and fish harvests have declined in recent years) . j. Effects on barrier islands k. Effects on terrestrial productivity, use by water oriented birds, grazers, energy contributions to fresh water ecosystems A-10 MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ISSUES Sub i-ssues: a.. Schedule What is impact of delay in project implementation? How will construction sequence with barge traffic? Priority based on economic significance of delays in beginning construction and/or operation of project. b. Solid W4;tste disposal Priority based .on availability of 'landfill areas. c. Energy cost to produce versus quantity of energy produced. Priority based on importance of produced energy. d. List.pressure vessels Priority bas~d on low likelihood of fa~lure. e. Effects of produced water injection system (potential need for expansion due to recycling of waterf1ood w_ater,?) Priortty based on relative size of facilities and expected adequate definition of same. A-12 AIR QUALITY Subissues: a. Nature and volume of construction and operational emissions b. C~mulative impacts c.. Adequacy of PSD application A-13 AIR QUALITY Subissues: au Nature and volume of construction and operational emissions b. Cvmulative impacts c. Adequacy of PSD application A-13 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Effect Sources: a. Existing development b. Waterflood c. Gas conditioning plant d. Gas pipeline e. Kuparuk field f~ On-land development from Canning to Colville g. Local population growth and economic development . h. Beaufort Sea development Subissues: a. ·Effects of gravel extraction b.. Effects on wilderness value c. Effects on traditional Native values including subsistence needs~ d. Effects on aquatic resources (especially fish, birds, and marrmals) e. Effects on wetlands (especially large malliJlals and birds) f. Effect on economy and foreign energy dependence g. Air quality A-14 EFFECTS OF DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL Subissues: a. Alternative dredging and disposal methods of construction and maintenance. b. Physical effects including changes in substrate, bathymetry, shore.processes, circulation patterns. c. Water co1umn effects in~luding the following: turbidity, nutrient concentrations, toxic materials, dissolved oxygen, mixing zone and the dilution and-~ispersion zone (Fed. Reg. Vol. 44,. No. 182, pg .. 54-227). d. Effects on benthic communities including: smothering, substrate changes including grain size distribution and chemica 1 changes~ diversity, density, _and productivity changes, ecological effects related to food web, recolonization patterns and rates. e. Chemical-biologica1 interactions relating to release or availability of chemical constituents as they might influence biota. f. Cost and reliability. g.. Effects on the movement of fauna. h. Timing of activitieso i. Effects on aesthetics, recreation! or economic values . • j. Effects on fish spawning or nursery areas. k. Eff~cts on water supply. 1. Effects on wildlife including marine mammals, birds, and threatened species. m. Effects on wetlands or submerged vegetation. n. Must specify disposal site based on following a least detrimental approach considering the above factors. A-15 MONITORING AND MITIGATION· Subissues: a. Monitoring: Monitorjng of project performance and environmental alterations caused by it is necessary to allow a judiciou~·application of mitigative measures. The following aspects of the project will require monitoring: . Waterflood effect on fonnation performance and pressure. Effects of project structures and activities on wetlands fauna, ~egetation, and hydrology . . Effects of causeway extension on circulation patterns and water quality. Effects of causeway on migrations of biota and on the ecology of Simpson Lagoon. Severity of impingement and entrainment losses of biota~ Nature and quantity of chemicals and solids in the discharge; degre~ of dilution·and dispersion achieved; accumulation of solids burying under ice conditionso Biological effects of discharge. Air quality monitoring. What party wi'll be responsible for monitoring~! b. Mitigation ~hat measures are incorporated into the proposed project? What additional measures are recorrmended based on current knowledge? What measures can be instituted later if monitoring programs indicate a need? t\-16 APPENDIX B . APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT DETAILED DESCRIPTION . . 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Prudhoe Bay Unit (PBU) Waterf1ood Project has been developed through the conceptual design stage by the applicant.. The precise economic viability of the project and optimum rate· of water injection will be determined during pr·el iminary and detail designe The p1anned facilities are subject to changes during detailed design to all0\'1 for ecfJnomic and technical optimization and to allow for possible incor-- ~oration of other Prudhoe Bay facilities. Planned facilities hav_e been described by the applicant in the December 1979 Update of the Prudhoe Bay Unit Waterflood Project Overview, Volume 1, Engineering. This appendix supplements and provides more detail on the description of the proposed action provided in Section 2.4 of the EIS. The material presented herein is essentially an edited version of the app"Jicant•s description of ind·~vidual facilities in Section 4 through 11 of the Overview document with ~he addition of more recent design parameters. 2o0 SEAWATER TREATING PLANT FUNCTIONAl DESCRIPTION The seawater treating plant with integral water intake would be located at the end \~,f a 1125-m (3700-ft) causeway extending northward from DH 3 to a water depth of about 3.7 m (12 ft). At this depth, intake openings can be located below winter ice and above the seabed to assure B-1 . a reliable water source of good quality with minimum intake of marine organisms. The plant would condition the raw s~awater to make it suitable for waterflood injection. The necessary equipment to achieve this required quality would be installed on a barge as.shown in Figure B-1. Processing would remove suspended solids and dissolved oxygen and provide heat for freeze protection in the low-pressure pipeline system. FACILITY DESCRIPTION • Seawater would flow directly into the seawater treating plant inlet reserrvoir through openings in the shoreward end of the pl atfonn. The bot torn of the openings waul d b,~ approximate 1 y 0.3 m ( 1 ft) above the . seabed and about 0.3 m below maximum sea ice thickness allowing an opening 1.5 m (5 ft) in height. The area of opening create~ would provide a water intake velocity of less than 15 cm/s {0.5 ft/s) and the upper and· lower sills would minimize entrainment of organic and inorganic solids and slush ice. Flow would then be directed through traveling screens fitted with fish recovery buckets (Appendix H)o Fish would be sluiced off the screens and returned to the sea. An untreated seawater spray would then remove any other debris from the screens. This debris would be collected and returned to the Beaufort Sea through the main outfall line. The seawater would then be pumped through in-line strainers to remove fibrous tundra particles that would be detrimental to the media fi 1 ter perfonnance. The accumu'l at ion of particles on the in-line strainers would be backwashed and pumped back to the sea through the main outfall pipelineG After straining, the seawater would be heated to approximately 4.4°C {40°F) to prevent freezing. A small volume of heated water ( 21 °G, 70°F) waul d be returned to the intake reservoir to mitigate frazil and slush ice problems. The amount of heat added is antici-. . . pated to have 1 ittle measurable effect on the intake reservoir water temperature. The main process flow of seawater would next enter B-2 . HUTEJII M-ffl www ELEVAT ~ON . KUT EXCIIAHER 7 r lllAIIfOLD PLAN MAIN LEVEL PLAN LOWER LEVEL I &S 111 Zil r-......... ;-"-:_-~ .. : ... · SCALE Ill fi!ET PROPOSED. SEAWATER TREATING PLANT PLANS & ELEVA"nON P.Bli Waterflood Environmental Impact· Statement' ~ ... Figure 8 ... 1 .... ~---.-&~----------.a ________ w. ____________________________ ._ ______ ~----~a.----• B-3 filters containing media ·such as· gravel and sand for the removal of very fine particles. As needed, a coagulant (probably a polyamine) and a biocide (probably chlorine) will be added to ~::1prove filter perfonnance. Periodically; each of the filters would be backwashed with strained unheated and untreated seawater to remove the accumula- tion of solid particles and coagulant within the media. The backwash effl u~nt would be r,aturned to the sea through the outfall 1 ine·. The filtered seawater would flow through deaerators for dissolved oxygen removal to prevent piping system corrosion. The deaerators would consist of columns containing packing material·and would operate at 1 ess than atmospheric pressure. The seawater would flow down over the inert packing material, while a small volume of natural gas would flow up~ Vacuum pumps \ilOul d reduce the internal operating pressure of the column. The redueed pressure, combined with the stripping action of the natural gas, would liberate oxygen and mix it with the gas. The gas from the deaerators would be burned in heaters .. Probable water treating chemicals that would be added at three loca- tions in the treating plant process flow, estimated concentrati·Jn in the system, and frequency of application are provided in Tabie B-1 • • Only chemicals added upstream of the filters (coagulant and biocide) would be discharged in the outfc-:1 line through backwash operations. The chemicals added upstream and downstream of the deaerators waul d not be discharged into the sea during normal operations. The filter aid che~ical would be nontoxic and biodegradable. Various types of biocida.1 treatment are still under consideration. These include chlorine {providing no free chlorine in the discharge) and hydrogen peroxideo The seawater treating plant would be protected from ice farces and waves by a gravel berm as shown in Figures B-2 and B-3e Treated seawater would be pumped through 1 ow-pressure pipelines to the • injection plants located on each side of the field. These pipelines B-4 to I U1 TABLE B-1 . TYPICAL SYSTEM CHEMICAL USAGE {Estimated Averagel · Effective Where Added Chemical Type Concentration Use Freguency Upstream of Filters Sodium Hypochlorite(a) 0.1 ppm Biocide Continuous Cationic Poly-(b) 0.85 ppm Coagulant Continuous electrolyte Upstream of Deaerators Fatty Acid and(c) 0.25 ppm Anti-foam Continuous Polyglycol Downstream of Deaerators Catalyzed Sodium(c) 0.9 ppm 02 Scavenger During Deaerator Bisulfite Malfunction Filming Amine(c) 7 .o ppm Corrosion Duti ng De aerator Inhibitor Malfunction Phosphate Ester(c) 7.0 ppm Scale During Deaerator Inhibitor Malfunction • . (a) Added upstream of the filters to establish a 0.1 ppm residual concentration at the filter feed inlet. (b) Typical brands are NALCO 3332; NALCO 3364; TFl 3910 (Tretolite). (c) Added downstream of filters and thus will not be present in the outfall except during emergency displacement of both .low-pressure supply lines. . : I l ~------OUTFALL LINE TO -14' CONTOUR ----GRAVEL BERM EL. +18' --MARINE LIFE RETURN OUTFALL PIPELINE SHEET riLE BULKHEAD -----~ CoMBINED 'EAWATER INTAKE a · TREATING PLANT -----' LOW PRESSURE SEAWATER LINES, FUEL LINE It POWER LINE -----..:..---am~ PROPOSED. SEAWATER TREA-TING PLANT FACIUTY LAYOUT PBU WaterffoQci Er•vfronmentai lmpact'Statement B-6 I 'Figure B-2 100' . TREATING PLANT 2' GRAVEL PAD _ _.. SECTION FROM NOT TO SCALE .. 180' . PROPOSED SEAWATER. TREATING PLANT· GRAVEL. BERM. PBU. Waterffooci Environmentai Impact Statement· B-7 Figure.B-3 would be incorporated in the causeway extension to DH 3 as discussed in Section B-3. CONSTRUCTION The installation plan for the seawatP.r treating plant is shown in Figure B-4o Initial _gravel placement and installation of a sheet pile bulkhead would be in summer 1981. Dredging (probably using a . clam-shell dredge) of the slip for grounding the plant and placement. of foundation gravel would be completed prior to arrival of the plant, \'lhich would be towed to the site .in 1983. Upon arrival, the plant would be positioned in its slip and secured to the anchor piles. The ballast compartments would be filled with calcium chloride solution by controlled pumping to ground the plant on the gravel foundation. The calcium chloride would. contain a corrosion inhibitor. Previously installed outfall lines, fuel gas lines, and treated seawater low- pressure supply 1 ines would be connected and the remaining gravel placed around the plant. The design would allow reflotation and removal at the end of project life. ICE FORCE DESIGN CRITERIA The ice force criteria used in the design of the treating plant berms and hull ar·e summarized in Table B-2 .. 3.0 PROPOSED CAUSEWAY EXTENSION AND MODIFICATIONS FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION The propose~ causeway extension would provide access to the seawater treating plant located approximately 1125 m (3700 ft) north of DH 3 in . about 3 .7 m ( 12 ft) of water. This causeway would i ncorporat,:-. ~ :- pressure seawater supply and fue) gas pipelines and power lines. Modffication of the existing causeway to DH 3 would accommodate pipe- lines and power lines and provide additional logistics capability. DH 3 would be reoriented slig~tly to the northeast. B-8 • I STEP. I SHEETPILE BU~KHEAD --- STEP3 GRAVEL BERM TO EL. + 3' ,• STEP 2 a) DREDGE TO EL. -17~' b) GRAVEL ·::::::.:::--,~.;::.:::.:._ STEP 4 PLANT POSITIONED OVER GRAVEL PAD-:-. _ _,__ GRAVEL BERMEL+ 11• CAUSEWAY EXTENSION __ ,.._ INSTALLATION PLAN PROPOSED SEAWATER TREATING PLANT. PBU· Waterflood Environmental Impact Statement B-9 Figure B-4 TABLE B-2 ICE FORCE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR VARIOUS ~IATERFLOOD FACILITIES Causeway Widenin~ Ice Force: 260 lb/in2 x de~th below MLLW x 110% Maximum Ice Force: 270,000 lb/lin ft Frost penetration assumed 6 m (20 ft) below seabed under existing causeway {based on cor·ing and thermal analysis). Frozen gravel shear strength for local shear; 4000 lb/ft2 Local. shear failure between ice and pipelines controls width. Causeway Extension Ice Force: 270;,000 1b/lin ft . Frost penetration assumed to be 1.8 rn {6 ft) below seabed. Treating Plant Berms Ice Force: northern and eastern exposure-400,000 lb/lin ft Ice Force: southern and western exposure -270,000 lb/i in ft No frost penetration assumed below seabed. Treating Plant Hull Indirect ice loau: N, E, W ... 35 lb/in2 {150,000 lb/lin ft) Direct ice load: South -270,000 1b/lin ft Gravel fill weight above MLLW -115 lbs/ft3 .... Gravel fill weight below MLLW -065 lbs/ft~ Sliding "Friction Co-efficient, Gravel/Soil -0.5 B-10 FACILITY DESCRIPTION The gravel causeway extension from DH 3 to the seawater treating plant would incorporate the lo~l ... pressure seawater supply pipelines as well as the fuel gas pipeline and electric power lines$ The causeway extension would be designed to withstand predicted ice forces. Cross- section dimensions, shown in Figure B-5a, reflect the associated gravel quantities, but dim1ensions may be altered during detailed design to reflect updated open-\'/ater "su-rge and \'lave predictions. The causeway extension waul d prov·~de only vehicle access to the seawater treating plant and would not constitute an extension of the existing dock offload facilities" The .extended causeway would ·be breached with a 7.6-m {25-ft) diameter semi-elliptical structure to allow fish passage (Figure B-6). The existing causeway to DH 3 would be expanded as shown in Figure B-5b to provide protection for the low-pressure seawater supply and fuel gas pipelines and the electrical distribution system cables. In addition, this expansion would accommodate two-way crawler traffic. A 7.6-m (25-ft) semi-elliptical culvert breach in the extension outside DH 3 is proposed to aid fish passage. DH 3 'IJOuld require a slight rec1rientation to the northeast to allow extension of the causeway ~o the seawater treating plant. This reorientation would utilize, for the most part, existing gravel at DH 3. CONSTRUCTION Gravel placement for the causeway extension and expansion would be accomplished in two increments. Initial placement for both wou1d be in summer 1981. Pipeline construction and placement for the remaining gravel wouid be completed in 1982. ICE FORCE DESIGN CRITERIA The ice force criteria used in t~e design of the causeway extension and widening are summarized in Table B-2. B-11 SECOND STAGE FILL FIRST STAGE FILL EL. +18~ EL. +3' A~ EXTENDED CAUSE\f\f A Y I (ft.) b {ft.) e (tti c 1 49 71 2 56 18 b 22" 3 62 84 4 69 91 5 15 97 6 81 103' >6.4 83 105 SECOND STAGE . FIRST STAG! FiLL--- • EXISTING ,USEWAY FilL 48" B~ EXISTING CAUSEWAY ·pROPOSErS CAUSlEW A Y MODIFICATIONS PBU W·aterflood En~ironmentar Impact' Statement B-12 SEA LEVEL EL. 0.0 EXlSTING SEABED MAIN OUTFALL LINE---1..,. TO -14' .CONTOUR so• BREACH WITH-' CL\'!1\R SPAN: ~~IDGE ___ _.., .. EXPA1NDED CAUSEWAY ---l!lo\ MARINE LifE RETURf~ OUTFALL t.INE . PROPOSED OUTFALL PIPELINES LOCATION PLAN . PB(j Wate1rflooci Environmentai Impact Statement B-13 • Figure a-a 4.0 OUTFALL PIPELINES FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION The main outfall pipeline would transport process effluents from the seawater treating plant to an outfall located approximately 760 m 0~500 ft) north and 300 m { 1000 ft) west of DH 3, in a water depth of about.3 m (10ft). The marine life return outfall line would transport fish and other marine 1 ife removed from the traveling screens in the seawater treating plant inlet reservoir, to an outfall located approxi- mately 150 m (500 ft) east of the seawater treating plant. Pipeline. locations are shown on Figure B-6. FACILITY DESCRIPTION The main Si-cm (32-in, outside diameter) outfall pipeline would be routed fr·om th~ ·seawater treating plant back along the causeway extension tn a point about 760 m north of DH 3 (Figure B-6). It would then extend fo~ about 300 m west terminating at the outfall location. Between the causeway and the outfall location it would be placed in a trench beneath the seabed at a depth lo\'/er than ice keels that have been known to penetrate the area (Figure B-7). The barrier islands and shallow water generally keep large masses of ice with keels from moving into the area. If the line did become damaged, however, it would be repaired as quickly as possible. Natural sed'iment deposition would be expected to backfill the trench within one or two open-water seasons. The diffuser section would have 22, 15.2-cm (6-in) diameter nozzles, spaced 3 m ( 10 ft) apart. These diffuser nozil es waul d be 1 ocated beneath the original seabed elevation, angled about 20° to the hori- zontal, and oriented parallel to the prevailing curren~ (Figure B-8). This design would provide far dilution ranges of 10 -15 within a radius of about 30 m (100 ft) of the point of discharge. This would result in a maximum mixing zone of less than 0.4 ha (1 acre} and, by definition, the discharge would meet State of AlC'ska water q1:Jality criteria outside this zone. B-14 i DREDGED MATERIA@. 3' 16" MARINE LIFE RETURN OUTFALL PIPELINE . MARINE OUTFALL DREDGED M_A·TERIAL 32~·· OUTFALL LINE • MAI~OTFALL SECTIONS FROM PROPOSED MARINE LIFE RETURK OUTFALL PIPELINE & PROPOSED MAIN. OUTFALL PIPELINE PBU Waterflood Environmentai .Impact Statement Figure B--7 B-15 • .. r DIFFUSER PIPE ;8 iD · aD · ·'TOo · u_, L." ._· n-~~-! l_j .. r---22 NOZZLES @ 10' • 210' (4t) +-i PLAN MEAN SEA LEVEL EL. 0.0 gg~~~----~----~~~~ • EXIST. SEABED APPROX. EL. -14' --a.-----PREVAILING CURRENT a• SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED MAIN OUTFALL PIPELINE DIFFUSER PLAN 5 SECTION- PBU Waterflooci EnvJ.ronmentai Impact Statement. Figure a-a B-16 The coagula ted part i c 1 e.s within the effluent would be deposited over an area of 2.0 .... 18.2 ha {5 :-45 acres) and would be further dispersed by summer wind and wave activity~ .The maximum effiuent flow rate in the main outfall line would be about 1o10 m3 ts (17,325 gal/min) and would be derived from three sources within the seawater treating plant. Most o·f the flow, 0 ... 51 m3/s (6GGO gal/min), would result from filter backwashing operations. During maximum loading conditions when f·ilters are not being back- washed, untreated seawater waul d be used to maintain the total flow rate at 1.16 m3;s {18,360 gal/min). The strainer backwash contributes 0.44 m3;s {7030 gal/min). Traveling screen spray water, which re~oves solid part·icles accumulated on screens$ would contribute· 0.14 m3;s (2220 gal/min). The annua·f average effluent flow rate 'flould be 0.19 m3/s (2915 gal/min) since backwashing frequency would be considerably less than for the maximum condition and makeup water to maintain the flow rate would be used only during maximum loading conditions. Effluent character waul d depend upon the seawater qua 1 ity. During the op'en-water season 9 wave action greatly ·increases suspended sol ids concentrations in the seawater and consequently, waul d increase the total amount of effluent solids. The outfall design is ba~ed on this max·imum case. Raw seawater conditions used in outfall effluent calculations are based on st~awater sampling done during pilot filtra- tion tests conducted during the summer of 1979,· and on earlier periodiG year-round sampling. Pilot tests were· conducted at 2.4 m (8 ft), but samples were obtained at water depths from 2.4 -6.7 m (8 -22ft). The data for the 2.4-m depth represent the most stringent load condi- tions and were used for design purposes. The 20-cm (8-in} open·-ended marine life return outfall line (Figure B-9) would be installed from the seawater treating plant to an outfall location approximately 150 m {500 ft) to the east as shown in Figur·e s.,e;. This line would transport fish and other marine life sluiced with B-17 .. .. MEAN SEA LEVEL EL 0.0 CONCRETE WEIGHT PLAN SECTION A-A NOTTO~CALE EXIST~ SEABED PROPOSED MARINE LiFE RETURN OUTFALL PIPELINE . Pau· Waterflood Environmental lm1Jact Statement Figure B-9 B-18 untrea~ed seawater from the traveling scr·eens back to the sea. The anticipated velocity in this Tine would be about 30 cm/s (12 in/s} with a discharge ·rate· of about 1920 m3/d {506,000 gal/d). CONSTRUCi"'ION Pipeline materials would be trucked to Prudhoe Bay in the first quarter of 1982. Pipeline portions buried in· the causeway or· berm and sub-. . marine portions would be installed in 1982. Submarine pipelines would be assembled on the causeway extension, floated into position, and . placed into a dredged trench by controlled sinking. The diffuser unit for the main outfall line would be connec-ted afte·r line installation· and secured in place with concrete weights. 5.0 LOW-PRESSURE PIPELINES FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION The treated seawater low-pressure supply pipelines would have capacity to transmit the total flow rate of 4.07 m3/s (64,506 gal/min) of seawater from the seawater treating · plant to the injection plants" This total would be divided into 2.22 m3/s {35,185 gal/min) to the east side of the field and le85 m3/s {29,320 gal/min) to the west side. FACILITY DESCRIPTION One 102-cm (40-in) diameter insulated low-pressure seawater supply pipeline, about 20.8 km (13 mi) long, would be installed between the seawater treating plant and the east injection plant. Similarly one 96-cm {36-in) insulated line, about 16 km (10 mi) long, would be installed between the seawater treating p1 ant and the west injection plant (Figure B-10). Both lines would start at the seawater treating plant and would be installed in the cau~eway extension and expansion as described in Section B-3. · After r·eaching shore, the 1 ines waul d be installed above ground,. supported on pile bents. The clearance between B-19 'lJ m c: =E S» ... CD '"" .... -0 0 Q. m :J· < .... ., 0 ::J 3 (D ::B .... Sl). --3 1l I» I n to ... I N 0 li CJ) .... I» ..... CD 3 CD :::1 ~ -n ~· '"" CD m '.~ .... ... .. f' }· :.": I -"' 0 '-LOW PRESSURE SEAWATER LINEa '~ .: 0 INTERMEDIATE MANIFO~S >' :. : 1.. 0 Fl.O!."i STATION/GATHERING CENTER ,.·:~~t C WELLPADS • . 4. t ~ fj. INJECTION PLANJI ~ ~ ... '>·\~ .... ·~ V . NOTE : LOCATIONS OF FACILITIES SHOWN ARE '-'~.-·. . ·~ . ._;/ ~· APPROXIMATE AND SIZES ARE NOT TO SCALE. >. -~~:J!fo •.• ; .. !':l. •. v~·· ~·A ..... / :r--;-1.1~\ ,.,, -· ... . .iJ'?~ . -" r6~ J . • .., ~ .. ..... r ' " • ) ' ... J . '" ',,' • ~,.: L., • 1 -,a:.rf,. -· (./~~ttl } · If'• _ _.M "'~ ,/C\:1 ~' I . ".) . • .... ""4J' lj' _.·.; ~ 1>.' ,r.ih·JI; I I·) } 'If :~' / ,.,. J'!ll I .• 111' •;.~9 l,J 1. ·~t~l ~'fJ ,. ···r~·' tfil' ~!>, {,~o·,.,!",t. '-. ~ ·:,,~.~t:-:r:~~."~it;, . .,._s . !" ,·; ... '"' ..rl~~ : .. .~-t;.·y '-Y '"Jeili-": r --~~~. . ..., • ··loJ f. . . . :~~~ Jl, • 1 L·: .• ~. <L '1 l . . .. .... . ~{1'~ <(. tfh... ~ " .. ,.,. ~J·7 ,~ . .~ 4~'{r;_- •f \ \} . ·~;~i ~URCE : AfRIAL TOPOORAfifiiC MAPS ·, l OF PRUDHOE BAY UNIT AREA GV : AIR PHOTO TECH. ltJC. Date of Photoerlllhv : July 1m PROPOSED LOW-PRESSURE PIPELINE ROUTE MAP the tundra and the bottom of the pipelines would be sufficie;:1t to avoid thermal degradation of the permafrost. Caribou_passage would be provided • .. The east line would follow the existing roadway between the module staging area (at the shore end of the causeway) and the CCP. The line would then follow the existing pipelines between the CCP and Flow Station 1 to the proposed east injection plant location. The west iine would follow the existing roadway between the modu'le st2ging ar-;a and Term Wel'l A and a planned road extension to Well Pad E, a total distance of approximately 8 kln (5 mi). The l·ine would then follow the existing road and flow lines between Well Pad E and Gathering Center 1 (an additional 4.4 km, 2.8 mi) to the west injection plant. Adequate precautions would be taken to minimize the effect on natural drainage in.the area. The lines would be insulated for freeze protection and would include anchors and expansion 1 oops to accommodate thenna 1 movements. The above-ground section waul d pr·ovide for passage of caribou. CONSTRUCTION The offshore portion of these pi' pel ines waul d be trucked to Prudhoe Bay in the first quarter of 1982 and would be installed in 1982. The onshore pipeline material waul d be shipped in 1982 for construc- tion commencing in the fall of that year. The pipelines would be constructed using gravel work pads in the summer and gravel and snow pads in the winter. Existing gravel roads would be utilized except for: - A new extension road {approximately 2 km, 3 mi) from Term Well A to Well Pad E. T'le road would be 1.5 m (5 ft} thick, and have 3:1 side slopes. B-21 .. A gravel pad from the module sta·gfng area to the CCP parallel to an existing roado 6o0 INJECTION PLANTS FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION An injection plant would be provided on each side of the field, adjacent to Flow Station 1 on the east and Gathering Center 1 on the west. The treated seawater from the seawater treating plant would be received at each injection plant through a low-pressure manifold that waul d route the seawater to an inlet tank. Associated with this tank . . . would be an emergency overflow pit. Water· from the tank would pass through booster pumps that waul d provide sufficient suction pressure for the main gas turbine-driven injection pumps. The main pumps would increase seawater pressure up to 3200 lb/in 2 for delivery to the discharge manifold and subsequent distribution t'o the. injection well sites. Between the booster pumps and main pumps, the seawater would be heated using waste heat recovered from the main pump turbine exhausts. High-pressure produced water from the adjacent production center ~ would be transferred to each inj.ection plant high-pressure manifold. The produced water and seawater would not be mixed; however, it would be possible at the discharge manifold to permit the use of any high- pressure distribution pipeline for either produced or seawater. FACILITY DESCRIPTION The~ east injection plant pad (Figure, B-11) would utilize some gravel originally placed for Drill Site 10 (now used for storage purposes) .. • This. location is central to the east side, affords vehicle access, and is adjacent to the existing main pipe routes. The west injection plant pad (Figure B··12) would be located between the exis.ting road to Well Pad C and the existing pipeway between B-22 . I 100'± 60'± 190'± EXISTING GRAVEL PAD . PROPOSED GRAVEL SECTION EXTENSION N.T.S. t :;s~$?i\ t' (TYP.) ~ EXISTIP4G GRADE (VARIES) o 100 · mo .300 .coo &JO -·--·· ··-......._....._, - SCALE !N FEET PROPOSED INJECTION PLANT .,;.. EAST LOCATION PLA~~ PBU Waterfloo~ Environmental Impact Statement. Figure e-1·1 B-23 Oc:u:::s ..._ _ _,) . EXISTING GATHERING CENTER NO. 1 '--_...,.FACILITIES PLANT ALASKA GRID GRID ZONE 4 N • 0 + 00 X • 81515,871.23 0 0 PROPOSED INJECTION PLANT e . o + 00 y • 5,113.1153.17 PROPOSED J60' ;t 1 /. GRAVEL PLACEMENT ,. •· A#IMfMiiift\-1;~. }. EXISTING GRADE (VARIES) t PROPOSED GRAVEL PAD EXISTING PIPEWA Y 0 100 200 300 400 500 SECTION I I r,l I J N.T.S. SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED INJECTION PLANT ...: WEST 'LOCATION PLAN 'PBU. Waterflood· Envfronmentai Jmp$!(;t St!ttament Figure a-12 B-24. Gathering Centers 1 and 3. This location is central to the west sidE, . .. affords vehicle access, and is ccnvenien-t to existing pipe ·rc utes. The east injection plant would be composed of eight major modules; the west injection plant, seven major modules. Each plant-would also have module-connecting utilidors and outside tanks. The modules would house equipment required to boost water pressure and heat the seawater as well as equipment for control and auxiliary freeze pr·ctection. Modules and outside equipment at each plant would occu9y an a rea of approximately 7400 m2 {80,000 ft 2 ). The facilities waul d be a!"ranged as shown in Figures B-13 and B-14 to provide flexibility. The;r would be installed in a single increment, except for the high ... ·pressu"e pump modules. Capacity for the east injection plant wou1 d be ap·proximate ly 2.22 m3/s {35,185 gal/min) of seawater; for the west injection plant, 1.85 m3 /s (29',320 galjm·in). In·itial high-pressure pump capacity for 3 the east plant would be 1.85 m /s; and for the west plant, 0.93 m 3 I s ( 14 , 7 4 0 g a ·1 I m i ~) • I n i t i a 1 i n s t a 1 'I at i on NO u 1 d i n c lt de four ·injection pumps in the east plant and t\'so in the west plant. In the second construction increment, one pump waul d be added to the east plant and two to the west plant., . The main injection pumps would require approximately 16,000 hp each. They would be driven by gas turbines utilizing fuel gas from the flow stations and gathering centers. Heat recovery units installed in the gas turbine exhausts waul d provide approximately 50 mill ion BTU/hr each· for freeze protectiono Gas-fired heaters would provide heat··ng when heat recovet .. y is not available" CONSTRUCTION Injection plant construction would take place in two incr~ments. Gravel placement is scneduled for summer 1982~ This would be followed ·by piling installation in winter 1982-1983 and module pla,.:el,lent in B-25 .. • DJESEL FUEL TANK CON;ROLA!~fl D I MAINTENANCE MODUU: . L---l..-- . WAS"rEWATER AND FREEZE ~ROTECTION CHEMICAL TANK.S UVERFLOW PIT SOURCE WATER iNLeT TANK EMERGENCY GENERATOR MODULE TWO INJECTION · PUMPS MODULE FUTURE SINGLE lWO INJECTJON INJECTION PUMPS MODULE f1UMP MODULE r--1~-, I I - ·-,--' •t • _, I I &-P_,_,. ____ _...__..._ ___ __._,_J ___ J INLET AND DISCHARGE MAN~FOLD MODULE BOOSTER PUMPS MODULE PLAN 0 so 100 150 200 SCALE IN FEET I ~--~----~--------------------~----~-----------------~----~----~ PROPOSED INJECtiON PLANT ....: EAST FACIUTY LAYOUT Psu· Waterflooci Environmentai rmpact Statement B-26 · Figure B-13 I DIESEL FUEL TANK 4- CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE MODULE· 1 EMERGENCY GENERATOR MODULE TWO INJECTION PUMPS MODULE . FUTURE YWO INJECTION PUMPS~MODULE .. , m I I I I ,..,. ..., - - --r WASTE WATER AND FREEZE PROTECTION CHEMICAL TANKS I I ' I a--~--t-i::~ __ J I I I UTI LID OR ~~==-1---.....,..-'-.......,_....,;,U.-TILITIES /FREEZE ·PROTECTION MODUlE 1 OVERFLOW PIT ~~-J-SL-OU-~R·c~·. W:;..A...JTER INUrT AND DISCHARGE INLET1'.,NK. MANIFOLD MODULE '-----BOOSTER PUMPS MODULE PLAN ~~. -------------- Q 50 150 ~ SCALE !N FEET PROPOSED INJECTlON: PLANT ..: WEST FACIUTY.· LAYOUT 200 Pau· Waterflotld Environinentat~ Impact Statement Figure B-14 B-27 .. fall 1983 to met a 1984 start-up qf the first increment. The second increment pump modules (one module per plant) would lag the first by one year. 7.0 HIGH-PRESSURE PIPELINES" FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION The high-pressure pipeline system t.-~oul d transfer seawater from the injection plants to the intennediate manifolds and would distribute !lrodul':t~d and seawater ft"om injection plants and intermediate manifolds to the well pads. The des-ign flow rate for each 1 i ne \'Joul d be based on the total volume required for injection at each well pad. The system design operating pressure would be based on wellhead injection pressure . . ? .. of 2700 lb/in~~ FACILITY DESCRIPTION The high-pressure pipeline syst~m would consist of: -transfer lines from the injection plants to the intennediate manifolds. -distribution 1 ines from the intennediate manifolds to the well pads. -well lines from the well pad manifolds to the individual well so The high-pressure pipeline routes would follow existing {by 1984) pipeline corridors as shown in Figure 8~15. The total length of high-prei>sure pipelines \'Joul d be approximately 160 km {99 mi), ranging· in size from 15.2 -61 em (6 ~ 24 in) diameter. All lines would be insulated for freeze protection~ The pipelines would include B-28 00 I I ~ \0 , m c ~· I» .... CD ... -tlt -0 0 Q. m ::J < -· '""'! 0 ::1 3 (D ::; .... su --3 '0 Al n ...... m .... Al ...... CD ;3 CD ::J r+ .,.. -· . (Q c .., 0 m .. -\ {h . . . V ... . II;_ .... ~..:\l a''-•· '.c PROPOSED HIGH-PRESSURE PIPELINE ROUTE MAP \' -HIGH-PRESSURE liNES lliil WElli'AOS 0 ElUSTING FACILITIES • WATER.INJECTION PLANTS • INTERMEDIATE MANIFOLDS NOTE$: 1. LOCATIONS OF FACILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AflD SIZES ARE NOT TO SCALE. 2. All HIGIH'RF.SSURE PIPELINES PARAllEL EXISTING AND Plld\INED ROUTES TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO WATERFLOOD FACILITIES. , ·• /... t J. \ ;\' ''1 \/' "·r:'.P . ·!.... y ,./'j~ ·:.:.~ '* "'J .~ 11 .(,: lfil i JV ... 'ill ; ,.1'-w~'\ '--·· . I' ;;,J , .. ~~.-. ·.f-'\~ . ~· .;• " .., ~--~~ ~-,•;t • ··;:-.\ . ':i .1J'-~ ,)· \,.. 1,-, ,. .. -"' ~ .. • t•. '~ ··~ ,'1 ,.;~~t·:,·:_ I{ .. · •• ·.''•' . ~ l L l "~.'+ ;,,1 .l.lt ~ ( / I• IOUftCI ' MAlA&. tc:.'OClMitUC: MAra Of_ ...... , ...... DY r AJIIt PetOfU ttot. IIIC. _,._,...,_ anchors and expansion loops to accommodate thermal movements. 'All pipelines w6uld be installed above ground, supported on pile bents. The clearance b~tween the tundra and the bottom of the pipelines would be sufficient to avoid therma 1 degradation of the penna frost. The new lines would be incorporated into existing crossings for caribou.. Where lines arP not already present, caribou passage would be accommodated. The intennedi ate manifolds waul d be 1 ocated at Gatheri.ng Centers 2 and 3 on the west side and Flow Stations 2 and 3 on the east side as shown in Figures B-16 through 1!-19. Each intermediate manifold would consist of a module housing manifold piping and p~peline freeze protection equipment as shown typically in Figure ·B-20. The manifold modules (about 14.3 x 39.6 m, 47 x 130 ft) would be e1~vated above ground and supported on piles. The clearance between t.he bottom of the modules and the top of the grave 1 pads waul d be sufficient to avoid snow pile-up and to allow for maintenance. CONSTRUCTION The 1 ines waul d be installed in two construction increments. The majority of the pipeline materials would be seal ifted or trucked to Prudhoe Bay during 1982 and 1983 for the first and second construction increments, respecti·vely. The intermediate manifolds 'ttould be pre- fabricated in the Lower 48 and shipped to Prudhoe Bay on barges in 1983 and 1984. Installation of the first increment would commence in the fall of 1982 and the second would begin one year later. Increment J would be completed in 1984 and Increment II in 1985. The pipelines would be constructed using snow or gravel pads in the winter and gravel pads ·;n the summt.:r.. Existing gravel pads and roads would be utilized, except for the short extension to Wall Pad WF-1 from the existing gravel pad parallel to the west side gas line to the CCP. B-30 - ~ . . . ALASKA GRID y = 5,949932.,61. X = 707,021 ,54 LIMITS OF EXISTING GRAVEL---+ PROPOSED WATER FLOOD MODULE LIMITS· OF GRAVI;L EXTENSION t~~ttfttt~~~~~t ::::::::::::::::::: =~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ==~== :::::::::::::: .·.·.·.·~·-·.·.·.·. .·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· . ~.·.·.·.~.·.·.·.·.·. ::::::::::::::::::: . " ....... . . ·.·.·.·•·.·.·.·.·. ::::::::::::::::::: .·.·.·.·.·.·,.·.·.· . . : :::::::::::::::::: .·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.•. . :tttt~~~ / -l. .·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:· / ~ ~-·.:·:_..·:·:--:·:·:· .. :·:·:::::::::::::::=·· / b~ ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·~·.·.·.·.· ~v / :::::::::::::::::::::::::::·· .tt ~ ) ·.·.·.·.·.·.•.·.·.·•·.·.· ' / :::::::::::::::::::::·· j/~ :·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·· ~~ :::::::::::=·~ ~ ~~ EXISTING FLOW STATION No.2 ~-Y/ SCALE IN FEET PROF,OSED. INTERMEDIATE MANIFOLD. 2 \~EAST . LOCATION PLAN P.au· Waterflooci Environmentai l~pact Sl.atement. I Figure B-16 I a-zm: B-31. I \ l \ I ALASKA GRID Y :a 5,944¥788.52 X=676,250~ 0 100 200 ZALE IN FEET D .. EXISTING FLOW STATION No.3 ·LIMITS OF GRAVEL EXTENSION LIMITS OF EXISTING GRAVEL PROPOSED WATERFLOOD MODULE PRO.POSED. INTERMEDIATE MANIFOLD 3. _;. EAST LOCA TIOt' PLAN EXISTIN~ PIPEWAY PBU Waterflooc:i Environmentai Impact Stateme~t figure· B--17 B-32 PLANT GRID N ·4":13.0 E·B+30.0 AI..ASICA GRID ZONE4 N .. 5,185,225 .. 1'7 e .. ~.7M.07 [oooo I EXISITING GATHERING CENTER N0.2 0 100 2()0 300 400' SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED GRAVEL PAD ADDITION PROPOSED WATERFLOOD MODULE LIMITS OF EXISTING GRAVEL -..... '0 PROPOSED. INTERMEDIATE MANIFOLD. 2· ..:. WEST LOCATION~ PLAM PBU Water·flooci Environm~ntai Impact Statement Figure' a~ 1 8 B-33 • EXISTiNG GATHERING CENTER N0.3 D D IQ]o PROPOSED WATER FLOOD MODULE c J ~~--+-4--LIMITS OF GRAVEL. EXTENSION 0 I 100 200 300 400 £#,I I I ;;;:;: I ~-~ ... - SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE MANIFOLD 3 -~ WEST . LOCAT;QN PLAN PBU Waterflood Environmentai Impact Statemen~ ' . Figure· B-19 B-34 ·. LAYDOWN AREA---.. ELECTRICAL CONTR. ROOM GLYCOL/WATER --t-..o PUI'IPS ----· . GLYCOLJWTR. TK. (1&'•x 1&'H.) ' 130" {TYP.) t ', t l~ •• . . .. . " OUTGOING PIPELINES UPPER DECK LOWER DECK . . INCOMING & OUTGOING PIPEliNES PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE MANIFOLD: CTYP~) F'ACILlTY LAYOUT .. PBU W·ater:flooci Environmentai lmpac·t· Statement Figure· B-·20 B-:-35 .. 8.0 ·INJECTION SITE FACILITIES FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION The injection site facilities would receive high-pressure water from the incoming line(s) and distribute it to the injection wells. Monitoring and ·control facilities would be incorporated for flow and pressure to individual wells. Facilities would also be included to protect the well lines and wells from freezing in case of a shut-down,. The design wellhead injection pressure would be 2700 lb/in 2 • The injection faci'ities would be incorporated into the existing production site facilities wherever possible. FACILITY DESCRIPTION There would be approximately 28 injection sites, 14 on the east side and 14 on the west side of the fitald, as shown in Figure B-21. One new injection pad would be required, designated WF-1 on Figure B-21. The tot,al number of injection wells waul d be approximately 154. The we11 s would either be converted producing wells or new injection wells. D Each injection site facility would consist of a well pad module con- taining piping and freeze protection equipment as shown typically in Figures B-22 and B-23. Water would be received at each injection site and distributed to the injection wells through 15.2-cm (6-in) or 20.3-cm (8-·in) diameter lines. A choke on each injection \rtell line would control injection rate and pressure. Flow to each well would be measured in addition to the total flow to that site. All well lines outside the modules would be insulated and installed above ground on pile bent supports. Individual we11he~ds would be enclosed inside separate heated wellhead houses. Each injection site facility would be provided with an emergency dump pit. B-36 ., m c ~ S» ... t'D .., .... -0 0 Q. m :J < _, .., 0 :1 3 CD :I .... S» --3 'C S» to () I ..... w -..... (/) ... I» .... CD 3 CD :I ..... OVERALL DRILL SITE BANDWELL PAD LOCATION MAP LEGEND n EXPANSION TO EXISTING DRILL ' ,_ llt'EI AMD WELL PAOli • NEW WATERFLOOD INJECTION WELL PAD INCOM NG LINE ~, mllAGE TANK .. .. 115' D DDISPLACEMEN1 PUMPS 0 D.HEATER CIRCULATION ~--...:..----..t-'PUMP· .... , ,. '"1 I I I f I I I I ( I I I INSTR. AIR COMPRESSOR -E:B$- DTRANSF. .. , ...., ......... a-"-.,....., ~ [ I I I I I I I l 0. CONTROL ROOM I . a I I I I L I L.~ 1: ~ ; ~ LJ J ----· -----1------~~--~~--------------------------~~--~ ~r:-~, ~· ~, I I I CD I OUTGOING LINES TO INJECT.ION WELLS PlAN PROPOSED INJECTION WELL PAD MODULE (TYPJ. ~EAST FACIUTY LAYOUT. Pau· Watsrflood· Environmental Impact Statement Figure s-22 B-38 .. ~NCOMING LINE 75' ~---~T,~-------------------~-----------~~4~--=20~:~~, ~TCHLINE .-,~------~~------------~----------------~----~---4 -- .. -D DDISPLACEMENT PUMPS . STORAGE TANK D 101 HEATER .-----,_-.....aClRCULATION PUMP MANIFOLDS -~ roo-- ,, ,, OUTGOING LiNES TO INJEC'1'10N WELLS PLAN r·-, ;-, I I I I I I I I I I I t I : 1 I I I I I I -tl LtJ I I I i MATCHLINE _ ... _ ...----------...... -- Ill . > rolL >a: i INSTR. AIR .uo z. .. < COMPRESSOR r-We( Q ~ c:Ja: "' a:w ::::» LIIZ 2 =:w . -...._ w <:1 .. ~· D TRANSF. 1;; 8· . ld L:l I r--1 ~ z -..J I ] filii II = u 0 i . CONTROL ROOM I ''::J I I IJ r ~ 40' ~ PLAN - . CORRIDOR ~ w CD I~ z ·-..... z 8 w z -..a liS .... li . . PROPOSED INJECTION WELL PAD .. MODULE CTYPJ ~WEST . 'FACILITY LAYOUT l Psu· Waterflo~d Environmentai Impact Statement Figure B-23 B-39 . CONSTRUCTION The injection site facilities would be installed in two construction increments. The rt~quired well pad modules would be fabricated in the Lower 48 and shipped by barge to Prudhoe Bay. Increment I waul d be completed in 1984 and Increment II in 1985. Increment I Well Pads Numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, .11, 13, 14, 15,17, A, B, D, F, H, M, N, Q, R, S, X Increment II Well Pads Numbers 2, 11*, 12, 13*, 14*, 15, 17~, 18, A*, E, H*, N*,·X*, J, WF-1 New construction will involve the work pad for the WF-1 injection site (approximately 305 m x 91 m, 1000 ft x 300 ft). The exact size 1:annot be determ·ined until the total number of wells required is deternined, based on some waterflood operating history. No new road would be needed to the WF-1 injection site since it could be approached by the existing work pad for the gas line between the CCP and Gathering Center 3. A short entrance road waul d be require1d, but has not been designed in detail. Gravel quantity would be minimal. No new pipeline pad ·~J!)Ul d be required. The high-pressure 1 ines to WF-1 would be constructed from the pad described above. 9.0 RELATED SYSTEMS FREEZE PROTECTION Seawater obtained from the Beaufort Sea, at about -1.7°e (29°F) in the winter and 1.1°C (34°F) in the summer, would require heating to allow field-wide distribution and well injection without freezing. Prodeced * Note: Indicates expansion of Increment I B-40 water waul d enter the w.aterfl ood system at eleva ted temperature and would ~ot require additional heat during normal operations. The freeze pr·otection system would thus be required to protect the water pipelines and injection wells from freezing during original start-up, nonnal and reduced flow operation, and shut-down/restart. The primary freeze protection scheme waul d uti 1 i ze inherent or added heat& Pipelines would be insulated to maintain the water temperature above freezing during transit and provide an acceptable time period between shut-down and freezing. Emergency power supplies and diesel fuel back-up for heaters and turbines would be provided to maintain a sufficient flow of heated water to prevent freezing during e 1 ectri ca 1 or fuel gas failures. Conversion of flow from produced water ·to seawater, or vice-versa, would be possible in transfer and distribution pipelines if the supply from one source were lost. In those portions of the waterflood system where parallel lines exist, it would be possible to circulate heated water when supply is lost. In the unlikely event that all of the above methods should fail for an extended period, all or part of the waterflood pipeline system would require evacuation. The· injection wells would be protected by displaceme11t below permafrost level with a nonfreezing fluid. During normal operation, heat would be added at the seawater treating plant and injection plants. During reduced flow conditions, the seawater waul d also be heated at the i nter·medi ate manifolds uti 1 i zing glycol/water heat medi.um from the existing production centers. Fired heaters utilizing deaerator waste gas would be the primary heat source at the seawater treating plant. Waste heat recovery from the injection pump turbine drivers waul d provide for primary heat source at th~ injection plants with fi~ed heaters as a standby heat source. The added heat would compensate for water cooling.during transit and would provide the following reaction times between shut-down and commencement B-41 of freezing during normal operations when ambient temperature is -48.3°C (-55°F). .. Seawater Treating Plant to Injection Plants Injection Plants to Intermediate Manifolds Intermediate Manifolds to Well Pads Discharge Temperature Reaction Time 66 hours 24 hours 16-36 hours Shut-downs exceeding these reaction times may be tolerated if a higher ambient temperature prevails~ In the event these times are approached and the previously described systems fail, the pipelines would be displaced with QaS. A batch of nonfreezing fluid would be introduced at the gas/liquid interface to prevent ice formation of any water bypassing the displace- ment pig. Displacement of the system would be as follows: -Between the injection plants and sea~1ater treating plant, water would be displaced toward the treating plante Displaced water would be redis~ributed in the event of a single line evacuation. If both lines are to be evacuated, displaced water would be directed to the outfall l~ne and discharged to the Beaufort Sea. -Between the injection plants and seawater treating plant, water would be displaced toward the treating plant, Displaced water would be redistributed in the event of a single line evacuation. If both 1 ines are to be evacuated, displaced water waul d be directed to the outfall line and discharged to the Beaufort Sea. B-42 . .. -Between the intermediate manifolds and the injecti~n plants, the water would be displaced toward the injection plants where it would be diverted to the low-pressure side of the plant for redistribution. -Between the intermediate manifolds and the well pads, the water would be displaced into the injection wells. In addition, the water would be displaced into emergency dump pits at each well pad. The emergency dump pits would be utilized only when all other alternatives had been exhausted. Contents of the low-pressure pi pe1 jnes ·waul d be. discharged. ·from the system as liquid effluent via the main outfall line, in the _unlikely event that evacuation of pipelines ~y displacement of water with a gas is required for freeze protection. Water evacuated from high-pressure pipelines between the injection plants and intermediate.manifolds would be displaced toward the injection plants where it would be d1verted to the low-pressu~"e side of the plant for redistribution in other high- pressure pipelines. Water displaced fl,.Om high-pressure p;:~pel ines between the intermediate manifold and the well pad ~auld be displaced into emergency dump pits provided at eacp well pad when alternative displacement into injection wells has been exhausted. The pits would be pumped out during the summer thaw period and the effluent disposed of at existing liquid waste disposal facilities. For start-up after d i sp 1 acement, the pipe 1 i nes Wloul d be preheated with warmed gas before introducing injection water. A heated methanol/ water start-up batch \'IOUl d be utili zed to warm the well 1 i nes and wells. Any gas used for displacement or warm-up would be captured in the existing oil production systems. One central methanol /water storage tank waul d be 1 ocated near each injection plant to re-fi 11 the individual small tanks at the well pads. B-43 0 FUEL GAS Fuel gas wou1 d be required for bui 1 ding and process heaters at the injection plants and at the seawater treating p'lant. Fuel gas would aiso be required for injection pump turbine drtvers~ for oxygen stripping in the seawater treating plant deaerators, and for line evacuation. The existing distribution system would service the injec- tion plants, requiring only appropriate tie-ins at each facilityo A new 30.5-cm (12-in) fuel gas supply lirie would be provided for the seawater treating plant. This pipeline would run from the CCP above ground on pile bents, parallel to the eastern low~pressure seawater supply pipeline, to the shore end of the causeway and would be installed concurrently with that 1 ine. The offshore portion waul d be buried in the causeway modification and extension and would be installed with the other buried pipelines. POWER Waterflood electric power of approximately 45 megawatts would be generated by the pen..itted capacity in the central power station. The waterflood facilities would operate at a medium-voltage level of 4160V and a low-voltage level of 480V. The existing electric distribution systems waul d serve the injection plants, intermediate manifold modules, well pad modules, and wellheads with the addition of . substations and secondary line extensions. A new 69 kV distribution Tine would be required from the CCP to the seawater treating-plant. In addition to this field-connected power source, the individual facilities would be provided with emergency backup generators as required for 1 ife support and freeze prote~~tion systems. PRESSURE VESSELS Specifications on the pressure vessels for various waterflood facili-. . ties are provided in Table B-3. These are subject to change with better definition in detail design. 1 B-44 TABLE B-3 TYPICAL PRUDHOE BAY UNIT WATERFLOOD PRESSURE VESSELS SEAWATER TREATING PlANT OPERATING No. SERVICE TYPE SIZE PRESS. PSIA MATERIAL RtQ'~ Oeaerator Vert. 16· ft Oia. X 68 ft 0.5 Nonn. C9ated Carbon Steel 8 20 max. Seal liquid Separator Vert. 2 ft Oia. X 10 ft 20 Fiberglass 8 . Expansion Tank Hor1z. 10 ft Oia. X 30 ft 15 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Flash Tank Vert. 7 ft Oia. X 20 ft 75 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Fuel Gas K.O. Drum Vert. 5 ft Dia. X 8ft 35 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Scour Air K.O. Drum Vert. 3 ft Oia. x 9 ft 15 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Condensate Recovery Horiz. 3 ft Oia. X 8 ft 20 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Air Receiver Vert. 6 ft Oia. X 10 ft 140 Coated Carbon Ste~~ 1 Filters Horiz. 10' ft Dia. X 30 ft 140 Coated Carbon Steel 32 c::J EAST ~ANIFOLD MODULE I ~ Gas Bont Vert. 8 ft Dia. X 24 ft 65 Coated Carbon Steel 1 (11 H.P. Heat Exchanger Horiz. . 1 ft Di a. X 10 ft 3015 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Gas Heat Exchanger Horiz. 4 ft Dia. X 25 ft 615 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Fuel Gas 1<.0. Drum Vert. 4 ft Dia. X 7 ft 465 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Fuel Gas K.O. Drum Vert. 2 ft Dia. X 7 ft 165 Coated Carbon Steel 1 EAST HEATER/UTILITY MODULE Heat Exchanger Hori z. 5 ft Dia. X 26 ft 215 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Air Receiver Vert. 6 ft Dia. X 10 ft 140 Coated Cat·bon Steel 1 WEST MANIFOLD MODULE Gas Boot Vert. 8 ft Oia. X 24 ft 65 Coated Carbon Steel 1 H.P. Heat Exchanger Uoriz. 1 ft Dia. X 10 ft 3015 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Gas Ueat Exchanger Horiz. 4 ft Dia. X 25 ft 615 Coated Car·bon Steel 1 Fuel Gas K.O. Drum Vert. 4 ft Dia. X 7 ft 465 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Fuel Gas K.O. Drum Vert. 2 ft Dia. X 7 ft 165 Coated Carbon Steel ·I WEST HEATER/UTiliTY MODUlE Ueat Exchanger . Horiz. 5 ft Dia. X 26 ft 215 Coated Carbon Steel 1 Air Receiver Vert. 6 ft Oia. X 10 ft 140 Coated Carbon Steel 1 PRO\JECT ABANDONMENT Site1-spe·cific abandonment plans are not available. Pursuant to lease' stipUilations c.nd existing regulations~ PBU surface· facilities (including waterflood related facilities) would be left in an accept- able c~ondition. B-46 APPENDIX C PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY 1.0 INTRODUCTION The marine area that may be affected by the Waterflood Project extends from the Sagavanirktok River delta to a point just east of the Colville River delta (Figure C-1) and from the shores of the Alaska Coastal Plain to just seaward of the Jones and Return Island groups. The major geomorphic features within this region include Pruqhoe Bay, Simpson Lagoon, Gwydyr Bay, the islands of the Jones and Return groups, and the deltas of the Sagavanirktok and Kuparuk Rivers. The first of the following sections describes the general geomorpho- logical features found in the area, traces documented changes that th~se features have undergone, and describes the_ processes most likely responsible for these modifications. The next section describes the currents in the area, emphasizing the fact that the major currents are wind-generated. The third and fourth sections describe the wave climate in the Prudhoe Bay area and the phenomenon of storm surge that is primarily responsible for major changes in sea level off the north coast of Alaska. The fifth section describes water quality character- istics, including temperature, salinity, nutrients and trace element concentrations. The final section discusses the characteristics of the marine sediments with emphasis on chemical concentrations. 2.0 BATHYMETRY AND GENERAL GEOMORPHOLOGY The study area is part of the Beaufort Sea contihental shelf and inside the 6-m (20-ft) contour~ Bathymetric data show Prudhoe Bay to have a basin-1 ike character· with depths in excess of 2.4 m (8 ft) in -its central region (Figure C-2). A.set of shoals, to 1m (3 ft) and including several small islets, almost encloses Prudhoe Bay. A channel occurs on tht~ northwest side. C-l n I N -a . m c: ~ • .... (1) ... = 0 0 a. m :I < ::;· 0 ::I 3 CD --..... • --3 "0 • !l en ..... D) eo+ CD 9 CD :I ..... "11 -· (Q c ... t'D 0 I ..... r· .. .. .. ~ .... ·· . .. ······ ..... It •••• .10·· ••••••• • •• • • • • •• •••••••• •• • •• ·····. .............. . ······ .. : . ················ .. ......... . ........ ··· .. , :::.·::.-.::··· .. .... ····· ................. ---.:"••··· ... . •••• .. .. ·· . $~~ ••••••••••••••••••••••• I .. . ............ . ... . ...... . ··········· . .. ••• • • •• cs-o ••• . . . .. ·. .· ... ... . ...... . . ..... ·········· ....... ... ............_._ ~···· ···:· l·tl-••••••••••• • ............. • ~-.............. .._,. ~~ •••••• ..... J~ ·-~:·· •~t \ oneo " • .;,· ...... ::····· . . · .. ¥-1. • ~ ·~~ ........ . ., ... ~·· ... . ....._ ""• ""• • •oe •• • ••"• • a ····· ······· .····. .,.:::·.o •• ~. ..···N·· ·oro•• aalan·d l ........... .. . . .. ,, -: ,.;•...-• .,.,_,· .. ,., ... .... ... .. 7" • 4 ~···· .. ••••. :·} ·········· (.•t ••• ,. ......... ~. .J • ••••• , ., \ ••-:,: •••u•,!•/'• ••• ••• :,u• ,;;i, • u••:l!, •!i!J :..--., •• "'" J ••••• Midway lalantie ··(~ ....... ~...-·; i.; ....._ •• .. • ....... •• J• ......_ -' ••• r.g. ..... • :;: ~ ~4 ~·· •• ••••••••• •••••·••••••••· ... \. OJ a· • •• •• •• • • • f. .. . •• •••••• •.• •.• ' ···::.::.;.: •· ..... /£. -;;,. ··.;~erwhaf ');' .. ,._ lr.)land ...... 4C.~-;e.-;a ····• ...... ~'f ··!:.t I PRUDHOE :::;;,p. BAV '~~~ ... :o .... . : .. ~ ........ • .. . I :::: ;:::: ::::[!~:::::: :~:~:: :::: f~=~ :::::: ::::~ ::::: [j ::::;;; ~:::: :;:::: ::::: :::::: :;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::: ::·:·:::·:· REGIONAL BA THVMETRY (IN FEET) & LOCA T~ON MAP n I w , m c: :e "' .. CD ... .... -0 0 c. m :I ·< -· ... 0 :J -:J CD :J ... {» --3 '0 £» n .. en ..... !\l .. CD 3 CD :J .. ..... -· (Q c ... G 0 I 1\) I ,.-/---.....__ / __ ..., -"" I ... ' C / ,... ....,. ------..... J I ) I / / / / 12 --- - _ ..... ___ / / '21-,.., ,....,.... , ,---- -, ---30 _,.,. I / "' ,, / ' -""'.---~ ,..--------27 ,..----/ ,..--"' .1' 6/ \6 ,..,.--.._ __ _, . n~ // ,.-\ I,/ -;v / _., / ' / / ,.-..... ----/ ,."' ' / / ~ -/.~-..... __ " ,.-...... 2' ,, ,.,. / ,. .... \ . - " / -,.. I' / ~ I /- ,_ ( --""", 'J . /--/ / // ) l_.,,.. ..... ,...__/ ..... --9---- ~,..--.. --,_ _ _________ ...... ..,, ,.._.., // / .__ ----------I / / // \ --------,. .~1' . "' .,.. -6 ---~ :...----, ~,. ... " ...,_ ________ .... --~"' ir ' --__ , --... ' .,--, I / --...... _______ ,, -12' ---'"' It' I r' .,.---------' -------~ ,/ / / ___ _,. ---, .... , RETURN ,..-,g, -l8!.AND8 --------"" ;---' / / \. "-""'-I' /~ .... ------.... .,.. / / d ' ' -' I ..., .... ------...... _ _,.. -"' / ' ,.,...) --, -,_____ --.... ..... --------""' ..... ~~----' ·.· ..... ........ ,-./ \_ ,,-:e:zs~J l .·· ~ .... ~,....... ' / "\)\.._~eo fa;-.... ;:.~~', , Stump la,and ', --.... ..... _, .,.,1 \:.-.....• ,tl J ' ' ..... , ~ .._ ____ .., -· ' I' -.... ' .... _.1 ~~ ~/ .... , r--~ ' \ // // ,., __ .,., '-1 I I I ,---/ /r '-3·----"' PBU WATERFLOOD ~ROJECT STUDY AREA BATHYMETRY (IN FEET) Simpson Lagoon and its eastern extension into Gwydyr Bay 1 i es between the mainland coas+ and the barrier islands of the Jones and Return groups. The lagoon system is quite shallow, generally less than 2 m {6.5 ft) (Dygas 1975). Certain inlets entering Simpson Lagoon from the offshore region are considerably deeper; for example, Egg Island channel is over 5 m (16 ft) deep (Matthews 1979) and represents a major outlet for the Kuparuk River during the peak spring runoff. The deepest part of the lagoon generally coincides with its central axis, with shoaling toward both the mainland and barrier island coasts. Sediments in the central portion of· the lagoon contain more than 50 percent mud, while· closer to the shorelines, both north and south, sediments contain over SO'percent sand (Naidu 1978). An important geomorphic feature is the chain of barrier islands extending from Harrison Bay eas~ to Prudhoe Bay. In certain respects, these islands are quite different from barrier islands found in the Gulf of Mexico or on the southeast coast of the United States. Hi stori ca lly, barrier is 1 ands have been thought to be products of sediment transport from either offshore or longshore sediment sources. However, the origin of these arctic islands is uncertain since coarse clastic sediments of gravel size do not appear to be transported in the major river drainage systems (Cannon and Rawlinson 1978). The western group of the arctic barrier islands is partially blanketed with tundra; sands and gravels make up the eastern islandso Boulders are present on the tundra-covered islands, but are noticeably absent fran the sand and :gravel islands (Na;du 1978). It is speculated that the tundra islands; are relics of breached or drowned shorelines in which topographic 1 ows behind the present islands became submerged 1 eaving the islands as isola ted features., The 1 ack· of tundra or the eastern islands may be indicative of a similar mode of formation with subsequent reworking by waves. Naidu (1978) sugg€'sts that ice processes may be responsible for obliterating boulders on the eastern islands. It may also be that these islands, during the course of wave alteration, have migrated {probably shoreward). This migration may C-4 not have been sufficiently intense to transport boulders. Isolated offshore boulder patches may be due to a simi 1 ar process whereby the larger clasts are remnants of previous islandso There is little doubt that the islands are elongating, predominantly through spit formation ·to the west. Estimates of rates of spit growth vary between 2 m/yr {6.5 ft/yr) (Naidu 1978) and 6 m/yr {19.5 ft/yr) (Wiseman et al. 1973). Their shoreline and nearshore features are continuously changing. The tundra-blanketed islands appear, at the present time, to be eroding from both the north and south sides (Cannon and Rawlinson 1978). It is widely accepted that net 1 ittoral transport in this area is to the west. Several factors influence quantity, including the longshore flux of wave energy which may encompass many . of the wave and beach parameters, and the ~uantity of material available for transport. Beach morphology is also crucial in directing energy flux, as observed by Dygas and Burrell {1975). They measured mean longshore currents o~ 7.5 cm/s (2.9 in/s) and 58 cm/s (1.9 ft/s) on the west and east sides of 01 iktok Point, respectively. Both currents were directed toward the seaward extension of that headland. Much of the sediment being transported a~ 1 ittoral drift is derived f~om the eros.i on of both rna inland and barrier is 1 and coasts. Using aerial photographs, Burrell et al • ( 1975) assessed 1 ong-term changes from immediately west of Oliktok Point east to Beechey Pointa Observed shoreline recession rates ranged between < 1.0 m/yr (3.2 ft/yr) and > 4.5 m/yr (14.7 ft/yr). Similarly, Cannon and Rawlinson {1978) found erosion rates from the barrier islands to vary 1.4 -2.0 m/yr (4.5 - 60}5 ft/yr). They observed lower rqtes on higher topographic areas with the mainland sides of the barrier islands eroding more rapidly than seaward· sides. They suspected that this was due to dune protection and reduced thermal erosion processes on the seaward coastline. It is also possible that the· seaward side may go through cycles of erosion and accretion that reduce net erosional effects on the exposed side. C-5 . . . Several 1tttora1 drift estimates have been made at specific areas on the Beaufort coast ( Hume a.nd Scha 1 k 1967, Kinney et a 1 • 1972, Dygas and Burrell 1975). More recent estimates of drift rates have been made by Grider et al. {1978). Through volumetric estimates on the east side of the West Dock, they determined an annual accumulation of 10~0 m3/yr (1308 yd3/yrj. Possibly one-third of this material came directly from the degradation of the dock itself; therefore, the actual drift · rate may be significantly lower than this accumulation rate. Barnes et al. (1977) examined changes in morphology b~tween 1950-1976 (Figure C-3) and found several noteworthy differences: -The channel on the western side of Prudhoe Bay migrated shoreward from 50-176m {164-577 ft). - A shoal deve1 op·ed between the east end of Stump Island and the causeway." -Stump Island grew both to the east and to ·the west and in- creased in area as·well. -Between 1950 -1970, Stump Is 1 and migrated 75 -. 200 m ( 246 - 656 ft) shoreward. . It appears that coastal processes change the morphology of this portion of the arctic coast more slowly than other shorelines of the world with similarly low relief. However, rapid changes can and do occur. Barnes and Ross (1980) documented some major changes that occurred during a 9-day storm in September/October of 1979. The storm produced winds from the northeast and caused severe a 1 terat ions to severa 1 of . the barrier islands of the Midway group, a man-made island, and some changes to the present PBU causeway. Figure C-4 i 11 ustrates ·same of the changes that took place on the causeway and the art ifi ci al island of Niakuk III. C-6 1 .-. -' 1 I LJ 14S.'30' GWYOYA BAY Ql:.. ___ .J ... KM iATHYMETRY IN FEET 1950 ~~ ~~ a. a·athymotrfc contours at 1-ft (O.Smfrntervala: and rand·torms from the 1950 survey. u.s. Coast ancf Geodetic Survey smoot~ sheet 7 86 7. 4 sTUMP· ISLAND GULL ISLAND SHOAL GWYDYR BAY ~1:... __ ...... , .... BATHYIICTAY IN FEET 1~76 b. ·aathym•trlc. contours at 1-tt (0.3m) rntarvala from the 1978 u.s. Geofo·glcal Survey. KARLUK data. Landform• from June 28. 1970 aerfal photography for U.S.G.S.. ortbophotomap of Beechey Pofnt B-4 NW. The rnner causeway segment was. conctructed rn sprfng 1975 and the outer ••amant flf the-winter of 1975-78: Source: Barnea at al. 1977 ST'UMP ISLAND MIGRATION pau· Waterflood Environmentai Impact Statement Figure c-3 c-1 . NIAKUK Ill JULY 1979 10· SEPT 1979 ? NOT TO. SCALE Sketched from aeii111 ph~toa~ shipboard' photoa. and notebook. ak•tch••· Sourer. Barn•• and Roea. 198G WEST ·cocK 16m (52 ft) MID SUMMER 1979 /VERTICAL FACE ..f~ SLUMP. CRACKS \ ... 29 SEPT 1979 UNDERCUT BeACH VERTICAL BLUFF (IN FROZEN MATERIAL?) 12m (39 ft) ~ L~ NOV 1979 UNFROZEN FROZEN BOTTO'M SEABED (tAT' 50-cm (20-fn) DEPTH (14m (48ft) FROM ROAD) EROSION J.-.4ta m (52ft). DIAGRAMATIC REPRESENTATION· OF THE SEQUENTIAL EROSION .. OF THE HEAD OF WEST DOCK & THE ARTIFICIAL iSLAND NIAKUK 3 PBU· Waterflood Environmentai .. lmoact Statement FJgure C-4 C-8 Several ~nanswered questio.ns remain concerning morphology as well as ~each and nearshore dynamics in the Prudhoe Bay area including: the present status of the barrier i s1 and groups; the present sources and pathways of littoral drift and its variability al'ong the coast; the relative effects of easterly and westerly wind systems on sediment changes and nearshore dynamics during aver~ge and abnormal years; the roles of the Sagavanirktok and Kuparuk Rivers in Jnfl uencing coastal processes; and the role of sea ice in beach and nearshore processes. These unresolved questions make it. difficult to evaluate some potential impacts from the proposed alternatives. · 3. 0 CURRENTS Currents off the arctic coast of Alaska, well north of coastal influ- enc~s, respond ·in a westward direction to the anticyclonic {c·lockwise) gyre of the Arctic Oce,ln. Currents on the intershelf, but seaward of the barrier islands, have been reported by Aagaard and Haugen {1977) as weak and variable; on the order of 5 cm/s (1.9 in/s) to the east. Kinney et al. (1972)' measured nearshore currents on the eastern side of the Colville Rivero Tethered drogues and current drifters indicated currents within Simpson Lagoon move either toward the east or west in response to northwest or northeast winds, respectively, with velocities reaching 37 cm/s (14.5 in/s). All currents tended to have longshore components and net transport appeared to be to the west, resulting from the predominance of northeast winds during the open-water season. A typical scatter diagram (Figure C-5) indicates that currents were approximately 3 percent of the wind speed~ Additional drogue studies, conducted just seaward of Pingok Island in 1972 (Wiseman et al. 1973), produced results similar to those found in the previous investigations. These studies demonstrate that nearshore currents during open-water periods are cantrall ed primarily by meteorological, rather than tidal C-9 I . 30.------.--~------.-c~----~-------.----.a._ 0 / 25._----.--.+------0 ~------:~c~~----~~-----.~ c / ft • 0 • 20m-0~------~------~1--~~~--~~~--~------~ "' 1/Y= 10.1 +.78X ~ . c 7: X ,15 -----+-~-----li'----~-+-"-· ___ .....,... ____ __ u I• r Oo 0. ·z c - .> ,_. 0 U 10.-------~--~o----~-------+~------~----~~ 0 ...l w >>-... . % 5 --· ---~------t-----+------t-------w . a.: ac :» u • 0~------------------------------------.. 0 5 10 lt 15 20 25 WIN-D SPEED IN MPH 0 8.1. 16.1 24.2 3 2 .. 2 40.2 WIND SPEED IN KM/H ·S·I.M P SO~ LAG 00 N : Sourc·e: Klnney et ar. 1972 CORRELATION BETWE~N RECORDED CURRENT VELOCITIES AND WIND SPEED Pau· Waterflooc:f Environmentai Impact Statement C-10 Figure C-5 forces. This fact has been further confirmed by spectrum analysis (Dygas 1975). During a 30-day recording period, 80 percent of the energy associated with surface currents in the west end of Simpson Lagoon possessed a periodicity of 4 days or longer. These currents were interpreted as wind-generated. A minor energy peak occurred at the diurnal frequency (approximately 0.4 cycles/hour), but no peaks were . observed at the semidiurnal period (12.4 hours) and only about 5 percent of the energy occurred there. Currents move_d at a speed equivalent to about 2.5 percent of the wind speed. A current meter was deployed in the inlet between Stump Island and the PBU causeway during August 1977 (r4atthews 197C$) ; Flow through this inlet was main\'y southward into the 1 a goon ·and was associated with easterly winds. Waters flowing toward Simpson Lagoon were more brackish {less saline) than the .water on its eastern end. For short periods when water flowed north through the inlet, it possessed a higher salinity and lower temperature than water that had entered previously. The average current immediately east of Stump Island was approximately 6 cm/s· {2.4 in/s) and reached a value of 18 cm/s (7 in/s) under the influence of strong ENE winds. If these current values persist across the entire inlet, the flushing rate from this inlet alone would be 225 days at 6 cm/s and 76 days at 18 cm/s (Matthews 1978). However, since this inlet is not the only nor the deepest inlet from the east to Simpson Lagoon, it is suspected that actual flushing times will be significantly less. Also as part of the study, surface drifters were released near Oliktok Point prior to a storm possessing easterly winos. A driffer was picked up 5 days later 225 km (140 mi) from the release point, suggesting a mean surface current of about 57 cm/s (1.9 ft/s) over that period. Currents within Simpson Lagoon were modeled numerically by Mungall et al. {1978) and again a ratio of about 3 percent was used between the current and wind speed. It was shown that complete flushing of the C-11 lagoon for 5 m/s (16 ft/s) ENE wi~ds would occur in about 5 days (recall the 76 to 225 days based on a single inlet found hy Matthews). Addition~l modeling (Mungall et al.·l979) also demonstrated that there was approximately a 2-hour 1 ag between wind changes and 1current response in the 1 agoon. This was further ct1nfirmed through a series of drogue studies. The surface drogues moved at a slightly higher ratio of the wind speed (approximately.0.045) than were observed in the model (0.03). Drogue speeds up to 60 cm/s (2 in/s) occurred in the lagoon in response to westerly winds. During the 1978 field season, Matthews (1979) obtained additional data showing higher current values than were recorded by him the previous year. However, this is primarily indicative of increasea wind speed.s for the recording period during the 1 atter year as the ratio· of about 0.03 -0.04 between the current and wind speed remained constant for botfl years. Currents were measured by Chin et al. (1979a) during a field program conducted in 1978 for the PBU owners at three locations (Figure C-6). Winds during this recording period were predominately from the· east and, as in the previous studies, appeared to drive the.currents. Flow at the Stump Island station averaged 9.5 cm/s (4 in/s) into the lagoon. East. winds produced average currents between 11-13 cm/s. (4.3-5.1 in/s) at the other two locations. During this study, drifters released north of the causeway were found on Stump Island, while releases in ot near the inlet entered Simpson Lagoon. -It was speculated that the flow immediately north of the causeway proceeds into the lagoon while water just seaward of this zone is carried westward along the seaward side ·of Stump Island. It was also postulated that a zone of upwelling occurs just inside the lagoon as a consequence of flow being diverted to either side of a . / subrn:!rged bar just inside the 1 a goon. More measurements are· needed to investigate this in detail. C-12 ' I I I I I I I I 1 I I I l l I I I I I I l \ I ' I \ \ ' \ \ \ i ' \ I I ! I I ' l \ \ , \ \ I I ~ , I l I l , , I I I ~ ' \ ' l I \ \ ' \ \ I I -1 I I I I / .,' I ,., I I I I l I I I f I l I I I r \ \ \ \ \ I I , I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \N ' :1 \u '@ \ ' I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / /I I , I I / / /. I / , I I~ I I I I I I I I ·t \ \ I I I I I I • I I I I \ \ \ \ \ ,' . / I I I I \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' I ' ' ,J I •' :?~/ ; ,: , u ~-, I :: _,-' ; ,.. _, " I '"Y I ~, I ~n 1 1_4 • I ·'K I I I I I ," , I I I , \ \ I I I I I , { I I I I I I I I I • ...... .. " c 4 " .. --.. !J ---==::::;~. z- 4e:::J ., , ............ ill;&r. I .... ..., I ,, I ', / ' I ' I ', I ' l ', \ ' \ ', \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ , \ , • I • I I ' ('' \ 1 \ \ ,., \ ,,,' ' , ... ' , ..... '-----~ Q Q Q .. N a .. .. .. • N 0 Q ..: a ... • 0 .. ::s· 0 "(/) Pau· Waterflood Environmental Impact Statement Figure. C-6 C-13 ·····. -: .. ··· ...... During the winte~ {1978 -1979) following this field program, current measurements were also taken under the ice (Mangarella et al. 1979). As expected, currents were much reduced, averaging less than 5 cm/s {2 in/s). These currents were probably driven by tidal variations. Results of hindcasting 15 stonns known to have occurred in the area between 1962-1978 have been reported by Heideman (1979). Currents in excess of 80 cm/s (2.6 ft/s) have been hindcast north of the West Dock in 5.5 m {18 ft) of water. Actual measurements in this area are significantly less than these unverified hindcast values but extreme currents of this magnitude may be possible. 4.0 WAVE CLIMATE Few measurements have been made of Beaufort Sea wave conditions. Visual observations suggest that 6-m (20-ft) waves have occurred off Point Barrow (Hume and Schalk 1967). The wave regime in the Beaufort se·a is heavily controlled by the location of the permanent ice pack. Since the fetch over which wind stress can effectively generate waves is the open (or semi-open) water between the front of the pack ice and the shoreline, the potential for wave growth varies widely from year to year.1 According to Brower and Searby {1977), the maximum di~tance from the edge ~f pack ice to the coastline at Point Barrow was 390 km (242 mi) in 1954 and 1958; in 1970 and 1975 it was zero. Wave measurements were made on the seaward side of Pi ngok Is 1 and in 1972 (Wiseman et al. 1973). Wave data-~ere acquired with a resistance wave gauge mounted on a tripod at the ?.-m {6.5-ft) depth. Two distinct sets of wave measurements were collected, each covering several recording intervals. One was heavily filtered, supplying information for waves with periods of 30 -1000 s. Spectra of these waves showed a decrease in energy with wave period. It was speculated that the pack 1The amount of ice coverage that can seriously dampen wave grow":h is not well known. C-14 ice may be responsible for producing such an energy distribution. Waves with periods of 0.5 -30 s were also recorded. Within this range, waves appeared to have greatest energy concentrations in the 2 - 3 s range. Waves were generaily 10 -30 em (4 -12 in) high. Analysis indicated that wave growth may have been limited by the distance to the pack ice. It was also suggested that 1 anger period waves caul d be generated by winds blowing parallel to the opening between the pack ice and the shoreline where the fetch may, at times, be essentially unlimited. These longer period waves would, however, experience greater attenua- tion prior to reaching the coast. Dygas {1975) measured waves at Oliktok Point~ inside the barrier islands, on the west end .of Simpson Lagoon. Results of the measure- ments during 1971 and 1972 indicated a mean breaker height of 17.7 em (7 in) with a period of 2.2 s~ The spectra of these records contained energy contributions in the 7.5 -15.q s range although these waves {within the lagoon) were not visually perceptible. However, Dygas reported swells on the seaward side of the islands as high as 1.5 - ~.0 m (5-6.5 ft). Oceanographic studies were conducted for the PBU owners near the West Dock and in Prudhoe Bay during the 1976 -1978 open-water periods (Grider et al. 1978, Chin et al. 1979a).. In the course of two of these investigations, photographic techniques were used to obtain wave measurements. Photographs of the waves were taken as they passed a hand-held stadia rodo This method was limited to depths within "hip-boot 11 range and therefore caul d not measure heights of 1 arger waves that broke before reaching this depth. The results of these measurements point out a generally benign wave climate. " Stann severity varies greatly; therefore, a long-tenn, systematic monitoring program may be necessary to provide a good understanding of the wave characteristics around Prudhoe Bay. During September of 1979, C-15 both McCollum (1979) and Barnes (1979) observed that waves during a . . stonn were _greater than 1 m (3 ft) at DH 3 and some appeared to have periods of 7 - 8 So Information can be obtained about extreme waves through hindcasting . . techniques. Heideman {1979) presented partial results of such a hiAdcast. It appears that the heights of larger waves are controlled by water depth. The standard breaking criterion suggests that shoaling waves increase in height until they break at a wave height equal to 0.78 times the water depth. This is probably the best estimate of the design wave that can be obtained at this time. More data is needed on wave climate off the arctic coast and the role it plays in the 1 ife of the barrier islands and the shaping of the shoreljne. Based on the dominate westward direction of littoral drift, most waves approach the shore from the east. The power associated with waves is dependent on the square of the wave height. This implies that rare storms from the west could produce effects equal to several weeks of relatively steady winds from the east. The permanence of the barrier islands over the last half century may reflect this situation. 5o0 STORM SURGES Stann surges are extra-astronomical changes in sea level and serve as vehicles for transporting wave energy shoreward. On the arctic coast, stonm surges are produced by the combined effects of wind stress and variations in atmospheric pressure. Surges on the Beaufort Sea coast are more important in changing sea 1 evel than are astronomical tides, which produce changes generally 20 em (8 in) or less (Chin et al. 1979). Surges generally affect hundreds of kilometers of coastline simultaneously although the magnitude will vary somewhat from place to place depending on the three ... dimensional geometry of the nearshore water body relative to the forces creating the surge. C-16 A positive $urge is created by westerly winds moving water toward the coast, a negative surge by easterlies moving water away from the coast. This results: in part, from the Coriol is acceleration that tends to divert moving objects to the right in the northern hemisphere; As the currents move in response to wind stress, they are transported toward or away from the shoreline. The degree to which a particular area is affected by storm surge is inversely proportional to the water depth. As a result of the sparse population on the margins of the Beaufort Sea: the history of storm surges tht:!re is incomplete and lacking in detail. However, the few area residents recognize the changes in sea leve·l associated with east and west winds as a·commonly occurring phenomenon. A particularly noteworthy surge occurred in the fall of 1970 that was documented by Reimnitz and Maurer (1978). Gale force westerly winds created a sea level elevation in excess of 1 m (3 ft) almost everywhere along the northern coast. In Prudhoe. Bay, it appears to have exceeded 3 m ( 10 ft). No direct measurements were made at the time of the stonn, but the elevation of driftwood carried shoreward with the rising water appeared to give a fair representation of its extent. Barges were lifted out of the water and set on top of the East Dock causeway, requiring a sea level elevation of nearly 3 m (Reimnitz and Maurer 1978.) Reimnitz and Maurer (1978) also described the effect of the stonn in the Canadian Beaufort. Water began rising approximately 5 hours before the storm. The pack ice was more than 150 km (93 mi) from shoreo When the storm began, the pack ice was transported almost to the coast, . . indicating that storm surges may be accompanied by processes that will cause them to subside. It is assumed that a significant open-water (or nearly so) fetch is required for surge formation, although surges hav~ been obset""ved at times of almost complete ice cover (Henry and Heaps 1976). The shoreward moving water moves the pack ice toward the shore, thereby reducing the fetch and ·inhibiting surge development. C-17 Heideman {1979) compiled the results of_a surge hindcast study (1978- 1979) and found the 25-year· extreme storm surge to be approximately . 1.3 m (4 ft) in 5.5 m (18 ft) of water (just seaward of Stump Island). This was slightly less than ttlat hindcast for a 1963 storm and approxi- mately equal to that hindcast for the 1970 storm. In general, the results of the hindcast procedure for the 1970 storm were in reasonable agreement with the measurements of Reimnitz and Maurer {1978) • . Negative surges can occur at all times of the year, but, based on observations in Mackenzie Bay by Henry (1975}, are thought to be most common in December and January (Aagaard 1978). Unpublished data by Matthews show a peak negative surge of 60 em (2 ft) for three winters record at Barrow and 89 em (2a:J ft) for one winter record at 01 iktok Point (Aagaard 1978). Henry• s observations (1975) from Mackenzie Bay indicate negative surges are typically 1 m (3.3 ft) or less. 6.0 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS Water quality characteristics depend on seasona 1 events such as ice cover, wind, and freshwater inflow. The nearshore waters are ice-free for 3 months each year. Freeze .. up begins between mid-September and· mid-October and ice attains its greatest depth, 2 -2.6 m {6.5 -8o5 ft), by March or April. Ice extends to the bottom from the shoreline out to a depth of 1 - 2 m (3 -6.5 ft). Ice melt begins along the coast in early June; the nearshore waters are normally ice-frse by late July. Vertical mixing by wind-generated currents is usually strong enough to prevent stratification in shallow and, at times, in deep ·water. A distinct two-layer stratification has been observed in deep water with relatively fresh, warm water overlying cold, more saline water. Areal variations in temperature and salinity are often as much as 5°C and 10 parts per ·thousand (ppt) in Prudhoe Bay and from one side of the existing causeway to the other. C-18 The area between ·the causeway and the Sagavanirktok River is a mixing ' zone for the clearer, usually colder, and more sa 1 i ne marine waters with the warmer, freshwater inflows from the rivers. Since nearshore currents are generally westerly during open water, the Sagavanirktok River discharge can influence water qua 1 i ty near the causeway. The Putuligayuk River, although closer, appears to affect this area to a lesser extent, because its discharge is much less. The general trend during winter, under ice, is for the offshore waters to be less saline and slightly warmer than nearshore waters • . Review of the following discussion of water quality and sediment characteristics should be made with the dates of causeway construction in mind. The original causeway and DH 2, 1340 m {4396-ft) long, were completed in July 1975, and the extension with DH 3, an additional • 1524 m (5000 ft), was completed in August 1976o DISSOLVED OXYGEN Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in. the nearshore zone are usually high (Hufford 1974, FERC 1979, Chin et al" 1979b). Alexander et al ( 1974) found mean DO concentrat ~ ons of 7. 73 mg/1 in Simpson Lagoon during August 1970. Concentrations near, and in excess of, 15 mg/1 were observed in a11 samples in proximity to the causeway as well as in deeper water in August and September 1976 (Grider et al. 1977). A survey conducted in July and August 1979, found most DO levels ranging between 9-11 mg/1 (Chin et al. 1979a). It was noted that this range was similar to the previous summer and winter measurements near DH 3 and in deeper water. The near-bottom water generally had higher DO concentrations than the near-surface water and some values approached saturation (Chin 1980}. During the 1979 survey, at stations north of DH 3 in waters about 3 -6.6 m {9.8 -2lo6 ft) deep, the DO range was 8o2-14.0 mg/1 at all stations and all depths (Metz 1979). C-19 Although the winter ice cover eliminates atmospheric reaeration, . DO levels usually remain high during winter. Significant decreases . can occur, however, in pockets of watgr trapped under the winter fast ice (Chin et al. 1979b), and water may become anoxic (Schell 1974). During February -April 1979, samples collected at stations in 2 - 5.8 m (6.5 -19 ft) of water north of DH 3 had DO concentrations ranging from 11.2-12.4 mg/1, while in Prudhoe Bay in 1.8-2m (5.9- 6.5 ft) of water DO. ranged from 7.5 -11.5 mg/1 (Woodward-Clyde 1979). Within the water column, values were generally unifonn with depth (Mangarella et al. 1979). Although the measured values were relatively high, they were usually several mg/1 below saturation values (Mangaella et al. 1979). PH Measurements of pH in the area are sparse. In August 1970, Alexander et al. (1974) measured pH in ~impson Lagoon and found the range to be 1.0 -7.4, with a mean of 7.14. A survey of three stations north of DH 3 in 2.4, 4.2, and 6 m (9, 14 and 20 ft) of water and two stations in the main part of Prudhoe Bay was conducted under ice in March, June, and November ·1976, and once in August { :l3th) during open water ( Metz 1979). The pH ranges noted during these sample periods are presented below. Under Ice Open Water TEMPERATURE North of DH 3 7.4-8.0 7.6-8.0 Prudhoe Bay 6.8-7.9 7o8 -8.2 Moderate fluctuations in water temperature occur during the open-water period in the nearshore zone (Chin et al. 1979b). Generally, water temperatures decrease with increasing distance offshore (Chin et al. 1979a,b; Chin 1980), ~nd may also vary with depth (Chin et al. 1979a)e C-20 Over the Beaufort Sea shelf, temperatures in the" upper 1 ayers were generally near the freezing p~i nt during fa 11 and winter and were within about Oo3°C of being isothermal (Aagaard 1976). Temperatures during the open-water period tend to be highest along the majnland side of the lagoon, typically being about 7°C (45°F) (Mungall et al. 1978, Matthews 1979), versus 2° -5°C (36° -41 °F) along the barrier islands (Mungall et al. 1978)e In the river deltas and shallow marine environment, temperature may vary from near 0° -l2°C ( 32(" - 54°F) as river runoff becomes warmer in the summer (Alexander et al. 1974). Matthews {1979) measured temperatures up to l2°C {54°F) off Beechey and Milne Points, and Schell {1974) noted •l2°C {l0°F) in high saline water trapped under ice. Peterson (1980) measured temperatures from -2.0° to ~2.4°C {28° -27°F) near DH 2 and DH 3 in February 1980. At the eastern end of Simpson Lagoon and in Prudhoe Bay, summer water temperatures generally increased until early August, then dropped gradually as freeze-up approached (Doxey 1977). Water temperatures vary widely both in space and time during open water due to wind-driven currents and the influence of river runoff (Doxey 1977). Temperature changes, on the·order of 6°C, can occur in a single day (Mungall et al. 1978). Temperature variations of a 1 most 2°C have been noted between the eastern and western sides of Prudhoe Bay at the 1-m {3-ft) depth (Chin et al. 1979a,b). Horner (1972) found supercooled water (-4.2°C, 24°F) in the middle of the bay under ice. Such temperatures are probably common under the Prudhoe Bay ice as they were observed again in 1979 (Woodward-Clyde 1979). Water temperatures near DH 3 during 1979 decreased from an average near -l.8°C ( 29°F) in February to about -2.4 °C ( 28°F) in Apri 1 . ( Mangare 11 a et al • 1979, Woodward-Clyde 1979) • Variations in temperature between stations did not exceed 0.6°C during the February to April sampling period, and temP,eratures were unifonn with depth (Mangarel1a et al. 1979)., During this same ·period at stations in 2 -5.8 m (6.5 -19 ft) C-21 of water north of DH 3, temperatures ranged from -3e4° to -la5°C {26° - Z9°F) (Woodward-Clyde 1979). In water north of DH 3·, vert ica 1 temperature gradients were observed during August and September of 1976 (Grider et al. 1977). At similar stations the following August, the water column was isothermal in shallow water (less than 1.8 m:; 5.9 ft), but in deep water (greater than 1.8 m) the bottom to surface differential ranged from 3° -8°C, being coldest at the bottom (Chin 1980). On August 6, 1979, a storm occurred that caused wind-induced mixing to penetrate to at least the 4.2-m (14-ft) depth, and the temperature between the surface and the 4.2-m (14-ft) depth only varied by 0.06°C (2.75° -2.81°C, 36.9° - 37°F) (Chin 1980). Water temperature often differs from one side of the causeway to. the other, and this difference is most pronou~ced during stormS' (Doxey 1977). Temperature is consistent.ly warmer east of the causeway than west (Munga11 et al. 1978, Spight 1979). Between June 23 and September 22~ 1976, the greatest differ1~nce between the two sides was 5.5°C .. The greatest change in water temperature from one day to the next wa·s 6°C (August 30-31) on the east side of the causeway. The average difference in temperature from one side to the other was 1.6°C (Doxey 1977). SALINITY During the summer, a widespread low salinity surface layer (26-29 ppt) developes north of the barrier islands over the middle and outer continental shelf, which is due apparently to freshwater river discharges along the entire North Slope coast (Niedoroda ~t al. 1979). During the fall, salinity of this upper layer was always less than 30 ppt, and on the inner shelf -considerably less than 28 ppt (Aagaard 1976). euring winter., sal.inity was above 31 ppt everywhere on the shelf (Aagaard 1976). C-22 The shallow barrier lagoons an<;l areas offshore lar.ge rivers .may exhibit salinities near zero during spring breakup and large river discharge. Salinities may remain lower in the barrier island lagoons than in the open ocean during the summer and early fall, though s,alinitywill often reach levels of 30 ppt (Alexander et al. 1974). In August 1970, the salinity of Simpson Lagoon ranged between 3.4 -25.8 ppt, with a mean of 17.7 ppt (Alexander et al. 1974). Matthews (1979) measured salinities near 20 ppt off Beechey and Milne Points and noted that, as the freezing season approaches, the 1 a goon waters salinity rises to 30 -32 ppt. Restriction of water movement in Simpson Lagoon as ice depths increased caused salinity values to vary widely with many values over 50 ppt and a maximum value of 65.9-ppt (Kinney et al. 19'72). Pocketr,; of seawater trapped beneath the ice in shallow water become more saline because saline brine drains from the fanning ice. Schell (1974) measured salinity as high as 183 ppt in such pockets. Large fluctuations in salinity may occur over a short period {Chin et al. 1979b). Salinity varies widely during summer due to wind currents and t~e influence of river· runoff (Doxey 1977) •· The Sagavanirktok, Putuligayuk, and Kuparuk Rivers• discharge is responsible for keeping the salinity well into the estuarine range for much of the open-water season (Spight ·1979). Runoff from the Sagavanirktok River extends to •the 6-m {20-ft) isobath, and a major portion of this runoff normally moves in a westerly direction toward the causeway (Grider et al. 1977). Under 1 ess common westerly winds, the Kuparuk 1 s discharge moves east into the causeway area. Salinity may vary with depth in deeper water {Chin et al. 1979a). Salinity tends to increase as the summer season progresses, probably due to reduced freshwater input (Doxey 1977). The water in Prudhoe Bay and near·the motith of the Sagavanirktok River appears to be well mixed. In some shallow areas~ the water masses are unstratified from the surface to the bottom (Nierdoroda et al. 1979). It has been speculated that a slow 1 andward component of the bottom water brings saline water up to the pycnocline where it mixes with the C-23 freshwater discharges and the water masses of the shelf surface water {Nier~doroda et al. 1979). Within Prudhoe Bay, there is an area of marked vertical stratification, and within the 1.8-m (5.9-ft) isobath, there appears to be a pond of cool, high-salinity water lying beneath a warmer~ fresher surface 1 ayer ( Ni erdoroda et a 1 • 1979) .• Surface salinity on August 13, 1978, was about 15 ppt, and a marked salinity gradient was apparent across the shoal area lying at the mouth of Prudhoe Bay (Nierdoroda et al. 1979). The salinity on the eastern side of the bay was about 2 ppt lower than on the western side (Grider ~ et al. 1977,_Chin et a1. 1979a). Salinity is higher than normal seawater ( 32 ppt) by 1 ate winter in Prudhoe Bay 8 From Febr·uary to April 1979, ·salinity ranged from 32 -56 ppt (Woodward-Clyde 1979). Horner {1972) measured a salinity of 72 ppt in the middle of the bay on May 10, 1971. Measurements made in August and September 1976 (Grider et al. 1977) and August 1977 (Grider et al. 1978) indicated vertical salinity gradients in water north of DH 3. Duri ryg the stonn of August 1979, the non;. a 1 stratification was eliminated for a short period {Chin 1980). Large differences in salinity can occur .across the causeway {18 ppt) with the less saline water tending to be found on the upwind side . . (Mungall et a1. 1978). Doxey (1977) measur.ed salinity from June 23 to August 8, 1976, and noted that the difference in salinity from one side of the causeway to the other was most pronounced during storms. Between July 31 and August 8, 1977, salinities were about 1.5-6.0 ppt higher on the west side (Grider et al. 1978). Although rapid changes in salinity can occur at the causeway (e.g. 14.7 -30.7 ppt) in one day, changes of a similar magnitude can occur at points. iess likely to be affected by the causeway (e.g. 13.4 -27.4 ppt at the East Dock on the eastern side of Prudhoe Bay) (Mung a 11 et al. 1978). C-24 During winter, saliniti is about the same on both sides of the causeway near DH 2 (31.5 -33.7 ppt) but slightly lower north of DH 3 (29.8 - 30.9 ppt) (Peterson 1980). SUSPENDED SEDIMENT The water beyond the continenfal shelf is relatively free of suspended • sediment; whereas, the shallow, nearshore waters are turbid during the summer. Freshwater inflow carrying sediment and wind-generated currents resuspending bottom sediment create this turbid condition. During spring breakup, the rivers discharge their ~unoff and sediment 1 oad out over the shorefast ice. Sediment reaches the nearshore zone · through holes in the ice and as the nearshore ice breaks up. Samples collected in August 1979, near DH 3 in about 2.7 m (9 ft) of water-had suspended sol ids concentrations that exceeded 50 mg/1 in more than 12 percent of the samples (Chin 1980). Farther offshore (neglecting the data from the wind event described below), the mean suspended solids concentr·ations at 1.2 m {4 ft) below the su·rface at stations in 3-6.6 m (9-22ft) of water was 4.8~mg/l; the mean for samples taken deeper in the water column at these stations was 3.6 mg/1 {Chin 1980). The highest concentration of suspended sol ids at the deeper stations was 13.5 mg/1. The August 6, 1979 storm mixed the water to at least the 4.2-m (14-ft) depth as evidenced by samples collected in deep water that displayed higher suspended sol ids concentrations near the bottom than near the surface (Chin 1980). Samples collected at the shallower stations (3- 4.2 m, 9 -14ft) 1.2 m (4ft) below the surface had suspended solids concentrations peak at about 90 mg/~ (Chin 1980). The author concludes that storms with wind speeds of 20 knots or more, sustained for at least 24 hours, are able to mix the usually stratified water north of DH 3 and resuspend bottom sediments. He also notes that resuspended . bottom sediments combine with Sagavanirktok River runoff .to produce C-25 high suspended solids concentrations; however~ river discharges appear to. have a much 1 esser effect than sustained winds on suspended solids north of DH 3. Suspended solids data are available at three stations north of DH 3 in 2c4~ 4.2 and 6 m (9, 14 and 20 ft) of water and two stations in the rna in part of Prudhoe Bay that were sarnpl ed under ice in ~1arch, June, and November 1976, and once in August during open water ( Metz 1979). The ranges of suspended solids concentrations for these stations are presented below: . Under Ice Open Water North of 01-J 3 1.0 -6.0 mg/1 2.5 -20.6 mg/1 Prudhoe Bay 0.6 -18.5 mg/1 60.0 -168.0 mg/1 Peterson (1980) measured suspended solids con~entrations ranging from less than 2 -13 mg/1 at stations near DH 2 and north of DH 3 in February 1980. According to Barnes (1979), fall stonns usually create high concentra- tions of silt-sized material that become incorporated in the fanning slush ice. These concentrations are much higher than normally found in the water column, on the order of 1000 mg/1. WATER CLARITY Transmissivity and turbidity patterns correlate well with the pattern of suspended sol ids concentrations. That is, transmissivity is high and turbidity low in water beyond the continental shelf. In the nearshore zone during summer, transmissivity will be relatively low and turb~dity high; during winter, turbidity will be low and transmissivity high. C-26 Samples collected in July and August 1979, in 2e4 -5.4-m (9.-18 ft) depths, had higher bottom water transmissivities (22 -36 percent) than ·the near-surface waters (0-18 percent} (Chin 1980). Samples collected under ice ·during February through April 1979, within 4400 m (4812 yd} of the causeway showed that .undisturbed waters beneath the "ice were quite clear (Woodward-Clyde 1979). Values ranged from 60 -.82 percent referenced to a standard of 85 percent ( Mangare 11 a et al • 1979). . Turbidity measurements were made on water samples collected in the vicinity of the causeway during August and September· 1976, with the following rctnges in Fonnazin-Turbidity-Units (FTU) (Grider et al. 1977). Surface Bottom A,ugust 1.0 -16.0 FTU 3.0 -58.0 FTU September 1.5 -14·.0 FTU 2~0 -19.0 FTU Windy days resulted in higher turbidity than calm days, and there was less mixing in the shallow water to the west (leeward) of the ~auseway (Grider et al. 1977). NUTRIENTS In a stud)r along the north A1 ask a she 1 f in 1971 and 1972, nutrient concentrations in the surface waters were generally 1 ow and vari ab 1 e (Hufford 1974). Silicate concentrations were almost always greater than 2 microgram-atoms per liter (~g-at/1) in the surface layer. Phosphate and nitrate concentrations showed great regional variability in the surface layer (phosphates ranged between undetectable and 0.8 vg-at/1; nitrates changed from undetectable to 2e2 ~g-at/1). The lowest phosphate level~ occurred near melting ice and near shore, indicating· that neither melting ice nor river runoff are sources of phosphate to the coastal waters (Hufford 1974)~ Mountain (1974) reported little offshore upwelling of nutrients. C-27 Fresh water in the rivers and de 1 tas is .primari 1 y phosphate 1 imi ted, whereas the coastal marine waters are primarily nitrogen.limited (Schell 1974). River runoff and coastal erosion cons~itute a source of nitrogen {Schell 1974). The river discharges during spring add much nitrogen; This nitrogen is primarily of tundra origin (Schell 1980a). During summer, phytop'lankton use the available nutrients; removing nitrate, ammonia, and phosphate from the water column (Ki~tney et al. 19.72). Schell (1974"), analyzing data from Simpson and Elson Lagoons, reported that the inorganic nitrogen present at the start of summer is rapidly depleted through biological utilization. He indicated that nitrogenous nutrients limit phytoplankton productivity, and that phosphate appears to be well in ·excess of 1 imiting concentrations. throughout the year in the marine environment. The average phosphate concentrations in Simpson Lagoon and Harrison Bay were 0.6 -1.2 . pg-at/1 when nitrate and nitrite ~ere virtually undetectable and ammonia averaged 0.1 -0.2 pg-at/1 (Kinney et al. 1972). Hufford (1974) observed nitrate concentrations in excess of 1llg-at/l in the surface layer near the Kuparuk and Sagavanirktok deltas • . Silicate concentrations are highly variable and reflect the mixing zones of fresh and marine waters, with higher values near shore and lower values offshore~ Kinney et a1. (1971) measured a range of 6.2- 14.11-lg-at/l (mean of 10.4 Pg-at/1) in Simpson Lagoon. Schell (1974) indicates that it is unlikely that silicate is a principal limiting nutrient to the diatom population in view of the severe nitrog~n depletion in near·shore waters. Schell (1974) measured nutrients in Simpson Lagoon, under ice, in May 1971. The ten stations between the mainland and Cottle Island on the east and Pingok Island on the west had the following ranges and means . expressed in Pg-at/1: _B!nge Mean Nitrate 3.4 -10.5 7.96 Phosphate 0.96 -1.24 1.10 Silicate 27.0 -53.5 43.2 C-28 Peterson (1980) measur~d nitrate and phosphate values at seven stations near DH 2 and DH 3 in February 1980. Nitrate at all stations was . 0.2 mg/1, and total phosphate was. 0.05 mg/1 at all stations. Ortho- phosphate ranged between 0.03 and 0.05 mg/1, with a mean of 0.037 mg/1. Horner {1972) found under-ice levels of phosphate and nitrate to be lower near Reindeer Island than in Prudhoe Bay. The concentrations of nutrients reach an annual peak in the spring. With an increase in the amount of 1 ight, nutrients are rempved by the epontic ice algae that are beginning to grow on the bottom of the ice. In the nearshore environment, the major po~tion of the fixed nitrogen and phophorus is present as dissolved organic nitrogen and phosphorus (Kinney et al. 1971)., Dissolved organic nitrogen in Simpson Lagoon averaged 5.69 pg-at/1, while in the Beaufort Sea immediately seaward of the barrier islands it had a mean value of 4.86 119-at/l (Kjnney et al. 1972}. TRACE ELEMENTS srarse data exist for trace elements in the waters near the causeway. According to Burrell (1976), levels of chromium vary from undetectable to average values for open-ocean waters. He also indicates that the concentrations of lead are within normal ranges for seawater. Peterson {1980} reports arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and nickel as undetectable in a sample collected near the location of the proposed . . . seawater treating plant. Mercury was 16 pg/1 and zinc 17 pg/1 in the sample collected in February 1980. 7.0 SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS Sediment composition and changes result from river runoff, coasta 1 erosion, waves, and'ice scour. According to Feder et al. (1976a), the Sagavanirktok River is the predominant source o.f the fine-gl .. ained C-29 sediments at the causeway, in Prudhoe Bay, and in the sha~ 1 ow marine area south of Retndeer and Cross Islands. Sediments of the area around the causeway are composed· of fine silt, silt, very fine sand, and fine sand. These categories make up over 85 percent of the sediment sampled (Chin et al. 1979b). Sediments within the 1.8-m (6-ft) contour are dominated by fine sand, whereas silts were found only in waters deeper than 1.8 m (Chin et al. 1979b}. An overall pattern of increasing amounts of fine material with deeper water was apparent (Grider et al6 1977, Chin et al. 1979b). CARBON CONTENT There are two sources of carbon in sediments, organically bound carbon and carbonate carbon (Burrell et al. 1974). Prudhoe Bay sediments have a high carbonate content, which is typi ca 1 of the North 51 ope (Spight 1979). This high carbonate content of sediments is terrestrial in origin, introduced by river runoff. Feder et al. (1976a) notes that the carbonate content increased seaward. They measured the concentra- tion of carbonates in gravel-free sediments near the causeway during the summers of 1974 and 1975. The ranges and means for both years are: Year 1974 1975 Range 2.44 -32.42 percent 4.18 -18.49 percent Mean 12.50 percent 13.42 percent General spatial and temporal patterns for total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations are shown for the eastern end of Simpson Lagoon, the vicinity of the causeway, and the western side of Prudhoe Bay in Figure C-7. Although variability is high, TOC accounts for about 0.85 percent of the dry sediment by weight. Although this level has been cited as law (Grider et al. 1977, 1978; Chin et al. 1979a; Naidu 1978}, it is similar to levels observed in temperate silty sand habitats on the continental shelf. Lees (1975) reported that average TOC concen- .trations on the Hueneme Shelf .in southern California averaged about C-30 0.35 percent. Data on the flux of organic ca·rbon in these areas are lacking. Based on 12_c1 13 c ratios, Schell (1978) found that over 75 per·cent of the organic carbon available to the nearshore faunal assemblages is of terrigenous origin, i.e. ~eat tundra vegetation, and only about 22 percent· is of marine origin, i.e. phytoplankton, ice algae and be.nthic algae. Approximately one-half of the tota·l carbon input is derived from coastal erosion. Based on the apparent importance of terrigenous organic material, the prevailing westerly current flow, and the res~ltant reduction in the energy level of the water mass west of the causeway, one might expect to see increased deposition of both fine sediment and organic debris in the causeway• s 11 Shadowu. Decreased deposition of those components should occur farther downstream because of depositional loss from the water near the causeway. Basically, a sediment trap would be createq near the causeway and deposition rates caul d be reduced in Simpson Lagoon. The high degree of sampling variability in TOC· precludes detection of any differences between sites or sampling dates. Grider et al. {1977, 1978) and Chin et al. (1979a) repeatedly state that TOC concentrations and depth are positively correlated, but note that yariability is high. Examination of mean annual TOC calculated for selected geographical areas suggests the occurrence of sev.eral trends (Figure C-7). Average TOC concentrations east of the existing causeway have varied widely between 0.68 -1.05 percent since 1974, but no temporal patterns are apparent~ West of the causeway {downstream), aver~ge TOC concen- trations _have increased evenly from 0.21 in 1974 to over 1.2 percent si nee 1977 e In the eastern end of Simpson Lagoon, average TOC has decreased evenly from 1 •. 2 percent in 1976 to 0.5 percent in 1978. Since 1976, the highest averages were observed in the area west of the causeway. These trends suggest that a shadow b~hind ·the existing causeway may have permitted an accumulation of TOC in this area. C-31 Pre-1974 1 1.11±0.42 I . I . I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I . 1976 -1.20±0.05 1977 -1.05::1:0.51 1978 -0.52:1:0.43 FEET 3000 METERS 1000 I --:::::---=----. Sourer. Chin e~ aL 1979&: . I I I Grider et aL 1977~ 1978· Feder et aL 1978a I I I ..... ..... ..... 1974 -0.21%0 .. 21 1975 -0.68±0.65 1976 -1.02±0.91 1977 -1.20::1:0.71 1978 -1.05:!::0.79 2000 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... 1974 -0. 68:!::0. 66 , .... 1975 -1. 01±0.89 . I 1976 -0.69±0.50 I ~977 -1.05:!::0.26 / 1978 -0.94:0.86 I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I 1 1978 - 0.67±1.01 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (%) PBU' Waterfrood Environmental Impact Statement Figure C-7 C-32 Schell {1980b) suggested such a shadow effect could nqt be detected. He indicated three princ~pal mechanisms operate in distributing organic debris: (1) storm surge ·from the northwest, (2) ice gouging, . and {3) redistribution of sediments and debris frozen to the bottom of shorefast ice. He believes the role of currents in distribution of organic d~bris is small by comparison, and that the magnitude of effects from these influences would completely override any potential effects·of the causeway on the distribution of organic debris. Schell {1980b) suggests that concerns over changes in the distribution patter~ns of terrigenous organic debris are unimportant because he contends that material does not contribute significantly to the marine food webs. Despite the preponderance of terrigenous material in organic carbon reserves {about 78 percent) (Schell 1978), organic material of marine origin is apparently the most important source of carbon to the nearshore assemblages (Schell 1980b). However, future studies may prove that detritus of terrigenous origin is significant for its ultimate nutrient and energy contribution to nearshore marine systems in this area. Both petroleum and biogenic hydrocarbons were found, and in about equal concentrations. However, the hydrocarbons were largely of tundra or1g1n. No change in hydrocarbon levels between 1974 -1975 was indicated (Feder et al. 1976b). In 1976, sediment samples from Prudhoe Bay were analyzed for· high molecular weight hydrocarbons. It was concluded that they were characteristic of marine sediments from petrnleum-free environments, and that marine organisms were probably the principal source of the hydrocarbons isolated from these sediments. TRACE ELEMENTS Information on trace elements in sediments is sparse for the nearshore marine environment. Weiss et al. {1974) reported the mercury content of sediments from the Sagavanirktok River was 111.5 ppb. In a 1974 study, Feder et al. {1976a) measured nickel, vanadium, and chromium C-33 concentrations in sediments. The. vanadium content of Prudhoe Bay sediments was low, but the nickel content was relatively high, and increased seaward. In a 1975 sampling near the causeway, Feder et al • . (1976b) obtained the following trace metal concentrations: Trace Metal Copper Chromium Nickel . Vanadium Range(ppm) 5 -26 21 -87 14 -63 35 -110 Mean(gpm) 13 52 43 64 The following ranges were observed from sediment samples near the causeway in 1976 (Grider et al. 1977): Range(ppm_l r~etal Range(ppm) Nickel 21 -47 Iron 11,800 -15,400 Zinc 76 -313 Copper 8 -29 Lead 28 -35 Barium 197 -322 Cadmium 5 -9 Vanadium 50 -66 Chromium 17 -50 Feder et al. (1976b) reported concentrations of phosphorus measured in in gravel-free sediments near the causeway in 1974 and 1975 as follows: Year 1974 1975 Range 0.034 -0.331 percent 0.044 -0.097 percent Mean 0.101 percent 0.068 percent The difference in concentrations between the years was insignificant according to Feder et a 1 • ( 1976b). They a 1 so measured phosphorus in the adjacent shallow marine sediments in 1974. The mean for all 1974 samples was 0.09 percent. C-34 Peterson (1980) collected sediment core samples 122, 579, and 1128 m (400, 1900, and 3700 ft) north of DH 3 in February 1980 (Figure C-8 and Tables C-1 and C-2). Concentrations of arsenic, chromium,. and ,ilercury were detected in the elutriat. Cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc concentrations were low to .normal. Total organic carbon and total organic nitrogen values were acceptable. There was no oil and grease ~ . sheen, and no PCB • s were detected. Of the 11 chlorinated hydrocarb:'on . . pesticides determined, lindane exhibited a trace (less than 1 ug/1) at all three stations and DDT exhibited a trace at one station. C-35 • e 7 CE.S.W) • 8 (E.S.W) es CE.S •. W) DH 2 4 (S,W)e •· 3 (S.W}_j ,. •2 (S.W) · \..1 (S.W) • Sample Locatfon E EJutr.iat Test Sample S Shallow Sediment Sample W Water Sampje 0 0 FEET 2000 METERS 500 4000 1000 SEDIMENT & WATER SAMPLE lOCATIONS Pau·. Waterflo.,d. ··environmentai Impact Statement Figure C-8 . . . C-36 TABLE C-1 . ELUTRIATE TEST DATA Detection Background Sam~le location Pat'~meter Limit Water 5 6 1 Arsenic 1 NO ND NO NO Cadmium 0.5 NO ND 3.9 ND Chromium .5 ND ND NO NO Copper 2 NO 2 3 ND Lead 5 NO 13 ND ND t4ercury 2 16 ND NO ND Nickel 2 ND 7 6 2 Zinc 1 17 32 84 16 Total Organic Carbon 1 1.6 2.7 5 3.1 Total Organic Nitrogen 0.3 NO 0.6 0.6 0 .• 4 n Chlorinate~ Hydrocarbons I W· Endrin 1 NO NO ND ND ..._, Lindane 1 NO T T T Heptaclor 1 ND ND NO ND Heptaclor Epoxide 1 NO ND ND ND Aldrin 1 ND ND ND ND Dieldrin 1 ND ND ND ND DDT 1 ND T ND ND Thiodan 1 ND NO ND ND Me:t hoxyc h 1 or 5 ND ND ND ND Chlordene 5 ND ND ND ND Toxaphene 5 NO NO ND ND Oil & Grease Sheen ·None None None PCB!)s 5 ND NO ND ND All .concentrations in ll/g1 except Oil & Grease Sheen (no units) and Total Organic Nitrogen (~g/1 as.N), and Total Organic Carbon (mg/1). NO indicates value below detection limit T indicates "trace" but less than detection limit TABLE C-2 WATER AND SHALLOW SEDIMENi DATA WATER DATA Detection Sam~le location Parameter Limit --r·--2 3 4 5 6 7 Nitrate, as N, mg/1 0.05 0.2 0,;2 0.2 0.,2 0.2 0.2 Oo2 Total Phosphate, as P, mg/1 0.02 0.05 0.;05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Orthophosphate, as P, mg/1 0.02 0.04 0 .. 03 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 Salinity, ppt 0.01 31.46 33.05 33.72 32.27 30.87 30.42 29.85 Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 2 ND 2 13 .4 ND ND 2.5 Temperature, °C 0.1 -2o3 -2.1 -2.4 -2.3 -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 Water Depth, ft Oel 1.9 1.7 1.0 0.4 2o6 5.4 8.1 Ice· Thickness, ft 0.1 5.0 4.7 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.6 ND indicates value below detection limit--250 ml vo'lume filtered for Locations 1 through 6, 1 liter filtered for Location 7 SHALLOW SEDIMENT DATA . Detection Sam~le Location Parameter Limit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Organic Carbon, % 0.1 4.2 2.9 4.4 4.6 3.8 4.5 3a8 Total Organic Nitrogen, % 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.09 . Total Carbon, % 0.05 3.4 3.4 4.5 4.1 4.4 4.3 3.8 Total Solids, % 74.3 72.5 67.5 68.0 70.2 63.2 69.8. Perc~ntage is on a dr·y weight basis TOC and TC were determined by different methods--TOe is actually total oxidizable material REFERENCES Aagaard, Knut, 1976. STD mapping of the Beaufort Sea shelf. In: Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf, Vol. 11, physical oceanography and meterology •. Principal Investigators• Reports for the Year Ending March 1976. NOAA/BLM, pp 249-266. , 1978. Physical oceanography and meteorology. In: Interim ~'-:-:"-Synthesis Report: Beaufort/Chukchi, Outer Continental Shelf Environ- mental Assessment Program, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado. , D. Haugen~ 1977. Current measurements in possible dispersal ----=--regions of the Beaufort Seaa Annual P.I. Reports, Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf, Vol. XIV, Transport. NOAA/BLM. Alexander, v., C. Coulon, and J. Chang~ 1974. Studies of primary productivity and phytoplankton organisms in the Colville River system. In: Environmental studies of an arctic estuarine system--final report. Institute of Marine Science, Report R74-1, University of Alaska~ Fairbanks, pp 283-410. Barnes, P., (USGS) 1979. Personal communication (December 3) with o. Jones, Dames & Moore. , E. Reimnitz, G. Smith and o. McDowell, 1977. Bathymetric and -s~h-o-re~,-,~·ne changes in northwestern Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Northern Engineer 9(2). , R. Ross, 1980. Fall storm, 1979 -a major modifying coastal -e-ve-n--:t-.-In: P. Barnes and E. Reimnitz {Editors), Geologic processes and hazards of the Beaufort Sea shelf and coastal regions. Quarterly P.I. Reports, Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan ·continental Shelf. NOAA/BLM. ·Brower, A. and Wo Searby, 1977. Climatic atlas of the outer continen- tal shelf waters and coastal regions of Alaska. Vol. III-Chuckchi- Beaufort Sea. AEIDC, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Burrell, D.C., 1976. Natural distribution of trace heavy metals and environmental background in three Alaskan shelf areas. NOAA/BLM/ OCSEAP, Boulder, Colorado. , J.A. Dygas and R.W. Tucker, 1975o Beach morphology and --:-:--sedimentology of Simpson Lagoon. In: Environmental studies of an arctic esturine system. Institute of Marine Science, R74-1, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Cannon, J.P. and S.E. Rawlinson, 1978. The environmental geology and geomorphology of the barr"ier islandiWlagoon system along the Beaufort Sea coastal plain from Prudhoe Bay to the Colville River. Annual P.I. Reports, Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf, Vol. X~ Transport. NOAA/BLM. C-39 .. . Chin~ H., 1978. Physical/chemical measurements taken in the Beaufort Sea -July/August 1979. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea summer 1979. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. , M. Busdosh, G.A. Robilliard and R.W. Firth Jr., 1979a. ~E-nv~i-ro-n-mental studies associated with the Prudhoe Bay Dock: physical oceanography and benthic ecology. Final report prepared for Atlantic R ichfi el d Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, An·:horage, Alaska. 263 pp. ~-:-:- , A. Niedoroda, G. Robilliard, and M. Busdosh, 1979b. Related studies. In: Biological effects of impingement and entrainment from operation of the proposed intake. Draft report prepared for ARCO Oil and Gas Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchor?ge, Alaska. 136 pp. Doxey, M.R., 1977. Fishery impact survey on the Atlantic Richfield Company causeway at Prudhoe Bay. AJ ask a Dept. of Fish & Game, Fairbanks, Alaska. Dygas, J .A., 1975. A study of wind, waves and currenets in Simpson Lagoon. In: Environmental studies of an arctic esturine SY.Stem. Institute of Marine Science, R74-1, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. , D~C. Burrell, 1975. Dynamic sedimentalogical processes -a-lo_n_g_t~he Beaufort Sea coast of Alaska. In: D.W. Hood, D.C. Burrell {Editors), Ass:essment of the arctic marine environment. Occasional Publications No. 4, Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Feder, H.M., D.G. Shaw and A.S. Naidu, 1976a. The arctic coastal environment of Alaska: Vol. I, the nearshore marine environment in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Institute of Marine Science, R76-7, Univers1ty of Alaska, Fairbanks. , A.S4 Naidu, D. Schamel, D.G. Shaw, and E.R. Smith, 1976b. The -~-arctic coastal environment in Alaska: Vol. III~ the nearshore marine environment in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Institute of Marine Science, R76-7, Univers·i.ty of Alaska;. Fairbanks. FERC, 1979. Prudhoe Bay project environmental impact statement~ construction and operation of a sales gas conditioning faci1 ity at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 259 pp. Grider, G.W., G.A.· Robilliard, and R.W. Firth, 1977. Environmental studies associated with the Prudhoe Bay dock: coastal processes and marine benthos. Final report prepar·ed for Atlantic Richfield Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. 394 pp. C-40 _ ; G.As Robilliard, and R.W. Firth, Jr., 1978. Environmental -st":""'"u-d~{es associated with the Prudhoe Bay dock: coastal processes and marine benthos. F_fnal report prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. 145 pp~ Heideman, J., 1979. Oceanographic design criteria. In: Technical seminar on Alaska Beaufort Sea gravel island design. Exxon Production Research Co. Henry, R.F., 1975. Stann surges: Beaufort Sea Technical Report No. 19, Department of the Environment, Victoria, B.C. _ , and NsS. Heaps, 1976. Storm surges in the southern Beaufort ~S-ea-.-_ ~Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33{10}. Horner, R.,. 1972~ Ecological studies on arctic sea ice organisms. Institute of Marine Science, R72-17, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Hufford, G.L., 1974. Dissolved oxygen and nutrient along the north Alaskan shelf. In: The coast and shelf of the Beaufort Sea. Arctic Institute of the North America, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 567-588. Hume, J.D. and M. Schalk, 1967. Shoreline processes near Barrow, Alaska: a comparison of the normal and catastrophic. Arctic, 20(2): 86-103. Kinney, P.J., O.M. Schell, V. Alexander, D.C. Burrell, R. Cooney and A.S. Naidu, 19721) Baseline data study of the Alaskan arctic aquatic environment. Institute of Marine Science, R72-3, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. , D.M() Schell, v. Alexander, s. Naidu, C.P. McRoy, and D.C. ~--=-=-Burrell, 1971. Baseline date study of the Alaskan arctic aquatic environments, eight month progress, 1970. Institute of Marine Science, R 71-4, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Lees, D.C., 1975. C'ty of Oxnard predischarge receiving water monitor- ing study -results cf biological studies. Final report. Prepared for City of Oxnard -by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc. and Marine Biological Consultants, Inc. pp 45-138. McCollum, R. (NORTEC) 1979. Personal communication to D. Jones, Dames & Moore. Mangarella, P., H. Chin, and A. Niedoroda, 1979. Under-ice conditions in the Beaufort Sea relative to the proposed waterflood discharge. In: Environomental studies of the Beaufort Sea -winter 1979. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. 251 pp. Matthews, J.B.$ 1978. Characterization of the arctic barrier island- lagoon system. Annual P.I. Reports.· Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Ccntinental Shelf, Vol. X Transport. NOAA/BLM. C-41 . , 1979. Characteri zatiop of the nearshore hydr·odynamics of an arct1c.oarrier island-lagoon system. Annual Report, 1 April - 31 March 79, R526-77. NOAA/BLM. Metz, W.P. (ARCO Oi1 & Gas Company), 1979. Personal communication (December 25) with Laurence Peterson, L.A. Peterson & Assoc. . . Mountain, D.G., 1974. Preliminary analysis of Beaufort Sea circulation in summer: the coast and shelf of the Beaufort Sea. Arctic Institute of North America, Arlington, Virginia, pp 27-42. Mungall~ J.C.H., R.W. Hann, D.J. Horne, R.E. Whitaker, and C.E. Able, 1978. Oceanographic processes in a Beaufort Sea barrier island-lagoon system: numerical modelling ·and current measurements. Annual Report, RU 531. NOAA/ BLM/OCSEAP. , R.E. Whitaker, and S.D. Pace, 1979. Oceanographic processes in a Beaufort Sea barrier island-lagoon system: numerical modelling and current measurements. Annu.al P.I. Reports, Environmental Assess- ment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf. NOAA/BLM. Naidu, A.!. 1978. Sediment characteristics, stability, and origin of the bar·rier islands-lagoon complex, North Arctic, Alaska. Annual P.r. Reports. Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shtel f, Vol. X, Transport. NOAA/BLM. ·· Niedoroda, A., H. Chin, and P. Mangarella, 1979. Addendum to 1978 summer environment studies associated with the Prudhoe Bay Dock: physi ca 1 oceanoography and benthic eco 'I ogy. Draft report to ARCIJ Oi 1 & Gas Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. 23 pp. Peterson, L.A., 1980. Prudhoe Bay waterflood project: elutriate, shallow sediment, and \'later quality data. Prepared for Dames & Moore. Reimnitz, E. and O.K. Maurer, 1978. Storm surges in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Open-file 78-593. u.s. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 26 pp. Schell, D.M., 1974, Seasonal variation in the nutrient chemistry and conservative constituents in coastal Alaskan Beaufort sea waters. In: Environmental studies of an arctic estuarine system-final report. Institute of Marine Science, R74-1, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. pp 217-282. , 1978. Nutrient dynamics in nearshore under-ice waters. ~An-n-·u-a-1 -=Report. NOAA/BLM/OCSEAP, Boulder, Colorado !l 25 pp. , 1980a. Personal communication to Laurence Peterson, L.A. ~P-et~e-r-s-on and Associates. ___ , 1980b. Personal communication to D •. Lees, Dames & Moore. C-42 Spight, T., 1979. Prudhoe Bay west dock extension-synthesis of environmental studies 1974-1978. ·Draft r·eport to ARCO. Oil and Gas Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. W~iss, H.V.!i K. Chew, M. Guttman, and· A. Host, 1974. Mer·cury in the environs of the North Slope of Alaska. In: The coast and shelf of the Beaufort Sea. Arctic Institute of North America, pp. 737-746. Wiseman!/ W.J.~ J.M. Coleman~ A. Gregory, S.A. Hsu, A.D. Short, J.N. Suhoyda, c.o. Walters, Jr. and l.D. Wright, 1973. Alaskan arctic coastal processes and morphology. Coastal Studies Institute, Tech. Rep.· No. 149 3 Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. · Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1979. Prudhoe Bay Waterflood Project, Volume II, Environmental, July 1979. Prepared for Prudhoe B~y Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska • . C-43 APPENDIX D . HYDRODYNAMIC AND WAIER QUALITY MODELING OF SIMPSON LAGOON AND PRUDHOE BAY 1.0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE STUDY A number of options have been suggested to extend or modify the existing PBU causeway structure and facilities in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay (see Figure D-1). The proposed options· include a straight- forward extension of the causeway structure to the 3.6 -3.9-m (12 - 13-ft) water depth contour line, breaches in the causeway structure, and the construction of an offshqre island. The purpose of the present study is to estimate the impact of ... these various options on the circulation and water quality in the vicinity of the causeway. Because of the nature of the study, primarily evaluation of the various alternatives, it is the comparative, ruther than the absolute, aspects of the impact of thes-e alternatives that are of major concern for this study" The applicability and limitations of the model are discussed in detail in Section D-2.0. THE SITE Prudhoe Bay· is located on the Beaufort Sea coast immediately \J/est of and adjacent to the 1~:vuth of the Sagavanirktok River. Approximately 20 km (32 mi) offshore lie th~ Midway Islands, a widely spaced series of barrier islands (Reindeer Island, Al"go Island, and Cross Island) . connected by a shallow-water ridge. On the main shoreline at the western mouth of Prudhoe Bay i; the PBU dock, which extends approxi- mately_ 2288 m (7500 ft) offshore~ Here, where water depths are approximately 3 m (10 ft), begins a 6-km {40-mi) chain of barrier islands located 0.8 -9.7 km (0.5 - 6 mi) offshore, known as the Return Islands~ The easternmost of these is Stump Island, whose D-1 southeast tip is 1.4 km (0.9 mi) west of the dockhead and 0.8 km . (0.5 mi) from shore • .. To the west of the dock is Simpson Lagoono The lagoon is 48 km (30 mi) long, narrowing from 8.8 km (5.5 mi) in the west to 0.8 km (0.5 mi) in the east. Depths within the lagoon typically range between 0.9 and 2.1 m (3 and 7ft), although entrance depths can reach 6.1 m (20ft) or more. Depths are generally greatest on the western sides of entrances~ and the existence of the entrances themselves can change with time. Situated $evera 1 hundred mi 1 es above the A ret i c Circle, the Beaufort Sea coast exists in a climate of subfreezing temperatures which persist 7 months a year. Hence~ from October through May, the coastal region is frozen from the shoreline out to a bottom depth of 0.4 -2.1 m (3 - 7 ft). Offshore, from severa 1 to 97 km ( 60 mi) or more, the Arctic Oce~n is covered year-round by the ice pack, a thick layer of permanent ice whose southern boundary moves on and off shore, const~nt ly producing forces on the seasona 1 shorefast ice (Spight \ 1979}. As the sun begins to reverse its winter trend and the air temperatures rise above freezing, the rivers and land areas are the first to thaw. In the short time of 2 or 3 weeks in May, the rivers discharge their runoff out over the shorefast ice, which is beginning to break up. The peak discharge period for most rivers (e.g. the Putuligayuk) is short. The exceptions to this are the Kuparuk and the Sagavan·i rktok Rivers, which flow into Simpson Lagoon and Prudhoe Bay, respectively. Consequently, nearshore zone salinity increases gradually through the summer as river flow decreases (Spight. 1979). By mid-to-late July, the nearshore zone has become ice fr~e. The ocean is . open from the shore to the edge of the pack ice. The boundary between open water and the permanent pack ice is indistinct, made up of breaks in the ice and scattered ice floes. Around late September, the ice cover begins to reform. 0-2 Local winds are predominantly from the east-northeast (approximately 70 percent. of the time). Severe storms occur every few summers, many. of which blow out of the northwest. Waves are generally less than 0.3 m (1 ft) high with periods less than 1 s. Semidiurnal tide heights of less than 0.2 m {0.8 ft) occur, but are masked by wind:induced water level changes as great as 1.0 m (3Q2 ft) (Spight 1979). Associated with the storms are possible sea level rises of 1.8 -3.0 m (6 -10 ft) (Mungall et al. 1978). 2.0 METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS A complement of mathematical models was selected for the purposes of the study outlined in the previous section. Specifically, these models included: - A hydrodynamic model, TIDAL, to simulate the flow and circula- tion patterns in Prudhoe Bay and Simpson Lagoon as influenced by the wind and river input. - A water quality model, WQUAL, to simulate the salinity concen- trations in the study area under a range of flow condi.tions and causeway modifications. . ~ . The models TIDAL and WQUAL are proprietary computer software ci~veloped. by Dames & Moore. These models are depth-averaged, two-dimensional numerical models and are suitable for examining the meso-scale impact of the existing and proposed physical conditions., Details of these models are discussed in published literature (Runchal .1978). THE ~YDRODYNAMIC MODEL, TIDAL The local circul3tion patterns and the water heights in the vicinity of the causeway were estimated from the Dames & Moore hydrodynamic model TIDAL. D-3 This model is based on the classical shallow water equations (Stoker 19S7), which are sol,.:ed by means of Integra~ed Finite-Differences (IFD). Among the advantages of the IFD methods are: the ease and economy of application, numerical stability, and conservation of such important physical quantities as the mass, momentum, and energy of the fluid elements. The particular form of the equations used here is derived by integra- tion of the three-dimensional, time-dependent set of hydrodynamic equations (e.g. Bird et a 1. 1960) over the vert i ca 1 dimension. This results in a two-dimensional, time-dependent set of equations of mass and momentum balance, in which the horizontal components of velocity now represent 11 depth-averaged" values. The physical mechanisms that are accounted for in the equations governing momentum exchange are: local and convective acceierations, hydrosta~ic pressure variations jn the water body, Coriolis force, bott~m friction, surface wind drag, and atmos.pheric pressure variations. Other mechanisms, such as the intrafluid viscous forces, are likely to play only a minor role and are omitted; however, their inclusion is a mere matter of detail. The · bottom friction and the surface wind drag are· modeled b~ the empirical formulas well known in oceanographic practice (Dronkers 1964). The governing equations, when so 1 ved with appropriate boundary and initial conditions!J yield a complete time history of water movement. These equations form a set of coupled nonlinear hyperbolic equations for which no general solution can be obta~ined by known analytical means. At present, the best so 1 uti on techniques seem to be of the numerical kind, and one such has been used in the present work. THE WAT;R QUALITY MODEL, WQUAL The water quality parameter of interest in this study was the salinity. The Dames & Moore water quality model, WQUAL, was employed to estimate . the salinity distribution in the region of the causeway under specified flow conditions. D-4 ' The model .WQUAL is an IFD model similar in concept to the TIDAL model discussed earlier. The governing equation, when solved with appropriate boundary and· initial conditions, and using water velocities and heights produced by TIDAL, yields the time history of the local values of the water quality parameters. APPLICABILITY AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MODELS Both the TIDAL and WQUAL are depth-averaged models, and this represents their single most pt'"ominent theoretical ·1 imitation. In essence, the mode 1 s· therefore are most sui tab 1 e for water bodies with near-uni fonn condition with depth at any location (for water bodies with little or no stratification). In the presence of stratification, the depth- averaged naturL of the predictions needs to be accounted for in inter- preting them. From the evidence available (Chin et al. 1979}, it is seen that the water body in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay and Simpson Lagoon is a well mixed body of water and that it is rather shallow. It is possible that • certain oceanographic and meteorological conditions may lead to weak stratifica-tion (Chin et al. 1979); however, any such stratification is likely to be of short duration especially in comparison with the transport and residence time scales for the bay. For adequate resolution of the water body of interest, compatible with the constraints of computational costs, a discretization grid size of typically 305 m {1000 ft) \'las employed in the vicinity of the causeway and of 610 -915 m (2000 -3000 ft) in regions remote from the causeway. Because only one value of water column depth is specified per gri.d cell, the model simplifies the irregular bathymetry in terms of rectangular prisms. The simulated grid node values will thus be representative of a water column typically 305 by 305 m (1000 by 1000 ft) in horizontal extent an~ should not be interpreted as local point valueso D-5 • There are also some practical considerations that9 though not being limitations of the model, may yet limit the validity of the predic- tions. TIDAL and WQUAL are very general and compr~hensive models. Ideally, they need very detailed and sophisticated level of input. This relates to the initial and boundary conditions, time histories of the flow rates and pollutant loads, the tidal and current history at open boundaries and surface winds, diffusivity, and bottom-friction coefficients throughout the field of computation. Almost always, for any practical application, these inputs to the required detail and reliability, are not available. Thus, simplifying assumptions need to be made and these, in turn, limit the quality of'the model predictions. This fact is of considerable importance both in comparing the predic- tions with the field data and in relating the predictions to the likely behavior of the water body. 3.0 CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE MATHE~mTICAL MODEL Within the resources available for this study, it was not possible to calibrate or verify the model. with local data. The models TIDAL and WQUAL have been, of course, verified at other sites and these results are. available in published literature (Runchal 1978, Dames & Moore 1977, Dames & Moore 1978) • . An attempt was made to verify the TIDAL model with some available storm surge data (Intersea Research and Ott Water Engineering 1980); however, this attempt had to be abandoned because of 1 ack of adequate 1: ime and boundary condition input. The predicted comparisons between the so-c a 11 ed historic case ( pre• causeway situation (see Section D-4.0 for description of cases) and the existing causeway agree in their qualitative and overall quantitative features with the ava i 1 ab 1 e data· (Spight 1979) • Furthermore, the predicted currents, as a fraction of the prevailing wind speed, are in general agreement with the recorded observations (Woodward-Clyde 1979) and other numerical simulations (e.g. Callaway 1976). D-6 It should be noted here that the primary objective of the present study was a comparative evaluation of alternative causeway options. Although the predicted results may not in themselves be verified, the predicted differances between the various options can still be relied upon with a certain measure of confidence for practical decision. This approach can be generally substantiated on theoretical ground. Fur~hermore, a fair amount of sensitivity studies were conducted to provide a~ additional measure of confidence in these predicted differences. Details of these studies are given later. ·4.0 CASE STUDIES SELECTION OF THE STUDY AREA The two major fresh\'later sources for the region of concern are the Sagavanirktok and the Kuparuk Riverso .The offshore intrusion of the existing PBU causeway is on the order of 2288 m {7500 ft). The study area was se 1 ected primarily with the consi deration of these features ... The selected total study area is shown in Figure D-1. The extreme shoreward extent of the study area ~ras placed approx·imately 3.2 km (2 mi) beyond the Sagavanirktok and Kuparuk Rivers. In the offshore direction, the study area boundary was selected to about 12.2 km (7.6 mi) from the shore, \'lhich corresponds to roughly 5.3 times the offshore extent of the existing causeway. It was felt that with this selection of the study area, the region of the immediate vicinity of the causeway will be largely unaffected by minor perturbations or uncertainties in the boundary values. It was noted during the preliminary stages of the study that the impact of the causeway was 1 imi ted 1 arge 1 y to a region 3 .2 -8.0 km (2 - 5 mi) in the vicinity of the causeway. Thus, for ease of pre- ~entation of a result, a smaller zone of the total study area was selected for graphic and illustrative purposes. This is also shown in Figures D-1, D-3, and D-4. Note that all of the figures in Section D-6 show only this subsection of the total study. D-7 SELECTION OF SCENARIOS The modeled· scenarios incorporated three varying parameters: (1) the wind condition (speed and directioh); (2) amount of flow from rivers in the area; and (3} the physical set-up of the causeway. Ail other required paramet~ers in this study were peld constant (e.g. bottom friction, dispersion coefficient). The effects of a 6.1-m (20-ft) breach in the existing causeway were computed analytically and, hence, do not appear in this discussion. Four wind conditions were taken into account. These conditions were felt to be typical of prevailing winds in the area. Two 11 Calm wind 11 conditions and two storm conditions were modeled. River discharge input was taken at both a peak flow period (Jtme), and also at a lower flow period (July-September). A detailed description of input for fresh wateYr from river discharge and the various wind conditions is given in Section D-5.0. The four physical set-ups which were investigated include: (1) his- toric case -no causeway; (2) existing causeway; {3) extended causeway (dh·ectly north to the 3.7-m (12-ft) \'later depth contour line); and (4) existing causeway with an island (at the 3.7-m water depth contour line). These options are shown in Figures D-2a through D-2d. Table D-1 summarizes the cases modeled. Not all combinations of parameters were used. The cases selected, however, give a good indication of the impact of varying the individual parameters, and generalizations may be made from the results obtained. 5~0 INPUT FOR THE MATHEMATICAL MODELS SPACIAL AND TEMPORAL SPACING The finite-difference grid fer TIDAL and WATER models, superimposed on the study area 9f the causeway is shown· on Figure D-3o The grid size D-8 c ' \.0 TABLE D-1 MODELED CASES ____ _!Ugh River o·ischarge low R1ve~_pis~harge Wind 10 Knots 10 Knots 25 Knots 25 Knots 10 Knots 10 Knots 25 Knots 25 Knots Condition at 60° at 240g at 60° at 300° at 60° at 240° at 60~ at 300° Physical ~~-Up Historic Case - No Causeway X X X Exis.t.ing Causewa:y X X X X X X Causeway with Extension X X X X v X .... Existing Causeway with Island X X is seen to vary ft:om 305 -1219 m {1000 .. 4000 ft)... The ·boundaries of the grid do not correspond exactly to the physical boundaries of the water body; this is a consequence of the cartesian grid employed in the models. Of necessity, this ·will cause minor distortions -of the flow pattern in the vicinity of the boundary. However, the general pattern Qf the flow is not likely to be affected~ After experimentation with a range of values~ tim~ steps_ranging from 180 -300 s were employed for TIDAL simulations and from 5000-30,000 s for WQUAL simulations. These values were selected to satisfy the requirements of the computational stability, economy, and adequate resolution of the physical processes involved. BATHYMETRIC INPUT An important input required by the model is that of 1 ocal depth of water based on a common datum. This input was obtained from NOAA maps (Numbers 16061 and 16062) over each of the grid cells of Figure D-3. Bathymetric input to the model was provided with respect to the mean lower low water (MLLW) datum. The resulting bathymetric ~ontours are shown on Figure D-4. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS At the land boundaries of the model, the specification of the boundary conditions was that of zero nonnal velocity component and zero f'lux of the salinity {i.e., zero nonnal gradient of the salinity concentra- tions). These are the natural and widely employed boundary condit·ions. At the open-sea boundary, the specification of the boundary condition was rather difficult especially in tha absence of the lack of any field-specific data. A number of options were tried including: -Flow through boundary with zero nonna1 gradient of the mass flow ratee D-10 -Fixed depth -with no change in the depth of water· with time either uniform for all locations or varying from one location to another. - A specified gradient of n -the departure from the mean depth according to the relation where n8 , n8 _1 and n8 _2 are, respectively, the value of n at the boundary, at the nearest inside grid node and the next- nearest inside grid node. -Specified velocity influx at the boundary. Results of the~e are presented in later sections. The ambient sea concentration of the salinity was taken to be. 28 ppt (Chin 1979). FRESHWATER INPUT The salinity near the Prudhoe Bay dock is a function of the input of fresh water from the Putuligayuk River at the west and the Kuparuk and Sagavanirktok at the east. The Putul igayuk and Kuparuk have daily records of dischar·ge in the ocean (USGS). The flow rate at the gaging point of the Sagavanirktok (161 km, 100 mi, upstream from the mouth) is not representative of the discharge of the river in the ocean; therefore, an estimate of the total val ume of fresh water based on the ratio of the drainage areas was needed. Th~ flow rate of rivers in the northern part of Alaska is roughly proportional to the drainage area to the po\"ler of 0.8 (USGS, 1979). The flow rate of the Sagavanirktok River give~1 in the USGS tables is associated with a drainage area of 5698 km 2 {2200 mi 2 ). The D-11 total drai.nage area of the Sagavanirktok is approximately 14,245 km 2 (5500 mi 2). "This yields to a total freshwater discharge in the ocean . of about two times the flow rate measured at the gauge. The representative high flow rates used in the study are the average of the June flow rate for the years 1970-1977 {USGS records). Q = 304 m3ts (10,738 ft 3/s) (Kuparuk) Q = 12.3 m3/s (435 ft 3 /s) (Putuligayuk) Q = 2 x 206 = 412 m3/s (14,554 ft 3/s) (Sagavanirktok) The representative low flow rates used are the· composite monthly averages for July, August, and September for the years 1970 -·1977 (USGS records)o Q = 25.2 m3Js {900 ft 3/s) (Kuparuk) Q = 0.4 m3/s {15 ft 3/s) (Putuligayuk) Q = 2 x 102.5 = 205 m3ts (7335 ft 3/s) (Sagavanirktok) A value of zero salinity was taken for the river discharge. WIND CONDITIONS Si nee the wind appears to be the rna in driving force in generating currents in Prudhoe Bay and Simpson Lagoon, four separate· wind .condi- tions were chosen for this modeling effort. Jwo 11 Calm 11 condition winds were taken at 10 knots {5.15 m/s, 16.88 ft/s): one at 6Q 0 from true north {ENE) and the other at 240° (WSW). Available d~ta (Ott Water Engineers 1980) indicates that wind speeds in a summer storm are aroum;t 25· knots (12.87 m/s, 42.19 ft/s). This speed was also taken in two directions: 60° from true north (ENE) and 300° (WNW)o D-12 WIND STRESS COEFFICIF:::NT The relationship governing wind stress T0 , is usually of the fonn:· 0 T = Pa c0 U2 _Q_ lUl where c0= drag coefficient Pa =density of air U =wind velocity (at the 10m, 33ft, level) Several studies {Wilson 1960, Keulegan 1951, Van Porn 1953) indicate that the drag coefficient, c0 , has a velocity dependence of the fonn: where A and B are constants and U0 = critical wind velocity below which c0 = A. The wind stress coefficient, k, however, involves a density ratio and has. the fonn: k = P /P [A+B(1-U /U)2] a w o Wilson (1960) correlates the work of numerous investigat~rs in an attempt to dete·rmine the value of the coefficients A and B. It appears, from the above .investi.gation, that the following values for A and B are indicated: -3 A = 1.0 to 1.1 X 10 -3 B = 1.2 to 1.8 X 10 In addition, the works of Keulegan {1951) and Van Dorn (1953) indicate that the critical wind velocity, U0 , is between 21 and 26 km/hr (13 and D-13 16 mi/hr). The density ratio, Pa/ Pw for st~ndard condition (20°C and 760 mrn Hg) and for seawater is taken to be: .The wind stress coefficient is obtained from the relationship: k = [CSKl + CSK2 (1-U 0 / U)]2 x 1.17 Va 1 u.es of CSK1 = 1.0 x 10-6 and CSK2 = 1.4 x 10-6 where determined by nbest fit 11 of real hurricane data {FSAR 1973), and the critical velocity, U0 is taken as 15 mph. BOTTOM FRICTION COEFFICIENT A consideration of the bottom friction coefficient on the basis of . Manning's work (1891) for open channel flow indicate that the b~ttom friction coefficient is inversely proportional to the one-third power of depth"' k = bottom friction coefficient n ~ Manning coefficient = dimension constant {1 in the metric system, 1.489 in Engl·ish system) H = water depth AccoriJ·:ng to Chow {1953) the value of the Manning coefficient varies between Oe016 and 0.025. A value of n = 0.02 has been used in this study. D-14 CO~IOLIS FORCE The Coriolis parameter depends only on the latitude of the point considered: f = 2 n sin w where n is the angular speed of the earth and liJ the 1 atitude. In this modeling study the average 1 atitude of the area of concern ' is approximately 70°. The corresponding Coriolis parameter becomes: f = 1.37 x 10-4 rads/s TIDAL INPUT All the available evidence (e.g. Chin et al. 1979, Callaway 1976} indicates that the circulation patterns in the region of interest are dominated by the wind forces and that tide is of minor importance. Therefore, the tidal component was ignored for this study. DISPERSION COEFFICIENT Based upon the nature of the water body and the spatial and temporal scales, a value of 4.7 m2/s (50 ft 2/s) was selected for the dispersion coefficient. Sensitivity studies were also conducted with 0.5 m2/s ( 5 ft 2 Is) to assess the importance of the effect of this parameter. 6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 10-KNOT, 60 DEGREE WIND (CALM) WITH HIGH FRESHWATER FLOW The hydrodynamic circulation patterns and salinity contour for the four cases of interest {existing, historic, extended, and island) are given in Figures D-5 to D-15. It is seen from these that in general D-15 the salinity.pattern in the vicinity of the causeway are dominated by the freshwater influx from the Sagavanirktok 'River. The general current direction is shore-paralleled, and the freshwater in.flux- strongly influences the salinity level in the nearshore regions; The .. primary impact of the causeway structure is to deflect the saline water offshore with a later influx into the Simpson Lagoon on the downwind side of the· causeway. These patterns are to be expected on theoret i ca 1 . as well as intuitive grounds •. It is also seen by comparison that the island option has a negligible additional impact as compared to that of the causev1ay .. 10-KNOT, 240 DEGREE WIND (CALM) WITH HIGH FRESHWATER FLOW . The predicted results for this case are shown on Figures D-16 to D-26g The circulation patterns are now seen to be generally opposed to those with the west wind. The salinity in Simpson Lagoon is now seen to be dominated by the freshwater influx from Kuparuk with prevailing values lower than those for the west wind. 10-KNOT, 60 AND 240 DEGREE WINDS (CALM) WITH LOW FRESHWATER FLOW The predicted patterns are shown on Figure D-27 to D-39. The general trends are the same as those for the high freshwater influx·. Quanti- tively, the salinity levels are seen to be much higher now than before. 25-KNOT, 60 AND 300 DEGREE WINDS (STORM) WITH HIGH AND LOW ·FRESHWATER FLOW The predicted results are shown on Figure D-40 to D-49. The-current speeds are, as expected, much higher. These result in narrower freshwater plumes and nearshore travel of fresh water as compared to the low wind casee~ Otherwise, the qualitative trends are identical to those corresponding to the low wind cases$ 0-16 SENSITIVITY STUDIES . The results of the sens i ti vi ty studies are shown in Figure D-50 to D-63. It is seen from Figures o·-52 to and D-56 that the boundary conditions at the three open boundaries of the study area have negli- gible impact outside the. immediate vicinity of the boundaries. Thus, it. can be concluded that the flow patterns· in the vicinity o.f the causeway are primarily governed by the 1 oca 1 oceanographic and wind effects. Thus, for the fjnal simulations, the boundary condition of zerll was selected as being the simplest adequc.te choice. The effect of the Mannings friction factor on the ·currents and salin- ities is shown on Figures D-57 to D-60. It is seen that currents vary . almost inversely, as expected, to the Mannings coefficient. A value of 0.020 was selected as being appropriate for the water body under consideration. The effect of the change in the water depth (to simulate the wind set-up) is shown in Figures D-61 and D-62. It is seen that, as· expected, no significant change in the current occurs, although the salinities, in general, increase because of the influx of a larger amount of saline water from the ambient. Finally, the effect of the change in the dispersion coefficient is shown on Figure D-63. It· is seen, by comparison with the base case, Figure D-51, that a smaller dispersion coefficient leads to a narrower freshwater plume. This is to be expected on theoretical grounds. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION A tabulated summary of the salinities in the viciHity of the PBU causeway at six locations (see Figure D-64) is given in Table D-2. The values marked with an asterisk were deduced from comparable simulations and not direct1Jf from the:~ model. It is seen that, in general, the causeway, as compared to the historic case, 1 eads to change on the 0-17 TABLE D-2 Effect of the Wind and Freshwater Conditions On Salinity in the Vicinity of the Causeway · (See Figure D-64 for Locations) Location 1 Flow Wind Condition Condition Historic Existing Extended Max .. 10 E 4.8 7.8 11.2 Min 10 E 10.9 14.6 17.8 Max 10 w 7.3 3.2 2.2 Min 10 w 23. * 21.3 20.8 Max 25 E 11. * 16.3 20.2 Min 25 E 25. * 26. * 27 ti * Max 25 w 13. * ,l2o1 1Q.9 Min 25 w '26 .. * 25. * 24. * Location 2 Flow Wind Condition Condition Historic Existing Extended Max 10 E 5.9 7.9 11.2 ~1in 10 E 11.6 14.6 17.8 Max 10 w 0.5 0.5 0.5 Min 10 w 20. * 19.5 19.4 Max 25 E 12. * 16.4 20.2 Min 25 E 25. * 26. * 27. * Max 25 w 10. * 9.5 9.5 Min 25 w 25. * 24. * 24. * .. Island 7.8 14.6* 3.2 21.3*' 16.3* 26. * 12.1* 25. * Island 7.9 14.6* 0.5 19.5* 16.4* 26. * 9.5* 24. * *These values are estimated from the computations perfonned for similar conditions. 0-18 TABLE D-2 Continued Location 3 Flow Wind Condition Condition Historic Sl<isting Extended Island Max 10 E 11.2 7.6 7.0 7.6 Min 10 E 18.3 14 .. 3 13.6 14.3* Max 10 w 15.6 11.4 13.7 11.3 Min 11 w 27. * 25.5 26.3 25.5* Max 25 E 18 .. * 16.6 15.5 16.6* Min 25 E 25. * 22. * 20. * 22. * Max 25 w 25. * . 20.2 22.6 20.2* Min 25 w 28. * 2~. * 28. * 25. * Location 4 Flow Wind Condit ian Condition Historic Existing Extended Island Max 10 E 14.1 . 11.8 10.9 11.7 Min 10 E 21.2 19.1 18.3 19.1* Max 10 w 16.9 14 .. 7 15.5 14.6 Min 10 w 28. * 26.6 26.7 26.6* Max 25 E 23e * 23.3 22.7 23.3* Min 25 E 25. * 24. * 22. * ·24. * r-~ax 25 w 25. * 22.9 23.5 22.9* Min 25 w 28. * 25. * 28. * 25. * *Thesa values are estimated from the computations perf~rmed for similar conditions. D-19 TABLE D-2 Continued Location 5 Flow w·ind Condi.tion Condition Historic Existing Extended Island Max 10 E 8.4 9o9 12.1 9.8 Min 10 E 15e5 16.8 18.8 16.8* Max 10 w 0~8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Min 10 w 22. * 21.6 21.6 21.6* Max 25 E 18. * l8o8 20.7 18.8* Min 25 E 25. * 26. * 26. * 26. * Max 25 w 13. * 12.6* 12 .. 6* 12.6* Min 25 .w 27~ * 27. * 27. * 27. * Location 6 Flow Wind Condition Condition Historic Existing Extended Island Max 10 E 2.04 2.3 2.8 2.3 Min 10 E 20.0 l9e9 20.5 19.9* Max 10 w 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Min 10 w 28. * 27.4 27.4 27.4* Max 25 E 19. * 20.4 21.0 20 .. 4* Min 25 E 28. * 28. * 28. * 28. * Max 25 w 24. * 23.3. 23.3 23.3* Min 25 w 28. * 28. * 28. * 28. * *These values are estimated from the computations performed for similar conditions. D-20 compared to the historic case, leads to change on the.order of 2-5 ppt in the salinity in its immediate vicinity and less than 1 ppt at distances from 3.2-8.0 km {2-5 mi) away from it. The extended causeway is expected to lead to further changes on the order of 2 -4 ppt in the immediate neighborhood of the causeway. Salinity patterns of the island option are similar. EFFECT OF A 6.1-M (20-FT) BREACH Two methods have been used to predict the flow through a 6$1-m {20-ft) breach located just north of the dog leg in the causeway. The first, which gives a low estimate, computes the flow·by using the water velocity given by the model near the causeway in the absence of a breach and the cross-section of the breach. The second gives a more realistic estimate c:tnd is based on the predicted difference in water elevations on ei~her side of the causeway due to current set up. Preliminary calculations of wave ~~t up indicate that this factor would add slightly to the head differential but would not increase flow velocities ·precicted below by more than 25 percent. Velocities in the· breach are related to the change in elevation H by the Bernoulli equation: .. 2 v p + + H = Constant (neglecting head losses) 2g pg or V = ./29lll1 Tables D-3 and D-4 show the different values of the flow in the breach and the associated flow in the 1 a goon for different wind coriditi ons. The flow in the breach represents 2 - 4 percent of the tot a 1 f1 ow in the lagoon and thus will have a small effect on the salinity • . Example: 13-m/s (25 knot) wind from the east. D-21 TABLE D.-3 A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE EFFECT OF A 6o1-M {20-FT) BREACH ON THE SALINITY AROUND THE CAUSEWAY -HIGH FLOW 10E lOW 25E 25W (m} 0 .. 00196 0.00232 0.0260 0.0396 H depth (m) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 V vicinity (m/s) 0.09 . 0.003 0.029 0.10 V bernoulli {m/s) 0.2 0.2 0 7 e I 0~~9· . Q-low (m 3/s) estim-ate 1 <1 3 1 Q-high (m 3/s) estimate 80 80 260 320 Q-Simpson {m 3/s) Lagoon 101 101 202 470 Max % change in flow 2.0% 2.2% --3.7% 1.9% C in the Lagoon (ppt) 7.9 3.4 1.6.4 11.5 C outside the Lagoon C expected in (ppt) 5.0 12.3 12.2 20.8 the lagoon (ppt) 7.8 3.6 16.2 11.7 • D-22 TABLE D-4 A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE EFFECT OF A 6.1~M (20-FT) BREACH ON THE SALINITY AROUND THE CAUSEWAY -LOW FLOW lOE lOW (m) 0.00189 0.00228 H depth (m) 1 .. 8 1.8 V vicinity (m/s) 0 .. 06 0.003 V bernoulli (m/s} 0.2 0.2 Q-low {m 3/s} estimate 1 <1 Q-high {m 3/s} estimate 2 2 Q-Simpson (m 3/s) Lagoon 101 101 .. ~;. .. - Max % change in flow 2.1% 2.3% C in the Lagoon {ppt} 14.6 21.4 C outside the Lagoon (ppt) llol 25.8 C expected in I the lagoon (ppt} 11.2 21 .. 5 D-23 Without the breach, the predicted salinity in the 1 agoon near the . . causeway is 16.4 ppt; the predicted salinity on the opposite side of the causeway is 12.2 ppt. Using the second method mentioned above to estimate the flow through the breach, a value of 7.3 m3;s {260 ft 3/s) is obtained. If the total flow in the lagoon is taken to be 202 m3 /s (7200 ft 3 /s), the expectr~d sa1 inity in the 1 a goon with the breach is: S = SbQb + S1Q1 Qb + Ql ~· S = salinity Q = flow rate Subscript b refers to breach Subscript 1 refers to lagoon S .;. 12 ... 2 X 260 + 16.4 X 7200 -260 + 7200 s = 16.25 ppt ~ This indicates less than a 1 percent change with the existence of the breach .. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Several cases of causeway options, wind conditions, and river discharge conditions were investigated to define the impact of the existing causeway and proposed modifications to the water quality in Prudhoe Bay and Simpson Lagoon. The investigations were of a preliminary nature and were primarily concerned with qualitative and comparative evaluation. The main conclusions drawn from the study are enumerated be·l ow. D-24 1. The hydrodynamic simulations show that flow in the area of concern conforms to the· bathymetric contours to a great extent. Current speeds seem to be approximately 2 - 3 percent ;of wind speeds. Boundary conditions do not exert their influence as far as the region of the caus~way. 2. The effects of.the existing causeway as compared to the historic case are as follows: -Simpson Lagoon a. East winds result ·in "saltier" waters. The effect is between 2 and 5 ppt up t~ 8 km (5 mi) into the lagoon and about 1 ppt beyond. b. West winds result in fresher water. The effect is 1 imited ·to 1 ppt except in the immediate vicinity of causeway where it may be as much as 5 ppt. -Prudhoe Bay The effect is on the order of 4 ppt during both east (fresher) and west (saltier) on conditions in the immediate vicinity of the causeway (within one mile). There is very little effect beyond. 3. The effects of an extended causeway as compared to the existing causeway are as follows: -Simpson Lagoon a.. East winds are likely to increase salinities by 2 -4 ppt up ·to 8 km {5 mi) and on the order of 1 P.Pt beyond. b. West winds are 1 i kely to result in approximately 1 ppt decrease in the immediate vicinity. o-25 1. The hydrodynam·ic simulations show that flow in the area of concern conforms to the· bathymetric contours to a great extent4P current speeds seem to be approximately 2 - 3 percent of wind speeds. Boundar.! conditions do not exert their influence as far as the region of the causeway. . 2. The effects of.the existing causeway as compared to the historic case are as follows: -Simpson Lagoon a. East winds result ·in 11 sa1tier" waters. The effect is between 2 and 5 ppt ur.> to 8 km (5 mi) into the ' . lagoon and about 1 ppt beyond. b. West winds result in fresher water. The effect is 1 imited, to 1 ppt except in the immediate vicinity of causeway where it may be as much as 5 ppt. -Prudhoe Bay . The effect is on the order of 4 ppt during both east (fresher) and west (saltier) on conditions in the immediate vicinity of the causeway (within one mile). There is very little effect beyond. 3o The effects of an extended causeway as compared to the existing causeway are as follows: -Simpson Lagoon a. East winds are likely to increase salinities by 2 -4 ppt up ·to 8 km (5 mi) and on the order of 1 P.Pt beyond. b. West winds are likely to result in approximately 1 ppt decrease in the immediate vicinity. D-25 -Prudhoe Bay The effect is 1 ikely to be on the order of 1 ppt ·in the immediate vicinity of the causeway. 4. The effects of an i.s.land as compared to the existing cause- way - a minimal effect (less than 1 ppt) was found under all investigated conditions. 5. 6.1-m, {20-ft) breach 1 ikely to result in minimal change (about 0.2 ppt) over the existing conditions. D-26 D-27 \.'-4 0 r-f I Q ""' • . as Historic Case • 12 ,,, ., ., ~-oi'-..., 13 .. ,.'-· 13 ..... ··········· s \' 10 ....... ...... II s ... 9 II 'Z S '\ I '\, s \ 9 .,., ., 7 ....... 2 · ....... 7 s ........ c. Extended Causeway b. Existing Causeway \ .. 12 '·. '· '· ... ............ ~· 12· ...... ~ \ 10 · .. -.......... s \ • \ ll s\. s 'Z 9 s '· ., • \ 5 ~ 7 4 . ' 2 ....... 7 $ ........ d. Causeway with Island 16 13 -~ .......... II 9 MODELED CAUSEWAY OPTIONS·· ' PBti Waterflood Environmentai Impact Statement Figure D-2 .. D-28 I d I . r..._, ~ ... " ~ t.1 Ll L., ,., ..... • • -~~~ FIGURE D-3 oiOOOO Finite Difference Grid for Study Area .. -15000 40000 \ c\ ,i J DiaD (.A); o· ~~ COQ..."lJ 15000 10000 5000 0 -5000 -10000 FIGURE D-4 Bathymetric Contours in Study Area c. I w ...... -· -----...... ........ ..... ....... ' ' \ \ ' \ ~ ~ ~ • -- .... ----------------------------.. -·-.. ---------.....-....-....-_........-....---- ...... -----------------------------..... __,-~---..-.....-.............. ..-..-....-....--- -------------------/ [..---..... ~, ...... ....... ' \ ' ' ~ --- ...... .. l......J I ":'--/ --/ ----· --_.. -... 0 ---------------------·---·-----_.. ........ ,...,...,.... .......... ..-__ ---___________________________ _.._..,...,...,... ........ ..---~--- ------------------..:...------:--,....._..,..,..,.,.....,...... ___ --------------·------------------,.....,..,...,......,....,........_.-_ ---.....----------------------_.. ...... ,.,._.. ________ ~ ------------·------------------,., ............. ,......-....-----~;::==:.:-=-~ ................................ , ......................... --------,., ........................ _..------,,,, ...... ,,, ...... , ............. _______ _.._.. ........ _....,.......,..... __ ----+~-----_-_ .... -......... _,,,,,, ...... ,, ...... ___ _:. ___ ...-........ ,.........,........,..... --_, __ ,, .,_,,,,, ...... ,, ...... _______ _.. ................ , .......... '.,_.,......., ____ , ___ ,,,,,, ............. , ............. ______ ,.....,.,.../ / ,,~,.,....,., _______ ,,,,,,,,,,,, ______ _.._.. ............. / --~ ....... /---------~~ ..... ,_,,,,,, ______ _.., ............ __ ,,,.~,---~-,,~_,,,,, ...... _____ -/// /' . ,, __ ,,,,, ___ ~---/// / / / ,,,,, ___ ~,, __ ,, / --, ,, ___ , ___ ,,, __ .,., . ... ._,... ........ __ ~ ___ ,,, ................. __ , ___ ,,,, ....... CURRENT VECTORS , ............................ I FOOT /SEC = 1/2 INCH VECTOR 2 4 5 M IL.ES / / - - -------------/ / / / / / / ....... / ---. -/ / / / / / / \ ' .·.··~.: ..... ··. ... MAP SCALES· I: 100,000 FIGURE D"!"'6 ---- -- --/ / / / / , ·H I ·5 T lJ R I C C A 5 E I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLCJW I WIND 10 KNOTS AT a ---------------------------------.,- / / / / ..---- .. I --------.....------/ / / / .,.. ,... - .. ' ... 60 OEG ----....- / / / ./ / / I I / / ,. .. ... .. .. , --....-,.... / / / / ~ I / \ I ---- ..... ...... ..... ....... ..... ....... ' ' \ \ ' ' ~ ~ l ,, - - - - -----------------------------·---·-...... -...... -.-.. "'1r-"'--------..,.... ----- - - --- ..... - - - -------------··-----"" __ __._ ... _ ... _____ ,. ___________ ......, .. ___ -a---a--...---------------- ------- ...... -- ..... ...... ..... ....... ........ ........ ----- ---------,.... -/ ... ----.... ~ ..... -'l-.JI - -I ----/ -------.. 0 -------------------. ______ .,.....,_ ... -. ... ~--...-...-...-,.. ....... ...----- -------------------·-----... ------.... ~-...-,.... ...................... ...-...------ ----------------------------~----------~-~----------~~-,-,.... .............. ~~----------------------------------__ _...,.... ..................... _.. __ ,._ -----------------------------------_...,., .............. _.._.. _____ __ _ ___, ____ _.. ______ ... ___ -.., __________________ _....,.....,......,...... ....... __ ----...- -~ ... -... _ .... p ________ ......... -... ............ ---------...-------.,., .................... __ ------_,, ...... ...._ _____ -...-...-...-...-------_..,.... _ _..~ ';::::=::::.:+-----1.:'~' ............ _ ...... ____ ......._, ............. _______ _.._..,...-..,..... , ____ , .. _,....,, ____ ,,,,, ______ ,_,....,_.....,-____ ,_ ,,_, ____ ,,,,, ...... ______ ,.... ....... ...- .,_~/----,---~,-· ,,,,,,, _____ .,.,~, ,,/// ________ , ...... ,.. ,,,,,,, ____ ..,....// ----/---------...~'-' ,,,,,,, ____ ~// --///_,, ___ ~, ,,_~,, .,~,,,, ___ /// __ ,,, . \ ,_,.. .... ; . \ ,, ........ ,, ...... _/// , 1, __ ......._,, __ ,../ __ , ~,_, ,,, __ ~~,, __ _ . .. _,, __ , __ ,,, .............. _ , ___ ,,,, ...... , ...... _,, CURRENT VECTORS I FOOT/SEC= 1/2 INCH VECTOR ... 2 3 4 & MILES --·-----......... --.,...,...-- y'-- /_... ,// // // // // // -/ / --- -/ / / / / / / -/ / \ ' ' .·~'·~: ...... · ·:: -- --- , --_... ----------_..,., / / / / _.. ---,... ..,.. , I --------------__.. ...-----..-- -- ... .. ' ~ - ' , \ . , MAP SCA!..IS 1:100,000 ~----------------------------------------------~----·--------------------------------------------------------------------~ FIGURE D-5 EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLOW I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 60 OEG .. --------------------~--------.. -·---·--·-.. ---~--...---....,-...-__. --- --------------------------------------------~-----~~--.------------~--~---~~~~~~ ~ -----------...... ........ ........ ' ' \ \ ' \ ~ ~ ~ ..... -------------.... -,... -/ , .... ---"""1~/ -....... ' \ ' ' ~ ---... - .. LJ I -/ -~ -----·-- ... 0 FIGURE D-7 ----------------..-.-...-.---------.............. -----~ --------------... _ ................................. ""---------............ ------......-----------------':!'-....., ........ ,, ....... ______ -------.----_... ...-.---------·----------''''''--------...... -----·------....-~ ... -... _ _.._ ... -..... -;·====-:;· ...... --_. " I I ' '''' ,, _____ .,....,...--_.-._.-. ------_,. '. ,,,,,,, _____ ............ ,....... ...... _...__.-,,,,,, ...... ____ .,.... ...... ,....... ...... ......----,,,,,,, ____ .,....,.......,......./~--~ ,,,,,, ........ ____ ....... ,.......,....... /--.. ,,~,, ....... ____ ....... // / ...... .,~,,, ...... ___ /// / ........ -. . ---~/-~-------...-......... _,, --~//_,, ___ ;/ ___ ,,/~• .,\,,,, ___ /// /// /" ,,~ ...... \ ,,, ....... , ............... _/// / / / . I.,,.....,_"""''----//// ' --, ,_,_ ,, ___ ,,, ___ /// ·~_,, __ ....., ___ ,,, ....... ,_ /// , ___ ,, ......................... -/ / CURRENT VECTORS , .... _,, / / - I FOOT/SEC= 1/2 INCH VEC1.0R .... \ \ 2 3 4 5 M lt.ES ' MAP SCALES, I: I 00,000 -----.------------- --- , -------- ---..,.. I ·' ....... _... -- - ... ' / ,/ / / / / / / / ; I , , EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLOW I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 60 DEG c) I • w .a::- --------------------------... --.. -·-·-----·----.~-----_.:.------·--------------- ..... ...:.. ..... ..... ' ' ' ' \ I \ ' \ ~ :\ ·~ ~ ' -...... ...._ _ ___,_...__......, ____ ....._ _____ ~.--------... ------~_,. ... ______ , _____ _,.,......, __ ~...,...................-...................... _.......-,..., _..,... ...---.,...- ...... -..... -____________________ ..,e _____ .,._,-----...-...-...-...-...-----'- ...... ...... ........ ..... ...... ..... ...... ' -' ., \ \ ' ~ -------- --- - ------------------------.--. ............. -.....--.. ........................ _,_ .. ____ ..., ... ___ __.,.,...,..........,....... ..,.....-.,......_........_......... ·-_____________________ , ________ ,.....,.....,......,....,.-_ ------------------------------_,...,,..,...,.....-_ -__________________ ......._ ________ .,-_,,_,..,..... __ _ -------------~---------,,--------------~-, ______ , ..... , ..... ______ ..,-_, __ ,.-_~ ---..,....___._ ___ , '''' ... .. . 0' ............. ~----------------- -/ /---~ ,,,, ..... ,_ ~ ........ , .......... __________ ..,.....,.- =t:::J/ .. I --/ 1 , ----...... -,,, __ ,_,,,,, __________ ..,.....,...... .,_, __ , .. ,_, __ ..,-_,,,,,, ..... ____ .,-,.......,...,., I I '• ,,,,,, _____ _,_,, ' . --/ ---_,. - '' .,,,,,,, ____ ..,-,, __ ,,,..... __ .... --__ , ____ ......__.. . ',~,,, ..... ___ ,.,......;""' __ .,.,..,......,---._-._---,.,. ___ '\.'-', I '\' ,,, __ //;""'/ "' .,,_,... ,, ........... , ........... _.,......,/ -1,...__......._,, __ ,/ --, ,_,~,, ... ___ ,,, __ .,.,.. . ..,_,, __ ..._ __ ,,,,,_ , ___ ,,,, ........ ,...__,, CURRENT VECTORS I FOOT /SEC = 1/2 INCH VECTOR .. ... 0 2 3 4 5 Mlt..ES ' ~ ~-....... ---... • • .. -..... • •• * ... MAP SCALES 1:100 8000 -----------------...----·-...--/ -/ --/ ..,.... / / / / / / / ........... / ........... --/ ........... ---7 --_,- ...-...-...... -- -........... / / / / / / -/ / \ ' \ ' FIGURE D-8 ---------------------_... ,....... / .,...., ...... ·-·-- , - -------• -----......... '/ / / ........... -----..... I -------------....---:-----..,.-...----/ / --/ / --. / / -/ / /" / / / / I / / / / / ;' ,..., ....... .... / ,. - .. .. ' I , CAUSEWAY WITH ISLAND I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLOW I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 60 DEG .o SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT • 28PPT 0 1 2 3 4 !5 MILES ----·~===-----====~---MAP SCALE 1:100,000 FtGURE D-9 EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 60 DEG -:,.0 0 I ~~ 0 FIGURE 0~10 . 27. SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT • 28PPT 2 f\ MILt:l MAP SCALE 1:100,000 · HIST~RIC CASE I 'REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WIND 10 KN~7S AT 60 DEG ·o FIGURE D-11 21.5 o.o SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AM B I EN'T. • 28 PPT 2 3 4 5 MILES . ~ . . • • • . . ..... I MAP SCALE 1:100,000 --- s.o EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLOW I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 60 DEG .n • 0 27. o.o SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT= 28PPT 2 3 4 ~ MILES ;,, ~·-.~· -··' · ... •'.· MAP SCALE 1: IOO,OOd FIGURE D.-12 .o CAUSEWAY WITH ISLAND I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~H I WINO 10 KN~TS AT 60 DEG ~.0 FIGURE D-13 0 SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXISTING CAUSEWAY . 0 SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT• 28 PPT I 2 3. 4 5 MI.LES ·-.·-· .. ·.· MAP SCALE 1:100,000 HIST~AIC CASE I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WINO 10 KN~TS AT 60 DEG FIGURE D-14 SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXISTING. CAUSEWAY • I 0 SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBlENTt~~21 PPT I 2 4 5 MI'LES • • •• ~ • .-.......-• • • • • •• 0 MAP SCALE 1:100,000 EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLDW I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 60 OEG • 0 I ' .,J::a, ..... _ FIGURE D-15 SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXISTING CAUSEWAY SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT• 28 PPT . 0 . I 2 4 ~ MI'LES .. ··.~-·-- MAP SCALE I: I 00,000 • J CAUSEWAY WITH ISLAND I AEPRESENTAT I VE HI FLOW I WI NO 1 a· KNOTS AT' 60 DEG . 0 I .. .f::at ~· ----------------.·---· -·------------· -.. ----·---·-·-·-·-... -·.-~~"'"--.............. ........, ...,_,.. _,.,., ~ ,...,., ~ ,___., ----..,.,_ - --------------------------------------------_.~~_,_,,~ ,-~ --------------------------------------------------~-~~_,_,,_, --. .----. --------------------------------------------~-~_,,~~-~ -----------------------___ _,_....~------------ - ---------------------. ____ _......,...... ......... ~ ------, ----. .. t't-·-----·---....,......,..-.. ............. -...-..--.------.-------.. --............................................................ .,..... _.,., ., ---..... -~--·------·---·---.._........ ................................... -...-.... ...... --"--:"---..-:---...__. .... __.. ...... _......,...............,..._...... .,,.,. ~ .,--_, ~--o"C-----------·-.. -.......................................................... ~--~ ...... -----. .......... -.... .................... ~.......-......--.......- - -//-··-Q ~~~~~--------------------~ ---/ ~-~,,,,,, _____ ~------· -~--~ I \ ... b "( ''. . I---.... ' ..... -.... '--/-...................... ,,, ............. _ -::::::::;:: I ~-} ~,,_~/---~,-~-~·,~-/·''''''''----~/ I .,..., ---/ /"' ,.,_,.,... ___ -___ .....,, ... ' , ~ '' '' ,,, ____ ,""" ·/ / ----......-,..,..,...,,.,. ______ ...,.,~-... ......... ---, \ .. ',,,,,, ___ ,..,.,., / /~--_...,.,///--...... ---~~ .. ,,,,, ....... __ /// ///--. ,,_~, .. ,,,, .................. -~// ~ /./ -,,, ...... ,,,, __ / l I ~ FIGURE.D-16 0 ·' --, CURRENT . .... -. , ,,, __ ,,,..__- ~ "'_,_,.....,,,,,~_ ...... __ ....__ ..... ___ ,,, ......... ....... , ....................... , VECTORS I FOOT/SEC • 1/2 INCH VECTOR . ' 2 3 4 5 MILES ~· . ;; \ .. . __.._._ : - MAP SCALES I:IOOaOOO __.. __.. ~ ..-__.. _, ~ ----......... ---/ ---y _, -/ .,.., -/ / ~ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / -/ / -/ / -, / \ \ -----------------_.. ,_, --__. --· __, ----_.. ...,...,., __.. ......... ........ / / ......... ........ ........ / / ~ ........ --/ / ./ ----/ % / --........ / "/ / ...... / 1· / / / ·~ / / ~ ~ ....... / ~ -/ / / -/ / / -..... ~ / / --, / ~ -/ / -/ , \ / / / , / . • , , ' , , , EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 2YO DEG l ·~ - - ---.,., --~ ______ ._. __ ...., __________ ...,,. ________ .. ____ _, ............ _ ..... _,. __ ~,.........._.......,.,.,...,., ~ ,...,.,-.,..,..,.. ...--,.,...,. _.....,. -----------------------:--------·--------....-,.,., ...,., --_. ---.......,. _.. ------------------------------------------------~~------,~ ~ ~ -------------------------------------------------~~~_...,,,,...-....------- -----------------------------------------------·--~---~_,,,,,..-..------------------------------------------------------------,~~~--~ ----------------------------............ ~ .......... --·---____ ,. _____ ......,.,.. __ ... ______ -....,--...-..... ................................ ____________ ....-:-..,.......................................................... _,.,.,. -~rd· .... ---·-··----·--....... ----.. .... --..... ........................ ....._......_.._-._ ............... ------------.,-..,..... ........ ..,..,.,...........,......-._........ .,.-' ---___ __... ___ .., ____ ,.. ___ ... ___ ...__.._._._ ______________ ,,;...-.....-..-----/ ,........._ ..... "1lo-..._-...."""" ....... .._..__ ...... _______________ _...,....-.,.., -- -- -/ ~';::.-=:::.:t.._ __ ..JL:":.' ................................. ,,, _____ , _______ _...,...,..._,.., ..-----"o::L:....} ~ ~----.... , ............................................................. _________ ...-""' ......... / ... LJ ... . /----' .. ' ............................................................. _____ _,...-""'.;..'/ ...__ \~-//---~,,~_,,,,, ......................................... _______ ,// ..--.__.. / /////..--------............. ' '' ........... , ................... , ___ , ___ ...,....,..,/ .......... ........ / / / / / / / / / / ~--_, ,.,...._.,....,-:---------...--,_, __ ,,, ..... , ............ ____ ,,/ __. --/// __ ,--_,_,.,.__ . '' __ ,,,,,, ____ ·-/// -__ ,./~ ,, __ ,,, ....... , ............ _~~--/// -,, __ ,,,,,, ___ ~,, __ / ... --, , __ , ___ , ____ ,,, __ _ ,._.._ ______ ......... _____ ,,, .................. ___ , ___ ,, ............................ -,,.._,,- ------..-..-..-..-.......... --.......... ---------------------/ -/ / / / / / / ~ ; / / / / / / / / CURRENT VECTORS -/ / I FOOT/SEC • 1/2 INCH VECTOR \ \ . \ 0 I 2 4 5 MIL.ES ; -• • < ,-' • • • ·' ~ MAf 1 SCAllS 1:1001000 ------------..-_.,. ....- .......... --/ _.; / --/ / / ~/ /, / ..,..,. / -/ -., --/ -/ / / / / / / / / ~ / " " \ .· , FIGURE D-17 HISTDRIC CASE I AEPAES~NTRTIVE HI FLOW I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 2ij0 OEG _,. .. , c I -~1 ·~· ~----------·---------------------------------------------------------------------·-·------------.-~-----~----~-~dL---.-~~. ~~--.-~~~--_,~._ __ _.~~----~~ ------ ------------, -~ 1 I - / I / / -/ ;I' ..... / / "' / -/ -/ -/ -/ / FIGURE D-18 ---------- ---------/ -/ b' .. ' --/ ---/ -.--_.. ----... 0 _______ ..... _ ..... __._._ __ _____ ....__ .... ._... ________ ...__..._. ........... .. -. . ·--------·------------------w---.-.--------------·-•~·-~~~-~~-~~--..--~ ~ --~ __. ------__. ~ --------------------------------------------------------~~~--~-~ .-~ ________________________________ .,.....,:..-~.- ....----------------------------------·-=---·---...- ---------------....------·~--------------~.....-"~· ...... _..,.,,.. --....- _...._,.Jill • • A '" ..,. 4 .................. NL£22 .. ....... .......................................... --........... _....,..__......,.......,, ........ ~-__.. ~ -....... _ ... __ _.,_,......._.__,_ .......................... ________ ...---·· ----. . . _____ ..,...._~ __ ......... ,,,,,, _______ ...--·~ /---· .. _____ .,..,{. ',,,,,,, ...... ___ , ____ ~ _ ... /.~ .. ' ........... _,. , ' . \ \ \ \ \' ''· ,_ _ ___ .,..... .,.,.,.,.. ~ \\\,,,, ______ /.,..... ' \\\'-'''----~/ ~ ' , _,.,.., ___ "" ,......,..__' • I \ \\ '' '"""· ----// r_ /~///_.., _______ ,, ,,,,,,, ____ // / ,,-.,..., _.. ,.,.. _.. ~ _.. --_, r:l,.... _.. ..... -_, -~~ ....... -~~~~/-------/ ....... ~'-'/' ,,,~,,, ___ ..,....//./ / / _..,..../// __ , ___ ~/ ,,/~; .. ,,,,, ...... ~-/// / / / . ' ',..., .. \ \ ',, ............ _/..,..../ / / / .; 1\\, ........... ,, ..... __ ,.... / / /. --; ... -I . I \ .... __ .......,, ............... --/ / / ,,_, .,_......, __ ......,,, ............... _ / / / , ___ ,,, .............. -/ / ,,_,,-/ / CURRENT VECTORS -/ / I FOOT/SEC= 1/2 INCH VECTOR I \ \ .. \ 2 3 4 5 MH .. ES ' - - ~ / / / / / / ' ,_.. - , \ -.. •·. -.. . ·-----· . MAP SCALE·S 1:100,000 EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE L~ FL~W./ WIND 10 KNOTS AT 240 DEG ----------------------· -·-· -·--·------1-1..,.__.. __ .--__. ...-------------------------------·-------------:----·-·---... -----·--------_...--,..,.. .----__. ----_..., -----------------------------~=--_..._...,..... .....-.--- - ------- --_____________ ....._ _________ ..-:::..-...,..;_..._..._.. .-----------.--.....- --~ .., -----------------------------------------------~~~_..._..._...__ -----~. -------·-----------------------------------------------~,~-----------.. ..... ---------~...-~_....--.·---------... . . .. . . . .........,..... ....... ~------------...... ________ ..,........,.......,.......,...,..-.....,...., ........ _.,.... ...,., .,.,.,.,. -...-. ---_..... .. • • .. LiltiifC"'" ....... -.. .................................. --_________ ........ _______ ....., ___ ..,.........,......,.,.......,.,~............ .,., ~ _, . ---_.._ .... . .. -------______________ _... --_.... _.... / ..,...... _____ ...,. --.... ...... ----... 0··---------. ______ ,..... ...---_... --/. /,_-· ----" ' .................................. _______ .... ___ _ _ _......,....... _.... --_..... ,.,-----.~...:._} ~ , ____ , ... ,,, ..... __ ,........_.......,,, .......... __ __ _ _..._... ......... _... _...-... LJ ... ,, ___ _.., .. ,,._,, __ /_ ........ ,,,, ........... __ -...-_....,........,......._..._ ~-,,_// ___ ,,_.....__,,, __ , ,,,,,,,, ___ ~,........./ / _...-----/ ,/////, _______ ,, ... \ .... ,,,,,,, ___ .-..,, / /- -- / ..-....--.--,........,.,,.,.,..., ______ .,......._ __ ......... ___ I\\",,,,,, ___ .-// / / / ,.....__ ~////---...---~,-.. ,,_..,.~, ... ,,,,, ___ ,.,// / / / ---//; ,,,,,, __ /// // / -,,,,_.......,,,_~/ /// ' __ , ,,, __ ,,, __ -/ /·/ ·~_,_, _______ ,,,~-/// :-. ___ ,,, ............... ~ / / ,,_,, / / CLJRRENT VECTORS -/ / I FOOT/SEC•I/2 INCH VECTOR . . . .. \ \ --·-/ / / / / / / .. ' \ .. O---===:i!2 --·3==:::l4.__ .. J M IL[I \ MAP SCAL[S 1:100,000 FIGURE D-19 ----,..... ...-_.... _.... ......... ~ / / / , """ / / / , .... -. ' ' ' , CAUSEWAY WITH ISLAND I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLDW I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 240 OEG 0 FIGURE D-20 SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PF.R THOUSAND AMBIENT= 28PPT I 2 5 4 5 MILES MAP SCALE 1:100,000 EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WIND 10 KNDTS AT '240 OEG 0 FIGUR.E D-21 2 .o SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT=-28PPT 2 3 4 S Mlll~S . . ~ . . . . . MAP SCALE 1:100,000 .o HISTORIC CASE I REPRESENTATIVE HI F~OW I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 240 OEG c:,.O FIGURE D-22 ---- ~.0 SALINITY CONTOURS SALI NI1"Y IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT= 28PPT ~~ I 2 3 4 !5 MILES .. · .. ---.·. MAP ~CALE 1:100,000 EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WIND lG KNDTS AT 240 DEG • • c·· ql ~~ . \O,i . ,, 0 2 .o SALINITY CONTOURS SAL I N! TY I N PARTS PER TH.OUSAND AMBIENT • 28PPT 2 ! 4 !5 MILES ·. L ____________ " ___ . ____ ___, _ MAP SCALE I: 1001000 I ~"IGURE D--23 CAUSEWAY WITH ISLAND I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WINO 10 KNDTS AT 240 DEG I b SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXISTING· CAUSEWAY. 0 SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT11128 PPT I 2 3 4 5 MI'LES .. ·-.~·· ... MAP SCALE ·t:l .... a~~ .... FIGURE D-24 · .HISTORIC CASE I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLOW I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 240 DEG .o I FIGURE D-25 SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXIS<rriNG· CAUSEWAY SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIEt~T• 28 PPT 0..._-i::l =::::il2 -..-:3 ==::i4._._i~ M I'LES MAP SCALE I: 100,000 EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 2ij0 DEG t ?I : 0'1 N v·~o c:y- FIGURE D-26 SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXISTING· CAUSEWAY SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT• 28 PPT 0 2 4 ~ MI'LES ·'·:·----.. ··-.. ··.". MAP SCALE I: 100,000 CAUSEWAY WITH ISLAND I AEPAEStNTATIVE HI FLDW I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 2ij0 OED ., •a:••••••--cw-rrw«arcr a=< • -----·-·-------------·-·-·-----·-·-.... ------~-.-. ..... -;;-"" ____________ ---------·----------------·--·---------------..--.-----------. ........ ....------------------------------·--------------·--,...---,..-------------·---.,..~-------....-....-....-....------ ---------- --------·----------------.... ---,.---------....-..-,.-...-....... ,...... ................ __ ------------------------------------------·----------------...-................ ,.. ........ _ ~ ----________ __, ______________________ , __ .....,. ........................................ -. --- -------------------------------------_____ ............ .,..,. ................ ___ --------.... --... _ ... -..... -.. --.-..... ____ ................ .._--"---------------,..,.....,.,.,....._...,......._ ---- ./ --...------.. ... ... ....... -..... ""---------------...................... ---------/ --/ ........ ---~~ ,,,, ______ -............ ______ ,.._...,.._..,..... ______ __ / --//-,,,,_...., ____ ........_ ...................... """ ______ ,....-.,..-:,---- 1 I b"' I 1 , ____ ... "_,....,, ___ ,,,,, _______ _...,......,......,......--- 11·-----tr-.. ' , , I . _.,.. __ ,, .,_, ____ ,,,,,...., ........ ____ _...,.....,...../~-- ' I - -1 I I 0 ,,,,,,, ______ ,.....,........,..... /- / / -/ /~//./..,.,.--~----,....... ,, .,,,,,,, ____ .,..,..,..,./ /-- / '/--~-..,.,.--~/--------.-~,_,. ,,,~,,, ___ ~/// / ...... ..,.,. / ---///~,---~~ ,,_~,, ,~,,,, ___ /// // -/ -.,,_~,,. ,, ...... ,,, ..... _,.,./ / ......... / ~ ~. ,,,_~,, __ // / / -/ ' __ , ,_,,,, __ ~,,, __ ..,.,. // -/ .,_,, __ , __ ,,, .............. _ // ..... -~---''''' ~ / -, __ ,, ;-• -------..-...------ / / / / / / / CURRENT VECTORS , , I FOOT/SEC • 1/2 INCH VECTOR I \ \ o ....... '====~2 .... ~~=====34 .... _.5 MILES MAP SCALES 1:100,000 FIGURE D-27 ----..,.-. ---------...-,........ / / .,..,. --- , ------------,........ / / / / _... -- I I --~ ---------/ / / / ./ ..,.,. -- .. ... " ----,.,... / / / / / I I / / ;' ' " I , \ I EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTRT·I VE LCJ FLOW I WI NO 10 KNOTS AT 60 OEG 01 5 •• ua: ~ ------··--· .. ·----------.... -r--•-•--•--.,.,_,.. ___ ., _______ ,.~~-----------..,.---_..-- - ----- ----- -.,., / / I \ .I / / ,... ----- --... --_______________ ..., ..... _.., ___ ,.. ..... _ ... ,.__, ...... -...... -.ro-... _.,. __ . .,. ____ ,.. ____ .,. ____ .. ~-..-...-...-...-,.... ....... ...-...---- - ----------------------·--------. .. ..-'J---....---.....-......... ..,.,. ............... ....-..--- - ....... -----------------------------~---------~-_.·-------w---~,_~ ................................. _.._. ---------I ----------·------------__ _..,.......,...,... .................. _.._ -------_____ _, _______ .._ ............................................. _ _ __ _..,.......,.....,......,,........_.. ___ ,._ ..------___ ... w __________ .._...,., ......................................... ________ ,...,,.,, ...... _.. __ ---...--. --_._... ___ w _______ ,..._.._ .................... , ..................................... _______ -,,,.,-_.;;..-__ -- --...----____ ,.._....,...,,._., ____ ._ ___ ......._ .............. , ........................ --...; ............ _______ ,...,......,...... ...... _.._.-__ ----_.. --_.. ---....--.-1-loo'"t ... ~ ....... -;====~ ............................................................................. _____ ,...,...,.........-...... _.....------- i ---- -/ ~;:·===.::.1~----C'•''''."''''"'--------_......-....-...-...-_. ;;====-----.~..:,_ / J , -___ .., .. -, ...... ,,,, ............ , ............ _____ _.._.. .............................. ..,- , ... c::JI 1· _,_ ... , ... ,_,,,,, ...... , .................. _,..._...,.,...,......,........ ........ ,........ I / ·/ - / ~ / / / / - ...... -l I~,_,......../ __ ,_, ...... ..__,,,,,,....._,,,......_ _______ _..,.....,,~ -/ .,,///,... _______ ,, ,,,,,,,, ...... ______ ~,........// / ---,...-~~ ...... -------~~,,,_,,,,,, .... .._ ____ ,,.,,, / _..-__ /,,__..,, ___ ,., ,, __ , ...... ,, ............ .._ ....... ___ ,/// / /----//~ ~, ,, __ ,,,, ................. ~~-.....--/// / -,,,,, ___ ~,, __ .,./ --, ~, ___ ....., __ r_,,, __ ~ _____ .....,_,,,, ........ _ , ____ ,,, ........ ........ ,_ ....... ,, / / / -- -----,...... / / / / / / ' - -/ / / / / / / CURRENT VECTORS -/ / I FOOT/SEC= 1/2 INCH VECTOR I \ \ 0 2 3 4 5 MIL.ES \ . .. ··_. ,......__ .. · .. MAP SCALES 1:100 000 FIGURE D-28 ------------------------------------· ..------..-..-------........-.,..... _.. .,.;.---/ / ...-----/ / / :,....- / .,. - --_.. •/ ;/ ~ -/ / / / ~ / / ~ / / I / / / / -/ / .... --;' ---"' --., , ,.. .. \ .. ., , \ I , HISTORIC CASE I REPRESENTATIVE LO FLOW I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 60 DEG cl I U1 ~, --------r .. . . -.. -.......... . • -• .. .....-....-..-.-------.....----- ----..... -........ .,. .... . .. .. ... • .. --=------.-..----------... -.. • .. .-.....-------------------= rr P---.. .,.._1""_... ....................................... ...----------------------------~~~~~~.-.-------~~ -----=-------...-..-............ ..-------__________ ,._....: ... -.-.-.---..-....-...-............. ..-_.,.._ ----------------------------------·~~"~-------. ~....-....-....-...-..-~ -----· -------~-.. ~,,,, ........ _____ .,......-....-...------...... / / I I \ I / / ,.. - ----------~...-__ ,,,,,, ....... ____ ~...-...----- -/ ...,......_..............-_ • ........ --_.~I I ''·~'''''------....-..-...-....-- -/ /-',_-I •, '" • \ ,,,,, ........ _____ ...-...-....... ....... ------·~...:.... / I . . • ' '' '' ' .............. ----...-......... ..-.......... .. LJ I· 1 · ',,,,,, ____ ..,.-.,......,,... --l ,.,-...-/---~-..---· .,,,,,,, ____ ....-...-/ -/ /'///,.... _______ ,,,.' ,,,,,,, ____ ...-"'// ----~~..--// _______ .,...._ __ ,_,I''\._,,,,,,, __ ,......,........,... ...... ........ -_.,..,.. ...... ~ .... ---.,.../ , ..... /-. \. ,\,,,, __ .,.,...,...... ............ -., .... /~-,,,,,,,_,,/ -,, .,,,,.._,,_~.,../ , I / / -/ .,.. / / / ... --, ... '-I -I '..._ __ ,,, __ , -/. .... _, ___ , __ ,,, .......... ..__ ..... -, ___ ,,, ........ ........ -,,_,, CURRENT VECTORS I FOOT/SEC~ 1/2 INCH VECTOR ... 0 2 3 4 5 Mll.ES • . ---. • ---..1 MAP SCALES 1:100,000 FIGURE D-29 -------------,.!..---------------------_.,...... -/ _... / _... / / / / / / / / / / / / ........ / / ' ----. -----~ ........ ---· -- -/ / / / / / ,.,. \ \ '\ -----------,..... ~ / / ...---- , --- __.. ---------~ ~ / / / / ...--- I ---------..,.---......... ...- ...- / / / / / ~ - -----------·------.---.--- .......... ---/" ,....... / ,. .. / /. •/ / / ~ / I / I I / / ...... ... ,. ... ' \ , EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I AEPRESENTATI~E L~ FL~H I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 60 DEG· d I , w) ,m .o 0 FIGURE D-30 SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT • 28PPT I 2 3 . 4 5 MILES . ,~.'~l ·. ----· 1 ·. MAP SCALE. 1:100,000 '• ~XlSliNG CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE L~ FL~W I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 60 DEG ' c I t (Jll ~I . 25 • 0 FIGURE D-31 SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSA.~D AMBIENT= 28PPT I 2 4 5 MILES •. ·. . t • . MAP SCALE 1:100,000 HIST~RIC CASE I REPRESENTATIVE LO FLOW I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 60 OEG 0 FIGURE D-32 .o b SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT :a 28PPT I 2 3 4 S MILES '.'. ·.-.. ·· MAP SCALE 1:100,000 EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE L~ FL~W I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 60 OEG · ·t!J I . U1 \.0 . ' FIGURE D-33 0 SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXISTING· CAUSEWAY 0 SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT• 21PitT I 2 4 5 MtLES I .. ___,_...,.... . ·.: ..--..!-. ·. . MAP SCALE 1:100,000 0 0 •• HISTDRIC CAS~ I REPRESENTATIVE L~ FL~W I WINO 10 KNDTS AT 60 DEG . . FIGURE D-34 SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXISTING· CAUSEWAY SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT•28PPT o._-.r.:l ==· :::32._._...31:::::::=:=~4~---~ M t·LES MAP SCALE I: I 00,000 . . •• EXTENDED .CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE L~ FL~W I WIND 10 KNDTS AT 60 DEG c I I 0"1' f-1 -...... ---~ ...... .._ ...... ~ ..... ~-.... --.o ..... --·----------·-------·-·~ ....... ------...-~,....,.,.,.,.,.,..., _...,., _.,.., .,.,..,.,.. ~ .,..,.... ~ -....................... ____________ .._.._.._..._.. .... _________________ .. ___ ._ .......... _ .. ___ "'1_1:-~""'!~...,...-"""' ~ ~ ...... ......-. ~ _.,.,.,., ..,.,...,. ----------------------------·-----·----------------------------~---1-·---.-~---~~~ -"""' ~ ------------~ ~ - ----------_, -- / -~ --, /. -/ { ,..,---....... I _, :cJ ' / I -....-/ / / -·---/ / '/ _. ---_.. / / _.. .,.,. / --- / / / / -...... ... --------------.... -------·------------------------.... ----------~~~,,~~ ~ ----------.... -----~~~~_,,,,~ ~ ---__________________________________________________________ _. __ ,_,~---~ --- -------.... -------~~----------~~----------------------~~~~~,~~-·~ ~ -----~,·-·-----...... ____ ........,.........._...._...._ ................... -.. ..... ____ ..... ___ .... __ .,.......,........,.........,.........,...,.. ................. ,_,..,. --..---·--·----........ .c-........ ---~-...... .................................. --. ...... .__...._ _____________ ......,~.,......._...... ........... ...,...... __..., .,.,.., ·- ~_...,=11 • W T ............... ~....._ ...... ...._..-._...._...._ .... __ ..._..._ .... ________ ......, ...... __....._.,._...,.....,......... .,..., ........ .,.,., ,_.... ...,_..._..._..._ ...... .._ ...... _____________ ... __ ~..,...... ~ _.. -- ~---, .. ,,,,,, _____ ...._...._...._ ____ . --~~~~- ~ , ____ , ........................ __ _..__, ....... , ............. __ -...---,_,_, __ ._ ' ., ___ ,,,~,_,, __ /_~,,,,, ............. ~---'~// ~- ,,_~/---~,-~_, ,, __ , ,,,,,,,, ___ _,~/ /, /////~ ____ , __ ,, ,,,,,,, ____ // / ~- ....,..,.,.;.,....,./ ____ ---/~ __ .........._, __ ._, ' ' ... ''' ,,, ____ ,...,... / / / --///_, ___ ,/-•. ,, __ ,, ,,,,,,....., __ ,...,.../ /// _,.,/~ ,_/,~. ,,,,, ....... .....,_...,.~, /// ,,,, ...... ,,, __ / /// __ , ,_/• ,,, __ ,,,~--/// ·~-, .... _, __ ......,,,,,_ /// , ___ ,,, .................. -/ / , .................... ,-/ / CURRENT VECTORS -/ / I FOOT/SEC:: 1/2 INCH VECTOR \ \ \ .. ' \ " o._ .... =====2._ .. .a3====~4 ..... s MILES MAP SCALES 1:100,000 FIGURE D-35 - - -/ / / / / / ---------...---------~ / / / / / ....... ---/ /. ,. , - -- .. ' ' ' \ I EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE L~ FL~W l WIND 10 KNOTS AT 240 DEG I' c:J ,, I. f m} ~ , . ----- -_, / ~ { / / / / ,.. -- - ----- -------------------· --- ---- I / -/ ....-----..L~/ .. L.J ' I -..-/ /----/ '/ ,.. ---_.. -- -------~------.-.c:.--~ . . -• ... _...,....,_ -----~-----~---........ .. ' . ... • ·--... -~..- ...... --~-=-------=-----_.....- ------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------------~------------~--~ --------------------------------------~~~-----·----------~ -----·--·---------------------~-~~~ ~4~~~~~~~~---*_.~~~~ .. .... .. .. . .. -_... __.,._,......,_...._ ....... ...._, ................. _____ ___ _...._.. . . -----~-~---"""''''''' ..... _____ ---------,_ ... ---· ...__......, __ ...., .... { . ' \ '' '' ........... ,....,.. __ ------- ~ , -.................... , ' . \ \ \ " ' ' ' ............ --.. -...-....-} , ____ , . ._ ....... --'' \ '\ \ ,.,,,, ____ _,., ... . I ---"'' ... • . ... .. . . ' \ \ \ '' ', ____ ,..,., ',_~/ ___ ,, ........... _.. ,,,,,,,, ____ ,/ /~~,.,.,~ ____ , __ ,, . . ,,,,,,, ____ ~, ~--~, ________ , ....... ~~-..... /· ,,,,,,, ___ ~,.,. --//,/_, --_,,__ '\ ',,, ...... __ ,.,./ / / / / / / ,. -,..,. // / / / I / --_....,/// \\,,, ............ _/// I 0 -.... --, CURRENT ,, .......... ....._,,, __ ., ~,,, __ ,,, ....... __ . .... _...:.,_......,,,,,_ , ___ ,,, ......... ........ . " ., ............... ......... VECTORS I FOOT/SEC= 1/2 INCH VECTOR .. 2 5 Mla..ES :··~ ~: · ... ; _, MAP SCALES· 1;100,000 FIGURE D-36 ....- _.... _.... .. - -------..- ---..-..- ......... / / / / / / / / / ---- --.,.......,.. --------·-------....-..---....-....---..-----...--...--...--...--_... -/ ~. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / , I ~ ' \ .. \ \ -------':' --·----------_.. --..---~ _,. / ..- / / / / ~ / -/ / _.,.,. --- -, I - ---------_.... _.. --...-...-_, / / / / / --- --------.,-. ,.... / / / . / / / ~ / /' , , , --------· \ 4 \ ., . EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE L~ FL~W I WIND 10 KNDTS AT 2ij0 OEG ·-.. I 1 ?l 0) '4 i FIGURE D-37 SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIEN1' = 28PPT 0 I 2 3 4 5 MILES ... :........---·"" .. . ··:. MAP SCALE 1:100,000 • EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE L~ FL~W I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 240 OEG ... 0 FIGURE D-38 . 9 _ ... SALINITY CONTOURS SAL I N I TY I N PARTS PER THOUSAND ·AMBIENT= 28PPT .9 2 3 4 e, MILES 1-... ·'·'·· .• MAP SCALE 1:100,000 EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE LO FLOW I WIND 10 KNOTS AT 240 DEG • ~·-,----~-------------:------------------. FIGURE D-39 SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXISTING CAUSEWAY 0 SALINITY IN PP.RTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT• 21 PPT 2 3 4 5 MI'LES .·. ·.·.·-.· MAP SCALE t:IOO,OOO EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE L~ FL~W I WIND 10 KN~TS AT 2ij0 DEG --··-·-·--·--------------.... _ ... _ .. ______ .., __ ... .,. __ "'1~ .. ...,-a.--.. ~-..-..--------------------------------... -·-·-·-··-·-·--·-·-----------·--.... -... ---.... ~...-_.;--....-....-,.. ......... ...-........ ,..... ,.... -------------~ - ----· .. ·---·-··-·------·-------... -·--------------------..-----,.... ....... ,....,.,.. ....... -------------_. - / ,.. t r ' , , I -" -, -" .... ~ ..... ' ' .... -- ... -,. / ---.------..,. / b/ .. I - -I -/ --,... -- 0 ----·--· -·--------c-·---·----.. -...... --... -·---·--... -··-------.---... -""1:...-..-..---,....,.,. ..................... ..-..-----_____________ ,. _____ .. -.. _o.~-... _ .. -:r:o ... _.,. ___ ............ --c--.,.. ___ ,. ______ .., ________ ,......,.,... .,.,.,...... ....... _. --• . .-..--------·---._-......... r------~-... --,.. ... _,. ____ oll' _____________ --..,.,..,.. ....... ...-_ ..-..-..-__________ ,.. ___ ::o ___ ...__....._ __ ..._.._ ____ ,.. ... _,. _______________ --////..-.-..----------------------------. ----,....,.-..-.--..-..----... -~--------.. .. ~ .... .._ ...... ..._ ....... ..._ _____________ ,..--.,.-..----- ·~;::====~, ....................... -.-·------...... -----------....... ,... _. ,,,,_~--------...-...----------,...--..-, .... ---+-----..... _,, ...................... _______ -.............. ..-1 ... --' ..... -.... _____ ,,,,, _______ ,.,..,.. ,... ' ~ . . ,,, ....... ~,, ______ ..,./ ,...... ~,~~,----~~ .,,,,,,, _____ // / ,..,..,..,., __ ... ___ .,.. __ ........ _, .,,,,,, ___ -,,,. / -~, ___ ,,~, ,,,,,, __ ,,,,..,.. -~ ,_ ,,,,,, __ ,.,/ / --... I •• I '...__......_,, __ ,./ / __ , ,_, ,,_~_,,, __ -/ _, _, __ ,,, ............. _ / .. ___ ,,,, ....... - ' .... _,, CURRENT VECTORS 5 FEET/SEC•2/3 INCH VECTOR .. ... 2 3 4 5 MILES ----_. ---_. _. ..,. - / / / / / / /'/ / / / / / , I \ • . .· . . . ___.,_ .~·.,f .. MAP SCALES t:IOO,OOO --- - - , ' ------ ,- ....- ....-..--_. ..,. / / / / ---- I " -- ---- - .. -- ....... ........ .,.,. / / / / / I I / , ' -- FIGURE D-40 EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLOW I WI NO 25 KNCJTS AT· 60 DEG f . ' 0 I O'l ........ ------- ~ , / I ' ~ - .... ..... ' ' ' - -------·-·---~~---------------·---.. -----~---:a. ... -...-..-..-...-...-...-..-...-..-..---_... ----- ------- ----------""' -/ , ... -,----..... b ~ - -I -/ ------... ---------------------------:..-...-.............................................. ---...- --------------~--------~~~~~~~--------~-~~......-........ , ...................... ...-________________________________ ~~~~~~~-------.~,~ .............................. ...-_... -----------------------------~,-.-~.~~.__~~----------~~ .............................. ...-_... ------------------~----------~~~~~~~~----------~ ........................ ...-.------------------------~----~-~-~~~a_._~~"'~""~._------~~ ...... , ........ ...-.--·---~~----=''' .................... -----~ ........ .....------~-~ ...... ---~~===~ ...... --, ~, . ·~"'''' ...... ----~~-~----~,-·I •#• .,,,,,, _____ ~--~......- ~-------,-.. ---..... ' '' '' ,...._ ______ ~ .............. ..,... I '''''''-----~~..,.... • # , , , . ' ..... ~~~....-_______ ,.... __ ,_,, -;;,...,_....,, ___ ~~---, .... / -... - -# .. ,,,,,, _____ ..,...,........,.... . ' '''' ................ ____ ,......,., ,,,,,, ...... ____ ,..,... ..... ,,,,,, __ _...,.. .......... ' ,,,,,, .... _.,...,...,... ##I.,,, ...... ...._,, __ ,....,.. • ' -I . '' o... ....... ,, ,_.., •• .,... . . -, ... _, __ ,,, ............ _. , ___ ,, .............. ...... , ...... _,, CURRENT VECTORS 5 FEET/SEC•2/3 INCH VECTOR • .... .. I 2 3 4 5 MilES -----.-----------_.. ·-........ .,..... -·--........ - ........ - /- / ...... / ...... / ,/ / """ ,. ..,., .,. ,. /.;' -..,., ..... I ---- --- 0 .... ' . . . . . .. . -. "" MAP SCALES I: I 00 000 FIGURE D-41 ---- - - ,. , --- ----..,.--~ -...... / / .t' ,.. ----... ' , ,,. ------ ,.. / / / ,.. ..... -.. . .. -- ------........ ...... ,.. """ / / / I I / ' . . ,. , ---- --........ ...... / /. / ./ I I I /, ,. , EXTENDED ~AUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WIND 25 KN~TS AT 60 DEG 0 I i 0"1 (X) FIGURE D-42 b 0 SALINITY CONTOURS . . SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT= 28PPT I 2 4 8 MILES ':"""" I • • ~ ~ I ,_ __..,...._...._,"' ~ •• MAP SCALE I: I 00,000. ~--- EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTAT!VE HI FL~W I WIND 25 KN~TS AT 60 DEG • • I b SALINITY CONTOURS SAL I N I TV IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT zz 28PPT 'l...~--===il2 -....i3i===4:8.-.i5 MILES MAP .SCALE 1:100,000 -·-------·-·-·----··-·-··-.... ~-· .. · -........... ··-" ... ·----·-----------------' FIGURE D-43 EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FLdW I WIND 25 KN~TS AT 60 DEG , ~ . c· .. ;~,----.1 r-~~ LIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM ~ EXISTING· CAUSEWAY 0 SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBiENT • 28 PPT 2 4 5 MI'LES · .. ~-·. -··. .· MAP SCALE 1!100,000 _ _.;..._ _________________ ___, FIGURE D-44 EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~H I WIND 25 KN~TS AT 60 aEG --------------------------- ~---------...------z =--=:: 1· ... --, -'---, b 1 > I -......._ -/ /z /----/ , ___ ,...... / / / / / / , / / I / I I ---... 0 • • • • • --a • .. . ------------.. ·-·-·-... --..-.. --·-·--------·---·-..... ~--...-................. ...-........................... _....-----------------·-··-----·-··,..--.. ---------------......... -....-....-...-...-........................ _ ---_.. --·-·----· -·-·----... -·-·-----~ .. ._ .... ____ .., _____________ ......,...,...,........,.--.........,....,.............,...~ ----.,.,.,... ..,.,. ---·---~•~•--••-.~-•--••-.•~~~--~-~~~~~~~-.~~-... _...-.---------·--•--•-k--=~r-~.-~~_,-,.~~-----__. ~ ~ --··-4·~-.------.--~·-·--·~~~~~~~~--.. ~~~~~---~----~_.~~-~-~--~...-....--~----...-...-.......C.•. 8 V I 8 a~ ............................... ......_ ....... _..,. ~~ ...... Qanr' ,......_..., e • ...._ ......... ......_ ......... ......._.._...._, ·-"' ., ---,. -.- /._-,. ' ' ...... "",, ...... __ . ----------... -._. i , ____ ~,_,,,, __ ~ ........ ~~------. , ;1'----' -\ '_,, __ /..___,_,,,,, ...... ___ .. _ _.,. , __ /~ ______ ,_,,,_~,.,,~,,,, ___ ~ /~-~/...---------'I.,,,,,,,,,,, _____ ~ , .... ,._ ..... ,..... __ ..,. ____ .•..•. .,~··,;.,., __ , \' .. ,,,,,, ______ _ --,,~ ...... ---~,-. ~, ___ , .. ,,,,, _____ _ _,~/, , ,, ___ , ,,,, ........ --~--' \ ' .................... ,, ...... __ ----....-...-...---- _... ------ - ---- ---, ,,, __ ,~,, ...... ~--, __ ,, __ , __ ,,,,,,--, , ___ ........................... ' , ,,_,,' -·~ CURRENT VECTORS ' , 5 FEET/SEC •2/3 INCH VECTOR \ . .. .. .... ' ' I 2 3 4 5 MILES . • _______, . •o. ~ • . . . ' MAP SCALES 1:100,000 FIGURE D-45 ---- .. - -- --.....- .....-........ ........ ....- ....-....-...... / ..... ~ -, ~ .... ""' "' ~ EXISTING CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI fL(jW I WIND 25 KN(jTS AT -- .....- , , • ........ --- ......... ..,.,. / ·/ / / / ~ ~ / / ~ , , .. .. , -- .,.,.... .,., / / /· / / / I / / """' , 300 DEG ----------·-----------------------------~ ..... ---,., '-/ ~I 'LJ' _.......,_7 ----/ -----..,., -----... 0 .. I M • • •• -.. ·-.............. 111 .. -... ~_........-,........ _.... ........... _..... • • k I • • II • • a .... -• ~ • 01 • (llloo ....... ~.....-...-'/ ......... _..... --- I ; ----------------P-------------------~~--~-----------.~-.~--~~~--______ ._ ____ ~----------~~--~~----._.---~-.----------~~~~~--~--- ______ ._~~~----------~~~-~-~--.-~.-~-~~._---·--------------~~~~~----~ • -.. -• J • • • • ... .... • ~ = • .,_..__........,~..,.....,_.,..-c.~.- ... ... • . .. ................... ~Aa ,.,........_......_......_, ......... ........_-..._..._ ..... _ ~ -=-...... --.. . . -..._~,......_;..(. ___ ,,, ....................... _________ .. ~---;====: ............. _......,. __ ,." ( . 0 \ '' ',,,_____ - ;;.=::::.:::a..----..1~' ' ' ..., .... -I ' • I \ \ \ ' ..... ' .._ --, - I I • \ \ \ \ ' ' ...... -....-----=-' \ ' . \ \ \ ' ........... -___ _..,. , __ /~ ______ ,_,.,,,, ,,,,,, .... _____ _ /~-~/---------'~! .,,, .. ,,,,,,...., _____ _ ~~"~/---------""'-~' ,,,,,,, _____ _ .-~/~~-....---~~,--, ,,,,, .......... ---~ _,.~/~ ' ~ ,,__ ,,,,,, __ ~-- ' ' • I \ '..._ '' ....._ ,, __ --, ,, . ,, __ ,,, ............. -. , __ ...., __ ,,,, ...... , ._ _______ ...,., ___ ,' ............. ....... CURRENT VECTORS , __ ,, 5 FEET/SEC •2/3 INCH VECTOR ___ ........... I 2 3 4 --------_.... --..--_.,. ----...., --...., ------ - ----------·-- ' , \ ' 5 MILES .... ·~··Q' .· .. •'":l \ MAP SCALES I: I 00,000 • FIGURE D-46 •• ----- ... - ------------..-------_;., / / ...... - , .. --------_... .,..., ..-,.,., ,., ,.,. ....... / / / / / / " ., , • -- , .. .. ... I I -- ----.., .,....,. , / / / / / I / / ; \ ' EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI. FL~W I WIND 25 KN~TS AT 300 OEG . 0 ,.9 25.0 SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT= 28PPT I 2 3 . 4 8 MILES .·p •••. ....___,, .•• ,. -•.• MAP SCALE 1:10011000 FIGURE D-47 · .. EXISTING CAUSEWAY I AEfAESENTATIVE HI FLOW I WINO 25 KNOTS AT 300 OEp 0 SALINITY CONTOURS SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND AMBIENT • 28PPT 2 3 4 3 MilES 21~ MAP SCALE 1:100,000 ~-------------------~----------------~--------------------------~ FIGURE D-48 EXTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WIND 25 KNOTS AT 300 DEG I b SALIN I TY D I FFERENCES FROM EXISTING CAUSEWAY. ·· 0 FIGURE D-49 · SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUS'AND AMBIENT• 28 PPT 2 4 5 MI'LES _.,, r •• ~.:· MAP SCALE 1:100,000 ' \ " • ExTENDED CAUSEWAY I REPRESENTATIVE HI FL~W I WINO 25 KNOTS·RT 300 OEG -9-l-Q I t'%j a at 1 t t r r • r , , , , , , , , , , H en ·m • Cil = , I , I ' ' , I I I • # • • • • , c::: Q !:tJ t r t r , , , , , , , , , , , .. , ttJ a I 1 t t ' I I f I I t I # # # • .. , t1 .... ,,,,,,,,,,,,. , N • • • I = .. GJ en ,,,,,,,,,,,,, • • • I U1 = 0 • • ~~ f t f \ \ \ \ \ l I I t • , I . ! • I I f t \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ t t I ' , t I ·en I , ' ' l ' ' l ' ' \ \ \ ' ' ' I I , 1"1'1 = . ~ a ' ' \ \ \ \ \ \ ' ' \ \ \ \ ' ' I t , = ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' ' \ \ \ \ ' I I I ,., ' \ \ \ \ \ t t I I \ \ \ \ t ' ' f I I .::: ' \ \ l I I t I ' ~ \ t t t t I r I I .... . 1 r·t I I I I • r I I t I I t t , t Cll = '~I I I I • • I I It I I J I r , _,_, / I f , I I I I I I f I I I r t1 .-' -,~.,-~"" I I I I I 1 f I ' ' , f , _,-~· , I 1 I I I I t U I I , , ·ttttslttttrrt I I I r ' \ I I t I I f I i t t I , , I , tttrttrrr1rr r ' I l ~1 • I f \ \ \ 1 I i I I I I , ' , f ' ' ' --\ t t r t r r r , I , I .. ' \ '\ ttttllft , , , r ' \ t ltttrtrt I ' r r ·r\•trrrrrrr r t I , ·•lttflltttll ' t f , I .. ,,,,,,,,,j, t , t f ~ ' ' \ t o I I I I f t I f f I f , l • -C) I , I t t t t t I I I I r t , . Q • I ~ " I I I t t f I f r f ' Q I I I I , , , I ' 1 , f f f r .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,, I I Jt -' \ t I I I I I t t t t f , c~ •.1""/l/ttltlttl r "en I I t I t t t \ \ \ \ \ \ t = • I I r t l \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I t \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \. \ I · , I I \ \ \ \ I I I I I \ \ \ ~ ~1 • , t ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ . --' \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 ' \ \ , " • • ' \ ' ' t t t \ \ \ ' \ 1 \ \ . .. • . . ' \ \ I I \ \ \ \ \ \ t t \ \ ,. ' \ , ' .. .. . I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 t ' ' ' ' ~1 ' . . . . I o t \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ ~ \ \ ' ' ' ' . -.. -.. . . ' ' ' ' \ \ \ ' ' ' \ t ' \ \ ' -. . .... ',, \\ \ \ \ \.\ \ \ ' \ --~_ ... ,,,,,,,,, \ \ ' \ :1 , __ ,,,,,,,,, \ \ \ \ I I I I t \ \ \ \ \ \ ' ' '~'''''' \ \ \ \ 1//lf\\\ \ \ ., ' ~1 1// I t t \ \ t t ' \ /,1/Jttt\ I t t \ -//_..,_,I t I t t t I I #..,. ., r r r t t t I ~1 ,_,II I r r I ' \...__.,,,,/ t r r I '"-'''''I t r \"!>-,11/1 I I I ~1 ..... ,1///1 I I I I .... '·, I II/I I , , I .... ,..._ .... \ t , Ill I I , t -20.00 -7.SO s~oo · i7:so· t-4io.oo .ct Q~ L_ ------·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ c D ......., ...... f -ss. oo -2.so 1.so -35.0~" -22.so -to.oo 2.so 1 • 00 2 .so .-to~ SALINiTY CONTOURS -BASE CASE FIGURE D-51 CJ Ct t'1 CJ U) . .. .. 0 .... ole CJ . II) Q IIJ 0 0 . 0 I • . ~~ ~ c I ......, ~ -.. f -1.SO -3S.OO -22.50 SALINITY CONTOURS -BASE CASE FIGURE .D-51 ·~ :~ -10. OD 2. SO 1 .ao 2 .so 1.1 .oo 1.\f to~ a CJ -... 0 -al: 0 • Mi Q ., . 0 a . a • ' • . I I ~----------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------~----- .. ' .. .. • " .. "' ... " ... " .. .. .. ... ' -... ... .. ' ------- .. • .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ' 4 .. " ... ... ... ... "' .. -..... -.. ----- -- .. .. ... -... --,. - ------..... ... ... ' .. ... ---.. .. .. .. ... .................... ---... ....... -.. ... -------· . . . ..,..._..---------..,_,.---,.,... --------- -- - .... ... .............. -.. --.... ~ ............................ ,,,__.._ .. ,_...,. ........ .,... ___.------....... _.. ...... -----.. .. .. ... ........................ -. ......... -.. ._--------· . ... . ............ ,_.,. ~,__ _... ------...... .,.-..... --- -- .. ... -... ... .... .... ........... ........... ' I ' ' ' --:... ' ' ' .. ... ,. _, .... -........ ... .,.. ........ ' ,,._ ....... , ,. ,. -. ' \ .,. -..,.. ... -, .. -... ... ... ... ' ' \ \ \ ~ ~ '~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ............ .:. -.. , ................. _________ . ___ _..,.,..._,_..,... __ _ ... ........ _____________________ _ ... .... .. -........ --................................. .,..,._._.._..... --.... .............. -........ -.............. '-................. ~ ... .,. ______ .,_. ............. ............ -.................. -.-. ..... --..' ...... e-. .......... ,.,.. ............... .,... ---- , ......... , -.. ..,_.,.I,. , .. \ \ ' '· "' .... ._,,~,~~,~-~~~~~~~ ... ... '\ ...... ,, ............. ~, .... _ -,. , -.,.. ..... ,....,,, __ ,..,...__,.,~_... ...... •• # .. ' .. ,,~, ..... ,.,.,,~~ _., ......... _,, ...... .,...,.., .... ... ,_,..~ ~ ' .... ... ... I • ' ' . . .. " " -,. ,. --.... ------...... _.. --o--__. _.,. .... _.. .... ,. ....... ,.,...,... _, .... .,....,..._,, #!"~/ ..... , ...... ~ I I' /' ... ,. ~ , I I I I , I ' I -------------..- -~,·--------- -.... ... ' ... --' ' '\ ___ ,,, ___ ....,,, ...... __ ..._,,, ..... _..._ .... ,,,_ --..... ' .... .... ,.....,_ ..... ,...,._ -.... ' ' ' ... ~ ' ~ ~ l ) ) ,,,,I;~" ,,_, .. \ ' ' \ ''-' - I \ " "" , I \ •• 0 Q Q U) .... - 0 U) . ,.... I t:a Q 0 .............. ~~-.-~~---~~· ~---,;--~ww~_. ............... ~.~,~--~ .............. ,. .. ~~ ........ ,_ ...... ~ .... ~,_ .... -.~.--.~~----~~----., .. .-.. m. .... .a-r----~--------~--aa--a. .... ~,..---.... ~ .... ,. .. .a~~~ -eo.oo -•n.5o -'3s.oo -22.50 -to.oo 2.so l5.oo· 21.so l&o.oo 52.50 ss.oo 77.50 • -85.00 M 103 CURRENT VEctOP.S -MODIFIED BOUNDARY COriDITION a:· o .. fl• 2 .. FIGURE IP-52 • ------.... ----~----------------------------·------------------------------------·-------------------------~~----------· .. ,, > ·1:,.' j ~ ------·------------·--------------~----------------·------------~_.~------~-h----------------------~-+-~~~r ... ' .. .. ' ' ~ ' .. _ ' " ' ~ ' ~ ' ' ~ .. ' ' ,._. .. -,. ' ... ... .. -_ .. .. ... ... -,.. ............... ~ ---.... "' ---.,., ------.... - 'f!"~ ..... ... ........ --.......... -..-... ................. --..._ ________ ,..,. _______ ,s--,..,..__.. ,_. ..-----------...... .. .... .- .. -.... -----_.. ............. "' I ..,. ..._ ~ ; ' ' ,. ... ... .. ... --......... .,. .,.,. .,.... ..... ' ... ,..,.._ ......... , _..,.. __ ,, _,.,.,.. ..... -,, .,.. ,. ,.. ' t ....... - .... ... ... ... .... .... \ \ \ i ' .._~-------P------------~--,~------------------------' .............................. 0. ................. -. _.. ........... .,...,.. ................. -- ..... -.. ... ---...................................... -... ,., ,. ------------~ .,.. --........ .,.. .... ~~~~~~~~~~~~ .... ,~~~~~~~;~~~~ ~~~-~~~-~-~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~ "\ .... --............. _..,. ... _____ ,...,, .............................. ,.... ....... ~ _,.. ,~ ... ;' ~,~,~~,~~-~~~~~~ ~ .._ ... ._ .. .-I "" ..._.,. ' \ .._. _. '-'-....,..,.. .-_,.-,_.u.._ ...., _,. ' ......... _ ... .,., ..... ' ,.. .... , ,.,. ' -, .... ' ,. -. . ..__,, ............. ,.,.,.,.-...... ~ _,, ...... ,.,.,. , -~, ... ,.,. ,. ' , , .. ------_.,...,..,._....,, _,.//r...,....._ ,. ~ I / / -,.,..,;, ... I I " I I I ' a • I , --- - ___ .._,,_~, __ ,,,, __ ,,,,, __ ..._, ...... , ....... __ ..._ ........ ,, ..... , .... ,,, ... ,,, ...... ~~~~l)l~~~~~ \\'-:\f,,,.,,, ..... ,,_'\'\ J ' ' -.,.. ' C) ~ 0 ... ,~!.so ' -60.00 .a.----.----;~----~r,----------~~r-------------~----·---------,----.---------,-------a.----~------------~ru------~----,-·~-----------r------.o~~ -117. ~:iJJ -35. GO -22. SO -10.00 2. SO IS. 00 21.50 IUJ. 00 52. ~0 · SS. OD 11. SO wt o' CURRr~f VECTOkS ~MODIFIED BOUNDARY CONDITION-U•-0.4 FEET/SEC AT RIGHT-HAND BOUNDARY FIGURE D-53 -* .. ... ' ' .. ' .. ' .. ' .. ... ... .. ... .... 1--·f-----. -- .. .. ... ... .... ... .... ... .. -.... - - - - -.......... .... ,; - ~. -- - -- - ,; - ,.. -,.. ,.. - ...... .... --........ I ,. -.. .... .. ......... ........ -...... .......... .... ' ,.. ' .. ... ... ... .... .... .... .... .... .. ... ' ' \ l .... ... .... .... .... .... \ \ \ I '· ........... -.. ........... --..----._--.-0...---------------...... ~ ...,.... -----....---__. ......... --....... -.-...a...-.-.--.. .... -------------.... -b= _________ .,.,_..,.____. ..-...-...-..- ' ........ -. ... - ..... ............... - .... ~ ... ---------..-------------- ' ,_'-,, __ ,,_ ... .,..,r~~;--- .,.. ... ,, __ , ........ _,..,.,..,.,.._ ..... _,..,_, ........... ,..,...,. ·-r._.-,,...,_,,_,~ ... ,_,.,. . ... , ..,....,...,. ___ __.~.,.... ..,..... ..,... ,.,----~ -- ..-__. __. ..... .,-..... .,..., ---.,.. .,----..- ..,...,.._,, // ................... I / / , " I I I I I __ .... ",...... -- ---..... -.. ' ·~ \ ''' \ ,,,, ..... ' -· '\. \ ' '\ -olt: 0 U') 0 0 0 ~-----------r------------T-----------~------------~.r-----~~-u .... -~.~---------,-,----------~.~--.-.----.-.-,r------------~.----------~------------,------------,_~r-----------~-~r-----~~~ -85.00 -12.50 -60.00 -41.50 -35.0Q -22.50 -10.00 2.50 15.00 21.50 40.00 52.50 ss.oo 11.50 .,to' CURRENT VECTORS -MODIFIED BGilNMRY CONDitiON-11. FIXED AT RIGHT HAND BOUNDARY~ TO 0 FEET AT THE LAST GRID POINT FIGURE 0~54 n • 0.16 FEET AT THE COAST Atm DECREASES LINEARLY c , I . 00 ...... - ' .. .. \ .. ' .. ' .. .. ' ... .. ' ... .. .. .. .. - ------ ... .. ... ... -.. ---- --~ -.. .,. -.... -.... - _____ , .... .r I .. "" .. .,. -.... ... .... -........ -.... -.... -' ~ -~ .... -· , ... ... -... ... ... ... ... ... ... \ ... ' ' \ ' \ ~ { ' --........... -..... __________ ..._.._. .... _, _____________ ....,...,,.., .. ...-_,_,...,.... ..,.-~ ..--,.,... __. ..,_. .,..... .......... -. ---.... -----.-.... -______ ....,..,.............,..... ................ ....-..... ---__.. . .----,..._ ...-------,.,.. -- '~~--~----~~-~~~~--~~~,~~~~ '~~---------~~~~---~'''~~~~ ___________ ,_, _____ ~~~---- .... 0... ... _. _.-------......... ' .... -.--.-... , ,..._,.,..,.._,.__. _, _________ ,_, ___________ _ ... ' ___ _., .. _. .... _______ ;,.-_ \ .,. -· ... .. " \ -" ' ,,_, ...... ,..._ ...... _,..,.....,...,. ..... _ ....... ,, .... _. ..... , ......... ,.-,..,...,. .... .,.. .... ~ ' ..... --' -. -.. -,. ,. ,. ,. .... .. .. . ..__.,.,_, ... .,..,.,.,.,. ... ~ .. -,, ....... ~ .... ,. ....... *'::....__.,,. .. , ' . . ' ------------.... ---,. .,. .,. .. ~ ,. - " , , I' ~-- , / / J I I ' I I .... , ' "" --... ... ' __ ..._,, ___ ,,, --.... "" ........... ....... _...,, ............... ....... --..................... ,_ ............... ' '-' I \ ' .. • 0 U) 1"- 1 Q 0 0 0 -* .. -----------.------------~--.u----·--~--------~--~~--------~r-----··-----r------------~------.a--~~-----------r------------r------------T------------,-----.u----.,~----~rr 5.oo -72.50 -so.oo -tn.so -35.oo -22.so -1o.oo 2.5o t5.oo 21.5o ~.Ao.oo 52.50 e,s.oo TI.SO wt o' CURRENT VECTORS -110DlFIED BOUNDARY CONDITION U• -0,2 FEET/SEC AT THREE GRID POINTS CLOSEST TO COAST ON RIGHT-HAND BOUNDARY~ AND V • 0,02 FEET/SEC AT EIGHT GRID POINTS AlONG UPPER-LEFT BOUNDARY FIGUR.E D-55 • 'I ..... ·~ .... 0 Ct : M Ct .., . . ' .... ,C 11'1' i ' 0 (X) -N a* I 0 . U) 0 .., . .so -. su -1 0. 00 2. 50 tat o' s.oo 1.50 . SALINITY CONTOURS -f10DifiED BOUNDARY CONDITION -oc • 0, jJ • 2 FIGURE D-56 -----------------~=-~ ,~a-a .• f t'1j f"" e = U1 1 I. I#,,,,, ~ , -.I H ::a . G'l 9 !:::) , I I I I ' I I I I , , ~ # , • ·' c:::: Q GJ I f ' I , , ' I I I I ~ , • • • , rfi I ,,,,,,,,,,,,~ .... , 0 :::: ..s ' ' 1 \ ., t \ f f I ; I I • 0 • f N I 0 . .. = en ' 1 r t ' ' ' ' ' • • • I , .• . , U1 en Q -I I , I I f ' ' ' ' \ ' \ ' ' I I • . , tr:r , 1 1 1 r ' ' • ' ' \ ' ' , ' ' I • , ~ r en F r t I \ \ \ t ' \ \ \ \ ' ' ' • • I Q !i . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ t t I I c "'Ti Q ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ ' \ ' t I I == -·n ' \ \ \ ' ' ' t \ ' ' \ \ \ ' ' ' ' , ..... r . -&: , '' t t r r r ''''' '1 t I I I 0 :z ..s . . r 1 t 1 1 ' , • , 1 , 1 , 1 r t 1 I c.n it! Q I , I I I I • I I I I I , I , I , I M a .-///11•1111111 I I If ::a I I" ,..-,.....,.... .1' " , I 1 I I I I I I I I I f II &.A) U1 0 . /,.1,11 I I I I I I I I I I I . Q ' \ \ I I ' I I I I I I I I I t I s Q ' \ l I t I I t I I I I I 1 I I en 1,\tf\!ftlff I I I I 1 I \ \ ' \ t t t r 1 1 1 1 1 t N '' '~' \ \ t t t r r r t .t t N ' \ \ ' 1\ttrrrr t I I . c.n .. \ ' fttttftf t 1 1 c •1\•fttrrr:t 1 r r ·tt\rftttltll If I I . ·•ll~"tlttllll, f f -' \ \ , I I I I I I I I I I Q 1 , I I I I I I I I I I f . , I .-/ I I I I I I I I I I c Q • I I I I I I t I I I I I I f z r I \ \ I I I I I I I I I , 1 -' \ t I I I I I t f t t t f 0~ .?////·ttf¥tttt Uc,n I t I 1 t t \ \ \ \ \ ~ c I I I 1 , ' ' \ ' ' \ \ \ ! I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . , I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~1 • I ' \ \ \ \ \ ' ' ' I I I I , --\ \ \ \ \ ' ' ' \ \ , ~ , -' ' ' ' ' r ' ' \ ' · ' ' • ~ \ \ \ I I \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ f , ~ { I \ ' ' • I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ ' ' 1 1 t ' \ ~1 ' • • ' • • # ' \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ , ' 1 ' ~ ' ' . -' -• -~ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ ' \ ' 1 ' l ' .. -··· .... ,,,,,,,,,,' 1 \ ... --... -''' \ \ \ \ \ \ ' , ' \ \ ~~ .. __ , \ \ \ \ \•\' \ ' \ ' \ 1 1 ' r ' ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ /111\\\\\\\' f. / I I t \ \ ' \ \ ·\ \ ~f "1//lt,,,.,, t' 111'1\\\\ ', t \ *"//-"'/' r t t t t t t ...... -~1111 t 1 t' ~1 ·_...,,,,I I 1 \ . \ '-'~ ; I I I I f t t ,,_,,!//I I f t ·-~/1///// I I ~ .,,JI////11, I -'\'II!/ I I / , I __ ....,,' I Ill I , -I I • -20.00 -7.50 ' ....,.,..,. ~------------~--~-------------------------------------------~------~ ., ! j , 0 I co ~· • ... .. .. ... • • • .. ' ... ' .. . ' . ' . . ' .. ... ... ' .. ' ... ... .. ... ... .... ' .. .. .. -...... ... ------- .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .. .. ~ .... ... -- -------... -..... .. -.. --... .... ... -... ---.. .,. .. ... ... .. .. -.. ... ... ,. ... ... -.. -.... ... ... I ' ... --.... .... ... ... ... -.. -,. , ·' --............... -.......... _ ... ._ ______ ............ ..-........... .,.. ... .,.. ----... -----.... ---------................. ' ..... ... .,._ --................. -.. ~ ......................................... ,.,. .... __..,...,. .,_, .,.. -----.,.,. ... ... ... .... -.o-... .... ... ... ... ..... .. ' ' ... -... ... .... .... .. • .... .... ..... ..... \ " ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. ' ' \ ' ... ... ... ... ... ... ' \ \ \ I \ ... .................... _ .... a. .. -.-..-----.-----,. ... ----... _.. ... ,.,..,.--... ----... ...................................... ,_ .......... _.. ... .,.,.,._. ......... ----.,..,..,..,..,. ... .............................................. _..,...,.,. .,_...,. ....... --.......... ~ ,-.,. --... .............................................. -.. .,. .. .,. ,. _,. .,. ------..,.,. .,. .,.. _.. .,. --.... .... ... .... .... ... ............ ,..,_ -...... -. .............. .,. ... .,. ,. .,. --_,.,. .,. .,.. .,. .,. .,. .,. .......................................... ' ................. .,..,.. .,..,..,. ... .,. --.,. ., ~ ......... _ _.,. ......... _,._,..,.._ ........ ,...,..,..,...,..,._.,;.,..,., '._ ,. I • -• ' -.'-.. ... -...,~ ... .,. _. _. .,.,....,...,. .-II" ,. , , .... ..... .. , ..... ,, ........ , ..... .,._..,.,. .... .. -... ' ... .. ...... ... , ...... , ......................... ... ... I ., .,. ' I • lllo . . . ... \ ... . • -# ..... ., ..... ,, ............ ,. I . ........ , ..... ~ .. ' ' .... .. .. • • .... -....... ""' .... ' ' ~ ... , ..... , ,. ... , I I I -----... -.... ' \ ' ' ' \ \'\ '\ ,, .... , \ .... ... ... ' \ ' P! .... .... ... ... .. ... \ ' I .1' , ........ ........ .... ... ' .... " .. I I • --- ""' , I I ' .. a -c¥ Cll ~ ca II) r- 1 a 0 a ~-------r------~~------~------~~-------r--------~-------r--------~-------r--------r--------r--------~------~--~~N I -es.oo -2.5o -60.00 -117.50 -35.00 -22.50 -iO.OO 15.00 21.50 110.00 52.50 65.00 71.50 CURREHT VECTORS -BOTTM FRICTION FACTOR 1.11 0.025 FIGURE D-58 I ') .. . 0 ('1 0 U) . ... .. c -o*· 0 ·.;; 0 an . ,... I C) CJ • 0 ~----~~----~------~-------?-------r~-----r------·~------~------~--~----r------~------~~----~--_.~ -22.so -to.oo 2.50 t5.oo 21.s.~ aao.oo 52.50 ss.oo 11.so • -as.oo -so.oo -35.00 MlO' SALINITY CONTOURS -BOTTOM FRICTION FACTOR • 0.016 FIGURE D-59 .. -o. 00 2. so 1 .oo 2 .so l Mt o~ SALINITY CotfTOORS -BOlTOM FRICTION FACTOR .., O.o25 FIGURE D-60 ·-·---·--··-------------- . · 0 a • 0 111 • Q "' , .. :._·-A, I . ... .. .. .... .... --.... .... ..................... ,.p ............... -.. .... _._. .... ____ •• _ .. _, .... _ ... __________ ..,._ ,.,... ..... ..,.,. ...... ,..,.. ..... ,..,.. .,_.. ..... __. .,... .... --... ... ... ........ ' .. -.. -... --.... ----~._ ............ -. ........ _ ...... ____________ .. ---....---------,....,..,... ........ ..,... ..... ------·- ' ' .. . ·-... .. ... .. ............... -............................................. ._ ..... _. __ ... _ ............ _ .. __ ---.,.. .... .,.. .... ,... ..... .,.. __. ,.,.. .... ------·~ ....... --... ' ' ' ' ' " . ' ~ ' ., . ' ' ' .. .... ' ... ... ... ' .. .. .. .. .. .. "" .. ' ' ' ... ... ~ ... ... ... ..... ... .. __ .,....,.._ ... ... --,. , , _. .,. ... *" .,. .,. ...... -.. .... , , ......................... .,. ... .,..,. ................. _.. .... _ _...,.,_,..,.. ............. _ ..... ._0.. ...................... --.,.., ........ ........ ---... --.... .. ... --... .. .... .... .. .... ----... --.. ... ... -.... ......... ..... ' -... - -as.oo -12.50 -60.00 7.50 --.. ... ... ... .. ... ... ' \ \ ....................... -............. --. ............... ~,.,., .......................... ---.,.,.. _..---,_.,.,... .... .. ... .. .. -.... ----.. -................... _ _...,..,. • .,...,. ....... e-....... ...----...-_.,..,...,.,. ...... • ... .. ... ... ... .. ... .... .. -................. --...... __ .,...,...,. ................... ---,..,. ......... ---,... ---...-- ............................................. --. ................. .,. .,. ..,. ... ___ ... ... .,... ~ .,.. .,-tJIII"*"' _,.,. --.... .... .. .. .. .. .. -.................................. ~ .................... --,.. _,. *""" , ~ --c.. .................................................... -... .,...,. ............... ..-.,. .,. 4P"' Ill""' , ,... --............. .,..,.0 .................. ._ ....................... .,.. ...... ,.. ....... --,.,..,.. , ~ _,, --..... ' ....... ,.., ........................... ' ........... -.. --------~--.,. .,. ., ; , / ;' --...... _,, , ... , ............... ,_'":" ______ -.,,.~I' I'/ .. _______ ,, ____ ,_, __ ,~ .... ------ ~~-,r~, .... ,,,,~,~,~~~~~~ •. " . ... , . .. .. ' ... ,, .............. .,. ' . ,,, ... , ....... .,. - -,. "' , I' I -.,.. .,.. ,. ., I I --.. .. , I I ' .. . ' , -s5.oo -22.50 -10.00 .: . .. ----• .£.. • 2.50 actO' . . . • • . ~ , , l .oo 21.50 aao.oo CURRENT VECTORS-ALL DEPTHS.INC~EASED BY 2 FEET • FIGURE D-61 • _______ .... ,,,, ---_..__,,,, ...... _______ ..._,,, ...... -----............ , ...... ,~ ____ ,,, ................... ..... _....__,,,,, ... ,_ ........ _,,,,, ....... _ .... --, ..... ,.,.., ' .. # I 52.50 ss.oo 7 .so -c* Q . U) 0 UJ ,.... I .. .. .. - ' ' ' . ' ' '\ ' .. ,, ... -- .. .. .. ... ' ' ... .... ' ' ... ' .. -. .. .. ... ... ___ , ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ; ........................ ,. .. , ........ ..._ ______ .,..,. ................. '' .. .... -- -- - ... --... ... --........................ -. ............... ._ ....... c.-•• --... -... -·-------------..... .,... ...----_.,.. __. _.,.. ,..,. __. .a--...................... ..... ... W.O. ... -...................... -. .............................. ____________ ...... __..___...,...._._...,..,...---t ..... .,.,... ..... __.. ~ --........ ---.... ... ~ " ' .... ... .. .................................................... --.... .. . . . ..... .... .,... ---.,... ........... __. __. ,._...,.. .,... ......... .,_ ............. ----. ' ' ' ... --... .... ........... ., .... ... .. .... -----... ........ ... ' .. ... .... .. ' ' ' \ ............. -................................................. ..-....... ..-..................... ---_,.. .... __.,.---__. .............. -....... -.................................. .,.,..,_..,..,._.. .................. __.--~.,...,... _,..,.... • ... -.......... -....... -................................ .,..,. ....... .,_ ......... --........... .,.-.,... _,.,...,.. .... -......... -................... -.. ......... --...... .,. .,. ... .,.._... ..... ... ... .... ,.. .,., _.,. .,. ..... ................... _ ............................... ,.~ ...................... .,...,..,.,,--.,. .... ....... -... ---........ --........... --.. ...... --...... ,.,. ............... .,. ,.... .,. --., ""' , .,. --.... ___ ._ ...... .,. ....... _ ... _....,. ....................... .,.. ...... _. .... ..,.----.,.Ill"~##"';' .... .... ... , ...... ,., ... ~ ......... , .... , ........................... .,. ... ,.....,..,.;" "',.,..-- , __ .,I • • • ' ... ,...,_,..__'":" ______ -r' _,..If';';'/.,. .. ........ , , ..... .,. ....... -' ' -.. .--...' .... .._ ........ .,..,... ............ .,.. .,. ~ "' ~ I ~----~,~---_,_, __ ,_, _____ _ ...,,.,. ....... ~,, •:..• .. I' .. , ... .,., .... , ................. ~ ... , . .. . ............ ,, ................ , --a--I , ' ________ ...._,, ....... -------"''''' ________ ,,, ........ ---·--_....,. -..... -- ---- --..... ...... ' ' -.... ....... ... ' '-.. .... ...................... ...... , ............. -....-... ' ... ... .... -... .. .. .... --,. ... .. l -... --... \ '\ . , .......... , ...... .,. ' .. I I ' .. . .. .. , • • • • • • , . 0 an ,... ' 0 c i:) ~--------r---------r-,--------r---------~--------.---------.---------~--------~--------¥---------~--------~--------~--------~----~N I -85.00 -72.50 -60.00 -7.50 -!JS.OO -22.50 -10.00 CURRENT VECTORS -All DEPTHS .JNC~EASED BY 2 FEET FIGURE D-61 2.50 ectO' t5.oo • 2 .so 110.00 52.50 G5.00 7 .so • ............... ......... -------------i...--------------------· ··--·----·--·----·-·-------.. ---··-· c. I ' (X): cx:l • .. -es.oo -12.so -&o.oo -~7-so -35-00 -22.50 SALUUTY CONTOURS -ALL DEPTHS INCREASED BY 2 FEET FIGURE D-62 ~to. oo 2. so Nt o" tS.OQ 2'1.50 ~o.oo '. 52.50 GS.OO 0 a . 0 ("t 0 an • ,... ... ... . 0 -a* 0 . Ill 0 "' . ,... I Cl p • 0 N 1 .so I I ,. ·I ~:--~. --::-~=-======-=-==---,.::.--=:::a:::c=·-= .. =,w -=,·-•'""'="""" • · u.:w .... w..--.--:oa••...,,,....., •• .-----------~·:;==--------·---IE\II!I...----_,.; ______ .----Ja::=;:::;f. ~ . ' o, I I co: \X), ··' ·--'-------------------,----·--~----------·~•.ao~·:ro:.;;•--•-.•r -2.50 -60.00 -7.50 -35.00 -10.00 2. so NtO', .so 11 • oa 5a.so 65.00 SALINITY CONTOURS -DiSPERSION COEFFICIENT • 5 FE£1 2/SEC FIGURE D~63 Cl a t"' Cl U'J • .... .. 0~ .... o'J 0 . U'J Q .., . Cll Q . 0 I • ----~----------------------------------------~--------~~--------~----~~----------------------~-- d I' \:o 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 m Ln "' "" ' I 32 31 30 29 28 27 ,, 26 25 21t 23 • 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 IS Ill 13 ll 11 10 9 a '7 I 5 II 3 0 0 0 0 0 OjO 0 0 0 0 0 N o m w CY') ('I) ~ N I I I I 0 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000000000000 000 0 0 Cl 0 0000000000000000000000 000000000000 0 0 0 ~ ru-omm,...w~~~"~N-oooooooooo oooooooocooo o o o ru rururu----------mm,...w~~~ru-oooooooooo-ru ~ w m I It I It I I I I If I If I I I I It I 10-NC"'~~W .... COm---- - - ' ·-· • .. MILES 2 3 4 ---~· ...... ~ ---·. MAP SCALE 1:100,000 0 0 0 -N ., 0 0 0 ~ N .. • • 0 0 0 .... N ~ .. ., .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f'l') C'fl P1 .~ .. • • • 0 0 0 CD .., 28000 .,. 25000 23000 21000 19000 17000 16000 .. 15000 ~ I ijQQO 13000 12000' 11 QQ('j 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 l&OOO :3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 .. -2000 -&&000 ' '-6000 -9000 -12000 -15000 2 ~~--~----------------------------------------~~~~----~~----~----~------~--~~·-1aooo .... -co -m o -ru m ~~w,...mmo-rum~~w~m~o-rum~~w~mmo-rum~~w,...m m o - - N N N N NNNNNNMC'flf'l')f'I')Mf'I')C'flf'I')MC'fl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ Ul .FIGURE. D-64 N CD P1 lD ::r Ul ,... UJ REFERENCES Bird, R. B., W~ E. Stewart, and E. N. Lightfoot, 1960. Tr·ansport phenomena~ John Willey & Sons, Inc., New York~ London. Callaway, R. J., 1976. Transport of pollutants in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay~ Alaska, NOAA, PB 261 410. Chin, H., A. Niedoroda 3 and P. Mangarella, 1979. Addendum to 1978 summer environment studies associated with the Prudhoe Bay Dock~ physical oceanography and benthic ecology, Draft report to ARCO Oil and Gas Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska& Chow, v. T., 1959. Open channel hydraulics, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc. Dames & Moore, 1977. Kaneohe Bay urban water resources study: computer modeling, Job Number 4401-034-11, July. Dames & Moore, 1978. Draft mathematical modeling study for Seminal e Electric Cooperative, Inc., Job No. 10359-044-09, February. Dronkers, J. J., 1964. Tidal computations in rivers and coastal waters, North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. FSAR, Docket No. 50-302, 1973o Ver1fication study of Dames & Moore's hurricane stonn surge model With application to Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant, Crystal River, Florida, Florida Power Corporation, Florida, July. Intersea Research Corporation, 1980. Surge height and current time histories, communication from J. W~ Joy of Intersea Research to R. Schilling of ARCO on January 24,.1980. Keulegan, G.:f 1951. Wind tides in. small closed channels, Research Paper 2207, National Bureau of Standards, U.So 1951. Manning, R., 1891. On the flow of water in open channels and pipes, Transaction, Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland, Vol. 20, pp. 161-207. Mungall, J~ c. H., R. W. Hann, Jr., D. J. Horne, R. E. Whitaker, and C. E. Abel, 1978. Oceanographic processes in a Beaufort Sea barrier island -lagdon system: numerical modeling and current measurements, Contract Number 03-7-022-35182, Department of Oceano- graphy, Texas A & M Un·iversity, College Station, Texas, March. Ott Water Engineers, Inc., 1980. ARCO model input surge analysis, prepared for.ARCO Gas & Oil Company, Dallas, February. D-91 Runchal, A. Ke, 1978. Mathematical modeling of a 1 arge water body; Proceed.ings of the Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management, American Society of Civil Engineers~ March 14-16, 1978. Spight, T. M., 1979. Prudhoe Bay west dock extension: synthesis of environment studies 1974-1978. Draft report to ARCO Oil and Gas Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. Stoker, J. J., 1957. Waterwaves, Intersci ence P.ub 1 i shers, New York. u.s. Geological Survey, ·1979. Flood characteristics of Alaska streams, Water Resources Investigations 78-129 • . u.s. Geological Survey. Water-discharge records for the Arctic Slope, Alaska, Station 15896000, Kuparuk River Near Deadhorse, June 1971 to September 1977. u.s. Geological Survey. Water-discharge records for the Arctic Slope, Alaska, Station 15910000, Sagavanirktok River near Sagwon, August 1970 to September 1977. U~S. Geological Survey. Water-discharge records for the Arctic Slope, Alaska, Station 15896700, Putuligayuk River near Deadhorse, May 1970 to September 1977. Van Darn, w. G.; 1953. Wind stresses on an artificial pond, Journal Marine Resea~ch, Vol~ 12, pp. 216-249. Wilson, B. w., 1960. Note on surface wind stresses over water at low and high speeds, Journal of Geophysical Records, 65(10) :3377-3382, October. ~loodward Clyde Consultants. Draft Resul t·s of Processed Current Meter Data~ July, 1979, and August, 1979, communication from K. E. Tarbox of Woodward Clyde Co_nsul tants to P. Hell strom of ARCO Oi 1 & Gas Company, on October 5, 1979. D-92 . APPENDIX E MARINE BIOLOGY 1~0 INTRODUCTION This appendix is a technical support and source document for statements made in Section 3.9-of the DEIS for the proposed Waterflood Project at Prudhoe Bay~ Marine biological conununities in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity could be affected by several" aspects of the proposed or alternative actions. Extension or modification of the existing causeway, operation of the intake and discharge and resultant changes to the regional and local physical and chemical environment are the major areas of concern (Section 4.2). Biological production in the study area is important locally in providing a subsistence resource for the Eskimo and limited commercial and sport fisheries as well as waterfowl and marine mammal har,vest. On a broader scale, migratory species breeding and feeding here during the brief open-water period contribute to populations (waterfowl, anadromous fish, whales) of considerable importance elsewhere in the Beaufort Sea and as far south as South America. The marine biological environment of the Prudhoe Bay vicinity is dominated by both static and dynamic physical features. The major static features are the shallow sloped bathymetry and the barrier islands. Major seasonal features include dynamic open-water/ice-cover periods and transitional periods, as well as the influx of fresh water, primarily from the Sagavanirktok River, in the thaw period. Winds operate on the variable open-water system to cause turbidity and other local water quali-t:y changes in the Prudhoe Bay marine. environment. These features modify the local marine biological environment such that a system with low species diversity develops. E-1 2.0 FIELD STUDY PROGRAMS Studies of various marine biological features have only recently (past· 10 years) begun in the Prudhoe Bay area in response to oil development. Seasonal observations have been limited due to the complexity of sampling under various f~rms of ice. ·Studies of the specific areas affected by the proposed causeway extension and other project facili- ties are limited to the summers of 1974 -1979, with major field sampling occl1rring from July -September. However, signficant studies were accomp 1 i shed during the winter of 1979 (Tarbox and Thorne 1979, Busdosh et al. 1979, Beehler et al. 1979, Robilliard and Bushdosh 1979, Tarbox et al. 1979). On a larger scale, the BLM-sponsored NOAA/OCSEAP program has covered both nearshore and offshore studies of all major components of the mac rob i o 1 ogi ca 1 system. Programs of major s i gni fi ... cance to the Waterflood Project are listed belowc Most of the earlier nearshore work along the Alaska coast has centered around the Barrow area. The first study, by MacGinitie (1955) at the Naval Arctic Reseq.rch Lab was directed primarily at benthos ('organisms associated with the ~attorn) but also discussed both phytoplankton and zooplankton. This study was followed by several studies c)n the phyto- plankton (Bursa 1963, · Horner 1969) and the zooplankton constituents (Johnson 1958, Redburn 1974) ~ productivity of the ice algae (Horner 1972, 1973; Horner and Alexander 1972; Clasby et al. 1976), and produc- tivity of the benthic diatoms (Matheke, 1973, Matheke and Horner 1974). Recent studies in and near the Colville River system, including Simpson Lagoon and Harrison Bay,. of the primary productivity and biomass of phytoplankton, were conducted by the University of Alaska (Alexander et al. 1974) and were sponsored by State and Federal Sea Grant programs, EPA and various oil companies. The most specific work in the Prudhoe Bay region was done by Horner et al. (1974) and Coyle (1974). English and Horner (1976) studied phytoplankton and zooplankton poP,ul at ions offshore and in Prudhoe Bay under an OCSEAP-funded pragram. Additional offshore studies have cant i nued under this same pro~ ram (Horner 1978, 1979). E-2 In conjunction with the proposed Water.flood Project, densities of major zooplankton species {inc-luding ichthyplankton) during the 1979 -1980 winter and 1979 open-water peri ads have been conducted near the site (Tarbox et al .. 1979, Tarbox and Moulton 1980) • . Until recent years, little was known of the ecology of the benthic invertebrates or the Beaufort Sea region. The first comprehensive study of the nearshore benthos of the Alaska arctic coast was conducted by MacGinitie (1955) at Barrow. Only scattered work was done in the Beaufort Sea until oil was di?covered on the North Slope in 1968. In 1970, the U.S. Coast Guard, Exxon U.S.A .. , and OCSEAP sponsored severa1 offshore studies including benthic sampling (Carey and Ruff 1977; Carey 1977, 1978}. A study of the nearshore benthos of the Simpson Lagoon region was conducted in conjunction with the University of Alaska study of the estuarine environment of the Colville River system (Alexander et al. 1974, Crane 1974). OCSEAP has funded several program~ to investigate the nearshore benthos of the Simpson Lagoon area (Griffiths et al. 1975, 1977; Griffiths aiid Craig 1978; Griffiths and Dillinger 19jT9} and the coast of the Beaufort Sea (Broad 1977; Broad et al. 1978, 1979}. Investigations of .the boul de.r patch habitat in Stefansson Sound have also been reported (Dunton and Schonberg 1979). Little work has been done on arctic benthic macrophytes. The first major report on ·an arctic kelp bed, located at Barrow, was by Mohr (195?). Studies documenting the kelp in the Stefansson Sound region and· nearby areas have been conducted by OCSEAP investigators (Broad et al. 1979), and by PBU consultants {Beehler et al. 1979) in conjunction with the Waterflood Project. Benthic studies were conducted to determine the effects of the PBU causeway construction on invertebrate populations near the causeway (Feder·et al" 1976a,b). Similar investigations We!'e continued through 1978 (Grider et al. 1977, 1978). The PBU owners have sponsored several benthic studies in conjunction with the proposed Waterflood, Project~ including a study of the biology of Saduria entomon (Robill iard and Busdosh 1979) and a study of motile amphipods (Busdosh et al. 1979). E-3 Craig and McCart (1976) summ~rized much of the Beaufort Sea and adjacent freshwater fisheries research prior to 1976. Several reports (AINA 1974, Woodward-Clyde 1979, NOAA-BLM 1978} have synthesized . available fisheries data in the Beaufort Sea and the project vicinity; respectively. Craig and Griffiths (1978) and Craig and Haldorson {1979) completed recent studies to the west of the project vicinity (Simpson Lagoon), and Griffiths et al. (1975 and 1977) and Kendel et al. (1975) completed studies to the east (Nunaluk. Lagoon, Kaktovik Lagoon, and Yukon coast). Morrow (1979) summarized the life histories, distribution, and value of freshwater fishes in Alaska. Several site-specific reports provide details of the~ freshwater environments (Yoshihara 1972, 1973; USDI 1972; McCart et al. 1972; Craig and McCart 1974, · 1976; Craig and Mann 1974; Craig 1977; Bain 1974; and Percy 1975). Specific fish studies in the project vicinity have been completed by Bendock (1977), Doxey (1977), NOAA-BLM (1978}, Tarbox and Thorne ( 1979) , Tarbox and Spight ( 1979), Mou 1 ton et a 1 • ( 1980) , and Tarbox and Moulton (1980}. These latter studies have focused on dominant marine and anadromous fish with an emphasis on the abundance, distribution, and seasonality of nearshore fish species. The majority of sampling has occurred in the open-water, 11 SU1nmer,11 period, which can range from a fe\'1 weeks to a few months in duration. Limited data exists for the 9-month 11 Winter 11 period when ice hinders fish sampling in the Beaufort Sea. Winter plankton pumping produced only two (unidentified) fish eggs (0.5/lOO:J m3 ) (Tarbox et al. 1979). Fyke nets captured 19 fish {89 percent arctic cod, 11 percent bartail snailfish) in winter. ~ased upon diver observations, this sampling technique appeared to favor the pelagic community rather than the benthic community. Divers observed 43 fish {70 percent bartail snailfish, 16 percent fourhorn sculpin, 11 percent arctic cod, and 2 percent slender eelblenny). All arctic cod observed in winter were in the wat~r coiumn, although some were close to the bottom (Tarbox and Thorne 1979) • E-4 Hydroacoustic fish assessment under ice, while covering a limited area . due to fixed upward and downward looking transducers, indicated low fish densities (Tarbox and Thorne 1979). However, the main. pelagic species observed (arctic cod) is a schooling species, so it is possible that larger numbers of this species were present but undetected. Hydroacoust i c monitoring under ice showed an unexpected die 1 pattern (fewer targets in the afternoon) that persisted even though the 1 j ght regime changed from 1u -20 hours of light. Bartail snailfish and fourhorn sculpin were observed by divers in this time period (in· a presumed inactive mode) possibly indicating some pelagic inactivity was a result of these more bottom-associated species leaving the water . column after actively feeding there. Hydroacoustic.methods used cannot detect fish on the bottom. Hydroacoustic studies indicated an apparent attraction to structures placed under the ice although a small number of fish were apparently involved in the observations (Tarbox a.nd Thorne 1979) .. Recent mar·ine mammal studies in the Beaufort Sea are annotated in Severinghaus (1979) with one exception (BLM 1979) involving marine mammal surveys in the proposed Beaufort Sea OCS lease area. NOAA-BLM (1978) provided a synthesis of OCSEAP marine mammal studies. Recent Beaufort Sea studies of the biology, distribution, abundance, and use by man of se 1 ected marine mamma 1 s inc 1 ude: bowhead wha 1 es (Braham et al. 1979, in press; Everitt and Krogman in press; Marquette in press); belukha whales (Fraker et al. 1978); ringed seals (Smith and Stirling 1975; Lowry 1978a, b); polar bears (Eley 1977, Marquette in press); and arctic fox (Underwood 1975, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory-1979). This appendix is based upon these and other available reports and personal communications with various expertso No field sampl-Ing was completed; all descriptions and conclusions are based on avai 1 able data. E-5 3.0 GENtRAL ECOLOGY The structure of the marine system in the vicinity of Prudhoe. Bay generally appears to be relatively simple, i.e., the assemblages are not very diverse, interactions appear straightforwar~J 1nd the major physical factors influencing the biological components can be readily defined. Generally, forage species for the major top predators are confined to a small number of very abundant prey species. Although the dynamic properties of Beaufort Sea biological systems are poorly known, it appears likely that physical factors play the strongest role in determining the nature of the biological assemblages in the area of the proposed action. The relatively few species tolerant of this harsh physical environment have often been able to build very large populations, resulting in a total biomass comparable to that in more temperate habitatse Most investigators of this area have commented on the severely rigorous nature of the environment, particularly referring to salinity changes, temperature regime, bottom-fast ice, ice impingement and scouring, stonn surge, turbidity, and low concentrations of dJssolved oxygen. They have described how these stresses result in the assemblages being impoverished in species. Some s~resses to which this benthic fauna is subjected may be no more rigorous in terms of variability than many . other shallow subtidal, exposed soft substrate habitats in arctic or temperate regions. The benthic assemblages do not appear less rich than exposed, scft-bottom assemblages in more temperate areas such as lower Cook Inlet (Dames & Moore 1979) or southern California (Lees 1975). In such habitats, the nature of the natural stresses may vary, but many exposed soft sediment habitats at temperate latitudes are also subjected to extreme disturbances annually. In Prudhoe Bay, the major stresses are storm surge, which can move tremendous amounts of sediment and leave large numbers of animals buried, suffocated or unearthed; bottom-fast ice; removal of sediments by ice scouring; and freezing of the upper layers of sediment. Except in the bottom-fast ice zone where the sediment freezes, temperature variation {about 7°C) is less in the E-6 Arctic than in lo\1er Cook Inlet (about l6°C) or southern California (about 25°C). The greatest variations in sa~inity are also incurred in inshore areas affected by bottom-fast ice. In deepet water, variations in salinity at the bottom are no greater than normally experienced by estuarine organismse Turbidity-is also generally no more of a problem than in an estuarye Ultimately, even if all animals are killed or di sp 1 aced annually' by storm surge, ice· scour, or freezing, the area is no more rigorous than in analogous habitats farther south where factors such ·as storm surges a 1 so k i 11 a great majority of organisms. Vi rf-w~ 1 annihilation of infauna is also known to occur in temperate areas (t.·"' ~s 1975), but in the Beaufort Sea the open-water growing and recovery season is extremely short. Food webs in the Prudhoe Bay area are apparently relatively simple, involving mainly terrigenous organic debris and phytoplankton, bacteria, several types of crustaceans, fishes, birds, and marine mammals. The dietary overlap among the major consumers is high. How~ver, the dynamic characteristics of this ecosystem, which are little known at present, may introduce a· level of complexity much greater than that currently perceived. Terrigenous organic debris (TOD) comprises about 78 percent of the . carbon available in the inshore and nearshore areas, and phytoplankton, about 22 percent (Schell 1978). The available data are not sufficient .to a.ccurately iaentify the energy pathways by which TOD might be utili zed by marine organisms. Broad et a 1. ( 1978) has observed as simi 1 at ion of erg ani c carbon· from peat by Gammaru!l setosus and peat has been observed in the stomachs of several other major detritivorous crustaceans (Griffiths and Dillinger 1979}. The major detritivores appearing to 1 ink the detritus resour·ces and bacteria to the secondary consumers (predators) are the isopod Sad uri a ent.omon, the gammari d - amphipods Gammarus setosus, Onisimus glacialus, Apherusa glacialis, and Gammaracanthus loricatus, and the mysids Mysis relicta. and M. litoralis. The main herbivores consuming phytoplankton and passing the energy along to secondary consumers are the copepods Calanus .91acialis, Derjuginia tolli, Acartia clausa and Pseudocalanus minutus. E-7 The rna in secondary consumers inc 1 ude the marine fishes Myoxocepha 1 us guadricornis (fourhorned sculpin), Boreogadus saida .(arctic cod), and ·the anadromous fishes Salvelinus alpinus (arctic char), Coregonus autumnalis· and c. sardinella {arctic and least cisco), the sea ducks (oldsquaw and common eider), pinnipeds (ringed and bearded seals), and perhaps belukha whales. The sculpin, most abundant in the nearshore area {depth less than 2m, 6.5 ft), feeds primarily on mysids, isopods, amphipods., juvenile arctic cod, Saduria and fish eggse Arctic cod, abundant in schools throughout the area, feed largely on copepods and mysids. Arctic char, also dispers.ed throughout the lagoons, feed 1 argel y on a ret i c cod as we 11 as mys ids, is opods, amph i pods, insects and fourhorn sculpin (e.g. Bendock 1977). Little has been reported on the diet of ciscoes living in the low-salinity inshore areas. However~ they appear to eat mainly mysids, amphipods and dipterans with considerable vegetation and detritus · also ingested (Bendock 1977). The ringed seal feeds heavily on arctic cod, but supplements its diet with mysids, i·sopods and amphipods. Oldsquaw also feed on mysids!J isopods and amphipods. The natives conduct commercial and subsistence fisheries .on arctic cod, arctic char, arctic and least cisco, as well as the whitefish species, seals, waterfowl and belukha and bowhead- whales. The ringed seal is fed upon by the polar bear, arctic fox and man. In general, energy pathways involving infaunal organisms in the Prudhoe Bay area have not yet been identified. Plant energy from terrigenous or marine sources appears to pass "primarily tftrough several principal species of epibenthic amphipods, isopods or mysids to fish, birds, or seals, and ultimately to polar bears, arctic foxes and man. 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ASSEMBLAGES AND ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE PRIMARY PRODUCERS Carbon fixed by phytoplankton is one of the three major sources of energy in the Beaufort Sea •. Many of the phytoplankters common to this E-8 . region have generally circumpolar ~istribut.ions (Bursa 1963, Horner 1969, Coyle 1974, Horner et al. 1974, Hsiao 1976}. Many species show pronounced seasonality both in abundance and diversity, largely as a result of varying light, hydrography and nutrient levels. During the period of ice cover, severa 1 types of phytop 1 ankters 1 i ve within and on the under side of the ice. In the Prudhoe Bay region, this 11 epont i c" community is made up of prima!"i ly pennate diatoms, but species composition .and standirlg stocks are quite variable (Horner et al. 1974). Fragilariopsi~ spp, Nitzschia frigida, N. grunowii, and Chaetoceros sp are the common species. Many of the diatoms found in the ice also are found in the wate1,. column, but only Nitzschia grunowi i appears to be a maj0r component of both habitats (Horner et al. l974). Other organisms associated with this ice community . include dinQflagellates, flagellates from several algal phyla, ciliated protozoans, and several zooplankters (Horner and Alexander 1972). The correlations among primary productivity, chlorophyll ~' and diatom concentrations are positive and strong (English and Horner 1976). Primary productivity of the ice algae has been estimated to be about 5 ~rams carbon per square meter per year ( g C/m 2 /yr) at Barrow (Alexander et al. 1974). This figure may be valid for Prudhoe Bay, but lower chlorophyll a levels and the lateness of the bloom suggest that a more realist~ level is 1 g C/m 2/yr (Horner et al. 1974). The importance of the spring bloom of ice algae (which. occurs prior to the bloom in the water column) may l~e more in the fact that it prolongs the growing season than in the total amount of carbon fixed (Alexander et a 1 • 1974). Ice a 1 gae may a 1 so represent an important source of algae for benthic organisms during and immediately following breakup (Schell 1978). A second phytoplankton bloom occurs irregularly in the water column during the open-water peri ad. Generally, the concentrations of chlorophyll ~, an indicator of primary productivity, is higher in the deeper, clearer, more saline waters than in the brackish and generally turbid surface or nearshore waters. E-9 There is evidence that, during relatively stable condi.tions, distinct phytoplankton communities are formed that are roughly segregated geographically by depth, and perhaps by salinity (Horner et al • . 1974). Pennate diatoms, microflagellates and centric diatoms were the dominant forms in three such communities documented in 1974. However, 1 ater studies by English and Horner (1976) in the same area showed no dis~rete divisions, and most common species were distributed throughout the a·rea. They concluded that this was probably a result of significant mixing from weather conditions, along with nutrient concentrations. , Estimates of the total primary productivity for the· water column in the 1 a goon range between 13 -23 g CJm2Jyr. The total annual primary production inside Prudhoe Bay probably does not exceed 10 g CJm2Jyr, including about 10 percent from ice algae (Horner et al. 1974); this is much lower than the maximum value of 7.8 g CJm2Jd reported between 1 ate Apri 1 and August (approximately 1000 g C/m2Jyr) in ·the very productive environment of Kachemak Bay, lower Cook Inlet (Larrance 1978}. The contribution of benthic microalgae to total system primary productivity is estimated to be approximately 60 percent near Barrow (Matheke 1973). It could also represent a significant contribution in the Prudhoe Bay area. An unmeasured additional contribution to the annual productivity of the Prudhoe Bay area is derived froin benthic macroalgae that grow in patches of varying sizes and density (Beehler et al. 1979}. Major species are the laminarian kelps (Laminaria solidungul.a and h saccharina). Density of kelp patches was low near shore and tended to incr.ease with depth. ZOOPLANKTON Zooplankton of the Beaufort Sea can be categorized into four general groupings: (1) fully planktonic (holoplanktonic) species occuring throughout the arctic basin, (2) expatriates from the Bering and Chukchi Seas, {3) expatriates characteristic of neritic, less-saline . envi'ronments, and (4) partially-planktonic (meroplanktonic) forms E-10 {English and. Horner 1976). Meroplankton is composed of pla~ktonic eggs and 1 arvae of a variety of invertebrates and fish ( i chthyopl ankton) that are present in the water column for only finite periods in the course of developing into mature organisms. Thus, meroplankton is important both as a food resource for plankton feeding species and as a vital stage in the life history cycle of many species. Some primarily benthic forms, such as gammari d amp hi pods . and mysi ds often swim short distances into the water co 1 umn. Whi 1 e they are not true components of the plankton (Busdosh et al. 1979), they are often classed as "epibenthic zooplankton" and may in fact be vulnerable to entrainment by the proposed intake. · Horner et al .. (1974) reported 30 zooplankton taxa from nine phyla in samples taken from the Prudhoe Bay region during August. Only six of these taxa were distributed throughout the region. Based on relative abundance and community structure·, three areas were differentiated: (1) estuarine waters inside Prudhoe Bay, {2) marine waters seaward of the Mid~ay Islands, and (3) the lagoon area between Pt. Mcintyre and the Midway Islands~ which exhibits intermediate characteristics. The nearshore, neritic waters of Prudhoe Bay were dominated by the holoplanktonic copepods Acartia clausa and Pseudocalanus spp; mero- plankters were virtually absent (Horner et al. 1974). This area had the highest concentration of the small hydroid medusae, Perigonimus yoldia-arctica {bell height 5 -25 mm). The holoplanktonic medusae, Aeginopsis laurentii, also . occurred in this region (Horner et al. 1974}. Broad et al. (1978), sampling in the littoral zone, found four additional species inshore. Seaward of the Midway Islands, the zoo~~lankton became moTe oceanic. In these more sa 1 i ne waters, the cope pods Mi croca 1 anus spp, Pseudo- cal anus spp, and Chiridius obtusifrons dominated. Five species of Hydrozoa were reported from this area by Horner et a 1 • .( 1974). Obe 1 i a longissima (~0.5 mm in diameter) was the only hydrozoan species which favored the waters outside the Midway Is 1 and:-. Samp 1 es taken much E-ll farther offshore indicated that medusae are not abundant in this area, but that densities increase to the west (English and Horner 1976). J-lydrographic and \'leather conditions could conceivably increase concentrations in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay. The major species oc~u~ring in the offshore water are Agl~ntha digitale (.5_2.5 em in height) and Rathkea octopunctata (~4 mm in diameter) (Hand and Kan 1961, Horner and English 1976). The only scyphozoan, Cyanea capillata (<30 em in diameter), and a ctenophore, Beroe cucumis (~30 em long), also occur offshore (English and Horner 1976). In contrast with the area inside the barrier is 1 ands, merop 1 ankters made up a more significant portion of the zooplankton of this region. Decapod, polychaete, and barnacle (Balanus) larvae, while more abundant, did. not· surpass the copepods numerically (Horner et al. 1974). However, in comparison to the Chukchi and Bering Seas, this region of the Beaufort Sea is generally poor in meroplankton (Johnson 1956). The lagoon area between Pr.udhoe Bay and the Midway Islands had higher species diversity than the nearshore areas, corresponding with increased salinity and depth, and was dominated by the copepods Calanus glacialis and Pseudocalanus minutus. In samples taken during the winter and spring beneath the ice north of the causeway, the dominant species were P. minutus and an euryhal:1ne, brackish water species, Derjuginia .tolli (Busdosh et al. 1979). Copepods s.trongly dominated the holoplankton; other forms were encountered only infre- quently. A 1 though chaetognaths were found throughout the area, they were possibly a result of mixing between offshore and inshore water masses (Horner et al. 1974). Meroplankters, only a small portion of the zooplankton of this area, consisted of a few barnacle naupilii and cyprid 1 arvae and a few crab zoea during August {Horner et al. 1974). Polychaete larvae were the major meroplankters in winter and spring samples but densities were very low (Busdosh et al. 1979). I chthyop 1 ankton i !J d ·; scus sed in the fish section be 1 ow. E-12 BENTHOS Benthic organisms, especially epibenthic forms, ·are highly important in marine food chains and could be affected by direct project disturb- ance {burial) and by more subtle project-induced changes to the physical environment. The benthos of the coasta 1 region near the proposed development is characterized by low species diversity, density, and biomass in the. shallow water, increasing with depth and distance from shore (Broad 1977; Feder et al. 1976a,b; Carey and Ruff 1977). The dominant infaunal forms are annelid wonns, molluscs and arthropods. The ·p·atchy distribution of these species is largely d;:otetwined by such physical. factors as sediment type, ice stress, organic nutrient export, average and extreme bottom temperatures, and salinities.. All are related generally to depth (Carey and Ruff 1977; Carey 1977, 1978; Feder -1976a,b; Grider et al. 1977, 1978). Many of the benthic invertebrates reproduce without planktonic development by producing demersa 1 eggs or by brooding their larvae; thus replacement is accomplished by recruitment from local populations (Feder et al. 1976a) or adult immigrations, rather than through settlement of planktonic larvae. However, some very abundant species are widely dispersed by planktonic larvae, and dispersion by motile adults is common. Three geographic areas can be used to describe the benthic assemblages of this region: (1) the nearshore areas less than 2 m (6.5 ft) in depth, (2) the inshore areas between 2 -20 m (6.5 -65.6 ft) in depth, and (3) the offshore areas over 20 m in depth. Nearshore The shallow nearshore areas of the Prudhoe Bay region, from the intertidal zone to a depth of 2 m (6.5 ft), encompass most of Prudhoe Bay and the area behind Stump Island and generally approximate the area where the 1 and-fast ice freezes to the substrate. These areas have E-13 rather low species diversity, density, and biomass (Broad et al. 1978; Feder et al. 1976a,b; Grider et al• 1977, 1978) (Figures E-1, E-2 and E-3). Areas shallower than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) have virtually no benthic infauna (Broad 1'977., Feder et al. 1976a, Carey and Ruff 1977). Depth- related differences in this area are less pronounced than in deeper water and distribution of species is patchy (Broad et al. 1978). The benthos is characterized by motile, opportunistic epifaunal forms capable of rapidly recolonizing the nearshore after the ice recedes in the spring, e.g., the mys·ids Mysis relicta and~-littoralis, the amphipods Pontoporeia affinis, Onisimus glacialis, and 0. littoralis, and the isopod, .;§_aduria entomon. Also found ar~ small infaunal forms capable of over-wintering in the sediments or of rapid recolonization, e.g., the polychaete £1]0spio elcgans, tubificid and enchytraeid oligochaetes, and larvae of the midge Paraclinio alaskensis (Broad 1977; Broad et al. 1978; Feder et al. 1976a,b; Grider et al. 1977, 1978) .. Inshore The inshore area (2 .. 10 m, 6.5 -32.8 ft), including most of tha lagoon between the outer barrier islands and the 2-m isobath {approxi- mate limits of landfast ice), has moderately low species diversity, species richness, biomass, and density (Grider et al. 1977, 1978; Broad 1977;.Chin et al. 1979a,b). The magnitude of these parameters exhibits a strong positive correlation with depth, but, on the west side of the causeway, the magnitude is characteristic of deeper water (a tongue of high values characteristic of deeper water intrudes into the shallow water near the causeway; Figures· E-1, E-2 and E-3). Although moti1 e epifaunal crustaceans. are as common in the inshore area as in the nearshore area, sedentary infaunal species that are affected by the actions of bottomfast ice in the nearshore area become relatively more abundant here. Important epifaunal crustaceans include Mysis spp, Pontoporeia femorata, .Qnisimus galcialis, Saduria entomon, _§_. sibirica, Boeckosimi s affi ni s, and .Di astyl is sul cat a. Important i nfa un 11 E-14 , m ·C: ~ Q)· ... d) ... .... -0 0 Q. ·m ;:,· < -· ... 0 :1 Si • :::2 poiJo Al --3 ,., '0 I» J.. C') ·tn ... en ..... ~ ,.. $ 3 tD :J ,.. '"II -· ~ ... CD. m I .... ... ... .... ····· ... ... . ...... ... ···················· .. ········ (;)·····. . ....... ---------' 0 0 ~ , I I ' ,I .. .... /,~-,-~~ METERI 1000 FEET ,, I I ' ' ' \ ...... \ \ 35 ',. I .,, ', ,, ...... '---~"' 36 • 2000 7000 e Loc·atlon of sampling statfon ••·•·••••• 293 .. :.·· ·· ..• ··.... ~ .. ,··· •. 364 ...• _, ..•..... ····• •••••• • •••• ••... ,• A ···. ··~ ,. ········ ·····~. •••••••••• •J ......... . .... ····· ............. 3:7·~·'"'"'""'"''"'""'''' 98 • MEAN. NUMBER OF INDIV,DUALS OF BENTHIC, INVERTEBRATES (5, REPLICATES/STATION/YEAR) IN. 1976-197'9 'V m c ~ •• ... • ... ..... -0 0 Q, m :I < -· ~ 0 :J 5I • :a ... • --3 "0 ':' !» () .... r+ ~ en .... A') ,..,.. CD 3 CD :;, ,... ... ... ... .. ... ... ............ .... ······················· . ... ·~ .... @······ ----... _.,, 0 0 I , I ,I / , MEiER& 1000 FEET 9.70 ..... . ...... , ......... .. .. ' ,, ..... I ' \ 2000 7000 \ \ '7.0 •• I . .. 8 Locatton of . sampling etaUon · ~· . ····· ... .. .. .. .. . . .. .... ······ .... .. 29.25 ................ . e,., .. ~~ . .................. . 24 •. 25 •• . .. ··~# ·•·••· ••.. ·• fJ• . ..... . .· ······· ·········· . ·······. ····· . ~ .............. ········· ................... . ....... 3.1 m •19.0 el&.o 14.25 .. ···~··" ' .... ·,0 .. . .. ····· .. ·· 11.5 • 10.5 • 16.0 • ············· ... ... MEAN NUMBER. OF SPECIES OF BENTHIC. INVERTEBRATES (5 REPLICATES/STATION/YEAR) IN 1.076-1979 ,.., I ..... ~. "tJ m c ~ ,.,. ... • ... .... -0 0 a. ·m :a < -· ., 0 :I 3 Cl :I .... .. --EJ '0 .. () ..... (/) .... S» .... CD 3 " :I .... ..... -· ·CO c ... •• m ~ ----__ ..,, 0 .. 0 I I I t ;' ~ , ---........ /,.. ..... ... · . .. ···. .. .. 1.73 • .... ...... .. thoal ere METER8 1000 FEET 2000 70()0 .. ... .. ' .. \ .. .. .... ··· ... .. .. .. .. .. ········· ·· .. ... ·· ... "•• . .. f.l······· 2.49 ............. : .. . ~ ······..... . ..•. ·· .. 2 01 ... ·········•. " .... .... . .. .. ' ······ ' .·· •• • .t\. ··... ..·· '-'"-• eland'·· .. ••••• ••• 4.. v . .... ·" ... .., . ··. .. ... .. .. .. ·· .. ·· . ·· .. \ ,1.75 I. I • Loc·atton of · sampling atatfon 2.!8 • 1.63 • 112.24 1.05 • 1.75 • 2.36 • ... l •• • ...................... SPECIES DIVERSITY (H') OF. BENTHIC~ INVERTEBRATES IN. 1976-1979 speci.es include Amoharete vega, Chaetozone setosa, Halicryptus .§[2_inulosus, Chane sp, yrtodaria kurriana, Portlandia arctica, Scolecolepides arctus, Eteone longa, Tharyx spp, and Prionospio cirrifera. Most of these infaunal species are fairly long-lived,. and most of the polychaetes are tubicolous. These characte.ristics suggest that the area is more stable than the nearshore zone. A wide variety of species were restricted to bottoms deeper than 6 m (20 ft) (Grider et al. 1977, 1978; Chin et al. 1979a,b). Offshore The offshore region (greater than 10m, 33 ft), shows a significantly richer faunal composition than areas closer to shore (Carey and Ruff 1977). Polychaetes, represented by 37 fami 1 ies, make up the bulk of the infauna (Carey 1978). Gammarid amphipods are also a dominant component of the assemblage with o_ver 100 species representing 24 families. The major physical factor determining distribution is_ related· to depth (Carey 1978). Some of the more important species probably include the polychaetes Ampharet~ vega and fu_ acutifrons, Praxillella praetermissa, Cirrophor4! sp, Pr.ionspio cirrifera, Aricidea suecica, and the molluscs Liocyma fluctuosa and Polinices pallidus. POTENTIAL FOULING COMMUNITY AT PRUDHOE BAY Although the amount of hard substrate in the Prudhoe Bay area waters is limited, boulder patches and othe~ types of hard substrate below the level of bottomfast ice do support epibenthic assemblages. This habitat probably waul d not be affected by the proposed action, but. some of the tsessile epifa,unal filter-feeding organisms are potential foulers, and could pose a threat to efficient operatiDn of the seawater treating plantct Condi~ions inside both intak~ and discharge pipes frequently promote development of fouling assemblages; this can be a major problem for operations requiring seawater for heat exchange or other uses. The E-18 fact that such systems continuously move 1 arge volumes of water and entrained food particles makes them optimal for rapid growth of fouling organisms. In the vi ci n'f ty of Prudhoe Bay, such pipe 1 i ne systems would be especially favorable to fouling organisms since they would constitute a new, hard substrate protected from ice scour. Infonnation on potential fouling organisms in the Arctic is scanty. MacGinitie (1955) described hard-bottom assemblages off Point Barrow. A wide variety of those epifaunal animals are potential foulers. He stated that several species of the barnacl~ Balanus were among the most prolific organisms in rocky subtidal habitats around Barrows Other potential foulers included the sea strawberry (Eunephtya rubiformis), a small mussel, (Musculus discors), several species of sponges, hydroids, and ascidians, along with several encrusting, digitate, foliose and head-forming bryozoans. Infonnation on potential fouling organisms in the Prudhoe: Bay region has been provided by both OCSEAP and waterflood environmental studies. Many epifaunal forms reported by MacGinitie (1955) occur in the region and could act as "seed stock" for fouling assemblages in the intake and discharge systems associated with the seawater treating plant. Species composition of assemblages in the boulder patc~es near Cross Island was described by Dunton and Schonberg (1979). They observed encrusting, foliose and head-forming bryozoans, sponges, serpulid polychaetes, the sea strawberry, and the mussel Musculus. Furthermore, they reported that the hydroid Tubularia indivisa and the ascidian Dendrodoa aggregata, both important potential foulers, were_common in the Cross Isla~d areas Subsequently, Beehler et alQ (1979) observed that several important potential foulers were common offshore of the West Dock in close proximity to Prudnoe Bay. Foremost among these were the sea . strawberry, the mussel, and several sponges. Additionally, they observed several species of nudibranchs that feed· on the epifaunal forms and that could be entrained into the intake and filtration system. Moreover, in the protection of the pipelines, brittle, erect, digitate or head-forming bryozoans, reported by MacGinitie (1955) but E-19 not yet observed at Prudhoe Bay, caul d bec·ome 1 arge enough to cause a substantial reduction in flow if they became established in the intake or discharge pipes. Rectburn {1974) reported distinct hydrographic and biological differences as a function of depth, suggesting that not all fouling organisms in the Prudhoe Bay area would be able to successfully . colonize the new habitat provided. Barnacles were absent from all species 1 ists examined from around Prudhoe Bay {Horner et al. 1974, Dunton and Schonberg 1979, Beehler et al. 1979). Barnacle naupilii and cyprid larvae also have been recorded as rare itt plankton samples (Horner' 1978). However, Tarbox and Robilliard (1980} indicated that barnacles have been observed encrusting concrete blocks dumped west of the existing PBU dock and livfng on cobbles in the lagoon between the Midway Islands and the mainland coast. In view of MacGinitie's report, the rarity· of barna- cles is rather puzzlinge Based on the descriptions of Dunton and Schonberg (1979} ana Beehler et al. {1979}, neither sedimentation (smothering) nor poor circulation would appear to limit barnacles in the lagoon or the boulder patches. ·Thus, it appears that barnacles could pose a fouling problem. FISH Orientation The study orientation is toward fish species that potentially could be impacted by the proposed action. These fish studies therefore focus on the nearshore (0 - 2 m, 0 - 7 ft) and inshore (2 -20 m, 7 -66 'ft) marine waters and in the lower sections of the adjacent freshwater streams ·{Sagavanirktok, Kuparuk, and Putuligayuk Rivers). The level of study is further focused on the early life history, diet, movements, distribution, and abundance of major fish species in the project vicin·ity. These par3meters are of interest because early.life history stages of fish {eggs, larvae, fry) are less able E-20 to avoid entr«inment and impingement in the project intake, are distributed by curr~nts influenced by ~auseway alternatives, and are more likely vulnerable than juvenile and adult forms to project . . discharges. Diets of major fish species are important to ascertain secondary impacts to fishes by possi b 1 e project impacts on prey species. Fish movements are of interest~ especially longshore migra- tions that could be further influenced by the proposed causeway extension. Temporal distribution and abundance information for dominant fish species based upon hi stori ca 1 catches a 11 ows approxi- mation of the numbers of fish in the project vicinity that could be impacted by the proposed action. Prudhoe Bay Area Fish Populations Descriptions of fishes in Alaska ~oastal areas have been traditionally broken down into three broad categories: Marine species, which remain in brackish or marine waters throughout their lives. -Anadromous species, which tolerate a broad salinity range and undertake seaward migrations during their life cycle. "" Freshwater species, which occasionally occur nears·hore when salinities are low. Freshwater species entering low-salinity marine areas and marine species entering the lower reaches of streams under low-salinity conditions c1ften overlap. Figure E-4 presents a distributional array of the 38 fish species and general locations bet»een the Colville and Mackenzie Rivers in marine and freshwater areas. Since two new fish species were taken in Prudhoe Bay in 1978 (Tarbox and ·Spight 1979a), four new species were found in Simpson Lagoon in 1978 (Craig and Haldorson 1979), and one new species E-.21 . . . . L1paris herschelinus<b) "' . Bartail s"ailfish .Unidentified snailfish Li.parid spp. • • iel• • Slender eelblenny Lumpenus fabrici1 * • Stout eelblenny Lumpenus medius • Arctic sculpin Myoxocephalus scorp1odes • Capel in Mallotus ~illosus . • * Pale eelpout Lycodes pallidus •• •Itt •• le• • • . • Trout-perch Percopsis.omiscomaycus • Pond smelt Hypomesus o1idus •• Arctic lamprey Lampetra japon1ca • Lake chub Couesius plumbeus • Spoonhead sculpin cottus ricei iel Longnose sucker . Catostomus catostomus . :. Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush !• Smelt spp. Osmerus spp-. • • Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha • • ~ Chum salmon Oncorh~nchus keta • Sockeye salmon Oncorh~nchus nerka 4 Northern pike Esox lucius • • Burbot LOti 1'"iit'a • ie • I Starry flounder Platich*thys stellatus • • • Pacific herring Clupeaarengus pa11asi • Saffron cod Eleglnus fracilis • ie • Inconnu. Stenoduseucichthys • • Ra.; nbow sme 1 t Osmerus moraax •le f-1• •• • Humpback whitefish Coregonus pidsch1an Q8 • •I• I• • le~ lo Arctic cod BoreogaCfus saida le• • •I• ielo• • • •• • Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum ~ ~ • Broad whitefish Coresonus nasus lee • ele ·~ II f-• Minespin~ stickleback Pung,tius pung1tius • i• • ~ • ihreespine sticklebac~ Gasterosteus acu1eatus 4 Arctic grayling Thymallus arct1cus ~ 41 Ia • Arctic flounder \ tiopsetta rlacialis •• •• • • • lo • ~ Fourhorn sculpin ~· • • ~ ~ I• it!~ • le • Myoxocepha us auadricorn1s Least cisco Coregonus sardinella ~· •e ~ ••• • Itt •• • Arctic cisco Coregonus autumnal is •• •• i•le •• • ~· •le!O •• • Arctic char Salve1inus aleinus .,. •• •lot-• Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus A I'll ' ~ ",~-~, l1) I,J7. ,. ~ ~ tC 1 \ ~ • Colville R. ~\ -~ Mackenzi ~\ R. . _, . Prudhoe Bay . Sources: NOAA·BLM (1978). Craig and McCart (1976). Symbols: • . Craig and Haldorson (1979). S_ymbols: 4 . ~a"i-boi a~ 5"p1 ght{198o) .-Symbols : *' - ~oulton et ai:-(1980). Symbols: o . {a) Species records are approximate~ since sampling efforts varied throughout the area. Most samp 1 es shown here were taken in nearshore~ brackish water areas less than 3 m in depth. {b) All fish names are according to American Fisheries Society (1970). . DISTRIBUTIONS OF FISH SPECIES RECORDED. IN NEARSHORE AREAS BETWEEN THE.COLVILLE & MACKEN-ZIE RIVERsca> . . . ~ ' Waterflood Environmentai State·ment . Figure E-4 PBU Impact . . ' [-22 0 was taken in 1979 in Prudhoe Bay (Moulton et al. 1980), . it is highly ' probable that· more species will be located, particularly as more sampling is. completed farther offshore in the Beaufort Sea and under winte'r conditions. In some cases these "new" spec·ies are species caught previously and only recently identified. The numerically dominant fish. species will probably remain. as has been seen in past sampling. The follo~ing were identified as i'keyn species by NOAA-BLM (1978): Species Anadromous Marine Arctic cisco Coregonus autumnalis X Least cisco c. sardinella X Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus X Fourhorn sculpin Myoxocephalus guadricornis X Arctic cod Boreogadus saida X Although the proportion of these five species varied from site to site, they collectively accounted for 91 -98 percent of the fish enumerated at Simpson Lagoon (Craig and Griffiths 1978), Prudhoe Bay (Doxey 1977), Kaktovik Lagoon (Griffiths et al. 1977)9 Nunaluk Lagoon (Griffiths et al. 1975), and along the Yukon Territory coastline (Kendel et al. 1975). In some localities broad whitefish and humpback whitefish (both anadromous species) may also be tmportant (NOAA-BLM 1978)., Intensive marine studies were undertaken in 'the Prudhoe Bay vicinity during the summers of 1978 and 1979 in anticipation of the proposed Waterflood Project (Tarbox and Spight 1979 9 Moulton et al. 1980, Tarbox and Moulton 1980). Table E-1 summarizes the relative fish abundance from these two periods and from other sampling efforts. Limited winter sampling in Prudhoe Bay occurred from February -May 1979. Stations due north of DH 3 under the ice in water 4.6 -6.7 m (15 .: 22 ft) deep were sampled with hydroacoustic techniques, net sampling, baited traps, plankton pumping and SCUBA observation (Tarbox and Thorne'l979)., E-23 TABlE E-1 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE (%) OF FISH SPECIES CAPTURED IN THE VICINITY OF PRUDHOE BAY MODIFIED FROM TARBOX AND SPIGHT (1979) Simpson lagoon(a) Prudhoe(b~ Prudhoe Bay~c) Prudhoe Bay(d) Bay Tow, Fyl<e 0.5-m Gill Fyke Faber Fyke and 9-m 3-m and Larval Net Net Fish Net 3-m Trawl Species Net ( (781) fj 1{10,026) (366) ~~11 N~~s iC:u.661 s(l~)(g) [ra~J 638 Gpl N~~s 1,081 (1 ,084) (3,390) Arctic cisco 56.0 15.0 o.o 3.9 o.o 0.3 0.3 .... Arctic char 14.0 4.0 0.0 13.0 --..... 2.4 -- Least cisco 12.0 2.0 o.o 30.5 --. --0.2 -- Fourhorn sculpin 9.0 70.0 o.o 29.0 I 76.0 2.2 2.6 3.1 Arctic cod 0.1 8.0 63.0 19.6 o.o 92.8 62.7 31.7 Broad whitefish 4.0 0.1 o.o 2.5 13.6 . o.o Humpback whitefish 2.0 o.o 0.0 0.6 ----0.2 -- Bering cisco 1.0 o.o o.o --..... ------ Capel in 1.0 0.02 0.0 0.02 9.1 1.6 27.3 ., .. Arctic flounder 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.1 --.... -· -- Ninespine stickleback o.o 0.2 o.o 0.01 --..,_ --M- Smelt o.o 0.2 o.o o.2Ch) -------- Snailfis~ . o.o 0.1 16.6 0.2 0.0 1.6 3.3 65.1 Sculpin 0.0 o.o 0.5 ---------- Sand lance --------2.3 1.3 0.1 -- Slender eelblenny I ----.. .., --o.o 0.3 0.7 -- Round whitefish ------0.04 -------- • Arctic grayling ------0.1 --~-----. Saffron cod ------0.04 ----0.4 -- Rainbow smelt ----------------. (a) Craig and Griffiths (1978); summer data. (b) Doxey (1977); summer data, mainly fyke net. (c) Tarbox and Spight (1979) (d) Tow net catches are 96 percent of the catches; Moulton et al. f980; Tarbox and Noulton 1980. (e) Comn~rcial fishery data reported in Craig and Griffiths (1978); average annual catch. (f) ( ) indicates total catch. (g) Quarter hauls only. (h) Boreal smelt. ---- 0.1 0.2 98.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- --. 1.2 -- 0.1 ----. -- -- 0.3 Col ville(e) Delta Commercial Fishery (57,483) 64.9 -- 29~0 ---- 4.9 1.2 ---------- ----..... ---- --. -- -- The sampling periods. of recent fisheries studies in the Prudhoe Bay region ar.e: · Investigation Doxey (1977) Tarbox and Spight (1979) Moulton et·al. (1980) Tarbox and Thorne {1979) Craig and Griffiths (1978) Craig and Griffiths (1979) Sampling Period Jun~ 21 to September 22, 1976 August 16 to August 21, 1978 July 16 to September 1, 1979 February 13 to May 5, 1979 · June 19 to September 23, 1977 April 1978 to February 1979 As was the case· for most other· Beaufort Sea studies, Doxey ( 1977) sampled nearshore. Tarbox and Spight (1979} and Moulton et al. (1980) completed sampling out to·a water depth of over 9 m (29ft). The abundance and 1 ocat ion of Prudhoe Bay area fish during ice-cover periods is generally open to speculation due to insufficient data. Lack of equipment ·suitable to fish these shallow ice-infested watet'"S under extremely difficult surface conditions complicates data gathering in the area. The continuing discovery of new species-in each summer field season highlights this problem. This discovery is probably related to improved sampling techniques and increased effort rather than changes in fish distribution. However, the background of summer sampling is thought sufficient to identify the species in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity most 1 ikely to be impacted by the prop1~1sed action since few fish were caught or seen in winter (February) sampling. A recent description by Tarbox and Spight (1979) summarizes these key fish species as follows. E-25 General Description of Marine Spec-ies Arctic Cod: Arctic cod are abundant in the Beaufort Sea and widely distributed throughout the project area. They are a key s;;ecies in the Arctic Ocean community, converting planktonic and nektonic ~rustaceans into a food resource exploited by arctic char, seals, walrus, whales, birds, and man. Fourhorn Sculpin: Sculpins are one of the most abundant fish in shallow nearshore waters around Prudhoe Bay. They harvest enormous quantities of small crustaceans and fish from the nearshore environment, and in turn, are probably an important diet item for larger predators. Other Species: Pacific sand lance, bartail snailfish, capelin, smelt, arctic flounder, slender eelblenny, and saffron cod have been captured in small numbers. Some of these are probably uncommon in the area, while others are seldom captured because appropriate gear types have not been utilized. Among these species, snailfish may prove to be an important element of the kelp bed community, and capelin and Pacific sand lance may be important forage species. General Description of Anadromous Species Arctic .char: Arctic char are abundant and widely distributed throughout the study area. They are a major predator and an important object of subsistence and sport fishPries. E-26 Arctic. Cisco: Arctic cisco were the most frequently captured anadromous fish in Simpson Lagoon, and are by far the most important fish in the Colville commercial fishery. These data are sufficient to identify this species as a key species. Least Cisco: Least cisco were the most commonly captured fish in Prudhoe Bay by Bendock {1977) and are the second most abundant fish in the Colville commercial fishery; therefore, they are a key species for impact assessment. Broad Whitefish: Broad whitefish were commonly encountered in Prudhoe Bay by Bendock (1977) and Doxey (1977) but were less common in Simpson Lagoon (Craig and Griffiths 1978}; the:y are important in the Colville commercial fishery and therefore important for impact assessment. ·Humpback Whitefish: • Humpback whitefish apparently do not stray far from spawning rivers • deltas, and are not particularly common in the study area. They do .... fonn a significant element of the Colville River commercial catch and are therefore included as important to the region. Other Species: Ninespine stickleback, arctic grayling, round whitefish, and Bering cisco have been reported occastonally. Most of these probably are strays from fresh water, rather than true anadromous fonns. They ·do not form an appreciable element of the Prudhoe Bay community, and the individuals in Prudhoe Bay do not constitute a major portion of their respective species population. E-27 In summary; at least two marine fish species and five anadromous species qualify as key species in the Beaufort Sea system. Aspects of their biology relevant to the proposed action wfll be discussed in the following sections. Distributions ana Life Histories of Marine Fish Arctic Cod Arctic cod are circumpolar in distribution and probably the most important species in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity in terms of abundance and role in the marine ecosystem of this area and of the Beaufort Sea" This species is the main plankton consumer in arctic seas (Bendock 1977). It is most numerous from inshore (2 -20 m, 7 -66 ft) to offshore waters. Fourh.orn sculpin •11ere more numerous in nearshore sam~ling (<2 m) completed by Doxey (1977). Arctic cod is an important food item of arctic marine mammals, birds, and other fish (Andriyashev 1954, Bain and Sekerak 1978). Coastal residents also take arctic cod for human consumption and dog food (Craig and Griffiths 1978). ~1uch of the arctic cod life history is undocumented. Beaufort Sea spawning locati~ns are not kno\'m, but spawning is thought to occur under the ice in coastal waters during winter (Andriya.shev 1954). Nikol'skii (1954) indicated that spawning occurs from November through February. The appearance of cod fry and mature adults indicates a January to February spawn in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity (outside the study at.,eq) (Tarbox and Moulton 1980). Sexual maturity typically is reached at 4 years of age ( <200 mm total length), with fecundity ranging frl'm 9000 to 21,000 eggs (Andriyashev 1964). In Simpson Lagoon, sexually mature rna 1 es were seen at age 2 and at ages 3 - 4 for females; however, only 16 percent of the males and 11 percent of the females· were mature when captured (Craig and Griffiths 1978). Gonad evaluations indicated that most· mature arctic cod were in a resting stage in March 1979. Pelagic eggs are assumed. Larvae 5 - 9 mm were captured in May and toward fall they attain 20 -32 mm in E-28 IT1 I N \0 TABLE E-2 AGE-LENGTH RELATIONSHIPS FOR ARCTIC COD Site Prudhoe Bay Simpson Lagoon Bering Sea Andriyashev (1937) (in Andriyashev 1954) _s_o_ur_c_e_ Bendock (1977) . Craig and Griffiths (1978) Age (years) Length (nun) 0 24 31 1 99 100 2 151 144-158 3 161 233 180 ... 200 4 254 220-230 5 298 Cheshskaya Bay Klumov {1949) "(in Andriyashev 1954) Q57 189 200 210 length in the Chukchi Sea (Andriyashev 1954). Young-of-the-year arctic cod averaged 15-24 mm in Prudhoe Bay in August (Bendock 1977, Tarbox and ~4oulton 1980). In Simpson Lagoon, mid-July catches of arctic .cod larvae averaged 8.1 mm while later in mid-September they averaged 19 mm (Craig and Griffiths 1978). Thase authors also reported a 10-fold higher average larvae density inside the lagoon than offshore. Tarbox and Spight (1979) did not catch many arctic cod larvae in 1978, probably due· to sampl.ing 1 imited to near-surface waters. Arctic cod 1 arvae represented 35 percent of the catch in 1979 (Tarbox and Moulton 1980), and were more abundant in bottom samples than in surface samples. Moulton et al. {1980) provided arctic cod data that indicated bottom to surface catch ratios of larva densities ranging from 2:1 to 45:1, with a general increase in this ratio with increasing water depth. Ar·ctic cod growth is slow (Table E-2). Of the 14 arctic cod taken (68 .;. 135 mm) in winter, 38 percent wer·e immature and most were· males (3:1 sex ratio). Low densities were detected in hydroacoustic·surveys {0.0006-0.0007 fish per m3), compared to 0.07 arctic cod per m3 from trawl sampling in August 1979 {Moulton et al., 1980). These observations:~ along with the low egg density and lack of small ar·ctic cod fry, suggest that spawning did not occur in the sampling vicinity in March 1979 or had occurred prior to that date. Arctic cod were previously reported as mainly distributed along ice edges and outside the coastal zone (Nikol'skii 1954). Recent studies during open-water periods (Moulton et al. 1980, Craig and Haldorson 1979) suggest a patchy distribution of individuals and schools of arctic cod in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity in summer. In July 1979 the highest catch rate was observed in the West Dock vicinity (Maul t.on et al. 1980): The following arctic cod distributions were observed in the summers of 1978 {Tarbox and Spight 1979) and 1979 (Moulton et al. 1980): E-30 -Localized areas of relatively high densities occurred in 1978 near the end of DH 3 {306 fish per ha), in Prudhoe·Bay proper (163 fish per ha), and inshore of the Midway Islands at depths . >5 .5 m (18 ft) ( 106 fish per. ha}. The large numbers of fish at DH 3 in 1978 were attributed to a relatively large school. These fish were distributed from surface to bottom, and the school was at least 300 m (984 ft) in width .. -CatGh data suggest similar sized schools were probably present in Prudhoe Bay a.nd offshore to slightly greater than 5.5 m (18 ft) in depth. -Using trawl data and a 20 and 10 percent efficiency, a rough estimate of 28 and 57 million arctic cod, respectively, was · calculated for the Prudhoe Bay area in August 1978 (Tarbox and Spight 1979). Similar estimates have not been calculated for July-Augu.st 1979 data (Moulton et al. 1980). -Nearshore waters ( <2 m, 7 ft) generally had fewer arctic cod than offshore waters.. Approximately 89 percent of the catch was offshore. -Concentrations of arctic cod near DH 3 were seen under and near vesse 1 s and barges moored ther·e during the survey period. This agrees with arctic cod attractions to structures suggested by Quast (1974). Arctic cod were found killed by the propellers of a vessel leaving DH 2. -Arctic cod distribution was apparently associated with the leading edge of the marine water mass in 1979 (Moulton et al. 1980). -In August 1978, Craig and Haldorson (1979) reported a massive school of 11 Several mi11ion 11 arctic cod inside Pingok Island (roughly halfway between the Colville·. and Kuparuk Rivers). E-31 Larval arcfic cod were more dense inside Simpson Lagoon than at an outside station (Craig and Griffiths 1978) o In summer 1979 sampling, arctic cod larvae were usually more dense in bottom stat·1ons and this trend increased with station depth (Tarbox and Moulton 1980). Larval to juvenile stage changes occurred in August in the Chukchi Sea {Quast 1974). Arctic cod observations during the open-water sampling period indicate their distribution in the Prudhoe Bay area fluctuates with time. Bendock ( 1977) found 1 ow numbers of arctic cod in Prudhoe Bay from mid-July to mid-August, when catches increased. Young-of-the-year were abundant at times in Simpson Lagoon, and mature females were seen by mid-September (Craig and Griffiths 1978). Arctic cod are a major element at the secondary consumer level. (Quast 1974), as they are the main consumer of plankton in arctic seas (excluding coastal regions) (Bendock 1977). Arctic cod larvae and fry eat copepod eggs, nauplii and copepodites (Woodward-Clyde 1979). Bendock {1977) reported that Prudhoe Bay arct1c cod fed primarily on mysids (based upon 12 stomachs analyzed). Of the 14 arctic cod stomachs examined by Tarbox and Thorne ( 1979) in winter~ seven were 100 percent. full in winter, with Mys·idacea representing 90 percent of the biomass (Tarbox and Thorne 1979). Arctic cod are a major 1 ink between these planktonic organisms and the many consumers of this fish species (char, flounder, saffron cod, sculpin, seals, belukha whales, gulls, other sea birds, and man). Fourhorn Sculpin The fourhorn sculpin is another abundant marine species in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity. It is generally more numerous near shore than the arctic cod., This sculpin is circumpolar in distribution and is found in mari r~·.-' brackish, and occasionally fresh "(ater. E:-32 A Chukchi Sea subspecies related to the fourhorn sculpin spawns in late fall or in winter, when females prevail in catches (Andriyashev 1954). Fry hatch in the sprin~, and mass runs of the fry toward coasts have been noted in July (Andriyashev 1954). Mature fourhorn sculpin were found in Simpson Lagoon during August and September (Craig and Griffiths 1978). The fourhorn sculpin grows slowly and does not grow very large. In 1978 fourhorn sculpin caught ranged from 18 -169 mm in 1 ength, with most fish ranging from 20 -40 mm (Tarbox and Spight .1979). In 1979, one larger individual (226 mm) was taken (Moulton et al. 1980). Age and average length in Simpson Lagoon were reported as follows: 1 -63 mm, 2 -94 mm, and about 226 mm at age 9 (Craig and Griffiths 1978). Andriyashev (1954) reported. the age and average length of a related subspecies as: 5 - 6 years old (200 -240 mm) and 7 - 8 years· old {240 -270 mm). Larger sized sculpins were less common in Simpson Lagoon as compared to Nunaluk and Kaktovik Lagoons to the east (Tarbox and Moulton 1980). In Prudhoe Bay, ages varied from 1 - 7 years with the majority being ag.es 2 and 3 (Bendock 1977). In contrast, 1 and 2-year old fish were dominant in Simpson Lagoon and numbers decreased gradually to age 6 (Craig and Griffiths 1978). In Simpson Lagoon, most males were mature by ag~ 3 and most females by age 4 (Craig and Griffiths 1978). Di stri but ion of fourhorn sculpin was 1 imi ted to nearshore areas and the deeper waters of Prudhoe Bay (Craig amd Griffiths 1978, Bendock 1977, Tarbox and Spight 1979). Distribution and relative abundance of this species in Prudhoe Bay and nearby areas are shown in Figure E-4 and Table E-1. No sculpins were collected offshore (water depth > 3 m, 10 ft) of Prudhoe Bay, the W~st Dock, or Stump Island, and none were collected along the western shore of Prudhoe Bay except at the mouth of the Putuligayuk River (Tarbox and Spight 1979). Bendock {1978, in Tarbox and Spight 1979) did capture sculpins off several of the outer barrier islands. This marine form may move some distance up streams. E-33 Fourhorn sculpin use nearshore habitats as spawning and rearing grounds; their fry are often most abundant, if not the only fish found in these areas (Craig and McCart 1976) • However, fourhorn sculpin larvae represented only 4 percent of the ichthyoplankton collected in the open-water season of 1979 (Tarbox and Maul ton 1980). Young-of- the-year (18 -26 mm) sculpins were most numerous 3 - 5 m (10 -16 ft) from shore with abundance dropping toward shore and also abruptly in deeper water on the lagoon shore of Pingok Island (Craig and Griffiths 1978). In 1978 Prudhoe Ba~ area sampling, fourhorn sculpin density was generally 1 ow and uni fonn in a 11 stations (Tarbox and Spight 1979) • Prudhoe Bay area densities are much lower than reported by Craig and Griffiths (1978) for Pingok Island in Simpson Lagoon (Tarbox and Spight (1979). Fourhorn sculpin was the most numerous fish species in studies by Craig and Griffiths {1978) and by Bendock (1977.). This sculpin was the ea.rliest marine species taken as sampling began (J.une 23, 1976} in Prudhoe Bay during breakup (Bendock 1977). Bendock (1977) reported that these sculpins feed on immature isopods, amphipods, and ·juvenile arctic cod in Prudhoe Bay. Craig and McCart (1976) found small sculpins feeding on amphipods and copepods while 1 arger fish prefer i so pods ( Saduri a entq!!!Q!!) • Fish eggs, amp hi pods, and mysids were also observed in sculpin diets. Other Marine Fish Bartail snailfish (Liparis herochelinus) were not taken in Prudhoe Bay proper but were common offshore (>2m,. 2ft). Young-of-the-year snailfish (age 0) were caught in areas with attached algae (Tarbox and Spight 1979). Sixty-five percent of the ichthyoplankton caught in the summer of 1979 were snailfish (Tarbox and Moulton .1980). Ninety-three percent of the bartail snailfish observed in winter \-/ere associated . . . with kelp trabitat. This distribut·ion is similar to that of a related species (!:.· liparis), which deposits its eggs on pclyp colonies or E-34 subaquatic vegetation (~ikol'skii 1954). 1•'liparis spawns from December to February or 1 ater and 1 arvae measuring 5.5 mm in 1 ength hatch 6 - 8 weeks following spawning (Nikol'skii 1954). If similar development occurs in bartail snailfish, a late March to late April spat1ning period is suggested in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity (Tarbox and Spight 1979}. Six snailfish (not positively confirmed as L. herschelinus) {53 - . 116 mm) were examined in March .1979; some females had spawned while others were ripe. Eggs were observed attached to ke 1 p fronds and in bottom depressions during February 1979 SCUBA observations Q This snailfish and the fourhorn sculpin both have adhesive eggs, and it is probable that both spawn in this area. The six snailfish stomachs examined from winter sampling contained primarily amphipods {81 percent of biomass and 67 percent frequency of occurrence) and were nearly 50 percent full (Tarbox and Thorne 1980). Larval snailfish were very . abundant in near•bottom waters off the PBU dock during the summer of 1979 {Tarbox and Moulton ·1980). Densities peaked at 186/1000 m3 in July and 590/1000 m3 in August. By September, numbers dropped sharply to (<24/1000 m3 ) as larger larvae (>15 mm) apparently settle~ to the benthic habitat. Small numbers of Pacific sand lance {64 -95 mm) were taken by trawl in 2 -6 m (7 -20 ft) deep stations in 1978 off Prudhoe Bay. (Tarbox and Spight 1979). The difficulty of sampling this species suggests that its abundanc~ may have been underestimated. Moreover, its presence in other arctic waters and in arctic char stomachs from Prudhoe Bay may mean its distribution and abundance may be extensive along the Beaufort Sea coast (Tarbox and Spight 1979). Capel in (48 -78 mm) were taken in Prudhoe Bay;, offshore of Stump Island, and at the base of the West Dock in 1978, whereas no fish were taken in waters ·>6 m (20 ft) deep (Tarbox and Spight 1979). Bendock (1977). repo-rted capelin spawning on gravel beaches in the Prudhoe Bay region during August 1976. E-35 Distributions and Life Histories of Anadromous Fish Anadromous Arctic Char:l The arctic char in the project vicinity is the western Arctic-Bering Sea form (McPhail 1961). The Mackenzie River to the east is, for practical purposes, the dividing line ·between this form and the eastern a.rctic form (Craig and McCart 1976). The taxomony of the Salvelinus alpinus complex, as well as its life history, is complicated and not fully understood. The anadromous ehar is the most prevalent 1 ife history pattern for this species in this area. The species is ecologically flexible, having nonanadromous forms including several isolated dwarf forms (Craig and McCart 1976}. In the Bering Sea, anadromous char spawn in the larger drainages with available perennial springs. In the Prudhoe Bay vicinity, the arctic char overwinter and spawn in c2rtain areas of the Sagavanirktok River (Figure E-5}. Adults move up rivers to spawning grounds from mid- August through November, with peak migrations occurring in September and October (Craig and McCart 1976). 1 According to Morrow (1979)·, the anadromous char in Alaska is Sal- vel inus malma or a northern form of Dolly Varden, rather than --=tfie arctic char-(also spelled charr), s. alpinus, which he claims in Alaska appear to be the freshwater, lake-dwelling type. This report will address the anadromous char form with the name arctic char, as used by most other investigators. E-36 .-----------------------~---------------~--~----------~-----.. . - BEAUFORT SEA , 0 0 5 miles 25 111111 I I I o· s 25 weep r e 1 t kllameterJ . WINTER FISHERIES • • I Overwfnterrng areas anc:U~r the spawning grounds of fait spawning apecfes Probable over~fnterfng areas· IN THE SAGAVANIRKTOK RIVER. AND SURROUNDING DRAINAGES PBU. Waterflooci Environmentai Impact Statement . . . Figure. E-5 . . E-37 ' Eggs normally incubate in stream gravel at 0° -4°C {32° -39°F), but may develop in waters exceeding l0°C (50°F) (McCart and Bain 1974}. Because eggs cannot tolerate freezing, all known spawning areas are near spring sources 01cCart and B~in 1974). Young .... of-the-year remain in the gravel from 7 - 9 months before emerging in the spring (McCart and Bain 1974), and spend 3 - 5 years in the streams, overwintering in special spring areas (Figure E-5) as juveniles before they become smelt and migrate to sea (Craig and McCart 1976}. Most of these char enter the sea during spring breakup (June) and return to over-winter in the streams by mid-August or until freeze-up (Craig and McCart 1976). Char mature at 6 - 8 years of age (Craig and McCart 1976} to repeat the reproductive cycle. Tarbox and Moulton (1980) indicated t.hat females· mature at ages 7 - 8 and males mature at age 9. Adult char apparently do not spawn in consecutive years; rat"her, most individuals spawn only every second year. Thus, at any. given time,~ a population of arctic char will have a group preparing to spawn in the upcoming spawning period and others that wi 11 not spawn unt i 1 the following period (adult nonspawners) (Craig and McCart 1976). A further complexity may be that maturing char rell)ain in fresh water the summer of the year in which they spawn, thus spending 20 months in fresh water prior to and after spawning. Between spawnings~ the char would typically spend about 1 - 3 summer montPs in coasta'l marine waters and 9 -11 months overwi.ntering in fresh water. In the Sagavanirktok drainage, two migrant types separate o Mature migrants entered all large mountain streams, while immature migrants were concentrated in mountain streams nearest the sea {McCart and Bain 1974}. This coincides with the distribution of known spawning areas in the Sagavanirktok shown in Figure E-5. The Sagavanirktok River supports one of the 1 ar~est North Slope char populations (Tarbox and Moulton 1980). E-38 A significant characteristic related to p~oject impact assessment is that females are significantly more abundant in nearshore waters than males because some members. of anadromous char · populations (mostly males) never migrate to the ocean (Craig and McCart 1976}. The marine habitat of these char is not well described to date. Use of nearshore habitats is thought to be limited to periods when the char enter the • sea at breakup (June) and when they ascend the streams before freeze-up (September). Char range widely in the ocean and spread out along the coast in plumes of fresh river water that flood the fast ice (Bendock 1977). Larger char leave .the ·sagavanir~tok River .i·n early June, followed in late June and early July with age 3 and 4 smelts (DoxeY 1977). Adults were most numerous in July and they began their return to fresh water during the first week of August (Tarbox and Moulton 1980). Juveniles (100 -200 mm fork length) are prese~t in Prudhoe Bay until freeze-up and enter the Sagavanirktok River in September· (Bendock 1977). The distribution and relative abundance of char in various areas is given in Figure E-4 and Table E-1. Homing success in arctjc char is not known. Tag studies (which normally do not involve much effort in looking for tagged fish in other rivers) have indicated straying from the Sagavanirktok River as far as 300 km (186 mi) to the west (near Barrow} to 250 km (155 mi) to the east (Canning River) (Tarbox and Moulton 1980). At any given time in summer, the nearshore Prudhoe Bay environment may have char present from drainages anywhere on the Alaska and western Yukon (Mackenzie River} coast. Arctic char tagged in the Sagavanirktok d~ainage in the falls of 1971 and 1972 were recaptured in the central portion of Simpson Lagoon in 1978 by Cra·ig and Haldorson (1979). Age groups of char in Prudhoe Bay range from 3 through 12 with most fish between 1-9 (Tarbox and Moulton 1980)~ Craig and Griffiths (1978) reported a . . bimodal length frequency in Simpson Lagoon (males at 220 mm and 540 mm) and an absence of intermediate-sized fish corresponding to juveniles aged 5 - 8 years. In Simpson Lagoon~ about half the fish were mature E-39 and 46 percent of the mature females and 29 percent of the mature males were spawners .(Craig and Griffiths 1978) e An important parameter re 1 ated to the proposed Waterfl ood Project is that no a ret i c char 1 ess ~h.an 100 mm fork 1 ength have been taken to date in summer field studies in the Prudhoe Bay area (Bendock 1977, Craig and Griffiths 1978), indicating that their susceptibility to entrainment would be lo~ in this area. .However, fish of this size and larger would be susceptible to mortality and stress at the proposed intake. Food of arctic char include a variety of epibenthi~ organisms and insect larvae and fish with frequencies as follows: amphipods (in 95 percent of char examined), arctic cod (42 percent), mysids (32 percent) and isopods (11 percent) (Bendock 1977). Doxey (1977) also found char . . that had eaten capel in. The diet of char has been shown to vary by area probably due to variation in food abundance~ For example, fish, an important diet component, was mostly fourhorn sculpin in Nun a 1 uk Lagoon but was mostly arctic cod in the Canning R~ver vicinity (Craig and McCart 1976). Amphipods were the dominant food item {55 percent) in Simpson Lagoon followed by mysids (32 percent) and fish (only 5 percent) (Craig and Griffiths 1978). Arctic char are in turn consumed by other marine species. Man uses the char in a subsistence fishery and an expanding sport fishery (Bendock 1977). Arctic char were often captured with empty stomachs {32.5 percent) and those stomachs containing food averaged only 24.8 percent in fullness (Griffiths et al. 1975). Arctic Cisco The arctic cisco has an anadromous fonn that is of great importance in local fisheries in some areas (Barter Island, and the Colville and Mackenzie ~iver deltas} ·ccraig and McCart 1976}o In Alaska waters this species ranges from Point Barrow to Demarcation Point (Bendock 1977), . E-40 ranking as one of the most numerous and widespread nearshore fish between the Colville and r~ackenzie Rivers (Craig and McCart 1976). Arctic cisco, like large arctic char, are distributed widely along the coastline and along the barrier islands. A major differenc.e between the arctic cisco and the arctic char is that the cisco apparently use only two of the largest drainages in the region (Colvi11e and Mackenzie Rivers) as spawning and probaBly over- wintering areas. Spawning migration timing and distances traveled upriver vary markedly between these two river systems, probably due to the greater length (6 times) of the Mackenzie River. Females typically mature by mid-July, and upstream migrations in the ~ackenzie River occur from early July through September (Kendall et al. 1975). The arctic cisco undertake spawning migrations 2 months later into the Colville River (Griffiths et. al. 1975) •. Migr·ations extend as far as 725 km (450 mi) from the Mackenzie River mouth, while in the Colville River the spawning occurs in the 1 ower l'·eaches of the river (Craig and McCart 1976}. The arctic cisco is a fall spawner, but spawning timing and locations are not definitely known (Craig and McCart 1976}. After maturity is reached {5-8 years), arctic cisco are thought to spawn in alternate years (Griffiths et al. 1975). The timing of fry dispersal is not koown but may correspond to breakup of the coastal rivers (Kendall et al. 1975}. Arctic cis·co enter the Beaufort Sea at age 1 (Bendock 1977). Fry and juveniles (23-107 mm) were abundant in shallow shoreline catches near the Mackenzie River (Kendall et al. 1975). Hunter {1975) found arctic cisco at the Firth River mouth by June 30. Doxey (1977) indicated an eastward trend in mid-July, with east-to- west movement in early August and from west to east in mid-August. Migrations are fast for the distances traveled. A fish tagged at Pr·udhoe Bay was taken 241 km ( 150 mi) east near Barter Is 1 and 19 days later (Bendock 1977}. Of 21 recaptured arctic cisco tagged mostly in August in Prudhoe Bay, 19 were taken in the fall run in the Colville River (Bendock 1977}. E-41 Age/average length relationships in Prudhoe ·Bay arctic cisco were as follows: 1 -110 mm, 2 -127 mm, 3 -· 197 mm, 4 -212 mm, 5 -231 mm, 6 -·264 mm, 7-272 mm, 8-296 mm, 9-309 mm, 10-319 mm, 11-320 mm, and 12 -350 mm (Bendock 1977). The smallest individual taken by Bendock was 62 mm. No sexually mature fish were taken in Prudhoe Bay by Bendock (1977). His samples (198 fish) had a male/female sex ratio of 9:1. In Simpson Lagoon, 57 percent of the males and 46 percent of the females were mature; males ~atured at ages 7 -9 and females at ages 8 -10 (Craig and Griffiths 1978). Either mature arctic cisco do not range into the Prudhoe Bay area or at 1 east do not range as far from their nata 1 streams as· do younger age classes (Bendock 1977). The amount of straying from natal streams was not reported. Prudhoe Bay arctic cisco first appeared in late June (Bendock 1977) and were seen in the bay until September 15 when they disappeared (Doxey 1977). ·Most spawners return to the Colville by mid-July; juveniles and mature nonspawners remain in coastal waters for a longer time (Craig and Griffiths 1978). Some arctic cisco may spend the - entire winter in nearshore coastal waters (Craig and Griffiths 1978). The distribution and relative abundance of arctic cisco in various areas and .. years sampled are provided in Figure E-4 and 'fable E-1. The arctic cisco feeds differently in various areas sampled. Bendock {1977) reported foods of arctic cisco as: mysids {60 percent of stomachs), amphipods (53 percent), and vegetation and detritus {40 percent). Craig and Griffiths (1978) found arctic cisco in Simpson Lagoon feeding on mysids {66 percent of items), amphipods (24 percent), and copepods (8 percent). McPhail and Lindsey (1970) report crusta-. ceans and small fishes are tQe main food items of adult arctic cisco. The arctic cisco's importance as a fishery is demonstrated by this species• constituting 60 -70 percent {30,000 -50,000 fish) in the winter commercial Colville Delta catch (Alt and Ko9l 1973) and by its E--42 great importance in the diets of the. native Inupiat populationQ Recent population·estimates by Cra~g and Haldorson (1979) indicate a catchable population (>275 m' in length) on the order of 250,000 fish in the Colville River. Least Cisco The least cisco is another• whitefish with an anadrornous form. This species was the most frequently captured whitefish in the Prudhoe Bay area {Bendock 1977) and was less abundant in Simpson Lagoon (Craig and Griffiths 1978). Least cisco range from Bristol Bay to arctic Alaska and eastward at least as far as Bathhurst Inlet and Cambridge Bay (McPhail and Lindsey 1970). Both anadromous and nonmigratory forms of least cisco exist in Alaska. The distribution and relative abundance .of the 1east cisco are shown in Figure E-4 and Table E-1. Sexual maturity was reached in 7 -8 years, and of those mature individuals found in Prudhoe Bay, 20 percent had developing gonads and would not spawn in the year of capture, indicating that a portion of the population does not spawn every year (Bendock 1977). Spawning reportedly takes place during the fall in the lower reaches of major rivers ( Bendock 1977). Bendock ( 1977) 1 ocated no overwintering or spawning· areas. in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity, and tagging indicated that most least ciscos in the Prudhoe Bay. area return to the Colville River. Least cisco can overwinter at sea (Gulf of Tazov) if food is available (Yukheva 1955, in Kogl and Schell 1974). While age 1 and 2 least cisco were captured in Prudhoe Bay, it appears that most individuals enter brackish waters during their third year (about 139 -210 mm). The absence of least cisco from the outer . barrier islands indicates a strong affinity for brackish waters on the mainland coastline (Bendock 1977). Based on 1 imited tagging studies, the least cisco of Prudhoe Bay and Simpson Lagoon are from the Colville River stock. Some mixing of E-43 stocks is 1 i kel y as one tagged fish from Simpson Lagoon wa-s r·ecaptured near Barrow (Craig and G~iffiths 1978). One fish tagged in Prudhoe Bay was captured in the Colville River 7 days later (Bendock 1977). One tagged fish was recovered 250 km (155 mi) east (Griffin Point) (Doxey 1977). However, least eisco apparently do not migrate as far as the arctic cisco fnto the central region between the Colville and f'4ackenzie Rivers (Craig and McCart 1976). In Prudhoe· Bay, .tagged fish had an eastward movement from breakup through mid-August and then a general westward movement until freeze-up with a haphazar-d movement of some individuctls'in the bay throughout July and August (Bendock 1977). Bendock (1977) reported least cisco as appearing in the bay in early July and being taken to the end of the study pericd (September 20). Prudhoe Bay least cisco.ranged from 82 mm-364 mm (ages 1 through 12), · with 7 through· 10-year-old fish most frequently captured (Bendock 1977). Growth rates were 1 ower in Prudhoe Bay than in the Mackenzie River and interior Alaska. Age/average length re1ationships in Prudhoe Bay were reported by Bendock (1977} as follows: 1 -110 mm, 2 -127 mm, 3 -197 mm, 4 -212 mm, 5 -231 mm, 6 -264 mm, 7 -272 mm, 8 -2.96 mm, 9 -309 mm, 10 -319 mm, 11 -320 mm, and 12 -350 mm. Least cisco in Prudhoe Bay feed on mysids (91 percent of stomachs), amphipods (45 percent), adult dipterans (27 percent), isopods {9 percent), and yeget~~ion/detritus (9 ~ercent) (Bendock 1977). Least. cisco are also taken in the Colville River commercial fishery and recent estimates indicate a catchable population on the order of 590,000 fish (Craig and Haldorson 1979)o Broad Whitefish The broad whitefish also has an a~nadromous fonn and supports valuable commercial and subsistence fisheries in Alaska waters. This species E-44 ranges in North America from the Bering Sea to the Beaufort Sea as far east as the Perry River (Bendock 1977). A summer fishery in the Colville River delta harvests about 3000 broad whitefish annually (Alt and Kogl 1973) •. The distribution and relative abundance of broad whitefish are shown in Figure E-4 and Table E-1 • . The broad whitefish matures at about age 9. Some mature fish with developing gonads were captured that would not spawn in the year of capture (Bendock 1977), indicating that some portion of the population does not spawn each year.. Studies by Furniss {1975) indicate both Sagavanirktok and Colville River stocks may inhabit Prudhoe Bay. Adults enter the Sagavanirktok R·iver in 1 ate August and spawn in deep pools in the lower reaches of the delta, where the fish also overwinter (Bendock 1977). Adults and fry re-enter the sea when the larger rivers break up in early June, with fish caught in ~he Sagavanirktok delta on June 11 and in Prudhoe Bay on June 23 (Bendock 1977) !' Young-·of-the- year and age 1 broad whitefish seldom traveled beyond the waters adjacent to the Sagavanirkt9k and Colville deltas (Bendock 1977). These fish forage·in shallow bays and lagoons along the mainland coastline (Bendock 1977). Overwintering at sea may occur since Andriashev (1954) reported that broad whitefish spend the winter in the Ob Inlet., Broad whitefish sizes captured in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity ranged from 40 mm -560 mm. Ages 1 - 3 and 8 -13 were represented in Prudhoe Bay catches (Doxey 1977). Doxey (1977) indicated an eastward movement in August and September coinciding with the Sagavanirktok River spawing run. Some fish may be going the opposite direction if Colville River fish in fact c-ome to Prudhoe Bay. Tag returns were insufficient to indicate any definite movement trends. Of the 40 percent of the broad whitefish examined that had food in their stomachs, the predominant food organisms were ch·ironomid larvae (Bendock 1977). E-45 Humpback Whitefish Humpback whitefish are another whitefish with an anadromous form. This species is among the most.Widely distributed in Alaska although they are generally in mainland drainages and not at sea (Bendock 1977). The Colville Ri_ver is undoubtedly the major source of humpback white- fish to the Beaufort Sea. They spawn during the fall in the lower river reaches and they likely overwinter near the river delta (Bendock 1977). Bendvck (1977) reported that thi.s species was sparsely distri- buted between the Col vi 1 Te and Sagavanirktok de 1 tas. No i nfonnat ion was located on overwintering at sea by this species. The distribution and abundance of humpback whitefish are shown in Figure E-4 and Table E-1. Humpback whitefish generally are mature at ages 7 -10 years ( 310 463 mm) in the Colville River. In this study all males were spawners, ·but 68 percent of the females were nonspawners, possibly because they were immature (Kogl and Schell 1974). Kogl and Schell (1974) reported this species as the most numerous whitefish taken in the Co 1 vi 11 e River from 1 ate September to mid-November (peak at October 4 -19). Spawning occurred under the ice in the river delta in October. Young presumably hatch in 1 ate winter and then move down- stream (Morrow 1979). Bendock ( 1977) captured humpback whitefish from 61 -475 mm (fork length), in Prudhoe Bay from the first of July to the end of August. Habitation of brackish water is described by McPhail and Lindsey {1970), and Morrow (1979) reported that they have been taken-several miles offshore off the Colville and Sdgavanirktok Rivers. Tag returns were insufficient to define trends in movement.. Doxey (1977) and. Furniss (1975) indicated a possible westward movement in early August~ Amphi pods and shrimp were t~e rna in organisms consumed by humpback wbitefi sh. In the fall spawning peri ad few fish had empty stomachs and they continued to feed at 0.1 °G (32°F) and 9 parts per thousand salinity (Kogl and Schell 1974)~ A summer commercial fishery operates in the Colville Delta which took 1000 humpback whitefish (Alt and Kogl 1973). Other Species Other anadromous fish are not numarous enough to be of importance in impact assessment. Also, the species listed above are useful as indicators of the general habitat requirements of such species. MARINE MAMMALS Orientation Sixtee~• species of marine mammals have been recorded in the Beaufort Sea and at least six additional species could enter the area (NOAA-BLM 1978). These species are listed as follows: a. Year-Round Residents: Ringed seals (Phoca hispida)1 Bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) Polar bears (Ursus maritimus)2 b. Summer Seasonal Visitors: Bowhead whales (Belaena mysticetus)1 Belukha whales {Delphinapterus leucas)1 Spotted seals (Phoca vituliua 1argha)1 1 Currently under protection of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 2 Currently under protection of the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. E-47 c. Special cases Walruses (Odobenus rosmarus)2 Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus)1 Arctic foxes (Alopex logopus)2 d. Other mammals (rare or low numbers) Killer whales (Orcinus orca)1 Harbo; porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)1 Narwhals ( ~1onodon monoceros) 1 Fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus)1 ,3 Northern sea 1 ion ( Eumetopi as j ubata) 1 Hooded seals (Cystophor~ cristata)1 Harp seals (Phoca groenlandica)1 e. Chukchi Sea mammals which conceivably enter the Beaufort Sea: . Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)1 Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus)1 Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis)1 Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrat~)1 Sperm whales (Physeter catadon)1 Ribbon seals (Phoca fasciata)1 Only limited marine mammal surveys have been conducted in the Prudhoe Bay project area. However, genera 1 observations of the Beaufort Sea area have indicated that the major species of concern in' the Prudhoe Bay vicinity are: Bowhead whales Belukha whales Bearded. seals Ringed seals Polar bears Arctic foxes 1 Currently under protection of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 2 Currently under protection of the U.S~~ Fish and Wildlife Service. 3 Harvest regulated by the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission. E-48 The Maripe Mammal Protection 'Act of 1972 (PL 92-522) has provided for research and management of selected species. The Federal-State interactions in management are dfscussed by Burns (1980). To date the management and research goals of'the act have not been fully realized. The bowhead wha 1 e is. one of the most endangered species of great .whales (NOAA-BLM 1978, Appendix 6). The gray whale is also classified as endangered (USDI 1979), may occur seasonally in the western Beaufort Sea (NOAA-BLM-1978, Appendix ·6), and is apparently extremely rare in the Prudhoe Bay vicinity. Descriptions of Selected Species Bowhead Whale The bowhead whales of the Beaufort Sea Have been recently described by Smith (1974), Fiscus and Marquette (1975), Marquette (1976, 1977), Braham and Krogman (1977), Braham et al. (1977, 1977, in press), Fraker et al. (1978), Lowry et al. (1978b), Durham (1979), AEIDC {1979), Braham et a 1 • (in press), Nava 1 Ocean Systems Center ( 1980) , Everitt and Krogman {in press). A synthesis of bowhead whale movements and biology was provided from avai~able data by Rietze· {1979) as follows: "Bowhead 'whales of the western Arctic Ocean occur seasonally from the central Bering Sea northward throughout the Chukchi and eastern Siberian Seas and eastward throughout the u.s. Beaufort Sea to Banks Island and Amundsen Gulf, Northwest Territories, Canada. Bowheads are thought to winter in the northern and central Bering Sea, timing their northward migration with the breakup of the pack ice, generally in April. The migration proceeds through the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea to Point Barrow. From Point Barrow the whales travel northeasterly in the Beaufort Sea through leads to Banks Island, Canada and Amundsen Gulf. E-49 In Augu~t and September, b6wheads begin to leave the eastern Beaufort sea on th~ir fall migration back to the Bering Sea. The whales travel west through the southern Beaufort Sea to Point Barrow. During this migration; tr.e whales are hunted by Alaskan Eskimos from the villages of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow. Suspected migration routes are shown in [Fig~re E-6]. Sightings made since 1974 ind~cate that bowheads occur in shallow coastal waters all the way out to the ice pack {beyond the 100 m [328 ft] contour), although their exact spatial distribution is not known. Nearshore areas in the western Beaufort Sea appear to be important to the bowhead in the fall since there have be.en numerous sightings·in shallow water from Smith Bay to Point Barrow [see Figure E-7]. The current population estimate of bowhead wha 1 es in the western Arctic is 2,264, with a range of 1,783 to .2,865. This estimate is the result of three years of counting conducted by NMFS . biologists. Key biological parameters (e.g., recruitments mortality, and age structure) controlling the population of bowhead whales are virtually unknown. Bowheads begin reaching sexual maturity after attaining lengths exceeding [12 m] 38 feet. Recent information obtained from harvested whales indicates that sexual maturity may·not be reached in some whales until those animals have attained a length of [14 - 15 m] 45 -50 fe~t: Tile breeding period of the bowhead is not . . well known. Some researchers maintain that breeding occurs in . . early Apri 1 before the wha 1 es reach Point Hope, whereas other researchers have reported witnessing copulatory behavior in May near Point Hope and near Barrow. Gestation is estimated to last about 1 year, and thus calving season corresponds with the time of breeding. Observations of cows with calves passing Point Hope and Point Barrow from mid- April to mid-June suggest that most bowheads are probably born in E-50 .. .. ARCTIC OCEAN SIBERIA ALASKA PACIFIC OCEAN .. . ~ ....... ~---..... --·---------- PROPOSED MIGRATION PATTERN OF· "fHE BOWHEAD WHALE, BALAENA MYSTICETUS, . IN THE BER, ~G SEA AND THE ARCTIC OCEAN. NORTHERLY DIRECTED ARROWS DEPICT Tl--'-~RCH TO JUNE MIGRATION AND SOUTHERLY DIRECTED ARROWS DEPICT THESE·· >·;; .. R TO DECEMBER MIGRATION. SHADED AREAS ARE WHERE DATA ARE A VAl~· """ ,~OM HiSTORICAL ACCOUNTS OR FROM RECENT SIGHTINGS. Sourca: Braham'" Krogman & Fiscus 1977 SUSPECTED MIGRA TIOf~ R.OUTES. PBU Waterflood Environmental Impact Statement Figure e-s E-51 ., m C. :e ~~· .... G) ... .... -0 0 a.. m ~ < -· ... 0 ~ 3 0 :I .. II -· -:3 1'11 "0 D • U'l n N i"'it • Cl) .... • . ,.. tD 3 CD :2 .. I • • • 8 E·A U F 0 R T SEA • • • P'j •. • ·aowhead whale sightings (t) in the Bea~fort Sea, August through Novemberj 1974-1978, made during NMFS aerial surveys, and frum contributing scientistso Only sightings· with a verified position data were used. Most sightings occ~rred in the last half of ~eptember, The dashed line represents th~ 12 m contour.. Source: Braham, Kroqmen, a Carrol, Unpub!lahecf manuscript~ BOWHEAD WHALE SIGHT!NGS <Z M • . J the spring, either before February to r~arch migration or during April to June migration. One researcher classified the bowhead as a bottom skimmer in terms of its feeding habits, although it is probable that it feeds throughout the water column. A comprehensive food habits study has not been conducteds but available data indicate that· pelagic arthropods .. (euphausiids, mysids, copepods, and amphipods) are the preferred food organisms, and that annelids, molluscs, and echi nodenns are ut i1 i zed to a 1 esser degree. Stomach contents of a whale taken by Point Hope Eskimos during· a spring migration included the remains of polychaetes, molluscs, crustaceans, and echinodenns; whereas stomach contents of two whales taken at Point Barrow in the fall of 1977 contained (by volume) 90.3% euphasiids and 9.6% amphipods. Researchers report wha 1 es rna vi ng past the NMFS ice camps in the spring at a rate of 1.0 -4.0 knots, depending on the direction of the c~rrent. During the spring migration, whales do not travel ih close association with one another. Of 2,406 bowhead observations recorded during 1976-1978, 1,818 (75.4%) were singles, 470 (19.5%) were in pairs, 105 (4.4%) werd in groups of three, and 16 {0.7%) were in groups of four. During the fall migration, bowheads may travel in larger groups. Bowheads' reaction to noise appears varied. A bowhead will leave the area when an· outboard motor approaches. However, reaction to airpL~nes flying overhead seems mixed, the whales reacting vigorously in some instances and showing little reaction in other instances. It appears that fright reaction to noise varies greatly, depending upon the source, environmental conditions, and activity or the animals. Bowheads are known to occur near Pr-udhoe Bay. Si nee 197 4, 53 fa 11 sight i ngs have been made tot a 1 i ng approximately 323 anima 1 s for E-53 --... the entire Beaufort Sea. These sightings are the result of aerial . . surveys conducted mostly.west of 150° W longitude~ Although fewer anima 1 s were observed ·east of 150° vJ 1 ongi tude, the paucity of sightings is thought to be directly proportional to the effort expended (i.e., less extensive aerial surveys). Numerous fall .sightings have been made in nearshore shallow waters between Point B~rrow and Smith Bay during the past 5 years, suggesting that this is an area of importance to bowheads. The whales appeared to be involved in feeding activity at the time of these sightings~ It is not possible at this time to determine whether the western portion of the Beaufort Sea is more critical to the bowhead than the eastern portion. Limited surveys east of 150° W longitude have not established heavily uti1'Lzed areas in the eastern Beaufort Sea, although it is certainly possible that thsse areas exist.~~ In October 1979 11 bowheads were sighted within an area 16.6 km (10.3 mi) north and 11 km (6.9 mi) nor"theast of Cross Isl_and. In addition!: one bowhead was sighted 5.5 km (3.4 mi) north of Narwhal Island (Naval Ocean Systems Genter 1980). Burns (1980) and Brewer (1980) reported that surveys by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game indicate no bowheads inside the barrier islands near Prudhoe Bay during spring migration because of extensive shorefast ice. The whales are well to the northeast b~ the time the shorefast sea ice melts in June. However, they indicated that whales do move. closer to .ttis bat""rier islands during fall rr.-igration and follow the ·~intermediate shelfe 11 Bo.wheads are not to be expected inside the barrier islands at any timeo Belukha Whales The belukha (also spelled beluga) whales of the Beaufort Sea have been recently described by Klinkhart (1966), Smith \1974}, Sergeant and Brodie (1975), Braham and Krogman (1977), Braham et al. (1977, 1979), and Fraker et a 1 • { 1978) • Erah . .xm et a 1 • ( 1979) provided information· used in a synopsis by Swope (1979) as follows: E-54 Distribution uThe Bering Sea population of be 1 ukha wha 1 es consists of both resident and migratory components. One component is thought to winte.r in the Bering Sea and migrate into the eastern Siberia and western Canada waters in spring and summer. An unknown portion of this population summers in the Norton Sound-Yukon Delta area and Kotzebue Sound. Eschscholtz and Spafafief Bays, in Kotzebue Sound, provide possible breeding and calving areas~ The Beaufort Sea probably serves mainly as a summer feeding area for belukha whales migrating from the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Overwintering in the Beautvrt and Chukchi Sea, should it occur, would prqbably occur in open water during mild ice years. Spring migration occurs from March to early July, at which time whales follow nearshore and offshore leads along the west and north coast of Alaska and through the Bering and Chukchi Seas, a migration route corresponding close11 to that of bowhead whales. A large number of individuals may congegate in tt.e spring until breakup of the pack ice, at which time they may form smaller groups until the summering areas are reached. Braham (1979) indicated that those individuals summering in the Canada arctic waters cross the Beaufort Sea from May to June, using leads which normally occur .30 -100 km (19-62 mi) offshore. The animals then move south along the west side of Banks I.sl and to Amundsen Gulf and the Mackenzie delta. Although not well documented, individu~ls apparently begin to depart Canada waters in August or September, returning back to the Bering Sea in December or during the time vf advancing ice. Reproduction and Food Habits Sexual maturity is reached in the female at an age of 5 years and in the male at about 8 years. Breeding genera·:·ly occurs from 1 ate spring to arctic waters. available, it early summer in the eastt;rn Siberia ar~d Canada Although data on breeding in Alaska waters is not probably coincides closely with that in Canada E-55 arctic wat~rs. Calving is bel~eved to occur in May or J~ne; however, Eskimos ha~e reported seeing young calves· as early as ~1arch. With a gestation period of 12-' months and a lactation period of 24 months, the reproductive cycle of a belukha whale is estimated to last 3 years. Belukha whales feed primarily on fish as we 11 as invertebrates in estuaries and bays at the mouth of rivers. Prey species utilized in the Beaufort Sea are unknown, b~t polar cod is an abundant and available potential prey species· in the western Arctic. Whales residing in Bristol Bay feed upon all species of salmon::~ smelt, flounder, sole, sculpin, blenny, 1 amprey, musse 1 s, and severa 1 types of shr·ir;,,p during the summer. Their diet !"egime for the rest of the year is unknown.!; Johnson (1979) reported sighting schf.lols of belukhas swimming westward offshore of the west end of Pingok Island during September of 1977 and 1978. None wa.s ever observed inside the barrier islands. Bearded .Seals Bearded seals in the Beaufort Sea have been studied recently by Burns (1967), Stirling et al. {1975), Burns and Eley (1977), and Burns and Frost {1979j. . The bearded seal is an ice-associated marine mammalG Annual differ- ences in ice conditions and bottom contours relative to preferred feeding depths in the Beaufort Sea make the region a .marginal habitat for this seal (Burns and Frost 1979). They reportt a low abundance relative to the Chukchi and northern Bering Seas. Burns and Eley (1977) report about 0.1 animal per km2 in the Beaufort Sea" Some bearded seals are .present in all seasons in the Beaufort Sea; thus, all annual and life cycle events take place in this area (Burns and Frost 1979). Bearded seals can make and maintain breathing holes in relatively thin ice. However, they avoid regions of continuous, thick, shorefast E-56 ice and they are not common in regions of unbroken, heavy, drifting ice (Burns and· Frost 1979). The bearded seal inhabits areas of shallow water where ice· is: in constant motion producing leads, polynya and other openings· along transition zones, which are very 1 imited in the Beaufort Sea relative to the Chukchi and northern Bering Seas (Burns and Frost 1979). ~Iovements occur from the Chukchi Sea to the western Beaufort in summer and the bearded seals occupy ice remnant" areas close to shore (Burns and Frost 1979). Movement from the Chukchi Sea to the eastern Beaufort Sea is not thought to be great, due tu the 1 ow densities in summer (Burns and Frost 1979). Bearded seal pups are born on top of the ice frQ~ late March through May and then breeding and molting follows (NOAA-BLM 1978). Although some pups are born in the Beaufort Sea, most are born in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Pups can swim shortly after birth and are weaned in 12 - 18 days (Burns 1967}. Major~ prey species of bearded seals in the Beaufort basin in order of importance are the spider crab (Hyas .coarctatus), shrimp (Sabinea ~eptemcarinata) and arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) (Lowry et al. 1978a). Bearded seals are primarily benthic feeders, but their diet changes both as the seals move and as prey species in a given area change with time. In spring and summer, invertebrates comprised 95 percent of the stomach contents; in November and February, fish were of greater importance for bearded seals taken near Barrow. Arctic cod were taken in substantial' quantities and tt1eir appearance in the winter diet may coincide with an onshore spawnin·g migration during early winter (Burns ~nd Frost 1979). Ringed Seals Ringed seals are the most common and widespread seal in the Beaufort Sea (NOAA-BLM 1978). Recent reports on ringed seals include those of E-57 Burns and Harbo {1972), Burns and Eley {1977}, Smith and Stirling (1975), and Lowry {1978 a,b). · .. Ringed seals are ice-associated marine mammals usually found close to shore in the 1 andfast ice. The change to summer ice results in seasonal concentrations of ringed seals along the edge of the pack ice . and in ice remnants along shore; in the fall, these seals redistribute to the south as ice cover increases (NOAA-BLM 1978). They are numerous and important as food for man and other ani rna 1 s, such as po 1 ar bears and arctic foxes. They are the most numerous seal taken by Eskimo seal hunters (NOAA-BLM 1978). Beaufort Sea ringed seal densities declined about 50 percent between 1970 and 1977, apparently <iue to heavy ice in 1975 and 1976 ( Stirling et al. 1975, Burns and El ey 1977). It has been theorized that a net westward and southern displacement of ringed seals from the Beaufort and northern Chukchi Seas has occurred. A gradual return to the Beaufort Sea is anticipated if better ice years (1977 and 1978) continue to occur (NOAA-BLM 1978). Ringed seal densities are higher on landfast ice than on pack ice (Burns and -Harbo 1972, Burns 3nrl El ey 1977). Stab 1 e 1 andfast ice is the prefer~·ed breeding habitat (NOAA-BLM 1978}. Ringed seal pups. are born from late March to late April in lairs in snowdrifts and pressure ridges. They remain in natal dens for 4 -6 weeks (Smith and Stirling 1975, Eley 1978). Breeding follows and adults are less mobile on . 1 andfast ice in this pupping and breeding period and depend on a few holes and cracks for breathing (Smith and Stirling 1975). Molting follows from May through early July. Within the Prudhoe Bay area, Burns (1980) estimates densities of about one seal per km 2 in the spring. Feeding is reduced in the pupping, breeding, and molting periods and blubber is metaboli:t:ed (NOAA-BLM 1978). From summer through fall feeding oecomes intensive (NOAA-BLM 1978). E-58 Arctic cod is the most important single prey species in the Beaufort Sea, where they are eaten year-round. This fish specfes ·is a pre-. . dominant food in fall and winter and is possibly also a major food in offshore areas during the summer. Off Prudhoe Bay in November 1977, large quantities of arctic cod were found in ringed seal stomachs. Amphipods and mysids were major food items in late winter and spring in the western Beaufort Sea. Nears~ore prey species vary by area. Nearshore Barrow ringed sea 1 s ate euphaus i ids, i so pods, and gammari d amphipods in late spring and summer, with euphausiids dominating particularly in August 1977. N~rth of Prudhoe Bay in August 1977, hyperiid amphipods dominated, while east of Prudhoe Bay small amounts of gammarid amphipods"' mysids, and ·shrimp were eaten in summer (NOAA-BLM 1978). Apparently the ringed seal feeds on the m·ast abundant and avail able suitable species (Lowry et al. 1977). Ringed seals appear to forage very heavily on temporally and spacially dispersed zooplankton blooms, which are probably critical for· attaining an adequate annual food intake (NOAA-BLM 1978). E-59 REFERENCES AINA, 1974.· The Alaska arctic coast: a background study of available literature. u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Alexander, v., R. Horner, and R.C. Clasby, 1974. Metabolism of arctic sea ice organisms. University of Alaska, Inst. of Marine Science. Rep. R74-4. 120 pp. Alt, K.T., and D.R. Kogl, 1973. Notes on the whitefish of the Colville River, Alaska. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 30{4):554-556. American Fisheries Society, 1970. Common and scientific names of fishes. Special publication No. 6, Washington, D.C. Andriyashev, A.P., 1954o Fishes of the northern seas of the U.S.S.R. Izdatel'stvo. Akad. Nauk. SSR, Moskva-Leningrad. Translation from Russian, Israel Program for Scientific Translations. Jerusalem, 1964. 617 p. AEIDC, 1979. Status of bowhead whales, bowhead research and Alaska Eskimo whaling: A report to the State Legislature. University of Alaska, Anchorage. Bain, L.H., 1974. Life histories on systematics of arctic char in the Babbage River System, Yukon Territory'" Canadian Gas Study Ltd. Biological Report Series 18{1):1-156. -=---' and A. Sekera, 1978. Aspects of the biology of arctic cod, Boreogadus saida, in the central Canadian Arctic. Report by LGL Limited for Polar Gas Project,. Toronto. 104 p. Battelle Northwest Laboratory, 1979. Alaska environmental r~search. In: Annual report for 1978 to the DOE Assistant Secretary for Environ- ment, Part 2 supplement -ecological sciences, pp. 12.0 -12.24. Beehler, c., M. Busdosh, K. Tarbox, and G. Robilliard, 1979. Occur- rence of kelp offshore of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea -Winter 1979. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska, 36 pp. Bendock, T., 1977. Beaufort Sea estuarine fishery study. · Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Final report to NOAA/BLM. Contract No. 03-5-022-69. 61 p .. . Braham, H.W., 1979. Personal communication with J. Isakson, Dames & Moore. E-60 ~-=- , H.W., and B.D.. Krogman, 1977.. Population biology of bowhead (Balaena mysticetus) and beluga (Delphinaterus leucas) whale in the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. U.S. Dep. Cammer., Natl • Oceanic Atmos. Admin., Natl. Fish. Serv., Northwest and Alaska Fish. Cent., Mar. Mammal Div.~ Seattle, Wash., Processed Rep., 29 p. _..,_.,.., B .. D. Krogman, and C. Fiscus, 1977. Bowhead (Balaena. mysticetus) and beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) whales in the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. In: Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf, annual reports of principal investigators for the year ending March 1977, Vol 1, receptors -mammals, p. 134-160. u.s. Dep. Cammer., Natl. Oceanic Atmos .. Ad~in., Environo Res. Lab.~ Boulder, Colo. -=-~' B.D. Krogman, S. Leatherwood, W. Marquette, D. Rugh, M. Tillman, J. Johnson, and G. Carroll. In press. Preliminary report of the 1978 spring bowhead wha 1 e r·esearch program results [SC/30/Doc. 36]. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 19. 57 p. -:---:-:-' BoK. Krogman, w. Marquette, D. Rugh, J. Johnson, M. Nerini, S. Leatherwood, M. Dahlheim, R. Sonntag, G. Carroll, T. Bray, s .. Savage, and J. Cubbage, 1979. Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) preliminary reseaTch results, June through Decemper 1978. U.S. Dep. Cammer., Natl. Oceanic Atmos. Admin., Natl!l) Mar. Fish Serv., Northwest and Alaska Fish. _Cent., Natl~·Mar. Mammal Lab., Seattle, Wash., NWAFC Processed Rep. 79-8, 40 p. Bre~sr, M. (USGS/NPR-A), 1980. Personal communication to J. Hemming, Dames & Moore. Broad, A.C., 1977. Environmental assessment of selected habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea 1 i ttora 1 system.. . Annua 1 Report RU #356. In: Environmental Assessment of the Alaska Continental Shelf, Annual Report, OCSEAP, Boulder, Col. -=--=--:---' A •. Benedict, K. Dunton, H. Koch, D.T. Mason, D.E. Schneider:, and S.V& Schonberg, 1979. Environmental assessment of selected habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi 1 ittoral system. Annual report. OCSEAP, Boulder, Col. -=--=--' H. Koch, D.T. Mason, G.M. Petrie, D.E. Schneider, and R.J .• Taylor, 1978. Environmental ·assessment of selected habitats in the Beaufort Sea 1 ittoral system. In: Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf. Annual report. Nat. Oceanic Atmos. Admin., Boulder, Co. 86 p • . Burns, J.J., 1967. The Pacific bearded seal. Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Fed. Aid Wildlife Restoration Proj. Rep. Vol. 8, 66p. (ADF&G), 1980. Personal communication to J. Hemming, Dames & Moore. E-61 , and T .. J.. El ey, 1977. The oatura 1 hi s~ory and eco 1 ogy of the ..,..b-ea-r-;oded seal (Erignathus barbatus) and the ringed seal (Phoca hispida). Annual report, OSCEAP, B~ulder, Co. ~~, and K.J. Frost, 1979. The natural history and ecology of the bearded sea 1 (Eri gnathus barbatus). Fi na 1 report. OSCEAP, Soul der, co. , and s. J. Harbo, Jr., 1972. An aerial census of ringed seals, --:-:-northern coast cf Alaska. Arctic 25{4):279-290. Bursa, A., 1963. Phytoplankton in the coastal waters of the Arctic Ocean at Point Barr·ow, Alaska. Arctic 16:239-262. Busdosh M., K. Tarbox, and G. Robilliard, 1979. Attraction of amphi- pods by baited traps. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea - Winter 1979. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska, 36 pp. · Carey, A.G., Jr., 1977. Summarization of existing literature and unpublished data on the distribution, abundance, and life histories of benthic organisms, Annual Report Vol. 6, Receptors -fish, 1 ittoral, benthos.. OCSEAP, Boulder, Co. , 1978.. The distribution, abundance, div.ersity and productivity -o-=-f~t:"'"l'hE western Beaufort Sea benthos. Annua 1 Report RU #6. In: Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf. Annual report. OCSEAP, Boulder, Co.· , and R.E. Ruff, 1977. Ecological studies of the benth~s in the -we-s~t-ern Beaufort Sea with special reference to bivalve molluscs. In: M.J" Dunbar (Ed.·), Polar oceans. Arcti_c Institute of North America, Calgary, Alberta. • • Chin, H., M. Busdosh, G.A. Robilliard, R •. Firth, 1979a. Environmental studies associated with the Prudhoe Bay dock: physical oceanography and benthic ecology. Final report prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. , A~ Neirdoroda, G. Robilliard, and M. Busdosh, 1979b. Related ~--:-:-studies. In: Biological effects of impingement and entrainment from operation of the proposed intake. Draft report for ARCO Oi 1 and Gas Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants~ Anchorages Alaska. Clasby, R.C., V. Alexander, and R; Horner, 1976. Primary productivity of sea ice algae. In: D.W. Hood and D.C. Burrell {Eds.), Assessment of the arctic marine environment: selected topics. Univ. of Alaska, Inst. Mar. Sci. Oceas. Publ~~ 4. Coyle, K.O., 1974. The ecology of the phytoplankton of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and the surrounding waters. M.s. thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 265 pp. E-62 Craig, P..C. s; 1977. . Ecological studies . of anadronous and resident populations of arctic char in the Canning River drainage and adjacent coastal waters of the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Canadian Arctic Gas Study Limited, Biological Report Series 41:1-116. , and W. Griffiths, 1978. Ecology of fishes in Simpson Lagoon. -=---In: Beaufort Sea barrier island-lagoon ecological process stud:as. LGL Ltd.-U.S., Inc., Annual Report, Research Unit 467.. NOAA/OCSEAP, Boulder, Co. 318 p. , and L. Haldorson, 1979. Ecology of fishes in Simpson Lagoon, -=-----= Beaufort Sea, Alaska. In: Beaufort Sea barrier island-lagoon ecological process studies. LGL Ltd.-U.S., Inc., Annual Report, Research Unit 467. NOAA/ OCSEAP, Boulder,Co. , and P. McCart, 1974. Fall spawning and overwintering areas of ~-:--fish populations aJong routes of proposed pipeline between Prudhoe Bay and the Mackenzie Delta, 1972 to 1973. In: P. McCard {Ed.), Fisheries research associated with proposed gas pipeline routes in Alaska, Yukon, and Northwest Territories. Arctic Gas Biological Report Series, Vol. 15{3). 36 p. . ~- , and P. McCart, 1976. Fish use of nearshore coastal waters in the western Arctic: emphasis on anadromous species. In: D.W. Hood and D.C. Burrell {Ed~.), Assessment of the arctic marine environment: selected topics. Occas, Publ. No.4, Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks. --:-:-' and G.J. Mann, 1974. Life history and distribution of the arctic cisco (Coregonus autumnalis).along the Beaufort Sea coastline in Alaska and the Yukon Territory. Canadian Arctic Gas Study Ltd., Calgary, Alberta. Biol. Rept. Sere 17(1):47 p. Crane, J.J., 1974. Ecological studies of the benthic fauna in an arctic estuary. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 105 pp. Dames & Moore, 1979. Ecological studies of intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats in lower Cook Inl t. Report prepared for NOAA- OCSEAP. Doxey, M., 1977. Fishery impact survey of the ARCO causeway. Dept. Fish and Game, Unpubl. Rpt. to Atlantic Richfield Coo Alaska 38 p., Dunton, K. and S& Schonberg, 1979. An arctic kelp community in Stefanson Sound, Alaska; a survey of the flor·a and fauna. In: Broad, A.C., Reconnaissance characterization of littoral biota, Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf. October 1978. Durham, F.E., 1979. The catch of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) by Eskimos, with emphasis on the western arctic. Contrib. Sci. Nat(J Hist •. Mus., Los Angeles Cty. 314:1-14. E-63 Eley, T.J., 1977. An analysis of polar bear predation on ice- inhibiting pinniped populations 'of Alaska, abstract only. In: Proclamation 2nd Conference on Biol. Ma~ine Mammals, San Diego, Calif., 12-15 De~ember 1977, p. 18. , 1978. The ringed seal in ·Alaska. Wildlife Notebook Series, -=-=---=-Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. English, T aS., and R .A. Horner, 1976. Beaufort Sea p 1 ankton studies, pp. 593-671. In: En vi ronmenta 1 assessment of the A 1 ask a cant i nepta 1 shelf., Vol. 7, fish, plankton) benthos, littoral. RU #359. Principal Investigators Reports for the year ending March 1976, OCSEAP, Boulder, COt Everitt, R.D., and B.D. Krogman, in press. Sexual behavtor of bowhead whales observed off the north coast of Alaska. A ret ic 32(3), 4 p. Feder, H.M.~ D.G. Shaw and A.S. Naidu, 1976a. The arctic environment in Alaska, the nearshore marine envir.onment in P·rudhoe Bay, Alaska. Institute of Marine Science,· Grant Report 76-3, Vol. I, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. , D. Schamel~ E.R. Shaw, and A.S. Naidu, 1976b. Environmental -st~u~d~y of the marine environment in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Institute of Marine Science, University of Alas~a> Fairbanks. Fiscus, C.H., and W.M. Marquette, 1975. National Marine Fisheries Service field studies relating to the bowhead whale harvest in Alaska, 1974. U.S. Dep. Cammer., Natl. Oceanic Atmos. Admin., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Northwest Fish. Cent., Seattle, Wash., Processed Rep., 23 p • . Fraker, M.A., D.E. Sergeant, and w. Hoek, 1978. Bowhead and white whales in the souther·n Beaufort Sea. Beaufort Sea Tech. Rep. #4, Department of Fisheries and the Environment (Can.), Beaufort Sea Project, Sidney, B.c., 114 p. Frost, K., L. Lowry and J. Burns, 1978. Offshore demersal fishes and epibenthic invertebrates of the northern Chukchi and western Beaufort Seas. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Annua.l Report. NOAA/OCCSEAP, Boulder~ Co., 39 p. Furniss, R.A., 1975. Inventory and cataloging of arctic area waters. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Annual Report 16:1-47. Galbraith, D., and D. Fraser, 1974. Distribution and food habits of fish in the eastern coastal Bea~Jfort Sea. Interim Report of Beaufort Sea Project Study Bl (Eastern). Fish. and Marine Serv., Environ. Canada. 48 p. E-64 Grider, G.W., G.A. Rob.illiard, and R.W. Firth, 1977. Environmentai studies associated with the Prudhoe Bay dock: coastal· pt·ocesses and marine benthos. Final report prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants,· Anchorage, Alaska. , G.A. Robilliard, and R.W. Firth, 1978. -as_s_o-ci ated with the Prudhoe Bay dock: coastal benthos. Final report prepared for Atlantic Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, A1aska. Environmental studies processes and marine Richfield Company by Griffiths, w. and P.C. Craig, 1978~ Invertebrates. In: J. Truett {Ed.), Beaufort Sea barrier island-lagoon ecological process studies. LGL Ltd., Environ. Research Assoc. RU #467. Annual report to OCSEAP, Boulder, CO. · , P.C. Cr~ig, G. Walder and G. Mann, 1975. Fisheries investiga--:--:--tions in a coastal region of the Beaufort Sea {Nunaluk Lagoon, Y.T.). · Canadian Arctic Gas Study Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Biol. Rept. Ser. 34(2):219 p. - , J. DenBeste .and P.C. Craig, 1977. Fisheries investigations in _a_c_o-astal region of the Beaufort Sea {Kaktovik Lagoon, Barter Island, Alaska). Canadian Arctic Gas Study Ltd., Calgary, Alberta. Biol. Rept. Ser. 40{2): · 190 p. -:----' and R.E. Dtllinger, 1979. Ecology of invertebrates in Simpson Lagoon, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. In: Beaufort Sea barrier island-lagoon ecological process studies. Annual Rep. by LGL Limited for NOAA/ OCSEAP, Boulder, CO., 119 p. Hand 1 c. and L.B. Kan, 1961. The mudusae of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas of the Arctic Ocean including the description of a new species of Eucodonium. Arctic Institute of North America Tech. Paper #6. Horner, R.A., 1969. Phytoplankton studies in the coastal waters near Barrow, Alaska. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Washington, Seattle, 261 pp. , 1972.' Ecological studies on arctic sea ice organisms. Progress -=---Report to the Office of Naval Research for the period 1 May 1971 -30 April 1972. Univ. of Alaska, Inst. Mar. Sci. Rep. No. R72-18. ·116 pp. , 1973. Studies on organisms ·found in arctic sea ice. Final -=---Report to the Arctic Institute of North America~ No report numbero ~=:-:' 1978. Beaufort Sea plankton studies, Annual Rept. RU#359. OCSEAP, Boulder, CO. , 1979. Beaufort Sea plankton ·studies. Annual Report RU#359. ~o--cs-E~AP·, Boulder, co. E-65 , 1972. Algal populations in arctic sea ice: an investigation of ""T---:~ heterotrophy. Kimnol. Oceanogr. 14:454-458.· -=---n-' K.O. Coyle and D.R. Redburn, 1974. Ecology of the plankton of Prudhoe Bay. Alaska Inst. Mar. Sci. Rept. R74-2, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks. 78 pp. Hsiao, S.I.C., 1976. Biological productivity of the southern Beaufort Sea: phytoplankton and s.eaweed studies. Dept. Environment, Beaufort Sea Project Tech. Report 12-C, Victoria, B.C. ' Hunter, J.G., 1975 .. ·Fishery resources of the western arctic. Manu- script Rep. Ser. Fishery Research Board of Canada #1335, 33 pp. Johnson., M. W., 1956. The plankton of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea areas of the Arctic and its relations to the hydrography. Arctic Inst. N. Amer. Tech. Pap. No. 1. 32 pp. ~"""""'"""' 1958. Observations on inshore plankton collected during summer· 1957-at Point Barrow, Alaska. J. Mar. Res. 17:272-281. Johnson, S.R., 1979. Fall observations of westward migrating white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) along· the central 'Alaskan Beaufort Sea coast. Arctic, 32(3):275-276. Kendel, R.E., R.A.C. Johnston, U. Lobsige~, and ·M.D. Kozak, 1975. Fishes of the Yukon coast. Beaufort Sea Project Techni ca 1 Report No. 6. Victoria, B.C. Klinkhart, Edward, 1966. The beluga whale in Alaska. Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Fed. Aid WildT. Restoration Proj. Rep., Vol. 7, 11 p. Kogl, D.R., ~nd D.Schell, 1974. Colville River delta fisheries researcho In: Baseline data study of the Alaskan arctic aquatic environment. Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, College, Alaska. Final Report. . Larrance, J.D. and A.J. Chester, 1979. Source, composition, and flux of organic detrities in lower Cook Inlet. Final Report. Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory, NOAA, for NOAA-OCSEAP, Boulder, Co. Lees, D.C., 1975. City of Oxnard predischarge receiving water monitor- ; ng study -results of bi o 1 ogi ca 1 study. Fi na 1 report prepared for City of Oxnard by Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc. and Marine Biological Consultants, Inc. Lowry, L.G., K.J. Frost, and J.J. Burns, 1977. Trophic relationships among ice inhabiting phocid seals. OSCEAP final report. Boulder, co. , 1979a. Trophic relationships among ice inhabiting placid seals. ~OS~C~E~AP' final report. Boulder, CO. !} 1978b. -=---Barrow, Alaska. Food of ringed ·sea 1 s and bo~head wha 1 es near Point Can. Field-Nat. 92{1):67-70. McCart, P., and H. Bain, 1974. An isolated ·population of arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) inha~iting a warm mineral spring above a waterfall at each~ Creek, N.W.T. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31{8):1408-1414. , P. Craig and H. Bain, 1972. Report on fisheries investigations ~i-n~t~he Sagavanirktok River and neighboring drainages. Report to Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Bellevue, Washington. 186 pp. McPhai'l, J.D .. , 1961. A systematic studY of the Sajvelinus alpinus - complex in North America. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 18{5):793:816. -=---, and c.c. Lindsey, 1970. The freshwater fishes of north-western Canada and Alaska. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 173:381 p. MacGinitie, G.Eo, 1955. Distribution and ecology of the marine invertebrates of Point Barrow, Alas·ka. Sm·ithsn Misc. Collns. 128{9): 1-201. Marquette, W.M., 1976. Bowhead whale field studies in Alaska, 1975. MFR Paper 1195. Mar. ·Fish. Rev. 38(8) :9-17. -;-----:-::' 1977. The 1976 catch of bowhead \r~ha 1 es ( Ba 1 aena myst i cetus) by Alaskan Eskimos, with a review of the fishery, 1973-1976, and a biological summary of the species. u.s. Dep. Cammer., Nat·l. Oceanic Atmos. Admin., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Northwest and Alaska Fish. Cent., Mar. Mammal Div., Seattle, Wash., Processed Rep., 79 p + app. ~---=-' in press. 1977 catch of bowhead whales (Balaena m,xsticetus) by Alaskan Eskimos [SC/30/DOC-35]. Rep. International Whaling Commission No. 29. 26 pp. Matheke, Q.E.M., 1973. The ecology of the benthic microalgae in the sublittoral zone of the Chukchi Sea near Barrow, Alaska.. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbankso 132 pp. ---=---' and R. Horner, 1974. Primary productivity of the benthic microalgae in the Chukchi Sea near Barrow, Alaska. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 31:1779-1786. Mohr 5 J.L., N.J. Wilimousky, and E.Y. Dawson, 1957. An arctic Alaskan kelp bed. Arctic 10:45-52. Morrow, J.E., 1979. Freshwater fishes of Alaska: their biology, distribution and value. Report for EPA. NTIS No. PB 294879. University of Alaska, College, Alaska. Maul ton, L., K. Tarbox, and R, Thorne, 1980. Beaufort Sea fishery investigations. Summer 1979. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. E-67 Nava 1 Ocean Systems Center, 1980. Aeri a 1 surveys of bowhead wha 1 es, North Slope, Alas~a, February 1980. _Technical Document 314a Prepar~d for Bureau of.Land Managem~nt. Nikol•skii, G.V., 1954. Special ichthyology. Israel Progr~m for Scientific Translations, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., OTS 60-21817, 538 pp. NOAA-BLM, 1978.. Envir·onmental assessment of the Alaskan continental she 1 f. Interim synthesis: Beaufort/Chukchi. Nat i ona 1 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 362 p. Percy, R., 1975. Fishes of the outer MacKenzie delta. Beaufort Sea Project Technical Report No. 8. Victoria, B.C., Can. Quast, J.C., 197~. Density distribution of juvenile arctic cod, Boreogadus saida, ·in the eastern Chukchi Sea in the fall of 1970. Fish. Bull. u.s •. 72(4):1094-1105. Redburn, D.R., 1974. The ecology of the inshore marine zooplankton of the Chukchi s~a near Point Barrow, Alaska. M.S. thesis., Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks. 172 p. Rietze, H.L .. ~ 1979. letter from ·NMFS of December 13 to Colonel L.R. Nunn (Alaska District Corps of Engineers). Robilliard, G. and M. Busdosh, 1979. Biology of the isopod (Saduria entomon) at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea -Winter 1979. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska, 124 pp. Schell, D.M., 1978. Nutrient dynamics in nearshore under-ice waters. Annual report. NOAA/BLM-OCSEAP, Boulder, CO. 25 pp. Sergeant, D.E., and P.F. Brodie, 1975. Identity, abundance, and present status of populations of white whales,. Delphinapterus leucas, in North Americae J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32:1047-1054. Se.veringhaus, N.C., 1979. Selected annotated references on marine mammals of Alaska. NMFS NWAFC processed report 79-15. Smith, T.G., 1974~ Biology of the Beaufort region. Northern Perspec- tives, Can. Arctic Resour. Cornm. 2(2):11-12. , and I. Stirling, 1975 •. The breeding habitat of the ringed seal _,.(P::-:h-o-ca hispida): the birth lair and associated structures. Can. J .. Zool. 53:1297-1305~ · Stirling, I., R. Archibald, and D. DeMaster, 1975. Distribution and abundancce of seals in the eastern Beaufort Sea. Dep. Environ. [Can.], Beaufort Sea Project, Victoria, B.C., Can., Beaufort Sea Tech. Rep. #1, 58 p. Swope, R., 1979. New results in marine mamma 1 research.. Population biology of the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) II: Migrations, di stri but ;.on and abundance in the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas~ with notes on the distribution and life history of white whales (Delphinapterus leugas). A summary of September 1979 OCSEAP final report: H. Brauham, B .. Krogman, G. Carroll (R.U. 69/70) National Marine Mammal Laboratory. Bering Sea -Gulf of Alaska News 1 etter {9):5-7, November. Tarbox, K., M. Busdosh, D. LaVigne, and G. Robilliard, 1979. Under-ice plankton in the Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska -February-May 1979. In: Environmental studies of the Prudhoe Bay Unit.,.. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska, 52 PP.• , and L. Moulton, 1980. Larval fish abundance in the Beaufort Sea --near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea -Summer 1979. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward- Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. ~-' and G.A. Robilliard, 1980. Personal communication to D. Lees, Dames & Moo\'·e. , ~nd T. Spight, 1979. Beaufort Sea fishery investigations. In: "'="s-=-io~l-ogical effects of impingement and entrainment from operation of the proposed intake. Draft report prepared for ARCO Oil and Gas Company by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchor'age, Alaska .. ' -::-----:-' and R. Thorne, 1979. Measurements of fish densities under the ice in the Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea -Winter 1979. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska, 111 pp.· Underwood, L.S., 1975. Notes on the arctic fox {tlop)x lagopus) in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska. In: J. Brown Ed .. , Ecological investigations of the tundra biome in the Prudhoe Bay region, Alaska. Biol. Papers of the. University of Alaska, Special Report Nou 2., pp. 145-149. USDI, 1972u Final environmental impact statement proposed trans- Alaskan pipeline. Prepared by a special interagency task force for the Federal Task Force on Alaska Oil Development. · U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1979. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plantst! Fedt~ral Register. 44(12) :3636-3653, January 17. Yoshihara, H.T., 1972. Monitoring and evaluation of arctic waters with emphasis on the North Slope drainages. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual Report of Progress, Pl"'oject F-9-4, 13{G-III-A):1-49. E-69 , 1973. Monitoring and evaluation of arctic waters with emphasis --:-:-on tf!e North Slope drainages. Alaska Dept. of Fish and ~ameo Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annua 1 Report of Progress, Project F-9-5, 14 (G-III-A):l-83. Woodttard-Clyde. Consultants, 1979. Prudhoe Bay waterfl ood project, Volume II~ environmenta-l, July 1979. Prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. E-70 APPENDIX F FRESHWATER RESOURCES 1.0 INTRODUCTION Thousands of sha 11 ow 1 akes and ponds, wide braided rivers, and small meandering streams dominate the Arctic Coastal Plain. The hydrology of this area is dominated by high flow in the spring, a gradual decrease . in flow thoughout summer, and a virtual cessation of flow during the winter. Water quality parallels hydrology in a general sense. Spring breakup provides abundant fresh water. The quality changes throughout summer, and more rapidly as the winter ice cover thickens on lakes and streams. Free water is scarce by· 1 ate winter in the natura 1 system a This section presents a discussion of discharge and quality in streams, water qua1ity of lakes, ponds, and wetlands, and water availability and use. ' 2.0 STREAMS The major streams in the Prudhoe Bay Development Area (PBDA) include the Putuli.gayuk, Kuparuk, and Sagavanirktok Rivers. The Putuligayuk, a tundra stream, arises within the Arctic Coastal Plaine When compared to mounta.in streams, tundra streams are-relatively small, obtain flow from surface llunoff, carry 1 ess sediment, are more stab 1 e, and form small deltas. The Kuparuk and Sagavanirktok headwater in the Brooks Range and are wide, braided rivers. Their flow comes from sut"face runoff, ground water, and springs. The average·and range of discharge for the Putuligayuk, Kuparuk, and Sagavanirktok are presented in Table F-1. The u.s. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains gaging stations on these rivers which measure flow from 96.4 percent of the Putuligayuk bas:in, 82.7 percent of the TABLE F-1 AVERAGE AND EXTREME DISCHARGE OF MAJOR RIVERS IN PBDA River Period of Drainage Average Discharge Maximum ·oischarge Minimum Discharge 3 , 3 3' Record Area km/s 3/s ft /S . 3/s ft /S 3/s ft /s Putuligayuk near May 1970 Deadhorse to Present 456 1.119 39o5 141 4980 0 0 Kuparuk near June 1971 ., Dead horse to Present 8107 36.1I 1275 2320 82,000 0 0 I N Sagavanirktok near August 1970 Sagwon to Present· 5719 47.38 1673 838 29,600 0 0 Source: USGS 1978 38.4 percent of the Sagavanirkto~. 'These percentages were calculated using total drainage areas of 4~3 km 2 (183 mi 2 ) for the ~utuligayuk, 9802 km 2 ( 3784 mi 2) for the KHiJCiruk, and 14,898 krn 2 ( 5752 mi 2) ·for the Sagavanirktok as presented by FERC (1979) and the drainage areas above the gaging stations presented by USGS (1978). Streamflow records for the Sagavanirktok, Kuparuk, and Putuligayuk indicated mean a~nual flqw rates of 0.02, 0.01, and 0.005 m3/km 2 (0.8, 0.5, and 0 .. 2 ft 3/mi 2) of contributing drainage basin, respec- tively (USGS 1972, 1973, 1974). These rates reflect the flow condi- tions of streams in the three physiographic provinces of the North Slope--mountains, foothills, and coastal plain. Kane and Carlson {1973) indicate that roughly half of the Sagavanirktok River drainage area 1 ies above 600 m {1968 ft) in e1 evation, whereas 1 ess than 10 percent of the Kuparuk River basin lies above this elevation in the ' foothills and Brooks Range. The Putuligayuk River lies entirely within the coastal plain. Generally, river breakup occurs in early June. The active layer is usually frozen to the surface during the initial stages of breakup; therefor1e, most water released by snowmelt reaches the river channels. During pre-breakup flooding, bottomfast ice protects the river channel from scour. As flow increases, this ice is lifted and carried down- stream. During the recession of the spring flood, ice is likely to become stranded, thus increasing the likelihood of ice jamming, localized flooding, and erosion. Flows decline gradually throughout the summe\'' with some fluctuations from ra i nsto nns • '\ The sudden June breakup floods represent 60 -80 percent of tot a 1 annual flow (BLM 1979}, and· approximately 80 percent of the total annual discharge of coastal plain streams (Oceanographic Institute of Washington 1979). F-3 For the 8 years of record, the Putuligayuk River starts flowing between May 27 and June 9, and stops between September 29 and October 10 {FERC 1979). Peterson (in press) indicates that 90 percent of the annual . flow of the Putuligayuk River, and 78 percent of the Kuparuk River annual discharge occur during June. The Sagavanirktok releases 34 percent of its annual flow (at Sagwon) in June. _As summer advances, discharge in the Putuligayuk and Kuparuk is significantly reduced compared to June flows. Summer flow reduction in the Sagavanirktok . is gradual until September. USGS records for water years 1971 -1977 (USGS 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 5 1978) indicate zero flow in the Putul igayuk River from November through April. The Kuparuk River flowed throughout the winter during water years 1972 -1974, but had zero flow for at least 3 months during water years 1975-1977. Nauman and Kernodle (1973) indicate that the Sagavanirktok River sometimes continues to flow until mid-November. However, USGS records show some . flow at Sagwon for water years 1972 -1976a Zero flow was recorded during February, March, and April, 1977. The water quality characteristics noted below indicate the Sagavanirk- tok, Kuparuk, and Putuligayuk Rivers have high quality during the open-water period. Some parameters display poor quality under ice, however, this is the natural state .. ":' not pollution caus·ed by man • s activity. Dissolved oxygen in rivers remains at or near saturation during the open-water season and becomes reduced in stagnant pools un~er ice cover. Schallock and Lotspeich (1974) note that severe oxygen deple- tion can occur in the Sagavanirktok River near Deadhorse during winter. Schallock (1975) measured dissolved oxygen concentrations as low as 1.2 mg/1, which was 8.2 percent saturation. He also measured a summ12r range of 9.9 mg/1 (92 percent saturation) to 13.3 mg/1 {95 perc(dnt saturation). USGS me,asurements at Sagwon display a range of 6. 7 -11.3 mg/1 dissolved oxygen (USGS 1976}, which is 47-95 percent saturation. The USGS measured a dissolved oxygen range of 1.4 -14~6 mg/1 in the Kuparuk River (USGS 1976). This range represents 9.6 -103 percent saturation. F-4 River pH is usually slightly basic. USGS measurements in the Sagavan- irktok River at Sagwon indicate a range of 7.4-8.0 (USGS 1976, 1977). Schallock (1975) notes a summet" range of 7.6-8.1 and a·winter range of 1.2 -7.7 near Deadhorse. The Kuparuk River displays a range of 6.4 -7.8 (USGS 1976, 1977, 1978), and the Putuligayuk River pH has been measured between 7.7-8o0 (USGS 1976, 1977). Conductivity, in micromhos/cm, has been measured in the three major . rivers of the PBDA by the USGS. The fall owing ranges are reported: Sagavanirktok River, 145 -310 (USGS 1976, 1977); Kuparuk River, 29- 426 (USGS 1976, 1977, 1978); and 0 utuligayuk River, 148 -290 (USGS 1976, 1977). Schallock (1975) meaSL'~red conductivity in the Sagavanirk- tok R·iver near Deadhorse during summer {80 -840) and winter (660 - 1700). . Small ·streams exhibit warmer summer temperatures than larger streams. Temperatures in the Putuligayuk River have ranged from 0°-l9°C (32° - 66°F), whereas the Sagavanirktok River at Sagwon displays a range of . 0.5° -14°C {33° -57°F) (USGS 1976, 1977). The Kuparuk River has ranged from 0° -13.5°C (32°-56°F) (USGS 1976, 1977, 1978)o Nutrients ~re generally 1 ow in· arctic streams o Accardi ng to Hobbie (197~1), phosphorus concent·rations are always low, but nitrate may be high~ Nitrate concentrations are usually lower than 0.20 mg/1 in the Sagavanirktok River. Schell (1975) indicates that fresh water in rivers is primarily phosphate li~ited. Schallock (1975) measured nutrients in the Sagavanirktok River near Deadhorse. His data appear below in mg/1: Parameter Summer Range Wi nte.r Ra ,'ige Nitrate 0.05 -0.15 0.09 -0.76 Ammonia 0.02 -0.09 0.01 -0.18 Total Phosphate 0.01 -0.05 OoOl Silica 0.6 -2.7 3.6 -12o5 F.-5 The USGS (1976) measured total~nitrogen in the Putuligayuk River on one ·occasion at 0.95 mg/1 and total phosphate at 0.00 mg/1. The Kuparuk . River ·has displayed a range of total nitrogen (as N) of 0.03 -0.97 mg/1 and a range of total phosphate (as P) of 0.00 -0.07 mg/1 (U?GS 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979). Streams generally have dissolved solids concentrations less than 120 mg/1 (Feulner et al 1971), but local areas under ice can become brackish or saline. For example, Shennan {1973} found a saltwater aquifer beneath the lower Sagavanirktok River. Dissolved solids concentrations also vary with season. Concentrations of calcium and potassium increase in small streams during summer but remain relatively constant in large rivers (Douglas and Bilgin 1975}. Schallock (1975) measured some components of dissolved solids in the Sagavanirktok River during summer and winter. These data are reported below in mg/1: Parameter Summer Range Winter Range Calcium 10.0 -42.0 89.0 -95.0 Potassium 0.15 -0.75 0.7 -1.97 Sodium 0.40 -1.3 2.6 -9.0 USGS measurements of hardness and so~ium,indicate the following ranges in. mg/1: Hardne!SS Sodium - Sagavanirktok River 63 -H;6 o.8·-3.5 {USGS 197'5) · Putuligayuk River 55 -Si' 3.8 -5.8 (USGS 1976) Kuparuk River 18 _, 180 0.9 -4.7 {USGS 1976,1977,1978) Suspended solids and turbidity are measures of the amount of particu~ late matter carried in the water column. These parameters reach their highest levels during periods of peak fl~w, primarily during spring breakup and secondarily during summer.rain storms. · As an example, ft was estimated that in 1962 approximately 75 percent of the annual F-6 sediment load of the Colville River was transported during a 3-week period in June (Walker 1973). USGS measurements of suspended sediment have ranged from 1 -139 mg/1 in the Sagavanirktok River and from 1 -45 mg/1 in the Putul igayuk River (USGS 1976, 1977). The Kuparuk River displays a wider range, 1 -336 mg/1 (USGS 1976, 1977, 1978). Turbidity has generally been low: 1 - 2 Nephelometric Turbidity· Unit (NTU) in the Putuligayuk River, 1 ~ 15 NTU in the Sagavanirktok River (USGS 1976), and 0 -20 NTU in the Kuparuk River (USGS 1976, 1977, 1978). Few measurements of total organic carbon have been made in these rivers. There are no data for the Sagavanirktok River and only one measurement in the Putuligayuk River, which was 8.9 mg/1 (USGS 1976)~ The Kuparuk River displays a range of 3.7-18 mg/1 (USGS 1976, 1978). Trace elements have been measured in the .Kuparuk River by the. USGS (1976, 1977, 1978). All elements exhibited low concentrations during all three years except cobalt and lead, which were 0.2 mg/1 and 0 .. 1 mg/1, respectively, during water year 1977 (USGS 1978). Both of these elements were below the detection ~imits (cobalt, 0.05 mg/1; and lead, 0.1 mg/1)" during water years 1976 and 1977. 3.0 .LAKES, PONDS, WETLANDS The Prudhoe Bay area is dotted with numerous 1 akes and ponds, and wetlands cover much of the northwest portion of the PBDA. Sellmann et al. (1975) indicate that 10 -15 percent of the PBDA is covered by small to intermediate lakes, and Gatto (1980) indicates that 25 -30 percent of the area is covered by lakes. Regional slope and relief control lake size with the largest lakes occurring on flat terrain (Sellmann et al. 1975). Most lakes are shallow, 1-2m {3-6ft) in depth and freeze to the bottom (Childers et al. 1977). Deep lakes are . . . underlain oy a talik, or thawed zone. According to Ward and Peterson {1976), taliks may be as deep as 91 m {300ft). F-7 An ice cover i so 1 ates tundra 1 akes anc ponds from outsi dl~ influences . for 9 -10 months of the year. Lakes and ponds generally freeze over by mid-to late Septe.mbert' remaining so until late June or July (Brewer 1958, Sater 1969). Water bodies less than 2m (6 ft) freeze solid each winter. During spring breakup, 1 akes act as natural catchments for meltwaters, and often flood past .. their normal shoreline. Ice on shallow lakes melts earliest, whereas deep lakes will have the longest period of summer ice. cover (Sellmann et al. 1975). Lake 1 evel s decrease following breakup, often to levels below their outlet elevation 3 and can become stagnant by freeze-up. Arctic lakes are generally ice free for 2-3 months (Brewer-1958, Boyd 1959). The water quality in 1 akes and ponds is generally high ctfter breakup subsides and remains high until freeze-up approaches. Aesthetically, the waters may be objectionable because of high color, odor, and iron. Arctic lakes are normally at, or near, complete saturation of dissolved oxygen during the open-water season and in the fa 11 (Howard and Pres- cott 1979). Dissolved oxygen remains close to saturation in lakes and ponds due to the low level of biological activity (Sater 1969) and wind m1x1ng. From mid-winter until breakup, dissolved oxygen decreases, often to levels 1 ess than 5 mg/1 (Howard and Prescott 1971); severe deoxygenation may take place under ice so that some waters become anaerobic (Hobbi~ 1973). However, in lakes where photosynthesis occurs under ice, dissol~ed oxygen may reach supersaturation levels (Howard and Prescott 1973). In ponds and lakes, pH generally ranges from slightly below neutral to about 8.0 (Howard . and Prescott 1971). Kal ff (1968) measured pH ranges of 6.7 -8.4 in six 1 akes, and 6.7 -7.2 in two ponds. Water in deep lakes that do not freeze solid during winter will exhibit essentially 0°C ( 32°Fj temperatures. Sha 11 ow tundra 1 akes may reach F-8 l5°C (59°F) Jl and ponds may reach 18°C {64°F) (Hobbie 1973) at the height of the warming period. Nutrients in arctic waters are present in small quantities (Sater 1969, Hobbie 1973). Phosphate concentrations ·are low in lakes and ponds (Barsdate 1971, Hobbie 1973), whereas nitrate concentrations are low in lakes and high in ponds (Hobbie 1973). In a study of six lakes and two ponds, Kalff (!.968) reported phosphate ranging from 0.002 - Os019 mg/1 with 1 ittl e difference between ponds and 1 akes o Nitrate ranged from less than 0.01 -0.02 mg/1 in lakes and from 0.05 -0.17 - mg/1 in ponds. Barsdate (1971) reported that nitrate ranged from less th.an 1 ug/1 to 0.09 mg/1 in three ponds. According to Kalff (1971), there is an ammonia deficiency during the spring thaw. Generally, fresh waters of the North tSlope are dilute calcium bicar- bonate waters (Kalff 1968). Lakes and pohds near the coast have higher salt levels than those farther inland, presumably from salt spray (Howard and Prescott 1971, Childers et al. 1977). Many 1 akes have high chloride values (Kalff 1968, Holmquist 1975.). Dissolved sol ids concentrations fluctuate seasonally. Low so 1 ids concentrations in tundra ponds and lakes occur during breakup (Sater 1969). Salts in · ponds and small lakes are somewhat concentrated during summer due to evaporation (Hobbie 1973). Douglas and Bilgin (1975) measured an . increase in the concentrations of calcium and potassium during summer in small lakes. Solids \lre mor.e concentrated during winter, large11 because of solids rejection during freezing (Sater 1969, Hobbie 1973). Boyd (1959) reports a seasonal peak in chloride, alkalinity and hardness during Apri 1 and May. Water in s ha 11 ow 1 akes that do not freeze to the bottom is unusab 1 e for most purposes by 1 ate winter because of the concentration of dissolved sol idss Conductivity (a measure of dissolved sol ids) ranged from 126 -273 micromhos/cm at 25°C (77°F) in two tundra ponds and six 1 akes in a study by Ka 1 ff (1968). F:.9 Suspended sol ids and turbidity values are high in 1 akes and ponds . . during spring breakup, and may remain relatively high during summer • . Wind mixing keeps particulates suspended in ponds and shall ow 1 akes (Sater 1969, Hobbie 1973). Some lakes may be high in iron and organics released from vegetative decay (Greenwood and Murphy 1972), and 1 ake water is commonly char .. ac~erized by objectionable color and odor and the presence of iron (Balding 1976). Tundra water color is a result of the leaching of organic material, which is enhanced by poor drainage on the coastal plainQ Also, the bottom sediments of tundra ponds are highly organic (Hobbie 1971). Livingstone (1963) measured color as high as 250 plat inurn-cobalt {Pt) units in small tundra ponds, and Kal ff {1968) measured a color range of 20 -30 Pt units in six lakes, but noted that lakes usually contain 10 -30 Pt units of color .. Boyd {1959) noted that the concentration of organic materi a1 increases as the ice thickens during the fall. Wetlands in the PBDA display characteristics similar to shallow lakes and ponds. They are completely frozen until 1 ate May or early June. Shallow wetlands melt from the top to the bottom within a few days (Bergman et al. 1977). -Spring breakup comple~ely inundates and flushes the wetlands, and as summer advances the water elevation drops. Coastal plain wetlands remain isothermal in summer because of the constant wind mixing (Bergman et al. 1977). The magnitude of diurnal . temperature fluctuations in wetlands is inversely related to basin vo 1 ume, the 1 argest and deepest wet 1 and exhibits the sma 11 est d i urn a 1 temperature change. Wetland water chemistry displays a seasonal variation similar to shallow lakes and ponds. Water quality is generally good until a complete ice cover forms, isolating the water from atmospheric .influences. The conductivity increases during summer (Bergman et al. 1977). Low va 1 ues are evident during spring breakup when wet 1 ands become diluted with relatively pure meltwater. Conductivity increases F-10 as water levels decline throughout the summer. Summer variation in. some water quality characteristics has been measured in wetlands by Bergman et al. (1977). Their data appear below showing both mean and (range). pH Total hardness, ppm Caco 3 Alkalinity, 1 June -14 June 15 June -14 July 15 July - 8 Aug 6.9 (6.2-7 .9) 7.6 (6.2-8.5) 8.0 (6.7-8 .. 7) 66 (17-139) 95 (51-154) 207 (103-974) ppm CaC0 3 44 (17-103) 68 {34~1~3) 109 (68-137} Dissolved oxygen, ppm 14.1 (13-15) 13.9 (10-15) 13.8 (13-15) Free co 2, ppm 7.8 (5-15) 6.6 (5-15) 8.5 (5-20) Conductivity and pH values in· wetlands are cor·rel ated to the distance· inland from the Beaufort Sea. Bergman et al. (1977) note that waters of the loastal lowlands have a pH of 8.9, the same as coastal Beaufort Sea water. They also note that basins connected to the sea or.period- ically flooded by seawater contain brackish or.subsaline water. Wetlands of the coastal uplands (lying within ·a few meters of the coast, but situated above sea level) were slightly brackish and had lower pH values (8.5 -8.9). Fresh to slightly brackish water with a pH range of 6.2 -9.0 occurred in wetlands approximately 1.5 km ~Q~9 mi) inland from the coast. F-11 REFERENCES Balding, G.O., 1976. Water:availability, quality and use in Alaska. U. ·s. Gepl ogica1 Survey Open-Fi 1 e Report 76--513, 236 pp$ Barsdate, R. J., 1971. Nutrient metabolism and wat~r chemistry in lakes and ponds on the arctic coastal plain. U. S. Tundra Biome, Vol I, Progress Report and Proposal Abstracts-1971. Bergman, R. D.~ R. L. Howard, K. F. Abraham, and M. W. Weller, 1977. Water birds and their wetland resources in relation to oil development at Storkersen Point, Alaska. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife. Service, Resource Publication 129, Washington, D. C., 38 pp. BLM, 1979. Final envir·onmental impact statement, proposed federal/ state oil and gas lease sale Beaufort Sea. u. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. ' Boyd, w. L.!) 1959. Limnology of selected arctic lakes in relation to water supply problems. Ecology, 40(1):49-54. Brewer, M. c., 1958. The thermal regime of an arctic 1 ake. Amer·~can Geophysical Union Transactions, 39(2):278-284. Childers, J. M., c. E. Sloan, J. P. Meckel, and John w. Nauman, 1977. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the eastern North Slope, Alaska, 1975. U. S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report 77-492, 65 ppe .... Douglas, L. A., and A. Bilgin, 1975. ::utrien.t regimes of soils, landscaptas, lakes, and streams, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. In: Jerry Brown (ed), Ecological investigations of the tundra biome in the Prudhoe Bay region, Alaska. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Special Report Number 2, pp. 61-70. FERC, 1979. Prudhoe Bay project draft enviroi1menta1 impact statement, construction and operation of a sales gas conditioning facility at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 259 pp. Feu 1 n e r , A • J • , J • M • C h i 1 de r s , and V • W • Norm an , 19 71 • Water resources of Alaska. u. s. Geological ·survey, Open-file Report 1971, 60 pp. Gatto, L.W., 1980. Letter dated April 25, 1980 from CRREL to Corps of Engineers regarding the Prudhoe Bay Waterflood Project. Greenwood, J. K.,, and R. s. Murphy, 1972. Factors affecting water management on the North Slope of Alaska. Institute-of Water Resources, IWR-19, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 42 pp. F-12 Hobbie, J. E., 1973 •. Arctic limnology: a review. In: Alask~n arctic tundra. The Arctic Institute of North America, Technical Paper Number 25, pp. 127-168. Holmquist, t., 1975. Lakes of northern Alaska and northwestern Canada and their invertebrate fauna. Zool. Jb. Syst. Bd, 102, S. 333-484. Howard, H. H., and G.-w. Prescott, 1971. Primary production in Alaskan tundra lakes. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. f08-123. . . Kalff~ ·J., 1968. Some· physical and chemical characteristics of arctic freshwaters in Alaska and northwestern Canada. Journal Fisheries Research Board Canada 25{12):2575-2587. Kane, D. L., and R. F. Carlson, 1973. Hydrology of the central arctic river basins of Alaska. Institute of Water Respurces, IWR-41, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 51 pp. Livingstone, D. A., 1963. Alaska, Yukcn, .. orthwest Territories, and Greenland. In: D. G. Frey {ed), Limnology in North America, University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 559-574. Nauman, J. W., and D. R. Kernodle, 1973. Field water-quality informa- tion along the proposed trans-Alaska pipeli~e corridcr September 1970. through September 1972. U. S. Geo 1 ogi ca 1 Survey, Basic-Data Report, 22 pp. - Oceanographic Institute of Washington, 1979. Alaska North Slope wetlands study, part one biological considerations, part two soil and hydrology. Prepared for u. s. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District. Peterson, L.A., in press. North Slope water problems. Sater, J. E., 1969. The arctic basin. The Arctic Institute of North America, Washington, D. c., 337 pp. Schallock, E. w., 1975. Implications of resource development on the North Slope of Alaska with regard to water quality on the Sagavanirktok River. Symposium~Freshwater Quality Criteria Research, U. s. Environ- mental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, August 19, 1975, 17 pp • . -:---~' and F. B. Lotspeich, 1974. Low winter dissolved oxygen in some Alaskan rivers. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 66013- 74-008. Schell, D., 1975. Seasonal variation in the nutrient chemistry and conservative constituents in coastal Alaskan Beaufort Sea waters. In: V. Alexander et al., Environmental studies of an arctic estuarine system: final report. · u. s. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 233-296. F-13 Sellmann, P. V., J., Brown, R. I. Lewellen, H. McKim, and C. Merry, 1975. Th~ classification and geomorphic implications of thaw lakes on the arctic coastal plain, Alaska. Research Report 344, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, 21 p. · Sherman, R. G., 1973. A groundwater supply for an oil camp near Prudhoe Bay, arctic Alaskao Proceedings--International Conference on Permafrost, 2nd, Yakutsk, Siberia, 1973, pp., 469-472. USGS, 1971. Water resources data for A 1 ask a, 1970, Part 1., Surface water records, Part 1. Water quality records, U.S. Geological Survey.t 263 pp. 1972. Water resources data for Alaska, 1971, Part 1. Surface water records, Part 2. Water quali.ty records, u.s. Geological Survey, 318 pp. 1973. Water resources data for Alaska, 1972, Part 1. Surface water records, Part 2. Water quality records, u. s. Geological Survey, 387 pp. 1974. Water resources data for Alaska., 1973, Part 1. Surface water records, Part 2. Water quality records, U. s. Geological Survey, 298 pp. -=----=----=-1975. Water resources data for Alaska, 1974, Part 1. Surface water records, Part 2. Water quality records, u. s. Geological Survey, 322 pp. 1976. Water resources data for Alaska, water year 1975, u. s. Geological Survey, Water-Data Report AK-75-1, 410 pp. 1977. Water resources data for Alaska, \'later year 1976, u. s. Geofogical Survey, Water-Data report AK-76-1, 401 pp . 1978. Water resources data for Alaska, water year 1977. u. s. Geological Survey, Water-Data Report AK-77-1, 439 pp. Walker, H. J., 1973. Morphology of the North Slope. In: Alaskan arctic tundra. The Arctic Institute of North America, Technical Paper Number 25, pp. 49-92. Ward, D. L., and L. A. Peterson, 1976. A summary of water use problems related to North Slope petroleum development. Proceeding--27th Alaska Science Conference, Resource Development--Processes and Problems, Vol II, pp. 53-57. F-14 APPENDIX G ACOUSTICS 1.0 NOMENCLATUhE The range of sound pressures that can be heard by humans is very large. This range varies from two ten-thousand-millionths (~ x 1o-lO) of an atmosphe~e for sounds barely audible to humans to two thousandths (2 x 1Q-3) of an atmosphere for sounds which are so 1 oud as to be painful. The decibel notation is used to present sound leve~ls over this wide physical range. Essentially, the decibel unit compresses this range to a workable range using logarithms. It is defiined as: Sound pressure level {dB) = 20 log10 Jfl Po where Po is a reference sound pressure required for a minimum sensation of hearing. Zero dB is assigned to this minimum level and 140 dB to sound which is painful. Thus a range of more ~han one million is expressed on a scale of 0 -140. The human ear does not perceive sounds at low frequencies in the same manner as those at higher frequencies. Sounds of equal intensity at low frequency do not seem as loud as those at higher frequencies. The A-weighted network is provided in sound analysis systems to simulate the human ear. A-weighted sound levels are expressed in units of dB. These levels in dB are used by the engineer to evaluate hearing damage risk (OSHA) or community annoyance impact and are also used in federal, state, and local noise guidelines and ordinances. The term 11 Sound 1 eve 1 11 as used in this report, is understood to represent the A-weighted sound level unless otherwise noted. G-1 Sound is not constant in time~ Statistical analysis is used to describe the temporal distribution of sound and .to compute silflgle number descri ptor·s for the time-varying sound. This report contains the statistical sound levels: Leq This is the equivalent sound level which provides an equal amount of acoustical energy as the time-varying sound. Lx This is the level exceeded 11 X 11 percent of the time during the sample period where Luxu is: L1 the maximum sound level; L10 -the 11 i·ntrusive 11 sound 1 eve 1; Lso -the 10 median 11 sound level; Lgo -the "residual .. sound level; Lgg -the minimum sound level; ld Day Sound Level, Leq, for the daytime period (0700-2200) only. Ln -Night Sound Level, L~~~ for the nighttime period (2200-0700) only. Ldn -Day-Night Sound Level, defined as: . Ldn = 10 10910 ([15x10ld/10+ 9xlo(Ln+l0)/10]/24) Note: ft 10 dB correction factor is added to the nighttime equivalent sound level when computing Ldn• G-2 2.0· CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SOUND LEVELS Tables G-1 through G-7 show equivalent sound levels for construction equipment during gravel placement and grading, pipeline construction, and module placement. G-3 TABLE G-1 . CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, USAGE FACTORS AND SOUND LEVELS FOR SHEET PILE AND CAUSEWAY EXTENSION AND EXPANSION ACTIVITIES Sound Level @15 m Number(a) Usage(e) Eguipment(a) (50 ft ) -dB (f) of Units Factor Reference Pile Driver 101 Gravel Hauler 88 D-6 Angle Dozer 88 14-G Motor Grader 85 Fuel Truck 88 Lube Truck 80 Mechanics Truck 80 3/4 ton Carry All 80 Front End Loader 85 . Leg (total) @15m= 89.1 dB Notes: (a) Reference: C0E, January 17, 1980 {b) Reference: U.S. Army 1977 1 .04 2 .04 1 .31 1 .05. 1 02 1 .02 1 .02 2 .02 1 .10 (c) Reference: Dames & Moore files {d) Reference: EPA 1977 (e) · Usage factors represent the time equipment is operating at its noisiest mode (f) Sound levels are based on equipment containing mufflers or other typical noise mitigation measures G-4 {d) (b) {b) (d) {d) (c) (c) (c) (b) TABLE G-2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, USAGE FACTORS AND SOUND LEVEL~ FOR CAUSEWAY PIPELINE AND STP PLATFORM FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION Sound Level @15 m Number(a) Usage(f) Eguipment(a) (50 ft) -dB(g) of Units Factor Reference Clam Shell Dredge I 82 14 G Motor Grader . 85 50 Ton Crane 83 6 Ton Truck Tractor 88. 3 Ton Flat Bed Truck 88 Fuel Truck 88 Lube Truck 80 3/4 Ton Carry-All 80 3/4 Ton 15 A11 Frame Truck 88 Mechanics Truck 80 . 3/4 To~ Pick-up~ 80 4x4 B.lazer 80 300 Amp Welding Machine 75 185 CFM ~ir Compressor 71 Leg (total) @15 m = 85.3 dB Notes: (a) Reference: COE, January 17, 1980 (b) Reference: u.s. Army 1977 (c) Reference: Dames & Moore files (d) Reference: EPA 1977 (e) Reference: EPA 1975 1 .07 1 .as 1 .07 2 .04 4 .04 1 .02 1 .02 4 .02 1 .04 1 .02 4 .02 1 .02 7 .40 1 .05 (f) Usage factors represent the time equipment is operating at its noisiest mode (g) Sound levels are based on equipment containing mufflers or other typical noise mitigation measures G-5 (d) (d) {b) (b) (b) (d) (c) {c) . (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) (e) TABLE G-3 CONSTRUCTION_EQUIPMENT, USAGE FACTORS AND SOUND LEVELS FOR MODULE GRAVEL PAD AND SUPPORT PILE INSTALLATIONS Sound Level @15 m Number(a) Usage(e) Eguipment(a) (50 ft) -dB(f) of Units Factor Reference Texoma Drill 90 Vibrator 76 D-6 Angle Dozer 88 14 G Motor Grader 85 20 Ton Crane 83 60 Ton low Bed Trucks 88 Fuel Truck 88 Lube Truck 80 Mechanics Truck 80 Welding Truck 83 3/4 Ton Carry-Alls 80 3/4 Ton Pick-ups 80 , Leg (total) @15 m = 89.4 dB Notes: (a) Reference: COE, January 17, 1980 (b) Reference: u.s. Army 1977 (c) Reference: Dames & Moore files 1 .50 1 o20 1 .31 1 .05 1 .07 1 .04 1 .02 1 .02 1 o02 1 .40 2 .02 2 .02 {d) Reference: EPA 1977 . (e) Usage factors represent the time equipment is operating at its noisiest mode (f) Sound levels are based on equipment containing mufflers or other typical noise mitigation measures G-6 (c) {b) {b) {d) (b) (b) {d) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) TABLE G"!"4 . CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, USAuE FACTORS AND SOUND LEVELS FOR MAIN FIELD PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION • Sound Level @15 m Eguipment(a) (50 ft) -dB(f) D-7 Dozer 89 D-6 Dozer 88 14 G·Motor Grader 85 235 Hydraulic Excavator 85 50 Ton Trucks 88 . 20 Ton Crane 83 6 Ton Truck Tractors 88 . 3 Ton Flat Bed Trucks 88 Fuel Truck 88 Lube Truck 80 3 Ton 11 Au Frame Truck 88 Mechanics Truck 80 Leg (total) @15m= 88.9 dB Notes: (a) Reference: COE, January 17, 1980 {b) Reference: u.s. Army 1977 (c) Reference: Dames & Moore files (d) Reference: EPA 1977 Number(a) Usage(e) of Units Factor 1 .10 1 .10 1 s05 ) 1 .10 3 .04 1 .07 8 .04 16 .02 1 .02 1 .02 3 .04 1 .. 02 Reference (b) . (b) (d) {d) (b) (b) (b)' (b) (d) (c) (c) (c) (e) Usage factors represent the time equipment is operating at its noisiest mode (f) Sound levels are based on equipment containing mufflers or other typical noise mitigation measures G-7 TABLE G-5 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, USAGE FACTORS AND SOUND LEVELS FOR TREATING PLANT PLACEMENT Sound Level @15 m Number(a) Usage(c) Eguipment(a) (50 ft). -dB (f) of Units Factor Reference 10~000 hp Tug 90 Derrick Barge 76 Leg (total) @15m= 91.9 dB Notes: (a) Reference: COE, January 17, 1980 . {b) ·Reference: Dames & Moore files 3 .50 1 1.00 (c) Usage factors represent the time equipment is operating at its noisiest mode. G-8 (b) {b} TABLE G-6 . CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, USAGE FACTORS AND SOUND LEVELS FOR BERM RAISING OPERATIONS Sound Level @15 m Eguipment(a) {50 ft) -dB (g) Gravel Haulers 88 D-6 Angle Dozer 88 14 G Motor Grader 85 Fuel Truck 88 Lube Truck 80 flechani cs Truck 80 . 3/4 Ton Carry-All 80 955 Front-End Loaders 85 . Welding Trucks 83 3/4 Ton Pick-ups 80 4x4 Blazer 80 60 Ton Low-Bed Trucks 88 300 Amp Welding Machines 75 185 CFM Air Compressor 71 1200 77M Air Compressor 77 Leg (total) @15m= 90e3 dB Notes: (a) Reference: COE, January 17, 1980 {b) Reference: u.s. Army 1977 (c) Reference: Dames & Moore files {d) Reference: EPA 1977 (e) Reference: EPA 1975 Number(a) Usage (f) of Units Factor 10 .02 1 .10 1 .05 1 .02 1 .02 1 .02 34 .01 1 .10 4 .20 24 .01 8 .01 2 .02 54 .02 1 .40 4 .05 Reference {b) {b) {d) {d) (c) (c) (c) (b) (c) (c) (c) {b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Usage factors represent the time equipment is operating at its noisiest mode (g) Sound levels are based on equipment containing mufflers or other typical noise mitigation measures · G-9 TABLE G-7 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, USAGE FACTORS AND SOUND LEVELS FOR MAIN FIELD MODULE ERECTION Sound Level @15 m Number(a) Usage(f) Eguipment(a) (50 ft) -dB(g) of Units Factor Reference 6x6 Trucks 80 3 Ton 11 A11 Frame Trucks 88 3/4 Ton Pick-ups 80 3/4 Ton Carry-All 80 3 Ton Flat Bed Trucks 88 Fuel Truck 88 Lube Truck 80 Mechanics Truck 80 300 Amp Welding Machines -75 185 CFM Air Compressor 71 Leg (total) @15m= 84.3 dB Notes: (a) Reference: COE, January 17, 1980 (b) Reference: UeSa Army 1977 (c) Reference: Dames & Moore files (d) Reference: EPA 1977 (e) Reference: EPA 19i5 ·-~-. 1 .02 3 .04 2 .02 2 .02 3 .04 1 .02 1 .02 1 .02 7 .40 1 .05 (f) Usage factors represent the time equipment is operating at its noisiest mode · (g) Sound levels are based on equipment ~ontaining mufflers or other typical noise mitigation measures G-10 (c) (c) (c) (c) (b) (d) (c) (c) (c) (e) REFERENCES u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructi"n site noise control cost -benefit estimating (Draft). Construction Engineering R(search Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois. , 1980. Responses to Dames & Moore • s 1 etter to Waterfl ood -=-----~--Task Force. January 17, 1980. · U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. Noise emission standards for construction equipment: background .. document for portab 1 e air compressors. EPA 550/9-76-004 ~ Office of Noise Abatement and Control ; Washington, D.C. -:::-o-----=~~ 1977. Characterization of construction site activity, Phase I Interim Report. Office of Noise ~~\batement and Control , t~ashington, o.c" G-11 APPENDIX H ENTRAPMENT, IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT IMPACTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Impacts of operating the water withdrawal intakes would be those primarily concerned with the entrapment and subsequent impingement or entrainment of marine life. In this analysis, entrapment refers to the entry. of marine 1 ife into the intake structure and emphasizes the prevention of the escape of organisms (USEPA 1977). Impingement is the blocking of larger organisms by a barrier, generally the screening system (USEPA 1977)o Impingement is often lethal to fish due to stress (including exhaus- tion, starvation, and ·reimpingement), descaling ~caused by screen contact or screen ~ash)) or asphyxiation. Asphyxiation can occur due to removal from water (USEPA 1976) during rotation of traveling screens or when fish are forced against the screen for prolonged periods. Entrainment of organisms refers to those smaller organisms that are drawn through intake screening devices into pumps, strainers and water treatment sections of the plant. It is assumed for all alternative intake designs that entrainment of organisms through the primary screening sys~em would result in 100 percent mortality. For all design alternatives, the intake would be designed to withdraw 4.25 m3/s (67 ,430 gal/min) of water. Rel iabi1ity of the intake is a concern in the adverse and rather extreme operating environment of the Prudhoe Bay area. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DESIGN The proposed intake structure consists of nine bays, each of which would withdraw water at a rate of 0.47 m3/s (7490 gal/min) through an H-1 under\'later opening_ 2.9 m (9.5 ft) wide by 1.52 m (5 ft) deep. A set of 11 tras h -bars 11 designed to b 1 ock entrance of 1 arge submerged obJects and ice would be situated in the underwater opening. These bars should not affect fish passage but might be heated to prevent icing. The bottom of the opening would be approximately 0.3 m (1 ft) above the seabed. Water velocity through this opening would be less than 15 cm/s (0.5 ft/s). The entrance to each of the intake screen channels waul d be smaller than the channel itself. Therefore, the velocity at the "mouth 11 of the channel would be higher than that within the c~annel. The velocity within each channel would be approximately 5 cm/s (0.16 ft/s)o Each channel would be 2.9 m (9.5 ft) wide by 3.7 m (12 ft) deep by 15.2 m (50 ft) long. Nonnal water depth would be 3.7 m (12 ft). Warm water (21 °C, 70°F) waul d be mixed i ntb each channel through di ffuset'S at a rate of about 0.06 m3Js (2 ft 3/s) during. much of the year to control ice buildup. One set of vertical traveling screens would be located at the interior end of each channel (Figure H-1, Alternative A). The screen would be 2.9 m (9.5 ft) wide and extend from the channel bottom to a vertical height of 12.2 m (40 ft). The screening surface would be composed of panels of 9.5-mm (3/8-in) by 25.4-mm (l-in} mesh mQde of T316 grade stainless steel. Velocity through the screens would be 7 cm/s ("0.24 ft/s). Water withdrawal pumps would be located sufficiently far back from the screens to assure unifonn velocities and flow through each screen set •. The screen panels waul d be fitted with fish buckets and the screens would operate continuously. Depending upon the debris loading condi- tions experienced, one of two available screen speeds would be used: either 0.76 m/min (2.5 ft/min) or 3.05 m/min (10 ft/min). A dual screen wash system would be utilized •. A fish removal wash, consisting of a 20 lb/in2 gauge water jet, would wash marine life into a marine H-2 :X: I w , m c .. ~ .... m ... :!I 0 0 Q. m :::1 < -· ... -o ::J 3 CD .... S» --3 '0 A) n ..... en f'9l "' .... CD 3 (I) :J Pf". -n -· cc c ., CD. :c I ... .,. TROUGH TO 8 ° ct%ll . MARINE I.Of~ RETURN THROUGH FLOW . . f\LTERNA TIVE A FLOW FLOW \_6GREION ROTATION! DRIV~ SPR CKI!T T TO JET PUMP, ., ....... . ·~·"-~ ~ •,f,'411: •••• fiStt BYPASS LIFT f)ASKET OR COLLECTION AREA, AND MARINE LIFE RETURN . . TRASH RACK . " ...... -+-!r--ANGLED, FIXED ~,-o PUMPS l. ALTERNATIVE B OR TRAVELI.~~G. SCREEN ·CENTER PIER PROPOSED VERTICAL TRAVELING SCREENS (TYPICAl) FISH BYPASS SYSiEM WITH ANGLED SCREENS (TYP!CAL) AlTERNATIVE INTAKE DESIGN CONCEPTS . . life return line.· A 70 lb/in 2 wash would remove debris from the screens into a separate sluice for return to the water bodyo .. Specific numbers, dimensions, etc. given in this section reflect the app1icant 1 s preliminary design and may be altered somewhat during final design stag.es" 3.0 BIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS ENTRAPMENT The USEPA {1976) has recognized the potential for adverse impacts associated with approach channel intakes similar to that proposed, particularly when escape passages are not provided. They note that setting screens back in a channel increases the potential for entrap- ment as does the use of a wall '(11 skimmer wall 11 ) of the type envisioned to allow water withdrawal from under the ice near the bottom. USEPA {1976) states that these walls create non-uniform velocities and entrapping dead spaces. They further state, "fish will not usually swim back under the wall to safety." USEPA (1976) recommends a fish guidance and bypass system as an alternative. The overall potential for fish entrapment by the proposed design is not clearly known. Behavioral entrapment would be more significant than velocity entrapment. Entrapment would vary seasonally and among species.. Organisms would be exposed to ~ighest velocities at the entrances to the intake channels. However, the major fish species present at the proposed intake location are not expected to be vulner- able to velocity-induced entrapment as adults or large juveniles. The velocity at each channel entrance would be no greater than 15 cm/s (0.5 ft/s)e This velocity has been cited as a swimming speed attain- able by many species of small fish and the mean cruising speed of all young salmon at low temperatures (USEPA 1976). In addition, tests on several species of cod and the longhorn sculpin {same genus H-4 as fourhorn sculpin) determined that they had sustained swimming· capacities substantially greater than 15 cm/s (Beamish 1978). Tempera- ture has also beE.m shown to have 1 ittJe or no effect on burst speed (the highest speed fish can maintain for 20 s or less} (Beamish 1978). Almost all fish tested had burst speeds of at least 15 cm/s. In particular, anadromou-s fish would be less vulnerable to intake entrapment than marine species. Anadromous fish are present in the Beaufort Sea primarily during the open-water season, usually as 3-year old or larger fish; Therefore, when it is possible for these fish to encounter the intake~ their sustained swimming capacity would ·be well in excess of 15 cm/s (0.5 ft/s). Smaller fish (particularly larvae), plankton and meroplanktonic . macroinverte·brates would probably pass mol·e ~r less passively into the intake channels. These organisms would probably enter in roughly the same concentrations as their densi-ty in the water column. Motile benthic macroinvertebrates {e.gc Saduria) would move freely on the hard substrate provided by the intake structure and could move into and out of the entrance to the intake channel along that substrate. Some larger fish may enter the intake channels 11 Voluntarily.11 Fish have been found to orient to intake structures (Lifton and Storr 1977), and have been observed swimming around many kinds of submerged structures and into and out of water withdrawal intakes. Tarbox and Thorne (1979) indicate fish in the project area are attracted to structures. Fisn entering the intake may be drawn to the traveling screens by the low velocity present, although some may swim along the channels to that point or avoid it entirely. The opening to the bay from the intake channels is small compared to the size of the channel; . therefore~ some fish may become 11 behaviorally entrapped 11 • within the intake. Since the opening to the intake channel would be near the bottom, pelagic species would be less likely than damersal fish to enter and H-5 become entrapped. However, if pelagic species should enter the intake, they would be less likely to find the low entrance and escape. Schooling species, such as arctic cod, may have a gr:-eater potential for . . entrapment than non-schooling fish, as schooling fish would likely enter the intake in greater numbers at a given time. IMPINGEMENT Once fish enter the intake channel they would either leave through the opening or become entrappedo Entrapped fish would remain within the intake channel until they tired or otherwise became impinged upon the traveling screens. The traveling screens would provide the only other exit from each of the ~ntake channels. The velocity of water flowing though the traveling screens would be 1ow {7 cm/s, 0.24 ft/s). Smaller fish that generally have lower swimming capacities and physiologically impaired fish are more likely to become impingedo A substantial number of the arctic cod found near the proposed intake site were relatively small in size (<70 mm in length) (Moulton et al. 1980, Tarbox and Moulton 1980, Tarbox and Spight 1979). This would tend to make them more vulnerable to impingement if they were large enough to be retained upon the screens. Although tests of retention on mesh screens indicated that the body depth of a fish was the factor most responsible for determining if a fish was retained on a screen (Tomljanovich et al. 1978), existing fish size .distribution data from the Prudhoe Bay area -are based on length. Studies by Dames & Moore {1979) indicated that fish more than several centimeters long could pass through a 9.5-mm (3/8-in) screen. Kerr {1953) found that 9.5-mm {3/B.,in) woven square mesh screening could retain chinook salmon or striped bass as small as 51 mm (2 in) long. A review by Sonnichsen et al. {1973) indicated that fish of lengths between about 58 -84 mm (2.3 -3.3 in) are the smallest fish that would be retained by a 9.5-mm (3/8-in) screen, depending upon the body length to depth ratio of the fish. It is therefore probable that fish smaller than 50-60 mm (2-2.3 in) in length reaching the screens would be entrained. Fish over 100 mm (3.9 in) are usually retained on the screens. Fish between 60 -100 mm in length (2.3 -3.9 in) may fall into either category, depending upon general fish body shape and, in particular, body depth. FISH RETURN SYSTEM Those fish that become impinged would be carried upward by the vertical movement of the screens. Fish buckets or extended lips mounted at the lower part of each screen panel would retain the fish on the screen system and prevent them from falling off. Fish that fell off would be reimpinged and thus subject to additional stress and mortality. The screen system would be in constant motion; therefore, fish would not be retained against the screens for long periods and the potential for. asphyxiation would decrease. Since the water .depth would be 3.7 m {12 ft) and screen travel would be between 0.76 -3.05 m/min (2.5 -10 ft/min), impingement time would vary between 1.2 -4.8 min. Once the screen panels have been lifted clear of the water su~face, a low-pressure wash wou_ld gently move the fish into the fish bucket area of the panel. This would reduce the potential for descaling and asphyxiation. It is important to limit impingement ~ime. Tomljanovich et al. (1978} found a strong inverse relationship between impingement duration and survival, particularly for impingement times in excess of 4 min. Once the fish have been moved into the fish bucket portion of the screen panel, they wo~ld be retained in a sufficient depth of water to prevent asphyxiation. These fish would be gently washed into a fish return sluice for return to the water body. For later life stages, survival· of an impingement and return system has been shown to be relatively high. At the VEPCO installation at the . . . Suney Station, survivals average 93.3 percent (White and Brehmer 1976). Murray and Jinnette (1978) have found survivals of 86 percent of older H-7 fish and invertebrates in a center-flow sc.reen system. Therefore, it may be conservatively expected that 80 percent or more of those older fish and larger invertebrates impinged upon the screens would survive and be returned alive to the water body. The marine life return system would utilize a water velocity of 30 cm/s (1 ft/s) maintained by an impeller-type fish pump. This velocity should be sufficient to transport juvenile and smaller fish. Larger fish, however, might be able to maintain themselves against the flow for a period of time, increasing possibilities of stress and resultant mortality. Passage through the return system {152.4 m, 500 ft long) would require 500 -610 s for passively moving fish. This is due to the time required for passage from the screen wash through the marine 1 ife return system and out to sea, there being a distance of 33.5 m (110 ft) between the screen set closest to the return outfall and the one most distant. An additional 10 percent morta·l ity of fish entering the intake has been assumed to occur in the marine life return system. ENTRAINMENT The entrainment of smaller organisms through the screens would be in proportion to their density in the water body. In general, data are not sufficent to estimate year-round losses of phytoplankton and zooplankton (other than ichthyoplankton). It should be pointed out,· however, that only a small percentage of the water present in the intake vicinity waul d be withdrawne This waul d insure a relatively small entrainment loss. Since some data on ichthyoplankton abundance are available (Tarbox et al~ 1979, Tarbox and Moulton 1980, Tarbox and Spight 1979), a quantitative estimate of entrainment losses was made based on the val ume of water withdrawn from the Beaufort Sea and the density of fish eggs and larvae found in the vicinity of the proposed intake. The actual entrainment of the ichthyopl ankton by the intake waul d vary depending upon weather conditions, and consequent hydrographic H-8 conditionso The presence of various offshore water masses of differing salinities greatly affects the numbers and taxa of organisms present (Tarbox and Moulton 1980), and therefore estimates prepared in this manner should be utilized as a guide to the expected level of entrain- ment and not as definitive answers. Calculation of Potential Entrainment The results of an estimate of potential entrainment of fish eggs and larvae are shown in Table H-1. These estimates are based upon a flow of 4.25 m3!s (67,430 gal/min) through the intake. This volume repre- sents a daily intake of about 0.09 percent of the volume of water inside the 6-m (20-ft) isobath between the mouths of the Sagavanirktok and Kuparuk Rivers (based on sur~ace area calculations of Tarbox and Spight 1979). It was assumed that all larvae present in water drawn through the intake would be entrained. Densities of eggs and larvae present in the proposed intake area were based upon data presented by Tarbox and Moulton (1980) and Tarbox et ,al. (1979). Tarbox et al. (1979) collected pump samples periodically from the site of the proposed intake from February 13 through May 3, 1979. Eggs were the only early life h.istory stage of fish collected. Tarbox and Moulton (1980} collected ichthyoplankton and zooplankton with a tow net at six stations near the proposed intake periodically from July 17 through September 1, 1979. Fish larvae only were analyzed. Of the stations sampled, Stations 1 and 3 were located nearest the site of the proposed intake; therefore, the averages of near-bottom densities at these two stations were used in calculating potential entrainment. To calculate. the potential number of eggs and 1 arvae entrained, the time covered by the two programs was broken into a number of periods. These periods corresponded to sampling dates and time spans between sampling· dates. In both studies, samples were not taken on a daily basis; therefore, ichthyoplankton density in a period between sampling dates was estimated as the average of densities on the end-point dates for that period. Near·-bottom densities in each period were multiplied H-9 , .. •" TABLE H-1 POTENTIAL 6.5-MONTH ENTRAINMENT OF FISH EGGS AND LARVAE BY THE PROPOSED INTAKE BASED UPON DATA COLLECTED FROM FEBRUARY 13 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1, 1979 Taxon Estimated Number Entrained Eggs 5,856 Larvae: Arctic ·Cod (a) 239,648 Fourhorn Sculpin 163,220 Snailfish(b) 397,179 Unidentified Larvae 6,076 Total Larvae 806,122 (a)Includes larvae definitely and tentatively identified as arctic cod (b)Includes larvae definitely and tentatively identified as snailfish H-10 by the number of days in a period times the daily intake volume of 409,536 m~ (14,462,625 ft3); this yielded the numbers of eggs ahd larvae entrained during each period. ·These quantities were summed over the time span covered by the sampling programs to yield total potential entrainment from February 13 through September 1, 1979. By these estimates, 239,648 arctic cod larvae would have been entrained by the proposed intake during the 6.5-month period for which these estimates were made. Using data for North Sea cod cited. by Cushing (1973), 1 percent is a reasonable estimate of survival from larvae to age 2. Assuming 1 percent survival from larvae to reproducing adult, 2396 adults would potentia·lly ·have been· removed from the arctic cod population present in the Prudhoe Bay area. This represents less than 0.01 percent of the conservatively estimated .28 million arctic cod present in the Prudhoe Bay area in 1978 (Tarbox and Spight 1979) • These data are based on only one-half year's sarnpli~g as an additional measure of conservatism for the reasonable worst case, and because of the known preference of ~rctic cod larvae and juveniles for near-bottom waters and for artificial structures, an order of m.3gnitude safety factor has been added to increase the estimated loss rate to 0.1 percent of the standing stock in t~e area. Even at this rate, cropping by entrainment should not notfceably reduce the numbers of arctic cod present in the Prudhoe Bay area. Although calculations were not made, a similar loss rate due to entrainment can be assumed for other marine species, such as bartail snailfish and fourhorned sculpin, that have planktonic larvae. 4.0 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES PRIMARY SYSTEM DETAILS For th~ proposed traveling screen system utilizing fish buckets arid a conventional vertical traveling screen, two types of dual wash-screen systems are commercially available. One system has a front wash where marine· 1 ife would be washed off the ascending or front side of· the H-11 screen into the marine 1 ife. return system. The other system carries. the fish to the rear 'or descending side of the screen system, where they are ·washed into the marine 1 ife return system. Both systems are in commercial use and are useful in protecting marine life., There are some advantages unique to each system: The number ana location of wash spray-nozzles are not known. This will be determined _in the detaile~ ·engineering design process after the actual wash type has been selected. SCREENING SIZE The size of fish that may be retained upon the screens and returned to the water body vi a the marine 1 i fe ret urn system wi 11 depend on the screening size. In order to protect as many fish .as feasible it. would be desireable to utilize screening with a smaller opening size. Screens with finer openings to retain smarter juveniles and adults as well as larger larvae have been investigated for use with traveling screens by Murray and Jinnette {1978), Tomljanovich et al. {1977) !t Sazaki et al. (1972), and Skinner {1974) and it has been shown that high survival of even delicate ·species is obtainable. However, in the project area, icing is expected to be greater for smaller screen sizes .. and reliability correspondingly reduced. ALTERNATIVE TRAVELING SCREEN SYSTEM An alternative traveling screen system that is used commercially in Europe and at one power plant in the United States is th-2' center-flow type screen. This screen system is described by USEPA (1976). Each center-flow screen would be oriented parallel to the approaching water flow. Water would enter the screens through a central 11 keyhole" or entrance port and would exit through both the ascending and descend- ing screen faces. The system consists of a series of semi-circular screen baskets that·increase the filtering area of the screen and allow 1 H-12 e.asily installed fish buckets. This system utilizes an overhead wash system that Welshes debris and organisms into the return sluice. The center wash makes it possible to retrieve organisms ~ore gently than with many other systems~ In operation, this system has been shown to allow high· fish survivals (~1urray and Jinnette 1978). Laboratory tests also have indicated that high survivals of juveniles and larvae may be expected (Tomljanovich et al~ 1977, 1978). Due to the geometry of these screens, the highest water velocities occur at the screen entrance port or ·~keyhol e 11 • Depending upon the geometry of the specific screen installation, the 18 keyhole 11 velocity may be c -3 times greater than ttie intake channel velocity or the approach velocity to the screens. In some installations this would be a disadvantage; however, in the proposed application this would provide a means of removing entr-apped fish from the intake·channels and sending them to the marine life return system with less stress and subsequently lower mortality. This system would be considerably more efficient than. the proposed screen design at removing fish. There are other . mechanical, engineering and cost advantages t~ the use of this system as well~ f~RINE LIFE RETURN SYSTEM Use of a jet pump, rather than the proposed impeller to induce flow in the marine 1 ife return system waul d greatly reduce the chances of mechanical damage to fish. As discussed previously, the 30 cm/s (1 ft/s) water velocity in the marin~ life return life has the dis- advantage of not being high enough to overcome the expected swimming capacities of several of the species that may be expected to be placed in the system. In addition~ the time spent in the system, 8 -10 min, may be excessive. Studies of usable fish return line velocities (Taft et al. 1976) showed that minimal mortality was suffered by fish in a retur~ system utilizing velocities up to 2.4 m/s {8 ft/s). At these velocities, maximum residence time in the marine return line would be 76 s and the system would be capable of quickly removing all H-13 . species encountered. Another advantage to higher velocities would be a reduction in the potential for biofouling in the ret.urn line due to . high velocity scouring. DETERRENCE It may be possi b 1 e to deter fish from actually entering the intake channel entrance by use of a behavioral device such as an air bubble curtain~ These devices have been used at severa 1 1 ocati ons to divert fish and have had mixed successQI The efficency of these systems may vary according to temperature, light intensity and fish species. Research by Bibko et al. (1974) and Stone and Webster {1976a) showed that an air bubble curtain could be effective in deterring fish ft~om entering an intake. Studies at other types of intakes under turbid water-conditions (Lieberman and Muessiy 1978) have indicated no effect on impingement. An air bubble curtain may, however, have an additional use of keeping certain types of ice out of intake channel entrances. FrSH DIVERSION It is important to remove entrapped fish from the various intake channels and with as low stress and mortality to the fish as practical. The proposed method relies on impingement of fish on traveling screens with subsequent release into fish buckets. An alternative method is a fish guidance system, such as louvers or angled screens (Figure H-1, Alternative B). This is a much more desirable method of handling fish since fish are not impinged and therefore suffer considerably less stress. In this system a set of louvers, a traveling screen, or a fixed screen is placed at an angle to the flow of water. Fish tr&vel along the screens rather than become impinged and are led to a bypass area where they are returned to the water body with much reduced handling. H-14 Louv~rs have been shown to· be somewhat limited at guiding younger and smaller life stages.(Skinner 1974), however, guidance efficiences up to . . 85 percent have been obtained (Taft and Mussalli 1978). Studies of both fixed and traveling angled screens have indicated that these devices are highly effective in diverting fish at many life stages. Studies of bypass by fish 25 -150 mm (1 - 6 in), were conducted for a number of 1 arge power plants (Taft et al • 1976). It was found that an angled 9.5-mm {3/8-in) screen oriented at 25° to the flow was able to bypass 100 percent of the fish tested. Of the fish bypassed, there was 96 percent one-week 1 atent survival (Taft et a1. 1976). Studies of other species, including Atlantic.tomcod {Microgadus tomcod), 50 -150 mm (2 -6 in) in length, also achieved 100 percent bypass (Stone and Webster 1976b). Angled screens have also been utilized· at a number of hydroelectric facilities. Gunsolus and Eicher {1970) reported on the screens at the Northfork Project. At the Mayfield Dam (Washington State), Thompson and Paulik ( 1967) reported that they obtai ned 100 percent guidance effi ci enci es by covering the louver system with woven mesh screening. Guidance of younger life stages and smaller fish is obtainable also. Work by Prentice and Ossiander {1974} with angled horizontal screens showed that they· could· achieve 97 percent diversion of 70 -170-mm (3-7~in) salmonoid fingerlingse Work by Heuer and Tomljanovich {1979} showed that for very small larvae (mean length less than 15 mm, 0.6 in), substantial numbers could bypass fine opening screens, even when not set at an ang1 e. Work reviewed by Pavlov and Pakhorukov (1973} in the USSR included studies on fine-mesh fish diversion sc,reens employed in both laboratory and prototype studies. These showed that bypass of 10 -40-mm (Oo4 - 1.6-in) fish could be achieved with up to 97.6 percent efficiency, depending upon approach velocity and bypass flow. H-15 It i.s therefore believed that an angled screen system (using either fixed or traveling screens), utilizing a bypass and marine life return system, would significantly increase the level of protection to marine life over the proposed ~ystem,·provided that such a system is feasible for the· Waterflood Project. It ·would also alleviate any significant fish entrapment problem. H-16 REFERENCEs· Beamish, F.W.H. 1978. Swimming capacity. In: Hoar, W.S. and D.J. Randall (Eds.), Fish physiology, Vol. YII locomotion. Academic Press, N.Y. Pe• 576. Bibko, P.N., Wirtman, L. and P.~. Keuser, 1974·8 Preliminary studies on the effects of air bubb 1 es and intense i 11 umi nation on the swimming behavior of the striped bass (Marone saxitalis) ·and the gizzard shad (Dorsoma epedianum). In: Jensen, L.D. (Ed.), Entrainment and intake screening. Proceedings of the second entrainment and intake screening workshop. EPRI publication No. 74-049-055 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. Cushing, D.H., 1973. The possible density-dependence of larval mortality and adult mortality in fishes. In: Blaxter, J.H.S. (Ed.), The early life history of fish, Springer-Verlag, New York. 765 pp. Dames & Moore, 1979. Seminole Plant Units No. 1 and No. 2 316b study and report. Report for Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. Tampa, Fla •. Gunsolus, R.T., and G.J. Eicher, 1970. Evaluation of -fish passage facilities at the North Fork project on the Clackamas River in Oregon. The Fish Commission of Oregon and Portlftnd General Electric Co. Heuer, J .H., and D.A. Tomljariovich, 1979. A further study on the protect ion of fish 1 arvae at water intakes using wedgewi re screens. Tennessee Valley Authority Technical Note 833. Kerr, J.E., 1953. Studies ·an fish preservation at the Confra Costa steam plant of the Pacific Gas and.Electric Company~ State of Califor- ~ia, Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin No. 92. L i eb erma n , U • T • , and P • M • M u e s s i g , 19 7 8 • Eva 1 u at i o n of an a i r bubble to mitigate fish impingement at an electric generating plant .• Estuaries 1(2):129-132. Lifton, w.s., and J.E. Storr, 1977 •. The effect of environmental variables on fish impingement. In: Jenso, L.D., 1977. Fourth national workshop on entrainment and impingement. E.A. Communications. Melville, N.Y. Moulton, L., K. Tabox, and R. Thorne, 1980. Beaufort Sea fishery investigations, summer 1979. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. H-17 Murray, L' .. S. and T.S. Jinnette; 1978. Survival of dominant estuarine organisms impinged on fine-mesh trav.el ing screens at the Barney M. Davis Power Station. In: Sharma, RsK. and J.B. Palmer, 1978. Larval exclusion s,Y.stems for power p1ant cooling water intakes. Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, Ill. · Pavlov, D.S., and A.M. Pakhorukov, 1973. Biological basis of protect- ; ng fish from entry ·; nto water i ntaka structures. In: Pi schchevaya promyshlennost, 208 p~ (Translated by: S. Pearson, NMFS, NW Fisheries Center, 1974). Prentice~ E.F., and F..N. Ossiander, 1974. Fish diversion systems and biological investigation of horizontal traveling screen, Model VII. In: Jensen, L.D. Proceedings of the second workshop on entrainment and intake screening EPRI No. Z4-049-005, Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, Calif. · Sazaki M., Heuba~h, w. and J~E. Ski~ner, 1972. Some results on the swimming ability and impingement tolerance the-year steelhead trout, king salmon, and striped bass. for Anadromous Fisheries Act Project. Calif. AFS-13. preliminary of young-of- Final Report Sonntchsen, Jr., J.C., B.W. Bentley, G.F. Bailey, and R.E .. Nakatani, 1973. A review of thermal power plant intake structure design and related environmental considerations. Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory. Richland, WA. Skinner, J.E., 1974. A functional evaluation of a large louver screen installatfon and fish facilities resea~'ch on California water diversion projects. In: ·Jensen, L.D., (Ed.), Proceedings of the second workshop on entrainment and intake screeningo John Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland. February 5-9, 1973. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, 1976aG Studies to alleviate potential fish entrapment at power plant cooling water intakes. Report prepared for Ni agra Mohawk Power Corporation and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation. , 1976b. Final report -Indian Point flume study& Prepared for ~C-on_s_o_l~idated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · Taft, E.P. and Y.G. Mussalli, 1978. Angled screens and louvers for directing fish at power plants. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of the Hydraulics Division~ , P. Hofmann, R.J. Eisle and T. Horst, 1976. An experimental ---. approach to the design of systems for alleviating fish impingement at existing and proposal power plant int.ak.e structures. In: Jensen, L.D. (Ed.), Third national workshop on entrainment and impingement. EA Communications, Melville, N.Y. Tarbox, K., ~1. Bushdos;h, D. La Vigne, and G. Robilliard, 1979. Under- ice plankton in the Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska--February - May 1979. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea-winter 1979. Report prepar~d for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants Anchorage; Alaska. , and L. Moulton, 1980. Larval fish abundance in the Beaufort -=---Sea near Prudhoe Bay Alaska. In: Environmental studies of the Beaufort Sea-summer 1979 e. Report prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Wood\~ard Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. , and T. Spight, 1979. Beaufort Sea fishery investigations .. -::----:::-:-. In: Biological effects of impingement and entrainment from operation of the proposed intake. Dr·aft report prepared for ARCO Oi 1 and Gas Co. by Woodwar~-C1yde Consultants, Anchor·age, A 1 ask a. -=----=---' and R. Thorne, 1979.. Measurements of fish densities under the ice in the aeaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, A·~aska. In: Environmental studies of th~ Beaufort Sea-winter 1979 G Raport prepared for Prudhoe Bay Unit by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. Thompson, J.S., and G~J. Paulik, 1967. An evaluation of louvers and bypass facilities for guiding seaward migrant salmonids. past Mayfield Dam in west Washington. Washington Department of Fi.sher'ies, Olympict, Wash ... Tomljanovich, D.A., J.H. Heuer, and C.W. Viogtlander, 1977. Investi- gations on the protection of fish larvae at water intakes using fine mesh screening. Tennessee Valley Authority Tech. Note No. 1322, 36 p. -~---:-' J.H. Heuer, and C.~~. Voigtlander, 1978. Investigations on the protection of fish larvae at water intakes using fine-mesh screening. In: Sharma, R.R. and J.B. Palmer (Eds.), Larval exclusion systems for power plant cooling water intakes. Argonne National Laboratory; Argonne, Ille · USEPA, 1976. Development document for best technology available for the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. USEPA, Washington, D.C. pp. 263. . , 1977. Guidance for evaluating the adverse impact of cooling -w-at':""'"e-r----=intake structures on the aquatic environment. Section 316{b) P.L" 92-!300. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcemf!nt, Permits Division, Washington, D.C. 58 pp. White, JeC. and M.L. Brehmer, 1976Q Eighteen month evalu~tion of the Ristroph traveling fish screens. In: J.ensen, L.D .. (Ed.), Proceedings of the third national workshop on entra·inment and impingement, New York City, F1ebruary 24, 1976. E.,A. Communications. H-19 APPENDIX I COASTAL PROCESSES 1.0 INTRODUCTION The shoreline along any body of water subject to wave action is very dynamic. The interaction of the prevailing wind and wave climate with the geo 1 ogy of an area produces a system in some degree of dynamic equilibrium. Any major structure introduced into this system will necessarily result in changes. This appendix assesses possible changes in 1 ittoral transport patterns and subsequent effects resulting from the proposed action. 2.0 REFRACTION ANALYSIS Two important factors determining sediment transport at the project site are the height of breaking waves and the angle these wave crests make with the shoreline. These two parameters were determined by using a computer program to model the waves as they propagate shoreward from deep water to shallow water • . As a wave approaches shallow water, its propagation speed decreases. Thus if the wave approaches the beach an an angle, one 11 end" of the wave will reach shallow water and decrease its_ speed. This will tend to bend the wave so that it approachs along a path more perpendicular to the shore. The model examines the shoreward propagation of waves by analyzing wave properties along a series of 1 ines perpendicular to the wave crests, called orthogonalse At finite intervals along each orthogonal, cal cul at ions are made to yield wave speed, wave 1 ength, and water . depth., As these parameters change, the degree that the orthogonal r-1 . changes direction (corresponding to the 11 bending 11 of the wave crest) is· determined from Snell's law: where: SINCX.1 = SINCX.2 · C1 C2 · a1 is the angle a·wave crest makes with the bottom contour over which the wave is passing, a2 is a similar angle measured as tQe wave crest passes over the next bottom contour, C1 is the wave velocity corresponding to a1, C2 is the wave velocity corresponding to a 2 • Plotting each of these ort·hogonals depicts the interaction bet,tleen bathymetry and waves of a given period and initial direction, and yields information concerning the angle the wave crests make with the shoreline at breaking. Shoaling is the other major phenomenon associated with deep-water waves approaching a shoreline. The shoaling coefficient is a ra~io of the wave height in any depth with the wave height in deep water, e1 iminating effects of refraction~ percolation and bottom friction. Bathymetry for the t•efraction analysis was digitized from NOAA nautical chart number 16061. Interpolation of these randomly-spaced data poin~s was performed to cons~ruct a ,.egul arly-spaced grid. Two grids were generated. A 10,000-ft grid was used for the initial runs of the longer period waves (Figure I-1). A smaller 2000·-ft grid was used for . a more detailed analysis of the project area (Figure I-2), Refraction analyses were run based on a no-causeway assumption. The shoreline was idealized as a series of straight lines. The bathymetry was smaoth£d sl ightl.Y to eliminate any rapid changes in depth,· as such I-2 shar·p transitions viol ate the assumptions of Sne11 1 s 1 aw. Cases were . analyzed for waves. with periods of 1~5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 s. Heights ranged from 0.2-3.7 m (O.S-12ft). Waves from three directions were analyzed: 150°Cr), 180°(T), and 210°(T) e . . . Available data suggest that most waves during the three open-water months of July, August and September are less than 0.6 m (2 ft) in height; have periods of 3 s or less, and arrive from the east or northeast.. A 10-year storm has been hindcast as having a significant period of 5.8 s with a significant wave· height of 2.4 m {8 ft). A 100-year stonn has been calculated to have a significant period of 6 s with a significant wave height of 3.7 m (12 ft).. Although the prevailing winds and waves are from the east and northeast, severe stonns can come from the west. The results of the refraction analyses are presented in Figures I-5 through I-19.. · -· 3.0 LONGSHORE CURRENT VELOCITIES As waves approach. a shoreline at an angle and break, a current is established parallel to the shore. Waves in shallow water, especially breaking waves, set sediments in motion. These sediments are transported with the 1 ongshore current until the current velocity dissipates. An analysis of the longshore current velocities generated at a site can indicate the capacity of these forces to transport sediments.. The model used to generate the longshore currents is the model proposed by Longuet-Higgins (1970)"' (Madsen et al. 1978) depends upon: the bottom slope (B), a friction factor (f), -· 1-3 a modified version of This modified model a later?l eddy viscosity cons~ant {r), the ratio of wave height to depth at. breaking (a), the wave period (T), the breakirig wave height (H 8), and the_angle between the wave crest and the shoreline at breaking ( 0b). The wave parameters at the breaker zone were determined from the refraction analysiso The bottom slope, taken as 0.002, was determined from the bathymetry, and the values for f and r were taken from available literature. The highest longshore current velocities. for a system in which the waves break only once are just inside the surf zoneo In this particu- lar case,' since the bottom is so flat, waves may _break, reform, and break several times. before ultimately los·ing all of their energy on the beach. . This provides a wide cross-secti()nal area through which sediment may be transported. Figure I-3 presents a comparison of the longshore current velocities for the typical wave regime and for possible storms from the east and west. Both the distribution and magnitude of velocity are much greater for the storm. Thus, one severe storm can erase the accumulated effects of several years• normal wave activity. Hume and Schalk (1967) indicated that during one stonn near Barrow, Alaska, over 153,000 m3 {200,000 yds 3) of sediment were moved compared to the average yearly littoral transport of approximately 7650 m3 (10,000 yds 3 ). Longshore current patterns can be envisioned by examining this circulation model. 4.0 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT Sediment transport ca 1 c_ul at ions were based upon an empi rica 1 formula developed by Komar and. Inman (1977). This formula is somewhat depend- ent upon sediment size, but primarily dependent upon breaking wave height and the angle of wave incidence. It establishes the sediment I.-4 transport as a function ot: the square of the breaker height; conse-. quently, larger waves have considerably greater· potential· for trans ... porting sedimentso Five representative sites were selected in the area of interest: three along Stump Island, one along the shoreline at the causeway (prior to causeway construction), and one farther east along the Pruohoe Bay shoreline· (Figure I-4). Transport rates (yds 3/day) were calculated for a variety of wave heights and periods at each of the five·sites. Average potential transport rates for each wave height, period, and direction were calculated from these values (Table I-1). These values may represent overestimates of the actual transport rates by at least an order of magnitude. This possible discrepancy arises primarily from variation in the availability of sediment. Most of the beaches modeled have only limited quantities of sediffient and much of that is organic matter, the transport of which has not been adequately modeled. The mild ~lope of these beaches enables the longshore current to effectively move sediment over a large cross-sectional area perpen- dicular to the coastlinea However, once having broken on such a slop~, waves would not break continuously (as defined by the ratio of the water depth to the wave height) all the way to uprush limit. The result would be a complex velocity distribution considerably lower overall than the model predicts. I-5 T H 1 2 3 4 4 1 ,., t:.. 4 6 5 4 6 8 6 6 8 12 TABLE I-1 POTENTIAL TRANSPQRT RATES AT AVERAGE SITE (yds 3 /day). Westerll: Winds Easterlx Winds angle 112° angle 107° -5;120 -4,480 . -19,840 -17,920 -51,200 -46,720 -9~,720 -87,360 -6,080 -5,120 -25,280 -21,440 -108,160 -92,800 -295,040 -267,520 -97,600 -80,960 -243,200 -208,640 -523,520 -471,360 -196,160 -168,320 -394,560 -345,920 -1,126,080 -1,0309080 I-6 angle 112° 1,280 5,120 11,840 19,520 2,240 11,840 . 41,280 84,160 24,640 58,240 105,600 100,480 175,520 356,160 angle 107° 2,880 11,520 26,560 43,520 3,520 17,600 59,440 151,680 48$320 114,560 208,GOO 223,360 434,240 938,880 . 1181110:1 .,_ J:JD:ICCII lta:l!nl ·-·-·-·-11111~ ~I I I ~ I I I ·-r~-. "'0 m c. ·~--fCir.XXI:I:I ~ ~ .... CD .. .... t:wt=o:l -· 0 0 a.. ~ m 0 :J < tse= -· ... 0 :a 3 CD :1 ¥5'1~ f'!1o ID, ~· • -3 "0 ..... &» I I "') -_ tsa= ...... () PRUDHOE BAY-"' ~ . ..... (J) .... S» .... CD ,___ _iS,= 3 .· (!) 111r1111111 ·-·-·-·-·-·-t•uu:. , .. ""'~ a MILES KILOMETERS 0 2 3 4 6 0 5 10 ~ I '11 • . '8' -w CD • OFFSHClRE BATHYMETRY ...... I ..... ·~ I 00 . ·-u m ·C: .. =e J» """ Q) ... .... -0 0 C.. m :s < -· ... 0 :s a CD :s ..... J» -. -3 'C 1\l () .... (J) .... S» .... CD 3 CD :J .... .,.. iii c .., ,CD ...... I 1\) ·-·-·-...~ • • KILOMETERS 0 5 10 I I =t-I • . ·-·-·-.. _ ·- PRUDHOE BA~ NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY . (WITH EXTENDED CAUSEWAY AND IDEALIZED STUMP ISLAND INSERTED) L---~------~----~------~~ws~.---·---·---··~~~·~='~~-~--------------~------~----~ "'0 m c: . ~ fd U) ' a-: "-- fl) r+ ij) ..... -h -o· 0 C.. Cl) w -· !:: m :J 0 ·~ -A LLB < -· .... 0 :J > 3 ... z l&J 0! Q: ;:::, u (!) :J qat. S» --3 'C ~ ~ I n \0 .... en r+ Al .. G) 3 CD ::J ... 2.0 1.6 8.2 . 0.8· 0.1 \ \ '--=-,-. . I I 2000 . 4000 I 6000 8000 ' ---3 SECOND WAVE,2 FT. E-NE ---6 SECOND WAVE, 12FT. W-NW aoooo 12000 14000 16000 DISTANCE FROM SHORE (FT.) LONGSHORE CURRENT VELOCITIES (SLOPE) M = 0.002 ., ·m C. ~ iD .-eo (I) ... -c. -0 0 D.. m .~ < -· ""' 0 ::I a CD ~ .... m -- f 9 ...... '0 I M ..... ,., 0 li+. en .... ID .... Q) 3 ~ :1 .. .. ········ "······ ······ ···~··· ... .. .,,, .. .. .. .... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. . .. ········ ., ......... . .. .... . ... ···.. ..· ... •'' •• It _co .. ' ••• '"''" c •••••• .... ,.· ······ .. ·· .... ··. 'stump caaand·· ... ··.. .. ... .. ····· ······· ..... -· ·... . .. ... . .. .. .. .. . . "• .. .. .. .. .. ···.. ·· ... .. .. . . . .... ···. . ~ \ •·.. . ... , . ~ . ~ .. . . ~ . . .. ---·~··· ... ,,. ....... --, ....... .... I ~ ... I ', ' ' '··· ·· .. ·•·.. ··· .... ··~ ········· ,' ', / ehoal area ' ---------' I 0 !';:::a, 0 METERS 1000 FEET •·' I • \ \ ' I .. --'' ', _,..--.... , " ... ___ ., 2000 7000 R Location of sampll'ng station 1 ....... • •• ' ...................... :. ........................................... . \\ .. . .. .. .. .. ·~. ··•· ... ·.\ \ .. ... .. "•,,., .. ... .. .. ..··· ... ············ ············ . .. ................ . .. ... SEDIMENT TRANSPOR"f~ 'SITES -0 "'0 m .· C. ·-··-·-~-·--... ~ I» """ co . ., ... -0 ... • 0 . a.. m ::J < -· .... 0 :1 3 ... co :J .... I» -.... 3 -"0 ..... S» 0 I .... n EE+++il ~ ..... (JJ ~ILQMETER8 0 G 10 poft ·l F*3 E*3 I I L\) co+ .... (D ..... ·-·-·-.... 3 • (I) :J .... '!------ -n 1.5 SECONDS, 210• (T) -c (Q . c· ... (lj) ...... WAVE REFRACT~ON SELECTED WAVE PERIOD, DIRECTION ; . . c,; ~--~--------~~~--~·-~ri------------~------~------------------~------------------~~ ·~ I ..... N I "U m C:. :e &» ..... t'D ... -It -0 0 0.. m :J < -· .... 0 :.= 3 CD :t! ,.. Al --3 n • n ...... (/) ..... Al .... CD 3 (I) :1 ..... ~ ' ~ J j Q L-:c:::::: MILES KIL0'-=5TERS 0 6 10 I E*3 f++di I .-----.· - 111'11!9-f----------4...--r------------,~---------,:----~-------t-·· .... ..... v •; ~--,P--~-------· ------------------------·----~------------------~--~------------~ "' -n .... ,.a 2.0 SECONDS, 210• (T) c I ~. 0 ...... j O:b SELECTED WAVE PERIOD, DIRECTION I L ~--._--------~----·------~----------~--------------r.~------------,----~----~ _...-,. ~ "'U m C. ··-·-·-·-,.,....~}. -.... :e "' .. CD • . '"" ..... -0 ·-0 ~"·. tn :J ~ -· . ..,. 0 :I .. 3 CD :I ..... ~ --3 .... or; ..... ~ MILES I 0 6 ~ 0 w ... CD KILOMETERS 0 6 10 .... I e=a F+3 I 2J S» .... ..... . CD ·-·-..... 3 ·--CD. :J •+ 3.0 SECONDS, 150 (T) WAV'E REFRACTION SElECTED WAVE PERIOD, DIRECTION .... I ....,a ..;:.. , m c:: .~ ell ... CD ""' """" .._. 0 0 0.. m ::::3 < -· ... 0 :s 3 CD := .... f)) --3 "D I» n ...... (J) .... J» c:a+ CD 3 CD ::J .... ,.. ...... Ul c .., CD ...... I C» ·--- .. ·-·-·-·--· - - MILES . 0 6 I :t:=='S KILOMETERS 0 6 10 I Ed Ff3 I I -·-·-.. -·~ ' 3.0 SECONDS, tao• (T) ~VAVE REFRACTION SELECTED WI:VE PERIOD, DIRECTION • ~ 5 .... U1 "tJ I7J c: ~ p) ..... CD ... ...,. --0 0 C.. m :a < -· ... 0 :I 3 CD :I .... Dl "'!""" -3 "C f m. 0 ...... ~ en ..... 1.\l ..... t1) 3 CD :a ,.... .,.. -· ca c ... CD ·-..... .. . . 0 ( ...... ·-,....,. ·-·-... .. - KILOMETERS & 10 F*3 E*3 t I I _ ... ~ ·-·-·-.... • II . . 4.0 SECON.DS, 150._(T) WAVE REFRACTION· SELECTED WAVE PERIOD. DIRECTION .. ..... I .- 0\ "U m c. ~ I» """' C1) ~ .... -0 0 ~. m ::1 < -~ ... 0 :1 3 CD ::J ... 1.\l --3 'C A) () ...... en """' Q) ... (I) 3 CD :a . ..... "11· -· co c .... CD e-4. t ..... Q ... ·-·-· KILOMETERS 0 6 10 I i+±+l t===!l E I ·-·-·-.. - ~ 4.0 SECONDS, tao• (T) WAVE REFRACTIO·N SELECTE'D WAVE PERIOD," DIRECTION ,,_ ..... - -•+- .· • . ...... • .... " "tJ m c: ~ .... (1) ... .... -o· 0 a.. m :;:, < ..,. . .., 0 ::3 3 " :J' .... D) --3 'C I» n .... (D. ...:- D.l ...00 C1) 3 CD :i ..... 'Tl ca· c ., CD ......... . I ..... -4 ·- .. ..... .. ·-·-,._ ·-- ·- - 0 t-JILEB 6 I ·~ KILOMETERS 0 6 10 I F*3 E*3 r ·-·-·-...... w 4.0 S'ECONDS, 210• (T) WAVE REFRACTION SELECTED WAVE PERIOD, DIRECTION ..... I f-9 00 1CJ ·m c: :E· S)) .... 0 ., ...... ·-0 0 c. rn ~ < -· •• 0 ~ 3 tO = .-+ D) --3 '0 al n _. .. CD !!'+ ~ '* CD 3 CD :a ..... -n -· Ul c ., CD ..... I ~ 1\) ... ... ·- .I ·-·-·-- .... ·- 0 MILES 5 p==i I KILOMETERS 0 5 10 L &a e+H I I nn ·-; ·-·-...... 5.0 SECONDS, 150~ (Tf \ WAVE REFRACTION SELECTED WAVE PERIODo DIRECTION .... I ..... U) '1'J m C. =e ~ .... CD ... -h -0 0 0.. m :s < -· ... 0 ::J 3 CD :I ,.. A) --3 'C Pl n .... (JJ pot. D) .... CD 3 ('j) :I .... 'TI ca· c ... CD ..... I ... (13 - - - KILOMETER~ 0 6 10 I E*3 E*3 I I ·-·- 5.0 SECONDS, 2.10.(T) • WAVE REFRACTION SELECTED WAVE PERIOD, DIRECTION ..... I N 0 "lJ m C. ~ S» .... CD ... .... -0 0 Q,, m :s < -· ... 0 :I 3 CD :::s ,.... Al --3 'C Al n .... en ..... C) ..... CD 3 cD :J ..... 'TI -· (Q c ... (D ·- . . .. ·- . ·-·-··-·-~-. ... .. ,0 - 0 MILES I KILOMETERS 0 6 10 I Fa FA I I ..... ·-·-·-''II!"- 6.0 SECONDS, 150• (T) WAVE REFRACTION SELECTED WAVE PERIOD, DIRECTION • -.1 .... I C\) .... ., m c: ~ J\) '* CD ... ..... -0 0 ~. m ::J < -· ., 0 :J 3 CD ::J .... I» --3 ~ I» n .... (/J ...,. I» ..... CD 3 CD ::J .... .,.. -· (Q c ., (J) .,;..,e. I ..... 'QJ ·;.._ "" ..;. ... ...... ·-·-· ·-. ... • ~ MILES 6 KILOMETERS 0 G 10 r==f+3 E*i I t _ .... ·-·-.. _ ...... • 6.0 SECONDS,I8Q.(T) WAVE REFRACTION SELECTED WAVE PERIOD. DIRECTION .... I N -N "'U m C. :e S» ..... CD ... .... -0 0 a.. m :J < -· ., 0 :J 3 (I) :a I!+ Al -. -3 'C to (') .... en ..... I» .... CD 3 CD :I ..... "TT ii" c .., co ....... . I -It m •• - - KILOMETERS 0 6 10 I &H 'F*f I I • .... ..... ·-11 6.0 SECOND~. 210• (T) WAVE REFRACTION SELECTED WAVE PE~IOD, PIRECTION ..... I r.:» w .-a m c:. ~ m """" •CD ... .... -0 0 0,. m :J < -· ~ 0 :J 3 CD :J .. I» --· 3 '0 SD n .. C/) .. Al '* CD 3 CD :::J ,... -n cS" c ... CD ..... . I ..,a, ~ ·- . ... ' .... .... II ·-,._ ·-- - - 0 MILES KILOMETERS 0 15 10 I F*3 E*3 I ==a ..... . ·-·-·-· ...... 8.0 SECONDS, ·150• (T) WAVE REFRACTIQN SELECTED Vi AVE PERIOD, DIRECTION ..... I N ~ ~-m c. :e S» .... (1) .... ""'h -0 0 D, m :J < -· ., 0 :J 3 (1) ::J ... l\) --3 'C S» n ... (/) '""" S» ..... CD 3 CD :J .... ·'11 -· (Q c ., CD ~ I """ o:i • ··-.. -··-••: ..... ~ - ... - KILOMETERS ~-0 5 10 I· E*3 E*3 I ' -·-·-·-·-·~ ' ! 8.0 SECONDS, 180.(T) : WAVE REFRACTION SELECTED WAVE PERIOD, DIRECTION ..... I N "" '"0 m c: ~ ~ .... '(I) ... .... -0 0 0.. m :J < -· "'!'i 0 :J 3 ~ (I) ~ ,.. A) -. -3 '0 •f» n .... 0 MILE I KILOMETERS D I I E*3 E*3 I ..... ·-- 10 I ·- .... . ·- ...... ~--~--~----------------~------------~------~-~------------------~-------------. ..,.. ca· c: ... ·(1) t'o!-a a .... t/) 8.0 SECONDS, 210• (T) WAVE REFRACTION SELECTED WAVE PERIOD, DIRECTION .. REFERENCES Longuet-Higgins, M.S., 1970. Longsho~e curents generated by obliquely incident sea waves, parts 1 and 2. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75 (33):6778~6801. Hume, J .. D.9 and M. Schalk, 1967. Shoreline processes near Barrow, Alaska: a comparison of the normal and catastrophic. Arctic 20(2): 86-103. Komar, p·., and D. Inman, 1967. Longshore sand transport on beaches. J .. Geophys. Res. 75(30):5914-27 .. I-26 APPENDIX J ASSESSMENT OF ICE FORCES, ICE OVER-RIDE AND EMBANKMENT STABILITYl 1.0 INTRODUCTION The· waterflood facilities would involve a causeway extending 1125 m (3700 ft) out to the 3.7-m {12-ft) contour of the Beaufort Sea, with a seawater treating plant at the end. This appendix addresses concerns regarding the risk associated with ice forces and ice \JVerride and includes a review of available literature relating to the interaction of bottom-founded structures with ice-sheets, part icul arl y re 1 a ted to ice forces, ice override, and staoility of the structure. 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES ON ICE SHEETS AND GENERAL ICE CONDITIONS DRIVING FORCES ·Ice action on artificial structures should be considered in two cate- gories {Croasdale and Marcellus 1978). First, the structure has to withstand the lateral forces imposed by the moving ice, and second, the ice must not encroach on the working surface. Bot~ of these types of ice action depend on the pattern of ice movement, its thickness, and its strength. Ice forces are limited either by the environmental forces moving the ice or by the force that w~uld ·cause the ice to fail against a bottom- founded structure. Whether or not ice will ride up an embankment slope is detennined by relating the ice forces to the resistance offered by the slope. 1 Derived from Hardy Associat~s {1978) Ltd., 1980. Assessment of ice forces, ice over-ride and embankment stabi 1 ity, Prudhoe Bay waterflood project. Report prepared for Dames & Moore • . J-1 The drivi~g forces on an ice sheet exerted by wind· and current depends on the square of. the wind velocity and current velocity respectively, and are also directly proportional to the fetch area of the ice sheet involved (Braun and Johannesson 1971, Croasdale and Marcellus 1978). Due to the ~ot~ntial fa~ extremely large fetch are~s involved in coastal locations, environmental driving forces theoretically can achieve very high va 1 ues. Consequently, the forces exerted by 1 arge coastal ice sheets usually are considered to be limited to the strength of the ice sheet itself by whatever mode of failure. Therefore, there is little to be gained by making specifi~ calculations of the potential thrust that caul d be exerted on an ice sheet by environmental forces a ICE CONDITIONS A bri~f summary of ice conditions used as a base for this discussion is show~ in Table J-1. The most critical period from the vieNpoint of maximum ice force will occur when ice thickness, strength and· movement are gre~atest. This would appear to be the period around mid-nctober, when ice thickness may approach 1 m (3 ft) and storm activity is highest, or in the November-January/February period when ice moyement may_still occur, ·and the ice thickness can approach 2 m (7 ft). AftE'r this period, the ice is essentially static in this zone. During breakup, thicker ice will be in motion but is unlikely to have high strength due to warmer temperatures. Ice pile-up is likely to become a more important issue at this time. 3.0 ICE FORCES AND MODE OF FAILURE Croasdale and Marcellus (1978) have shown that a crushing or ductile flow failure mode is more likely to occur than either a buckling failure of the ice sheet, or failure of the adfreeze bond formed between the ice sheet and the embankment. Whether crusing or ductile flow will occur depends on the strain rate. Slow, persistent movements TABLE J-1 SUMMARY OF ICE CONDITIONS Ice Thickness Time Process (m) Comments early October New sea-ice forms 0 -0.2 (?) (0.7 ft) Forces small mid October First shore fast ice 0.2 -1.0 (?) (0 ~7 ft) Period of max1t storm activity. Ice very mobile Nov-Jan-Feb Extension and modification 1 - 2 (3 - 7 ft) Ice less active Feb -May Static ice sheet 2 (7 ft) Little movement late May River flooding of fast ice 2 (7 ft) Little movement mid June Opening. and movement ?-Breakup . August 1 Nearshore area ice-free 0 J-3 of the ice sheet give rise to a ductile failure.of the i.ce sheet, and generally smaller forces on the embankment. Large, faster movements of the ice sheet give rise to a crushing mode of failure, and may cause a buildup of ice rubble around the structure. This rubble, if it becomes thick enough and grounds, may assist in armouring the . embankment against the ice sheet. In1tially, however, the structure has to be capable of withstanding the crushing strength of the ice during periods of large ice movement. Ice force loadfngs .sugg?sted by Jahns (1979) and Ralston (1979) for drilling and production islands correspond to design ice strengths of 122 kg/cm2 (270 1b/in2). Ra 1 ston { 1979) further suggests that o;.~ed on experience W'ith the Netserk F-14 island, 11 Ice pressures of· 68 kg/cm2 (150 lb/in2) can be expected annually.· .... in the Mackenzie Bay area. These p·ressures correspond to movements of up to 0.4 m/hour (17 in/hour). The crushing strength of ice depends mainly on strain rate, salinity ;and sample size. A'llen (1970) shows data for thin ice sheets acting on ·wide structures in the range of 91 -113 kg/cm2 (200 ... 250 1b/in2). Fredeking and Gould (1975) have reported laborJtory studies on the edge loading of ice plates, and obtain ice strengths in the range of 113 - 136 kg/cm2 (250 -300 1b/in2) for ice sheets at -10°C (14°F) where the loaded area is very wide when compared with the thickness of the ice sheet. Data sp~cific to the ice type and temperature conditions at Prudhoe shoulci be obtained to develop a more rational basis-for quanti- fying the strength of the ice sheet. Crushing strength is also related to ice crystal size and c-axis azimuth orientation. Tests have shown that the crushing strength may be two to five times higher perpen- dicular to the c-axis versus 45° to the c-axis. Since the load direction/c-axis effect is significant, it needs to be addressed. However, based on dJta available from other sources, a value for ice crushing strength of between 91 -136 kg/cm2 (200 -300 lb/in2) will be used for illustrative purposes. For example, an ice sheet moving at a h.igh enough velocity to cause crushing or brittle fai'iure of an ice sheet 0.9 m (3 ft) thick will induce a force on a structure of 48,924 kg/m (108,000 lbs/ft) run if the ice strength is 113 kg/cm2 J-4 A 1.8-m (6-ft) s.heet would. induce twice this loading {97 ,848 kg/m, 216,000 lbs/ft) run. The velocity at. which the ice sheet must travel to achieve the peak (crushing) strength re1dtes to the strain rate in the ice sheet. A strain rate .of about 1."5 hour-1 is sufficient to obtain the maximum strength of an ice sheet, where strain rate, E: ·, is given by: e = v/h [hour]-l where v = ice sheet velocity (m/hour, f~/hour) and h =characteristic dimension parallel to ice sheet (m,ft) The characteristic dimension, h, is difficult to assess, but for the treatment structure at the end of the causeway, it likely to be in the range of 152 m {500 ft). When considering the 0.9-m {3-ft) thick ice sheet above, a velocity of 229 m/hour {750 ft/hour) would be required to provide a str~in rate of 1.5 hour -1 , and a peak crushing strength wou 1 d then be obtai nab 1 e. At strain rates much 1 ower than this, a ' ductile (creep) mode of failure would predominate, and generally lower strengths would be obtained. This is likely to be the case later in the winter season, when the. ice sheet becomes less mobile and small rates of movemen~ ar~ generally observed. Ice strengths at this time can be approximately quantified using the known ratios between strength and strain rate. Generally, strength is proportional to the strain rate cubed. If the strain rate is reduced by three orders of magni- tude, the ice strength will be reduced by one order of magnitude (i.e. a factor of 10) e . At spring breakup, the ice is thick but is also relatively warm. Cor::;equently, the competency of the ice slieet is greatly reduced. Michel {1970) suggests a design strength for the impact lqading of spring ice of 34 kg/cm 2 (75 1b/in2 ).. The accuracy of this design strength is not known; however, the reduced ice competency coupled with J-5 the much higher movement r~tes common at this time may conceivably control ice loads on irregular boundaries • . Design to resist the lateral ice forces described 1n th .. ; section is accomplished -by sizing the structure to achieve the nece:i·~ 1ry shearing resistance within the earth structure, and ensuring that a sufficient safety factor again.st shearing is available. The geotechnical aspects of earth structure stability are reviewed later. 4.0 ICE RIDE-UP When an 'ice sheet moves against a shallow slope, it is normally subject to bending stresses that cause it to break into a number of pieces. These broken pieces continue to be pushed against the slope by the advancing ice sheet. For wide structures with small freeboards, such as embankments or artificial islands, there is a risk that the' ice will advance up the beach and onto the embankment surface. Therefore, whether the ice will ride-up a slope or create a rubble pile is an important consideration· in the design of embankments such as that proposed for the causeway extension. In general, ice ride-up will occur if the resista~ce to ice sliding up· the beach is 1 ess than the ice push ( Croasda 1 e et a 1 • 1978). The ice . push is limited by such factors as ice sheet size, winds, current, ice thickness, ice st~ength and modulus; whereas the beach resistance is governed by friction, slope angle and height. Ice ride-up has been reported several times in the literatur.e. Shapiro {1976) described how a 1.2-m (4-ft) thick ice sheet was pushed ashore near Barrow, Alaska to a distance of 24m {80 ft) up the beach. Hanson (1978) described another occurrence, also near Barrow, where ice was pushed to· an elevatio·n of 2.4 -2.7 m {8 - 9 ft) above sea level at different ~each .slopes. Braun and Johannessen (1971) and Allen {1970) discuss ice pilings and methods of predicting their maximum height, but the mechanics of ice pilings are less relevant than the prediction J-6 of ice ride-up, which may impinge on a working surface_ Although a major concern at the design stage, no sigificant ice ride-up has been reported at the many artifi.cial islands constructed in shallow water in the Canada Beaufort Sea in Mackenzie Bay. However, the ice or climatic conditions at these locations may not be as severe as may be experienced in the Prudhoe Bay area. Croasdale et al. (1978) have examined the theoretical criteria neces- sary for ride-up, and offer some simple and approximate design methods for prevention. Ride-up can only occur if t.he capacity of the ice sheet to push is greater than the resistance to movement of ice up the slope. Ice push will be limited either to the environmental driving force (wind, current) or by the strength of the ice sheet immediately in front of the structure. Resistance to sliding up the embankment side slope can be obtained by sli~ing or jamming, or by an ice pile-up caused by instability of broken ice pieces. If the ice sheet is not sufficiently strong to push broken ice pieces up the side of the slope, then a rubble pile or ice piling will form at the bottom of the slope, and ice ride-up wil1 cease. Figure J-1 shows the statics of the ice ride-up problem. Using the notation of this figure, the force required in the ice sheet per unit width to push the ice over the crest of the embankment slope is: where and = L t y i (sin B + Jl cos 6 ) L = sloping length of ice sheet· t = ice thickness y. = ice density 1 a = embankment angle p = ice/embankment friction coefficient J-7 (1) . . '• .... -----==I oo' T· ,a· P = lee. force per unit width on slope. F = Ice force per unit width (horizontal).· STATICS OF ICE RIDE UP PBU Waterflood·. Environmentai Impact ~tatement working surface Figure· J-1 - It should be noted that this value may be· a lower bound force as it does not account. for the we~ight of the ice sheet in contact with the sea floor or the force required to break the ice at the bottom of the slope. The· actual force could be 20 to 30 percent higher • . If the ice stress gives rise to a horizontal force per unit width in the floating ice sheet, F, such that F l P cos a (2) then ice ride-up will occur. Referring to the proposed causeway extensi en, and considering an ice sheet 1 m (3 ft) thick, the following are the required parameters to assess ice ride-up. Coefficient of friction Slope . Slope length, L Yice For~e required, P 0.3 1 ~:5 (11.3°) -approximately 30 m {100 ft) = 24 kg/m 3 (56 lb/ft3 } = 3728 kg/m (8230 lbs/ft) run. The horizontal stress required in the ice sheet is obtained·from Equation (2), i.e.: . Fl. 3656 kg/m {8070 los/ft) runQ In a 0.9-m (3-ft) thick ice layer, this represents a compressive stress in the ice of 8.4 kg/cm 2 (18.7 lb/in 2), .which is far below the maximum compressive stress that the floating ice sheet could achieve. Therefore,, the possibility for ice rid~-up for this embankment coh-. figuration appears very likely at first sight. However, the available . 1 If the ice is riding upon ice that previously rode up slope, or is riding over a snow-covered slope, the coefficient of friction will be in the range of 0.03 to 0.1. J-9 analysis indicates that a moving (non frozen .... ; n) ice sheet is quite weak in flexure. Croasdale et al. (1978) provide a theoretical relationship between the sliding· resistance and the condition for flexural failure in the ice sheet, and derive the necessary condition for ice ride-up to be: 0.25 0.68 (Jill Z E -1 (sin s. -11 cos ) where Z is the embankment freeboard cr is the critical flexural stress and E is the Young's Modulus for the ice > 1 (3) Of the parameters in the above equation, the flexural stress is clearly the most important. The other material property, E, may not be well- defined and enters the expression under a fourth root; therefore, errors in this property will not be as important. The following typical materi aT properties and geometric embankment properties were assumed: E = 453,600 kg/cm 2 (1,000,000 lb/in2 ) cr = 45 kg/cm 2 (100 lb/in2) Z = 5.4 m (18 ft) t = 0.9 m (3 ft) yice = 25 kg/m 3 (56 lb/ft3 ) a= 1.s (11.3°) ~·? o.3 The left hand side of Equation {3) is calculated to be 0.66, which is· less than 1, indicating that for a failure stress inflexure of 45 kg/cm 2 (100 lb/in2 ) ice ride-up is not possible for the parame~ers . selected. However, bearing in mind that this criterion is directly proportional to the flexural failure stress, and also varies inversely J-.10 with. the friction coefficient, u, SJ11all changes in these .Parameter~ could increase the left-hand sitfe of Equation (3) to greater ~han unity. The above analysis is not presented as a design calculation, but r&ther to illustrate some of the more important design parameters· involved, and to indicate that ice ride ... up is a possibility for the proposed embankment configuration. The criterion expressed by {3) suggests that low angle slopes and low freeboards favor the occurrence of ice ride-up. This is consistent with observations of ride-up on beaches to heights of le8 -2e7 m {6 - ~ ft) above sea level. The higher freeboard and steeper slope proposed for the causeway extension are certainly less favorable for ice ride-up than conditions at natural beaches where ride-up has been observed. However, in view of the fact that the above calculations indicate that conditions for ice ride-up to the crest of the embankment caul d be achieved with a reasonable combination of input parameters, it is advisable to consider some of the design alternatives available to inhibit ice ride-up. 5.0 DESIGN TO LIMIT ICE RIDE-UP Conceptually, several methods of limiting ice ride-up might be consid- ered. Practically, however, only one or two of these may receive further consideration because of·economic considerations or a need for further study of local ice. conditions. Increasing the freeboard and steepening side slopes are geometric changes suggested by the ride-up criteria discussed in the previous section. These are particularly expensive, however, in view of .the consi derab 1 e extra · volumes of fi 1·1 required, and may not be as cost- effective as some of the methods considered below. A compression instability in the ice can be caused by constructing a "bump 11 in the slope. If the ice pieces are disturbed sufficiently out of the plane of the sl~pe as they ride up, an instability and resulting J-11 pile-up can be inducede The height of the bump, e~ can be calculated ft:"om an expression giv.en by Croasdale et al. (1978}: 2 ~ = L Y ice 2 cr· · c where L = length of ice pieces (4) cr =stress in ice sheet dUt~ to sliding resistance c on slope Unfortunately, th·i s expression depends on the square of the 1 ength of ice pieces, and is therefore difficult to use in practice. As an example, for ice pieces up to 4 m (12 ft) long and 0.9 m {3 ft} thick, the following calculations can be carried out for these parameters: L = 4 m (12 ft) Yice = 25 kg/m 3 (56 lb/ft 3 ) The stress in the ice sheet for a 30 m {100 ft) long sloping 1:5 embankment has been calculated previr-usly to be 3728 kg/m {8230 lbs/ft) r:-un, and this translates to a stress, cr c' equal to 8.6 kg/cm 3 {19 lb/in2 ) for a 0.9 m {3-ft) thick ice shee't. Equation (4) gives the required height of 11 bump 11 ·in the embankment slope e = 45 em (17.7 in) or approximately 0.4 m (1.5 ft). Therefore, a bump of this height, if suitably ~rmoured against the action of sliding ice, would cause a compression instability in ice pieces up to 4 m (12 ft) long as they rode up the embankment slope. Jamming of the ice can be caused by a sudden increase in embankment slope angle. This is caused by the sudden increase in slope resist- ance. The required angle of the steeper slope, A. , for jamming to occur is given by: A = tan-1 ill Jl where is the coefficient of friction at the ice/embankment contact as before. This does not appear to be a practical design measure on its own, . however, because of the high slope angle required. For example, for a typical sliding resistance of Jl = 0.3, the slope angle A would have to be 73°. As it is d~fficult to maintain stable slopes in gravel in the long term much above 30°, it is difficult to see how this measure could be employed without introducing some vertical caisson or concrete structure into t~e embankment design. Obstacles can be placed on a side _ .. ope to discourage ice ride-up. Steel piles have been placed on the beach of an artifical drilling island in the Beaufort Sea by Imperial Oi 1 to protect the dri 11 i ng rig during spring breakup. In that case, however, the ice was weak and an ice rubb 1 e pi 1 e formed at the water 1 i ne and the pi 1 es were not required. If vertical steel piles were considered as a measure to inhibit ride-up, they would have to be designed as a group to resist the flexural strength of the ice sheet developed at the ·water line. I In summary, the most feasible method of limiting the possibility of ice over-riding the working surface of the embankment waul d appear to iQvolve a slope change somewhere in the central area of the side slope, possibly coupled with a steep upper slope formed with gravel, rip-rap or sheet piling. As shown on Figure J-2, the measures would be designed to cause a pile-up at some distance away from the w_orking surface. This method may have practical limitations, nonetheless, such as: -Snow may fill the depressions and be relatively hard by breakup, the time of major concern. -Ice has over-ridden rubble piles in areas of rapid ice movement and therefore could conceivably ride up over _itself if move- ments were large enougn. J-13 . . ICE ADVANCE ICE AD 'VANCe .. . .. . ·::· ~·::·:. ·~: ........ , •• • .. : •JI',..• • ~' e ---~~!""-""'!"'• .... ,--. '!". ~-'!"= •• :--~:. • : ••• .:--· ;.·· ... .. . . ·-· · .. ·:;·.: ... : .. ··;;. .. (a rte r DESIGN TO· RESIST RIDE-uP WORKING SURFACE V/ORKING SURFACE . . Croasd ale et al, 1978) ·PBU Waterflooci Environmental lmpa.ct State·ment , . .. BD------------------------------------~------------T.--~--6.--e.-.---.-.~----.. J-14 -Summer maintenance would be required to insure the integri.ty of the slope angle and slop~ changee The proposed design as it stands combines certain features of merit in limiting ice-rice-up, namely a long embankment side-slope and high freeboard. However, the possibility of ice ride-up affecting the working surface is present, based on the simplified analysis and typical par:ameters used earlier. Whether or not the design measures described above should be implemented will depend on a more complete study of ice properties and local ice conditions. 6.0 EMBANKMENT STABILITY AND GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS EMBANKMENT STABILITY Assuming that the ice sheet will fail in a crushing or ductile flow mode, and that a value for ice compressive strength can be assigned to the ice sheet, it is necessary to consider the stability of the embankment from a purely geotechnical standpoint. Figure J-3 shows three possible failure modes in the embankment: edge slope failure, basal failure through the embankment, and a foundation failure in the soils beneath the embankment. Each can be assessed using well- established limit equilibrium techniques, provided the effective strength parameters for the granular fi·ll and the foundation soils are known. After about one season, the possibility of edge faJlure (Mode No. 1) will be greatly reduced due to natural freezeback in the embankment. After some years, the possibility of basal embankment failure (Mode Noe 2) will also be greatly reduced for the same reason. The possibility of a foundation failure occurring depends largely on the nature of the foundation soils. If they exhibit strength properties similar to the fill, then the possibility of this mode of failure is remote. However, if they are fine-gra,ined silty clay or clay soils, their strength properties are considerably weaker than the fill material and this mode of failure may be a cause for concern. J-15 ., -m .c . . i ... ·:e Dl ..... CD ... .... 0 0 .. a.. ·m ::» < -· .... 0 :I a·. • :1 ..... I» -· -3 "0 "' (') f'+. co .... I» .... CD a CD :::a ... -n -· Ul c ... (D' .c.. c!, Direction of Ice motion _,.. •.......-.,.....,..,. --------------2 ------· , ... 3 401 I ---·--- POSSIBLE MODE" OF FAILURE IN CAUSEWAY I Edge slope fpilure 2 Bos't..! failure through embankment 3 Foundation fal!ure beneath embankment I : 5 Slope _j_w.L. ---· ---- POSSIBLE MODES OF ·FAILURE IN CAUSEWAY •' •' Very preliminary estimates indicate that if the· fill material has an effective friction angle of 35°, and the water table is at the . . elevation of the ice surface, the embankment resistance to a lateral ice sheet is on the order of 220 kips/ft run of embankment when considering the edge slope failure mode. Using the same assumption, a basal failure surface parallel to the base of the ice sheet provides a resistance of about 280 kips/ft, which is greater than Mode 1. Therefore the edge slope failure mode is more critical, but will only remain so perhaps during th.e first winter or two of operation. The foundation failure mode will only provide a lower resistance than the edge failure mode if the effectiv\2 friction angle of the foundation soils is less than about 23° (i.e. tan 01 less than 0.42). This would be realized only if the foundation soils are silty clay or clay • . These e-stimated values for embankment resistance can be placed in perspective by considering an ice sheet 1.8 m (6 ft) thick, and impos- ing an average stress of 91 kg/cm2 (200 lb/in2) either due to crushing failure in the ice or ductile yielding (creep) of a siowly moving ice sheet. This would give rise to an ice sheet force of 172 kips/ft on the side of the embankment. These forces ·are in the same order and slightly below the embankment resistance values estimated above, and therefore the possibility of embankment instability is a definite concern, if an ice sheet of this thickness can show appreciable move- ment during the winter season. SETTLEMENT OF EMBANKMENT The nature of the foundation soils will also govern the amount and rate of settlement that the causeway and the supported facilities will experience following, construction. This may be of concern from two standroints, namely: (a) the amount of extra fill that may have to be placed either initially or later to maintain the design grades in the embankment, .and (b) the possibility of damage or disruption to facilities that could result from time-dependent (consolidation) settlements in the near. surface soil layers. J-17 FROST EFFECTS Exposure of the embankment surface above water 1 evel w.i 11 cause an aggradation.of permafrost into the embankment at this locatione Depending on-the percentage of fine particle sizes in the gravel fill, some rel ativ,ely minor movements due to frost heave fn the re-freezing embankment may occur for the first few years following construction. After several years, depending on the rate of freezeback in the embank- ment, the frost line will penetrate to the seabed materials. If the seabed soils are gravels, sands or silty sands, the 9-m {30-ft) thick overburden will limit the resulting frost heave to a relatively minor amount. However, if the seabed soils have a high percentage of silt and clay~sized particles, a concern for frost action may exist. Depending on the sensitivity of the supported facilities to the surface expresssion of deep-seated movements, frost heave in the . subsoils may prove a concern several years after the. causeway is in service. Movements of several centimeters would not be unreasonable in later years if the seabed soils are generally fine-grained. Careful design may be required to ensure the integrity of the treating plant and utility lines embedded in the embankment. J-18 REFERENCES Allen, J.L., 1970. Effective force of floating ice on structures Nat. Res. Councils Tech. Memo 98. p. 41. Bruun, P.M., and P. Johannessen, 1971. The interaction between ice and coastal structures. Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. on Port and Ocean Energy and Arctic Conditions. University of T.rondheim, Norway. Croasdale, K.R., and R.W. Marcellus, 1978. Ice and wave action on artificial islands in the Beaufort s·ea. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 5, p. 98. --=--=----, M. Metge, and P. H. Verity, 1978. Factors governing ice ride-up on sloping beaches. Pt. I, Proc. IAHR Symposium on Ice Problems, Lulea, Sweden, August. Frederking, R. and L. Gould, 1975. Experimental study of edge loading of ice plates. Can/. Geotech. J. 12, p. 456. Hanson, A., 1978. Private communication cited by Croasda 1 e et a 1 • (1978}. Naval Artie Research Laboratory, Barrow, Alaska. Hayley, D.W. and R.H. Sangster, Geotechnical aspects of offshore dri 11 i ng is 1 ands. Proc. 27th Can. Geotech. Gonf. November ,Sl Edmonton, Albert a. Jahns, H.O., 1979. Production islands. Alaskan Beaufort Sea gravel island design. In: Technical seminar on October, 1979, Anchorage. Michel, B., 1970. Ice pressure on engineering structures. u.s. Army CRREL Monograph Ifi-Blb. Ralston, T.D., 1979. S'ea ice loads. In: Technical seminar on Alaskan Beaufort Sea gravel island design. October, 1979, Anchorage. Shapiro, L, and W. Harrison, 1976. Mechanics of origin of pressure ridges, shear ridges and hummock fields in landfast ice. Annual report, Contract No. 03-5-022-55, Geophysical Inst. · University of Alaska, Fairbanks, March 1976. J .... l9 APPENDIX K RESERVOIR ENGINEERING! 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Prudhoe Bay oil field was discovered in 1968, but production did not commence until completion of pipeline fac·il ities in June 1977. In January 1980, the 1 billion bb1 mark was reached for cumulative oil production. Pr_oduction horizons in the field range from Mississippian to Jurassic in age with the most important being a sandstone belonging to the Sadlerochi~ formation or early Trias sic age~ Hydrocarbon accumulations in the Sadlerochit reservoir are at sub-sea depths of 2438 -2743 m (8000 -9000 ft). Within the formation, the oil column reaches a maximum of 140m (460 ft), with a gas cap that overlies approximately two-thirds of the oil column. The productive· 1 imits of the· reservoir encompass approximately 65,561 ha (162,000 acres). Hydrocarbon volumes contained in the reservoir are estimated at 0.6 trillion m3 (21.2 trillion ft3) of gas in the gas cap, 400 million m3 (13.9 trillion ft3) of solution gas, 729 million bbl of gas cap condensate, and 20.5 billion bbl of oilm 2.0 PRODUCTION POTENTIAL Any oil reservoir is a complex system containing a variety of fluids, rock properties, and energies inherent in the fluids (FERC 1979). The Sadlerochit reservoir is made even more complex by the sheer magnitude of its size. The apparent size of the Prudhoe Bay field and the potential impact it could have on the u.s. domestic energy supply made -------1 Derived from Helton Engineering and Geological Consultants (1980), Prudhoe Bay Unit waterflood project reservoir engineering. Prepared for Dames & Moore. K-1 it almost mandatory that an elaborate and intensive geologic and engineering study be conducted, utilizing some form of·numerical simulation in order to accurately describe the r~servoi.r and project its producing potential. Work of this nature has been in progress for approximately the last 10 years (Wadman et al. 1979). Studies have been conducted independently by the Prudhoe Bay Unit owners and by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). In each of these studies, an attempt was made to ·build a mathematical model based on acceptable engineering fundamentals encompassing, the entire reservoir and accounting for all known or estimated variables. Ultimately, the models evolved as three-dimensional, three-phase (oil, gas and water)~ comprehensive re-constructions of the reservoir. To date, all have arrived at approximately ~he same conclusions. Brtefly stated, the more pertinent of.these. conclusions are as follows: 1. The main Prudpoe Bay field, Sadlerochit fonnation, contains about 20.5 billion bbl of oil and 1.1 trillion m3 (40 trillion ft3) of gas (gas cap and gas in solut~on). 2. Primary recovery, or natural depletion, should produce about 35 percent of the oil-in-place, or 7 billion bbl. This assumes injection of produced water and injection of gas not sold, assuming gas sales of 56 million m3/day (2 billion ft3/day). 3. Gas production through natural depletion waul d be about 65 percent of the gas-in-place or 731 million m3 (26 trillion ft3). This represents sales gas taken at a rate of 56 million m3Jday (2 billion ft3/day), commencing 5 years after initial production • . 4. Economic life of the field, after a maximum initial production rate of 1.5 million bbl/d, with a natural decline and under the above conditions, would be about 26· years. K-2 5. Well· recompletions could improve both oil rate and ultimate recovery, . and consequently extend field life. However, this factor is be- lieved to have little beat~ing on the magnitude of additional oil recovery attainable by source water injection. 6. Source water inJection would increase oil production by 5 - 9 percent of the oil-in-place, or 1 -1.8 billion bbl, and gas production or sales by abput 15 percent of the gas-in-place, or 170 million m3 (6 trillion ft3). These figures assume gas sales to commence as stated above and source water injection of 2 mi 11 ion bbl/d to commence 5 -10 years after initial production. 7. Improvement in oi 1 recovery caul d be as much as 3 percent of the oil-in-place, or 600 million bbl, by commencing source water injection prior to initiation of su~stantial gas sales. Delaying water injection beyond early 1985 would become a progressively serious c.onsequence by as much as 0.5 -1.0 percent per year of the oil-in-place. Gas sales should not commence prior to start-uR of source water injection. 3.0 PRIMARY RECOVERY I Primary recoJery, or natural depletion, at the Prudhoe Bay field is principally through the mechanism of gravity drainage (Wademan et . al. 1979). Under the proper reservoir conditions, this can be the most efficient means of depletion by natural causes (~rick 1962). In addition, an expanding gas cap can be most beneficial in the early stages of oi 1 production as its energy can be used to push oi 1 to the principal oil producing areas of the field. Available data indicate that this is the case in many portions of the Prudhoe field. The pro- ducing formation appears to be of the type that has historically provided ~igh1y efficient oil production by gravity drainage. Examples of note would be Wilcox Reservoir, Oklahoma (estimated to yield 57 percent of the oil-in-place under gravity drai.nage) and the Lakeview Pool, California (estimated tn have a 63 percent recovery factor) K-3 (Frick 1962). While these _exampl~s may be extremes, they illustrate that a 35 -36 percent primary recovery factor for P.rudhoe Bay is a reasonable estimate. ·Efficient recovery under the conditions existing in this reservoir, however, requires. proper management of fluid withdrawals. Rapid or uncontrolled withdrawals from the oil or gas cap zone can create an excessi.ve pressure. drop that can reduce ultimate oil recovery. The results of such fluid withdrawals include: 1o Migration of the gas-cap into a lower pressure oil zone resulting in high gas-oil ratios and possible premature shut-in of oil producing wells. 2. Gas in solution in the pil zone is held in solution by pressure, providing energy to the oil phase and assisting its movement to the well bore. As pressure declinesj this. gas breaks out of solution and its value as an oil producing agent can be losto 3. Oil that migrates to the gas cap zone is lost for production purposes, due to its dispersion in the gas. These situations can never be completely avoided; however, certain steps can be taken to postpone their premature occurrence and conse- quently improve the ultimate oil recovery. The most prom1nent and widely used techniques are injection of gas and/or water (Interstate Oil Compact Conuniss.ion 1974). Injection of produced gas at the Prudhoe field has been underway since production commenced and will continue until a gas sales pipeline is completed (tentatively estimated for mid-1985) (AOGCC 1980). Approximately 57 million m3/day (2 billion ft3/day) would. be committed to the pipeline. The remainder, after f~el usage, would be injecteda Under these circumstances, over 50 percent of the gas-in- place would be sold. With approximately 10 percent (15 percent to K-4 date) being consumed as fuel or lost in process,· relatively little of the original gas-in-place would be left in the reservoir. The benefit . to the reservoir during its early stages of production with this gas injection program is significant. Pressure is maintained for a considerable time at a level conducive to aiding oil recovery by keeping· gas in solution and assisting the gas cap expansion process. When gas sales commence, however, at the projected rate, it appears that it would be prudent to commence with a water injection program. 4.0 SECONDARY RECOVERY Injection of water in substantia~ quantities could accomplish pressure mai.ntenance and secondary recovery. Waterflood is a sec_ondary recovery method in which water is. injected into a reservoir to obtain additional oil recovery by displacing oil. with water· and supplementing the natural energy indigenous to the res~·~rvoi r. . At Prudhoe Bay, oil recovery will be increased primarily by the dis- placement mechanism and to a lesser extent by the reduction of overall reservoir pressure decline. Water would be injected in those portions of the reservoir where the primary recovery mechanisms will be less efficient. Waterf!ooding, as an oil producing mechanism, has existed for over 100 years; however, it was not until the early 1940 1 s that the technique made significant gains. Virtually every oil field of significant size that does not have a natural water drive, has been, is being, cr will be waterflooded. It .has been recently estimated that over 50 percent of the domestic u.s. oil production is a result of water injection programs (Interstate Oil Compact Commission. 1974). K .. s In detennining the.suitability of a given reservoir to \"Jaterflooding or pressure ma~ntenanc'e the following factors must be considered: Reservoir geometry Lithology Reservoir depth Porosity Penneabilities Fluid properties Continuity of reservoir properties -Magnitude and distribution of fluid saturations . The influence of these factors on ultimate recovery, rate of return, and ultimate economic return must be considered collectively to evaluate the economic feasibility of conducting waterflooding and/or pressure maintenance operations in a particular reservoir. Factors other than reservoir characteristics will also have a great influence. These would include the price of oil, marketing conditions, operating expenses, and availability of water (Frick 1962). All the preceding factors and conditions have been subjected to exten- sive in-depth analysis and review, subs~quently becoming integral parts of various reservoir simulation models. Modeling results conclude that water injection at the Prudhoe Bay field can be economically beneficial in improv·ing oil recovery by approximately 5 percent of the original oil-in-place, or 1 billion bbl. Achieving this additional oil recovery will depend to a gr·eat extent on the accuracy of current appraisals, which only additional drilling, production performance, and other techni ca 1 ana lyses can provide. To date, the original performance projections conducted prior to June 1977, are well within acceptable range of actual field performnce (DNR 1980). K-6 The1re are, however, some areas. of concern that coul.d be of increasing significance. These being: SHALE BREAK CONTINUITY The producing formation is broken up in certain areas of the field by four major layers of shale (Wadman et al. 1979). If these shale zones ultimately prove to be continuous over wide areas of the field., the gravity drainage mechanism, so important to the primary recovery phase, could be seriously restricted. Vertical permeability (the transmissibility of fluids in a vertical direction) is an extremely important factor with thick oil columns (such as exist at Prudhoe Bay) that depend on·a gravity drainage process for oil recovery. Additional drilling and production pe~formance, along with periodic pressure surveys, will provide the information needed to assess this potential prob 1 em. For the present, breaks have been incorporated· in various model studies, based on current data, and no serious detrimental effect is foreseen (Wadman et ~1. 1979}. Should time and more information indicat~ otherwise, then the importance of water injection wo~ld become even more significant. If the effect of gravity drainage is substantially reduced, and the gas sales proceed as scheduled, the only practical method of pr·oviding the energy necessary to move oi 1 to the producing wells would be with water injection displacement. A need for water injection is already antic·~pated in those areas of the field where shales are known to exist (Wademan et al. 1979}. WITHDRAWAL RATES The high gas-oil ratios in the eastern portion of the field (drill site 9), could be evidence of excessive withdrawal rates that caul d result in the dissipation of gas cap or sol.ution gas energy and a subsequent lo·ss of oil production... It has been reported, however, that the geology in this area may be responsible for this situation (DNR K-7 1980). Pressure surveys report'ed in August. 1978 and again in August . 1979 would indicate this tr be the case, as no serious deteriorc;1tion in pressure in that particular area occurred in the several months ·of production that took place. START-UP TIME FOR A WATER INJECTION PROGRAM As currently scheduled~ water injection would commence during the second quarter of 1984 (PBUWTF 1979), approximately 7 years after initial production, or. after a cumulative oil producti!Jn of about 3.5 bi 11 ion bb 1. Whi 1 e the optimum time for water injection start-up is highly debatable, it would appear that any substantial delay could be extremely detrimental to maximum oi 1 recovery. However, this depends, to a large degree, on the timing of gas sales. As long as produced gas is re-injected into the gas cap, the effects of gravity drainage and the expanding gas cap would prevail and oil production would be highly efficient. In fact, premature water injection could be detrimental to a gravity drainage mechanism -(Frick 1962). Once gas sal~s commence, however, the decline ·of r·eservoir pressure waul d accelerate and the timing for the start of water injection would become more critical. If water injection were delayed until 1990 and gas sales commenced in 1985, the reservoir would be well . into its natural :~·'-~line, some 30 percent of the oil-in-place would have been produced, and oil recovery would be increased only 2 - 3 percent. In addition, some areas of the field will not respond as expected to the gravity drainage/gas-cap- expansion mechanism. Therefore, water injection capability would be needed for selective areas before the 1984 scheduled time as available quantities of produced water waul d be i nsuffi ci ent for any extended injection program. 5.0 ALTERNATE RECOVERY METHODS Severa 1 other methods of oi ·r recovery exist (most of which are st i 11 considered to be in a developmental stage) but most are generally K-8 considered as tertiary recovery techniques. That is, applicable to a· given reservoir after primary -and secondary recovery (waterflooding) has been completed. POLYMER FLOODING Actually an adjunct to waterflooding, this method involves the m1x1ng of polymeric chemicals with the injection water. This results in the water being more viscous than the oi 1 and thereby improves the displacement efficiency of the water. The best applications are in reservoirs containing more viscous crudes than found at Prudhoe B~y. The minimum cuncentrat ions usually recommended are 0.04 kg/btil ( 0.1 lbs/bbl) of injection fluid. In this case, with a planned injection rate of 2 million bbl/d, upwards of 90,720 kg/d (200,000 lbs/d) of chemical would be required for approximately 5 years" This would not be feasible from a logistical or economical standpo.int when the degree of increased oil recovery would likely be minimal. CARBON DIOXIDE As much as 12 percent of the gas produced at Prudhoe is carbon dioxide; This C02 waul d be processed out of the gas whtan gas sa 1 es commence. Most previous instances of C02 injection have been as secondary recovery mechanisms in conjunction with water injection and its merits are still being evaluated. The quantities of C02 available at Prudhoe are substantial relative to sizeable projects being presently conducted in the u.s. (Herbeck et al. 1976, Kane 1979) and it is possible that this product could improve ultimate recovery. It would appear, however, that the true benefits of C02 injection are best utilized in reser~6irs with low primary recovery factors and relatively low operational costs (Herbeck et al. 1976), which is certainly not the case at Prudhoe Bay. Highly corrosive carbonic acid is formed when C02 is combin,ed with water, necessitating special metal alloys and coatings for facilities. When alternate. injection of C02 and water K-9 is used, dual ·f nj ect ion systems are for water (He:rbeck et al. 1976). Prudhoe_ appears doubtful because the . required -one for C02 and one The case for C02 injection at C02 would not be miscible with the oil, making the potential for incremental recovery quite small. CAUSTIC FLOODING Caustic has been utilized largely on an expe.rimental basis with no reported outstanding success. Its function is primarily to alter the characteristics of the reservoir rock to permit the flow of oi 1 preferential to water. Since Prudhoe reservoir rock is already prefer- ential to oil flow, it ·is doubtful that any significant benefit can be . gained with this technique. STEAM INJECTION Injected steam is used primarily to heat the reservoir to a temperature that lowers the viscositY. of the oil, thereby allowing it to move more easily to the well bore. The practical application of steam is limited to low gl'"avity (less than 20° API) crude oils in relatively shallow depths (less than 914 m, 3000 ft) (Interstate Oil Compact Commission 1974). These conditions do not exist at Prudhoe. The economical and environmental consequences of steam generation and injection through a layer of pennafrost would seem to preclude its consideration. IN-SITU COMBUSTION This is a process whereby the oil zone is actually ignited. A burning front is maintained and propagated through the reservoir by pumping compressed air down the wells. Oil 'liscosity ahead of the flame front is lowered, allowing the oil to move more freely to the producing wells while being pushed along by the injection of the compressed air. There is lit~le evidence in available technical literature supporting the economic viability of this process, although undoubtedly there are K-10 some successful projects curre~tly in progress. The Glen Hummel Fie 1 d in Wi 1 son. Cou.nty, Texas, has been referred to as a successful project although no ·economics have been reported. The Battrum Field in Saskatchewan, _Canada, has been reported as a commercial application of the process (Interstate Oil Compact Commission.1974). For the Battrum project, it is estimated that the initial investment for compressor stations was 22 times that for waterflood stations. Operating expense for the stations was estimated at 7 times.t"hat for waterflood stationsa Also, the investment needed for fireflood wells and surface facilities are considerably greater than those. for waterflooding due to handling fluids that are foaming, emulsified) and corrosive (Coleman and Walker 1967). In both of these fields, primary recovery was low {less than 15 percent of oil-in-place) and they produced a low gravity, viscous, crude oil {18G-21° API). MICELLAR SOLUTION (CHEMICAL FLOODING) This is primarily a tertiary process that· can be successfully appl ie~ to reservoirs that have been successfully waterflooded. The micellar, or chemical, solution is actually a. surfactant (surface-active-agent) type material. These agents are petroleum based or manufactured from hydrocarbons, and act on the reservoir rock like a detergent, or soapo They are effective in removing oil from the reservoir rock, but to efficiently move that oil to the well bore the solution must be followed by a polymer solution. This means that large quantities of two expensive chemicals, directly related in cost to the price of crude oil, must be made available. However, in order to provide some basis for conjecture,· it might be. well to discuss a hypothetical situation. Assume that after waterflooding some 12 bi 11 ion bb 1 of oi 1 are sti 11 in the ground at Pt"udlioe. It has been stated t~at a 40 percent recovery factor of the oil-in-place might be acheived in certain reservoirs of this type with this process (Herbeck et al. 1976) o That could imply an additional 4.8 bill·ion bbl at Prudhoe •. Projected cost, assumin~J a K-11 somewhat limited chemical and polymer·slug, could be in the range of $20 billion for the chemical solution and an additional $10 billion for the polymer solutiona There is currently no surfactant available that is suitable forth~ high temperatures in the Prudhoe field (180-210°F) .. Logistics would also pose a problem, since up to 10 millions lb/d could be needed to treat a mi~lion bbl/d of water •. GAS INJECTION Gas injection is already in effect at Prudhoe and will continue until a gas pipeline is ready to accept deliveries. The additional oil recovery that might be gained by continuing gas injection with no sales to the pipeline would probably not outweigh the benefits of the 56 million m3/d (2 billion ft3id) of 1000 BTU gas, or 731 million m3 (26 trillion ft3) total that would have been sold during the 1 ife of . the oil rim. While gas injection maintains significant importance to this reservoir in its early life, its usefulness reaches a point of diminishing returns when gas is cycled in and out of the reservoir with very little oil movement. Because gas is also more mobile in reservoir rock than water, it is a less effective displacement mechanism. Energy requirements to re-inject gas with no gas sales would equal or exceed 100 million bbl of oil. K-12 l{EFERENCES Coleman, D.M., and E.L. Walker, 1967. Battrum fir.e flood l:7--:courages Mobil, Canadian Petroleum, December. AOGCC (Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission), 1980. Personal communications with personnel of the Division of Oil and Gas. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), 1979. Environmental impact statement~ draft, sales gas conditioning facility, Prudhoe· Bay Unit, Appendix •A•. · Frick, Thomas C., 1962. Petroleum Handbook, Vol. II. Herbeck, E.F., R.C. Heintz, and I.·R. Hastings, 1976. Fundamentals of tertiary oil recovery, Petroleum Engineer. Interstate Oil Compact Commission, 1974. Secondary and tertiary oil recovery porcesses, Sept., 1974. Kane, A.V., 1979. Performance review of a large scale C02 -wag en- hanced recovery. project, Sacroc Unit, Kelly-Snyder field. Journal of Petroleum Technology, February. PBUWFT.(Prudhoe Bay Unit Waterflood Task Force), 1979. Overview, Vo 1 • I., Dec. Wadman, D.H., D.E. Lamprecht, and I. Mrosovsky, 1979. Joint geologic engineering analysis of the Sadlerochit Reservoir, Prudhoe Bay Field, Journal of Pet~oleum Technology, July. K-13 APPENDIX L TERRESTRIAL HABITAT MAPPING AND EVALUATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION- Terrestrial resources within the primary and secondary Waterflood Project impact zones are of nation a 1 s i gni fi cance because of their . combined values to migratory birds, caribou and small mammals, and because of the beneficial functions of wetlands. Substantial research has been conducted in relation to various aspects of the Prudhoe Bay terrestrial environment including studies of the distribution of plant communities, plant ecology, and wildlife habitat preference. In order to accomplish th~ environmental planning and impact analysis ~tages of the EIS process, this information was consol- idated into an explicit assessment method. The approach relied heavily on vegetation and soils mapping as a basis of information. Various data, along with professional judgement, were applied to evaluate resource and impact significance. Using ·an interdisciplinary approach, project elements were modified to lessen adverse environmental effects, and unavoidable resource losses were documented. It should be noted that the method developed in this appendix was designed to be used only as an aid in assessing ecological impacts and planning site locations. Other values and approaches are also applicable to environmental assessment and siting aspects of the Waterflood Project and should not be excluded by these procedures. 2.0 MASTER HABITAT MAPS The most comprehensive· attempt to classify and map landscape features in the Prudhoe Bay region has been developed by the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) in cooperation with the scientists at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) and Ohio State University. This mapping effort, combined related mapping elements (landform units, soils characteristics, and plant communities) in the production of detailed master habitat maps (Everett 1975; Webber and Walker 1975; Everett et al. 1978; Wa 1 ker et a 1.. in press) • Substantia 1 portions of the Prudhoe Bay development area were mapped according to this system prior to the Waterflood Project permit application. A specific study was fnitiated to apply the. existing mapping to those areas within the Waterflood Project zone of influence and to expand the mapping to include project facilities outside the mapped area. The mapping zone included an area of about 500 m (1520 ft) around each site where terrain disturbance was anticipated. In addition a zone of 500 m (1520 ft) on either side of proposed pipeline/road corridors was mapped (Figure L-1). For those project sites within the area already mapped according to the detailed master map system, the legends were adapted directly from the Geobotanical Atlas of the Prudhoe Bay Region (Walker et al. in press). The ·1 andform-soi 1-vegetat ion boundaries on these maps were extracted from the maps contained in the atlas. Cultural features and disturbance boundaries were updated using 1979 color photography of the region. Infonnation codes on the master maps were expressed in • fraction form: Vegetation Stand Type(s) . Soil Unit, Landform Unit, Slope The numerator consisted of one or more 1 etter-number comp 1 exes which denoted t_he plant communities present (Table L-1). On the maps more . than one vegetation code may appear as part of a master map fraction. This indicates a mosaic of vegetation (a vegetation complex) with the first code denoting ~he dominant plant community. Additional codes indicate other communities covering more than 20 percent of the map unit. The denominator was usually composed of· a three number and/or letter code that from left to right indicates soil type, landform type and slope (Table L-2). When the slope was relatively flat {0 - 2 . percent), the third number was omitted from the fraction. L-2 Disturbed areas, outlined by a dotted line, were commonly given t\'IO designations: ·one indicating the plant communjty that was originally present, and one indicating the type of disturbance that has ~ince affected the areas. Disturbances, such as the presence of grave 1 or construction-debris, vehicle tracks, winter roads and ponding were included (Table L-1). Detailed habitat mapping was not available for 18 out of a total of 34 drill sites, manifold pads and gravel sites or for the major portion of the east and west pipeline corridors (Table L-3).. There- fore, master habitat maps were created ·for these sites based on interpretation of aerial photographs. A slightly modified 1 andform legend was utilized and the vegetation legend is based only on site moisture and vegetatio·n physiognomy. No slope codes are contained in the master map fractions. Also, the symbols denoting undercut river banks and excavated areas have not been incorporated on these maps. The vegetation legend is based on land cover categories proposed for a LANDSAT mapping program on the Alaskan Arctic Slope (Walker 1980)'" These categories are more general than the vegetation designations used in the previously·mapped areas in that no floristic information is . . contained in the unit names. However, the legend does contain a general description of each vegetation category along with equivalent stand types from Walker et al. (in press). These general cover categories a~d their equivalents in terms of the detailed plant community units are 1 i sted in Tab 1 e L-4. Fie 1 d veri fi cation of the photo interpretation will take place during the summer of 1980 and necessary corrections will be made at that time. A complete set of master maps {Figures L~2 thr·ough L ... 35} is included with this appendix (with wetland communities indicated; Section 3.0). L-3 . 3.0 RESOURCE VALUE AND SENSITIVITY MAPS Five categories of resource value or sensitivity t'lere selected for specific consideration: wetland contributions, primary productivity, saltwater sensitivity, bird habitat value, and mammal habitat value. The categories were chosen on the basis of statutory requirements (e.g. wetlands), ecological importance, and applicability to Waterflood Project impact analysis. Each of the categories was analyzed utilizing the master habitat information and thematic maps were prepared for each on the same map base as was used for the master mapso WETLAND AND OPEN WATER HABITATS Specific plant assemblages including wetland types in the vicinity of pads, drill sites and corridor areas are shown on the master habitat maps. Specific wetland communities have been combined to produce generalized categories ba~ed on the amount of moisture present. These categories are: moist meadcws (coastal and river/stream/floodplain communities), wet meadows (non-saline and saline graminoids), lake/pond communities (Carex aguatilis and Arctophila fulva), open-water zones, and flooded areas resulting from disturbance. This wetland classifi .. cation is according to terminology adopted by the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Tabl~l-5 describes site characteristics and species composition of the general wetland categories and provides the corresponding detailed and general classifications that were· used for wetland mapping purposes. Wetlands of 16 drill pads and gravel sites were mapped in detail at the plant community level and another 18 pads and gravel sites a1ong with east and west road and pipeline corridors were mapped according to the more general land cover category· groupings. A complete set of wetland community maps was prepared on the master map bases and is included in this appendix (Figures L-2 through l-35)o L-4 PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY One indicator of the potenti~l relative value of plant communities is net primary productivity, i.e. the rate at which a plant community produces organic matter over and above that required to maintain its metabolic requirements. As with most .coastal plain tundra there is. a strong positive correlation between increasing site moisture and pro- duction. There is no simple relationship between productivity and standing crop. The most p.roductive communities are wet graminoid meadows that have no woody p 1 ants. Converse 1 y, dwarf and prostrate shrub communities have a much lower productivity, but a greater standing crop. Productivity in the Prudhoe area has been rated as intennedi ate between that for Barrow (Webber 1979) and Meade River (Komarkova and Webper 1980). Productivity is lowes~ at the coast and progressively increases inland, corresponding to the warming climatic gradient. Thus, on sites with similar moisture regimes, there is an increase in productivity south- wards away from the coast. In mesic sites, increased productivity is reflected in the increased abundance and stature of erect deciduous shrubs and associated broad-1 eaved herbs (Walker et al. in press). Community net primary productivity and standing crop figures used in the evaluation were estimated based on values in the literature (Webber 1974, 1979; Al exandrova 1970; Bliss 1977; Komarkova and Webber 1980) · (Table L-6}. Productivity is expressed in terms of annual values for . above and below ground production for all taxa. Standing crop values are for peak season and above grouna material only. The standing crop comprises live and dead fractions including wood and litter· of all taxa. Plant communities in the vicinity of· pads and road corridors were then rated in gfm2/yr on a scale of 3 according to their relative amounts of annual productivity (Table L-7) and mapped. All pads and corridors were mapped. at the general land cover category level (Table L-4) to L-5 maintain consistency in the data. The productivity map for the western . . pipeline/ road c~rridor is presented in Figure L-36. Productivity maps . for the remaining project sitej can be viewed at the Corps• Alaska headquarters. SALTWATER SENSITIVITY One aspect of habitat sensJtivity that is especially applicable to an analysis of potential impacts from the Waterflood Project is the sensi- tivity of flora to saltwater. If a leak or break should occur in either . the low or high-pressure pipelines, a substantial saltwater spill wou·~d result. Volumes of up to 16,500 m3 (4 mill·ion·gal} of heated (4.4°C, 40°F) saltwater could be spilled from low-pressure pipelines if the break occurred near the module staging area and 1400 m3 (370,000 gal) could b~ lost from the high-pressure pipelines. No definitive studies have been carried out on the tolerance of tundra plants to saltwater spills. However, the .effects of storm surges on . terrestrial communities at Prudhoe Bay give some indication of the relative sensitivities of the various .Plant forms and sites. Based on observat·ions of vegetation types typical of the project area, a brine . . sensitivity scale was devised that rates plant communities according to their relative sensitivities to saltwater durir~g the growing season. This scale was then used to rate the major vegetational communities of the Prudhoe Bay area according to their loss of vigor and their ability to recover (Table L-8). Saltwater sensitivity ratings were maJ,Jped for the locations in the . project area where spills are most likely to occur, i.e. the east and west pipeline corr-idors. Pipeline manifold and dri'fl pad areas . were not mapped for brine sensitivitiy, since these facilities have emergency dump areas and the risk of any uncontrolled spill is extreme- ly 1 ow. . . L-6 Mapping was done at the genera 1 community ·grouping category 1 evel to maintain consistency in the· dat·a (Table L-4). The saltwater sensitivity map for the western pipeline/road corridor is presented in this appendix (Figure L-37). Sensitivity maps for the remaining project sites can be viewed at the Corps' Alaska headquarters. BIRD HABITAT VALUE Numerous studies of the bird life of Prudhoe Bay have been conducted. The most significant of these studies from the habitat evaluation standpoint is a study of water birds conducted by Bergman et al. (1977) •. The Bergman system of water bird habitat classification was relied on heavily during this Gvaluation because of its relative simplicity and because the system has been used by resource managers for sev~ral years •. Bergman's studies emphasized waterfowl and very wet habitats. In order to expand the scope to drier habitats, thi·s information was supplemented by data on shorebird nesting densifies (Table L-9) collected by Myers and Pit(~lka (unpublished data). Table L-IO presents the habitat rating system that was developed and relates it to the master map vegetation types and to the ~ergman system. Translation of the master maps into the Bergman classification types was assisted by a key prepared by the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. It should be noted that bird habitat value depends not only on vegeta- t,on types but also on the pattern of. communities. For example, perhaps the most valuable water bird habitat on the Arctic Coastal Plain consists of a complex mixture of community types usually found within drained lake basins. Essential elements of this type include a mixture of emergent vegetation, open water, and drier types in proportions that are favorable to birds.· Therefore, the habitat rating system employed in this appendix is to some degree subjective in that objective criteria were combined with judgments regarding community patterns. I ..-7 ... Bird habitats were mapped for all project site areas. The map for the western pipeline/road corridor is presented in this .appendix (Fi.gure . L-38). Bird habitat maps for the remaining sites can be viewed at. the Corps' Alaska headquarters .. MAMMAL HABITAT VALUES Mammal habitat requirements in the Prudhoe Bay area are less well known than bird habitat requirements. Most of the applicable information is summarized in Table L-11 for those. mammals that are common residents~ Patterns of mammal use are based to a large degree on soil moisture. High, dry terrain is rare on the Arctic Coastal Plain and is essential for t~1ose mammals that inhabit ·underground burrows or dens, such as ground squirrels and foxes. Caribou also favor high areas for insect relief. Therefal'"e, this kind of terrain is· probably important or directly limiting to these three common mammals. In this situation, landform is more important than vegetation typee There is some evidence that caribou selectively feed on certain vegeta- tion types (Whit~ at al~ 1975); however, these trends are not distinct and caribou can generally be found in almost all habitat areas (Cameron 1980). The desire for insect relief is probably a more important motivating factor during the thawed season than is food avaiiability. Table L-12 rates the various community types according to their value to mammals. Mammal habitat quality was mapped for all project site areas. The map for the western pipeline/road corridor is presented in this appendix (Figure L-39). Mammal habitat maps for the remaining sites can be viewed at the Corps' Alaska headquarters. 4.0 OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY In order to gain insfght into overall habitat quality and vulnerability to ·impact, information from the previous analyses of individual habitat elements was~ combined with other evaluation criteria. Table L-13 summarizes the habitat element information. No attempt was made to apply a strictly quantitative approach to habitat value, because it was felt that the data did not warrant such an analysis. Of the five habitat elements considered in Chapter 3.0, only one (primary productivity) was rated solely on the basis of empirical data. Other complications relative to a quantitative approach included: Difficulty in weighting habitat elements to provide proper· emphasis according to their relative importance. -The presence of many other habitat elements that could be considered. -The fact that plant community distribution patterns as well as vegetation types were considered to be an important determinant of habitat value. Therefore, an approach combining objective criteria and judgemental factors was used to devise an overall rating system for the basic land cover categories (Table L-14). The following criteria or con-. . siderations were employed in the analysis leading to the Table L-14 ratings: The habitat element infonnation as summarized in Table L-13. Consideration of community distribution patterns as they relate to wildlife values. ·e Consideration of habitat scarcity. 'L-9 Overall habitat value/sensitivity maps were prepared on the master map bases. Additionally, the proposed waterflood facility sites were added to the maps to a 11 ow a direct comparison of siting vs. en vi ronmenta 1 va 1 ue (Section 5.0) • A comp 1 ete set of these maps is included witfl this appendix (Figures L-40 ttfrough L-7:3). Several of the above maps are presented in color (Figures L-40 (north), L-45, and L-68) in order to provide an example of how the method can be applied and to illustrate another means of contrasting the various habitat values. 5.0 HABITAT VALUES WITHIN AREAS DIRECTLY ALTERED BY THE WATERFLOOD PROJECT Following completion of the overall habitat value/sensitivity maps, a process of environmental planning was initiated, whereby, preliminary site locations were overlayed upon the value maps. Areas where the . preliminary sites conflicted with high or high moderate habitat values were outlined for further consideration. Planning sessions involving Corps• personnel, industry staff and consultants were held to consider the conflicts and most site 1 ocations were modified to accommodate the environmental values identified by this approach. In a few cases technical constraints limited siting flexibility and, therefore, resulted in unavoidable conflicts with high value areas. I The overall habitat value/sensitity maps (Figures L-40 through L-73) illustrate the locations of existing or already permitted facilities as we 11 as 1 a cations of projected pad expansions, roads, and pipe 1 i nes that would be required for the Waterflood Project. Drill pad facili- ties represent an integration of production and injection equipment, . thus making it difficult to identify a specific a.rea of waterflood impact. The potential expansion area for the injection well pads, therefore, includes the total area that might be needed in the future for ·all uses, including waterflood. The percentage of the expanded area that would actually be dedicated to the Waterflood Project requirements has been estimated and is indicated on Table L-iS. I L-10 Surface areas of habitats that potentially would be altered by gravel fill were analyzed for each of the Waterflood Pr:oject sites illustrated on the master maps. Each of the evaluation elements discussed in Section 3.0, _plus overall habitat value/sensitivity, was considered separate 1 y. Are~s in hectares were ca 1 cu 1 a ted for· the various 1 y rated habitat types within impacted zones using a polar planimeter. Accuracy of the area measure~ents was within about + 0.07 hectares {700 m2, 7535 ft2) for all sites except the pipeline corridors. Areas too small to be measured by the planimeter (1 ess than 700 m2) were esti- mated visually. A somewhat modified method was used to determine habitat areas altered by roads and pipelines. The routes within the corridors were only roughly delineated and the actual width of the fi 11 was too narrow to allow effective use of "the planimeter; therefore, habitat areas were determined by planime~er within a 50-m (164-ft) swath overlaying the proposed routes. The resulting habitat areas were then reduced proport iorially to correspond with the· actual areas affected (i.e., ari 18-m, 59-ft, width for the west corridor road/pipeline and a 13-m, 43-ft, width for the east corridor pipeline). The results are only an .estimation of potential habitat loss contingent on the final a_lignment of roads and pi p·e 1 i nes. Tables L-15 through L-20 pr~sent the results of the area calculations for each habitat evaluation el_ement ~nd· each rating category. Table L-21 summarizes this information for all project sites combined. The minor discrepancies in the total area calculations between Tables L-15, L-18, L-19, and L-20 are due to planimeter and rounding errors. Also, because of rounding errors the percentages for each category in Table L-21 do not necessarily add up to exactly 100 percent. L-11 TABLE L-1 -MASTER MAP VEGETATION CODES USED IN AREAS MAPPED IN DETAIL BY WALKER ET AL·: (In. Press). r---~~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ I Code • ! (Numerator) ' ; I B=Dry sites l Bl I 82 ' B3 B4 j I BS I l B6 J 87 814 Community DRY Dryas integrifolia, ~arex rupestris, Oxytropis nigrescens, Lecanora epibryon PROSTRATE SCRUB DRY Dryas integrifolia, Saxifraga oppositifolia, Lecanora eE]bryon PROSTRATE SCRUB DRY Saxifraga oppositifolia, Juncus biglumis FROST BOIL BARREN DRY Epilobium latifolium, Artemisia arctica RIVER BAR BARREN DRY Dryas integrifolia, Sali~ ovalifolia, Artemisia borealis SANDY FLATS BARREN DRY Dryas integrifolia, Astragalus alpinus RIVER BANK PROSTRATE SCRUB DRY Braya purpurascens, ~nemone parviflora, Arctagrostis latifolia SLUMPING RIVER BLUFF COMPLEX DRY Dryas integrifolia, Salix reticulata, Cetraria richardsonii SNOW PATCH PROSTRATE SCRUB .Characteristic Microsite Pingos, ridges, high polygon centers Similar to Stand'Type Bl, but less exposed to wind Frost boils River gravel bars Sandy river terraces, stabilized River banks Slumping river bluffs Dry, early-thawing snowbanks with hummocky terrain ~------------~--------------------------------------------------------------.--------------------~ I U=Moist site~ ,_Ul ~ U3 U4 U6 U7 U8 I UlO I M=l~et Sites 1. Ml i f-13 I I M4 I ! I j MS I MOIST Carex aguatilis, Ochrolechia frigida GRAMINOID MEADOW ~10IST Eriophorum vaginatum, Dryas integrifolJ..!., Tomenthypnum nitens, Salix arctica GRAMINOID MEADOW MOIST Eriophorum angustifol ium, Dryas intergrifol ia, .IQ!nenthypnum nitens, Thamnolia vermiculariS GRAMINOID MEADOW Mois~ Carex aguatilis, Dryas integrifolia, Tomenthypnurrt nitens, Salix Arct1ca GRAMINOIU MEADOW DRY Dryas integrifolia~ Cassiope tetragona SNOW PATCH DWARF SCRUB MOIST Salix rotundifolia SNOW PATCH PROSTRATE SCRUB -. ~lOIST Salix .l!tnata,Carex aguatilis STREAM BANK m~ARF SCRUB . MOIST Festuca baffinensis, Papaver macounii GRAMINOID MEADOW WET Carex _2-quatilis, Carex rariflora, Saxifraga foliolosa GRAMINOID MEADOW HET Carex aguatilis, Drepanocladus brevifolius GRAMINOID MEADOW WET Carex aguatilis, Dupontia fisheri~ Calliergon richardsonii GRAMINOID MEADOW VERY WET Carex aguatilis, Scorpidium scorpioides GRAMINOID MEADOW I~ET Carex aguatilis, Salix rotundifolia STREAM BANK GRA!"INOID MEADOW l E= Emergent sites f El I E2 I E3 I W=Open Hater VERY WET Carex aguatilis GRAMINOID MEADOW VERY WET Arctophi 1 a ful va GRAM I NOID MEADOl~ VERY WET Scorpidium scorpioides AQUATIC MOSS MEADOW None None Varies L-12 Polygon rims and aligned hum- mocks in acidic tundra region Well-drained upland sites Well-drained upland sites, polygon rims, aligned hummocks Moister upland sHes, centers of drier low polygon centers, polygon rims, aligned hummocks Well-drained snowbanks Late-thawing snowbanks Stream banks, iake margins Pi ngo tops~ b i 1qd mounds and animal dens Wet microsites in acidic tundra areas primarily assoc- iated with aligned hummocks Wet polygon centers and troughs, lake margins Wet polygon centers and meado\'IS in sand dune region and along Kuparuk River Low, wet sites, polygon centers, drained lakes, lake margins Moist stream banks Water to about 30 em (9 in) Hater to about 100 em (39 in) Water to about 100 em in sand dunes region Lakes and ponds Streams and rivers Flooded areas caused by roads or pads Code Numerator TABLE L-1 (continued} MASTER MAP VEGETATION CODES USED IN AREAS MAPPED IN DETAIL BY WALKER ET AL. (In PFess) I Community or Type of Disturbance D=Disturbed sites Dl 02 D3 D4 05 06 D7 W3 Bare earth with pioneering species, e.g. Braya purpurascens, Leptobryum pYriforme, Marchantia polymorpha Foreign gravel or construction debris Dust-covered areas adjacent to roads Vehicle tracks -deeply rutt~d Vehicle tracks -not deeply ruttr.d Winter road Excavated areas primarily in river gravels Flooded areas caused by roads or pads TJ\ULE·L-2 ~OIL, lANDfOR~ AND SLOPE UNITS FOR WATERFLOOD MAPPING* I. SOILS Unit 1st Code Taxonomic identifying field ~N~o~·--------N~a~m=e----------------------~C=h=a~ra~c~~~=r~i~~t~i=c~s ______________ _ 1 Per-gel ic Cryoboroll 2 Pergel'ic Cryaquoll 3 32: 4 5 6 7 8 Complex of: 1) Histic Pergel 'fc Cryaquept 2) Pcrgelic Cryohemist Complex of Soils 3 and 2 Complex of: 1) Histic Pergelic Cryaqw')pt 2) Pergelic Cryofibrist Pergelic Cryorthent Pergel ic-Ruptic Aquaptic Cryaquoll Pergelic Cryopsamment Pergelic Cryaquept A cold, freely drained soil underlain by permafrost with a dark humus, rich granular textured surface horizon A cold, dark· colored wet soil, pennan- ently mottled in the lower part of the humus, with weakly granular surface horizon A cold wet gray mineral soil, commonly mottled, having a surface horizon 25 em {9.8 in) thick, composed of predominantly organic material A cold wet dark colored soil consisting of moderately decomposed organic material to depths of 40 em (15.7 in) A cold wet gray mineral soil, commonly mottled, having a surface horizon 25 em thick, composed of predo@inantly organic material A" cold, wet, reddish to yellowish soil consisting of litt1e decomposed fibrous organic materials to depths of 40 em A cold, freely drained gravelly soil lacking significant horizon develop- ment and generally free of organic matter A cold, well-drained sandy soil ass.oci ated with sand dunes and exhibiting little or no profile development Cold, wet, gray colored and mottled mineral soil~ lacking a significant organic horizon Unit 2nd Code II. LANDFORM No. landform 1 H·Jgh-Centered Polygons (Center-Trough Relief >0.5 m, 1.6 ft) 2 High-Centered Polygons (Lenter-Trough Relief i0.5 m) 3 low-Centered Polygons (Rim-Center Relief <0.5 m) 4 Low-Centered Polygons (Rim-Center Re~ief >0.5 m) 5 Mixed High-and Low-Centered Polygons in Intricate Pattern 6 7 8 9 Fro~t Boil Tundra (non-sorted) Strangmoor and/or Disjunct Polygon Rims Hummocky Terrain Associated \'lith Dissected Slopes Reticulate-Patterned Ground 0 Non-Patterned Ground or with Pattern Occupying less than 20% s A p Sand Dunes Alluvial Floodplain Pingo · .& i! A Steep embankment t I I I t Undercut river bank • • • Excavated ~.~ Stream ----Roads and Pads III. SLOPE/DEGREE Unit 3rd Code No. Slope/Degrees None 2 . 3 4 5 0-2 2 - 6 7 -12 13 -20 Greater than 20 *From Walker et alo (in press) ' . TABLE L-3 WATERFLOOD PROJECT SITES AND HABITAT MAPPING DETAIL EMPLOYED FOR EACH Project Site -Injection Well Sites - West Side: A B 0 E F H M N 0 R s X y WF-1 Injection Well Sites- East Side: 2 3 4 5 7 q 11 . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Intermediate Manifolds: 2 -w 3-w 2 - E 3 - E West Low-Pressure Pi pel ine:corridor East Low-Pressure Pipeline Corridor Gravel Sites: Put. North Put. South Mapped According to the detailed Geobotanical System as p7r Walker et al. (in oressJ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x L..;ls Mapped According to Generalized Cover Categories as per Wa 1 ker (1980) X X X X - X X X X X X X X X X X X X. X X X LAND COVER CATEGORIES 2 I DRY PROSTRATE·· SHRUB TUNDRA II MOIST DWARF- SHRUB TUNDRA . IV MOIST GRAMINOID r · TUNDRA (inc 1 udes ~ Tussock Graminoid en Tundra without a 1 arge shrub c~rn· ponent) V WET GRAMINOID TUNDRA Va Non-Saline Vb Saline CORPS OF ENG\NEERS TERMINOLOGY Moist Upland Community Wet Meadow Community TABLE L-4 GENERALIZED COVER CATEGORIES USED IN MAPPING OF PRUDHOE BAY AREA DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION Mostly mat~forming or creeping woody shrubs (e.g. Ddyas). lichens, sedges, mat an cushion form non-woody dicotyledons, and bare soil may form large components. SITE DESCRIPTION Dry, exposed but well-vegetated sites, mostly along bluffs, ridge tops, kames, pingos and some stabilized dunes. Dwarf shrubs 10-50 em (4-20 in) tall. Snow patches Caespitose monocotyledons such as Eriophorum vaginatum may form a large component, but shrubs are clearly dominant. Typical dominants include Salix, Betula nana, Ledum decumbens, and Cassiope tetrago~ · Single monocotyledons or caespitose monocotyledons (e.g. Eriophorum vaginatum, Carex bigelowii) clearly dominate. Dwarf shrubs, mosses and lichens may form a major component. Dominated by single monocotyledons. Mosses may form a major component. Dominated by wet tundra plants such as Carex aquatilis and Eriophorum angustifolium Dominated by wet shoreline plants such as Carex subspathacea, Puccinnellia--phrlganodes, Dupontia fisheri and Stel aria humifusa Moist graminoid tundra common near coast on well drained upland sites, also in polygonal terrain on higher microsites. Tussock tundra·on similar sites inland. Dominant vegetation in low-centered polygon complexes, wet sites often drained of standing water by mid-summer, but that remain saturated; and very wet sites with sha 11 ow ( <lOcm) of \'later all summer. Coastal lagoons, estuaries, and salt flooded areas. DETAilED COMMUNITY CATEGORIES 1 Bl, B2, B3, B6, B14J U7 U6 Ul, U2, U3·, U4, UIO, Ml., M2, M3, M4, M5 . TABLE L-4 (Continued) GENERAliZED COVER CATEGORIES USED IN MAPPING OF PRUDHOE BAY AREA LAND COVER CATEGORIES 2 VI AQUATIC TUNDRA VIa Carex Vlb Arctophila VII RIPARIAN SCRUB VIII RIVER BANK or COASTAl BARRENS X DEEP WATER CORPS OF ENGINEERS TERMINOlOGY 3 lake/Pond Community River/Stream/ Floodplain. Community River/Stream/ Floodplain Community Open Water 1 From l4alker et al. (in press) 2 Frolil Walker (1980) 3 From u.s. Army·Corps of Engineers (1979) DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION Dominated by true aquatic vege- tation Dominated by Carex aguatilis Dominated by Arctophila fulva Shrubs generally greater than 50 cm.tall. Near the coast and in alpine areas, dwarf shrubs {<50cm tall) occur. Dominant taxa include Salix and Alnus Non-vegetated areas are clearly dominant 'but many pioneering plants such as Epilobium latifolium, Cochlearia officinalis, Salix spp., Dryas may be present with!UP-to 50% cover. Non-vegetated SITE DESCRIPTION . DETAILED COMMUNITY CATEGORIES1 Mostly shallow (up to 1m deep) sublitto~al shelves of thaw lakes (Arctobhila fulva). · Al sa partially drained lake as·ins-w:rtfi sha 11 ow water ( Carex aguat il is and Arctoph i 1 a fulva). Mostly medium height (0.5-2 m) shrub along streams inland from coast Coastal bluffs, beaches, barren river bars barren bluffs, sand dunes • Water generally >1m deep El, £3 E2 ua B4, B5, 87, Wl, W2 TABLE L-5 WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES OF WATERFlOOD PROJECT AREA Wetland 1 . land Detailed Community Site Vegetation Cover Categories Categories {Walker Community Description Description (Walker 1980) et al. in press) Coastline Moist coastal'meadows and Fresh meadow dominated Moist graminoid tundra IV 2 M9, Ul2~ U13 Community saline meadows below . by Carex aquatilis, Salix (partial correspondence only) highest strand line planifolia spp. pule~ Saline meadow characterized by Dupontia fisheri and f Cochlearia officinalis. • River/Stream/ Upland stream banks which Dominated by Dhyas integ_. Moist graminoid tundra IV U9 Flcod.plain are inundated by spring flood rifolia, Eriop arum . (partial correspondence only) Community angustifolium, Tomenthypnum . nitens, Didymodor asperifolius Wet Meadow Coastal Plain: Dominant Dominated by single mono-Wet graminoid tundra V Ml, M2, MJ, M4, vegetation in low-centered cotylendons (e.g. Carcx a) non-saline M5, M6, M7 j r-18, polygon complexes, wet sites aguatilis. Mosses may b) sal in·e MlO, Mll often drained of standing form a major component. water by mid-summer, but that remain saturated; and very . wet sites with shallow (<10 . . . . em) water all summer • lake/Pond Coastal Plain: Mostly shallow Dominated by true aquatic Aquatic tundra. VI . E1 , E2, E3, E4 Community (up to 1 m deep) sublittoral vegetation or emergents a~ Carex a9uatilis shelves of thaw lakes (Arctophila (e.g. Arctophila fulva, b Arctoph1la fulva fulva). Also partially drained Menyanthes trifol~. liik"ebasins \'lith shallow water ~ aguatilis and Arctophila f • Disturbed Sites May or may not have vegetation. Flooded areas caused by road --W3 Possible breakdown of original or pads vegetation community. Open-water . Non-vegetated Water generally >1 m deep Deep Water X W1, IJI2 . 1Adapted from u.s. Army Corps of Engineers (1979) and Walker (1980) 2The Moist Graminoid Tundra community may also contain other wetland communities not distinyuishable from aerial photography. TABLE.L-6 PRODUCTION AND STANDING CROP FOR THE MAJOR VEGETATION UNITS OF THE WATERFLOOD PROJECT AREA Detai 1 ed Plant· Community CategorY' DRY TYPES . 81 B2 B3 84 b5 86 87 B14 MOIST TYPES U1 U2 U3 U4 U6 · U7 U8 U10 WET TYPES M1 M2 M3 M.,· , ..... EMEl\ ·, ·: TYPES rr E2 E3 GENERAL COVER CLASSES I II III IV v VI . VII VIII -Production _g/m 2 fy_r 50 55 10 5 20 20 10 50 90 90 90 70 60 so· 80 25 110 1~~0 130 80 120 120 130 80 50 60 Does not occur near coast 80 120 125 80 10 L-19 Peak Season Standing Crop g/m2 190 205 25 15 180 180 35 230 150 150 150 130 200 170 120 165 185 190 195 120 200 180 185 120 200 200 140 190 180 120 30 . Rating Scale Low ~.oderate High TABLE L-7 PRODUCTION RATING SCALE FOR PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE WATERFLOOD PROJECT AREA Annual Productivity gJm 2/Yr 0-50 51-100 101-150 Detailed Plant Communities Bl, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, BlO 812, Ul, U2, U3, U4, U6, U4~ US, M4, E3 Ml ,, M2 , M3 , M5 , El , E2 L-20 Generalized Land Cover Classes I, VIII II, III, IV, VII V, \!I TABLE L-8 . . BRINE SPILLAGE SENSITIVITY OF VEGETATION TYPES OF THE WATERFLOOD PROJECT AREA Detailed Plant Co~u~it~y~Ca~t~e~~g~~o~~~~~~S~e~n~s~it~,~·v~i~ty~~~~~~~~ DRY TYPES Bl B2 83 84 85 86 B7 814 MOIST TYPES Ul U2 U3 U4 U6 U7' us UlO WET TYPES Ml M2 M3 M4 M5 EMERGENT TYPES El E2 E3 GENERAL COVER CLASSES ! II III IV v VI VII VIII 3 3 2 .. .L 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 3 unit·not presented in waterflood region 2 0 in intertidal areas~ 1 other sites 1 > 1 0 on coastal barrens, 1 other sites Key: 0 -no detectable effects 1 -small reduction in vigor of some plants; complete recovery after one growing season 2 -moderate reduct·1on in vigor of several plants with some death; recovery taking.several e~~wing seasons 3 -death of most p 1 ants; 1"'eco~~,;; ry after many years L-21 TABLE L-9 DENSITY OF BREEDING SHOREBIRDS ON THE PRUDHOE BAY TUNDRA DURING THE THIRD WEEK IN JUN~ Habitat ~--------------...;.., Frost boil tundra (Type B3 mixed with others) Upland tundra (Types U2!1 U3, U4) Upland tundra complex (Types U3 and U4 with M2) Upland tundra pond or lake margin (Types M2 or M4) . Lowland tundra (wet facie) (Type M2 cc~molex) Pingo complex (Types Bl,. UlO, U6, U7, etc.,) Stream complex (Types M5, US, etce) Lowland tundra (very wet facie) (Type M4 complex) Mixed ponds and polygons (Types El and E2 mixed with others) Source: Myers and Pitelka (unpublished data) L-22 Number of Birds/Ha 0.9 1.,2 1.7 1.8 2.9 3 _Q ... .., 3.,9 4.2 5.7 TABLE L-10 (Continued) B1RD HABITAT VAlUE RATINGS AND CORRESPONDING COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS -r---·~" Hatitat Value Classification from Bergman Vegetation Cotles G~neralized land r--Rating ·Habitat Description et al. 1977 (Wetlands only) from ~alker et al. Cover Category 'Bird Use . low· ~bist upland complex --U2, U3, U4 with Moist Graminoid low density shorebir some M2 Tundra (IV) > nesting d Dry uplan~ comple~ ... Bl, B2, 83 Dry Prostrate - Shrub Tundra (I) Passerine bird nesti ng Fl oOO'~d areas caused by --w~ --.,_ ' man's activities Disturbed areas (roads ----Cultural Barrens --work pads~ etc.) (XI) --_j TABLE L-11 UTILIZATION OF THE MAJOR VEGETATION UNIT$ BY MAMMALS - Land Cover Detailed Plant Cateqory I Dry Prostrate-Shrub Tundra # II Moist Dwarf~Shrub Tundra IV Moist Gram~noirl Tundra . v Wet Graminoid Tundra - VI Aquatic 1uudra Vll Riparian Scrub VIII River Bank or Coastal Barrens . . ~egend: D -denning site Gl -low caribou qrazing use G2 -moderate gra?.ing use G3 -high grazing use F -feeding area Corrmunity Bl B2 83 86 814 U7 U6 Ul . U2 U3 U4 UlO - M1 M2 M3 M4 MS El E2 E3 us B4 85 87 -Mammal Use . Ground Caribou Squirrel Fox Gl D,F D Gl D,F I Gl Gl F Gl D ~? '...ttJo. D,F G2 D,F . G2 . G2 F G2 F G2 F G2 D D G2 F G2 F G2 Gl G3 Gl Gl G1 . . G3 . G2 G2 F. Gl D,F Collared Brown Lemminq Lemming D,F D,F D,F . D,F D,F D,F D,F D,F D,F D,F D,F D,F F F F F • D,F · D,F Sources: Whit~ et al. (1975}: Underwood (1975), Hanson and Eberhardt (1979}, Feist .{1975), and personal observation· of the authors L-25 i I I I I I I I I I . ! I I . I I I N 0'\ Habitat Value Rating High TABLE L-12 MAMMAL HABITAT VALUE RATINGS AND CORRESPONDING COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Habitat Description Well drained, eleva ted features -coastal bluffs, stream banks, pingos, lake margins, dunes Floodplains of major rivers Moist stream banks Land Cover Category Dry prostrate-shrub tundra {I); River bank or coastal barrens (VIII) River bank or coastal barrens (VIII) Riparian scrub (VII) . Detailed Plant Conununity Types 81, B2, 85, 86, B7, 89, BlO~ Bll, 813, 814, UlO B4 ua, U9, M5 Mammal Use Grou,nd squirr·el, fox t and polar bear denning; caribou and ground squirrel feeding Caribou insect relief and travel corridor Caribou feeding . . ~-------+-------------------------~----------------------~--------------~--------------------- Moderate ~.oi st uplands Low Most wet sites Mo1st graminoid tundra (IV); Moist dwarf-shrub tundra (II) Wet graminoid tundra (V); Aquatic tundra (VI); Deep water (X) Ul, U2, U3, U4, U6, U7 Ml, M2, M3, M4, El, E2, Wl Small mammal denning and feeding Caribou and fox feeding r- 1 N ""-J TABLE L-13 • SUMMARY OF tffi.!3IT~ VALUE/SENSITIVITY RESULTS FOR EACH EVALUATION ELEMENT AND LAND COVER CATEGORY ,_A Mammal Habitat l Land Cover Wetland Primary Saltwater. Bird Habitat Category Contribution 1 ~Productivity Sensitivity Value · Value· · I. Dry prostrate-shrub Low Low High Low Moderate High tundra I II Moist dwarf-shrub tundra Low Moderate High Low Moderate IV Moist graminoid tundra Low Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate v Wet graminoid tundra ' Va Non-saline High High Low Moderate Low t4oderate Low Vb Saline High High Low High Low VI Aquatic tundra VIa Carex High High Low Moderate High Moderate Low VIb Arcto~hila High High Low High Low • VII Riparian sct"ub Low Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate High . VIII River bank or coasta 1 barr·ens Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate High X Deep Water --Low ":"-Low Moderate Low X1 Cultural barrens Low Low Low Low Low - 1 Judgement re~arding the potential t;ansfer of nutrients and energy to lake, stream, and marine systems. Habitllt Value Rating High . r.- N 00 High Moderate . TABlf l-14 OVERAll HABITAT VAlUE/SENSITIVITY RATINGS AND CORRESPONDING COMt4UNITY DESCRIPTIONS Habitat Description Land Co~er Category Wet with emergent VIb. Aquatic tun~ra Arctophila, including .. Arctophila associate~ open water Selected mixed wet and moist Closely associated Aquatic' habitats with some emergent tundra ~VI), Wet graminoid vegetation usually .within a tundra .V), and Moist drained lake basin graminoid tundra (IV) communities Salt marsh, including Vb·. Wet graminoid tundra - associated open water Saline Minor stream channels -- Pingo complex -- Abrupt river banks -- Moist stream banks VII. Riparian scrub High 3 dry shrub are~s; l. Dry Prostrate-s.hrub vegetated alluvium Tundra Wet with emergent Carex, VIa. Aquatic tundra - including associat~ Carex --open water Selected open water. x. Deep Water (partial adjacent to high quality I ~~rrespondence only) wetlands DetaBed Plant Community Types E2 Mixed E2, El, Wl, M4, M2 with some Ul or U4 81, 82, U6, UlO p B6, 87 UB, M5 81, 82 El, E3 tn (partial correspondence only) Resource Value/ Sensitivit.v · High value to waterbirds, high primary productivity, wetland values, 1 imited • in area High value to waterbirds, wetland values High value to waterfowl • . Important in maintaining linked wetlands High value to mammals, rare plants, sensitive to disturbance High value to mammals, rare plants Caribou feeding, shorebird & passerine bird nesting habitat High value to mammals and passerine birds, sensitive to saltwater spills High value to waterbirds, high primary productivity High value to waterbirds r I N \0 Habitat Value Rating L0\'1 Moderate . low TABLE l-14 (Continued) . OVERAll HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY RATINGS AND CORRESPONDING COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS I Detailed Plant Resource Value/ Habitat Descript·ion Land Cover Category COIMIUnity Types Sensitivity Mo1st shrub areas II. Moist Dwarf-shrub U6 Sensitive to saltwater spills tundra Wet tundra, including Va. Wet graminoid tundra -. Ml, M2, M3, M4 High primary prod~ctivity, associated open water Non-saline shorebird values . Dry barren t~rrain; VIII. River Bank or B4, B5 Caribou insect relief and travel river gravel Coastal Barrens corridor, some shorebird use Deep open water x. Deep water . Wl Waterfowl staging and resting Moist tundra IV. Moist graminoid tundra Ul, U2, U3, U4 Some shorebird use, moderately UlO, sensitive to saltwater spills . Roads, workpads, gravel ' XI. Cultural Barrens Occasional shor~hird use --pits Areas flooded due to roads and workpads --W3 -- r I w 0 TABLE l-15 SURFACE AREA OF WETLAND AND OPEN"WATER HABITATS DIRECTLY ALTERED BY WATERFLOOD PROJECT FACILITIES -. Affected Area (Hectares} Affected Area (Hectares) Percent Open Non-Percent · Open Project Site Waterflood(a) Wetlands Water Wetland Total Project Site Waterflood{a) Wetlands rlater Injection Intermediate Well Sites Manifolds West Side 2W 100 0.8 0 A 50 0.4(b) 0.4 0 0.8 3W 100 0.5 0 .J3 25 1.3 0.3 1.7 3.3 2E 100 0.2 i) D 30 1.4 0.2 0.2 1.8 3E --0 0 E --0 0 0 0 F 20 0.7 T(c) 0 0.8 West H --0 0 0 0 Low"P.ressure M 30 1.7 T 0.1 1.9 Pipeline N 10 0.2 T 0.1 0.4 Corridor 100 6.6 0.2 Q --0 0 0 . 0 R --0 0 0 0 East s 100 5.8 0.2 3.8 9.8 Low-Pressure X 35 1.7 0.2 0 1.9 Pipeline . y 35 1.5 0.4 0 1.9 Corridor 100 3.9 1.6 WFl 100 11.0 0 0.2 11.2 . Gravel Sites Injection Putuligayuk Well Sites North 100 0 6.3 East Side . Putuligayuk 2 !0 0.9 T 0.7 1.7 South 100 5.5 T . 3 12 0.6 0 0.3 0.9 4 10 2.1 0 0 2.1 West 5 14 0.4 T 0.4 0.9 InJection 7 13 0.6 T 0.3 1.0 Plant 100 1.6 0 9 12 2.0 0.2 0.4 2.6 -- 11 1 0.2 0 0.1 0.3 12 23 0.9 0 0 0.9 Totals 60.1 11.0 13 12 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.4 . 14 13 1.0 0.1 0.7 1.8 15 11 0.6 T 0.2 0.9 16 15 2.1 0.1 0.2 2.4 17 19 1.6 0.3 0.4 2.3 18 17 1.2 0 0.2 1.4 (a) Estimated percent of the mapped pad expansion areas that would be dedicated to Waterflood Project facilities. (b) Calculated areas equal total area for all future uses x the percent dedicated to Waterflood Project facilities. (c) T = trace --less than 0.05 hectares. Non- Wetland . . 0 0.3 I 0 0 4.4 4.0 28.4 10.8 1.0 -- 59.4 ]Qta_! 0.8 0.8 0.2 0 11.2 9.5 34 .• 7 16.3 2.6 130.5 TABLE l-16 SURFACE AREAS DIRECTLY AlTERED BY WATERflOOD PROJECT FACILITIES--PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY JQPEN-WATER, PONDED AREAS, AND AREAS DISTURBED BY GRAVEl MIMING NOT INCLUDED) Affected Area 'Hectares} Affected Area {Hectares} Percent Product1vit~ Rat ng Percent Productivit~ Rating Waterflood(a) Moderate Project Site Waterflood(a) Project Site High low Total . High Moderate low Injection Intermediate Well ~ites Manifolds West Side 2W 100 0 0 A 50 0.4(b) 0 0 0.4 3W 100 0.5 0.3 8 25 0.5 1.8 0 2.3 2E 100 0.2 0 D 30 1.3 0.1 0.1 1.5 3E --0 0 E --0 0 0 0 F 20 0.5 0.2 0 0.7 West H --0 0 0 0 low-Pressure M 30 1.7 0 0.2 1.9 Pipeline N ~ 10 0.2 0.2 0 0.4 Corridor 100 6.6 4~1 ,Q . --0 0 0 0 R --0 0 0 0 East s 100 5.8 3.8 0 9.6 Low-Pressure X 35 1c7 0 0 1.7 Pipeline y 35 1.5 0 . 0 1.5 Corridor 100 3.4 4.0 WFl 100 11.0 0.2 0 11.2 ·Gravel Sites Injection Putuligayuk ' ·Well Sites North 100 0 0 East Side T(c} Putuligayuk 2 10 0.8 0.6 1.4 South 100 0 1.4 3 12 0.3 0 0.4 0.7 4 10 0.6 0.1 0 0.6 l~est 5 14 T 0.8 0 0.8 Injection 7 13 0.4 0.3 T 0.7 Plant 100 . 3.7 2.3 9 12 0.6 0.3 --0.1 1.0 11 1 0.2 T T . 0.2 12 23 0.3 0 0 0.3 Totals 48.9 22.3 13 12 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 14 13 0.8 0.3 0 1.1 15 11 0.6 0.2 0 0.8 16 15 2.1 0.2 0 2.3 17 19 1.6 0.5 0 2.1 18 17 1.2 0.1 0 1.3 \ (a} Estimated percent of the mapped pad expansion areas that would be dedicated to Waterflood Project facilities. (b) Calculated areas equal total area for all future uses x the percent dedicated to '~aterflood Project facilities. (c) T = trace --less than 0.05 hectares. . 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.1 34.7 0 0 -- 35.1 . Total 0 o.8· 0.2 0 11.0 7o5 34.7 1.4 6.0 106.3 r I w N TABLE l-17 SURFACE AREAS DIREC~LY ALTERED BY WATERFLOOD PROJECT FACILITIES--SALTWATER SENSITIVITY (OPEN-WATER NOT INCLUDED) . Affected Area {Hectares} Sensit1v1t~ Rating Affected Area {Hectares} High Sensitivitx Rating High low Percent low Percent Project Site Waterflood(a) High Moderate Moderate low Total Project Site Waterflood(a) High Moderate Injection Intennediate Well Sites Manifolds .Hest Side o(b) 2W 100 0 0 A 50 0 0.5 0 0 .. 5 3W 100 0 0.3 B 25 0 1.8 0.5 ¥(~) 3.0 2E 1()0 .0 0 D 30 0 0.1 1.4 1.6 3E .... 0 0 E --0 .0 0 0 0 F 20 0 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.8 West H --0 0 0 0 0 low-Pressure . M 30 0.2 0 1.7 0 1.9 Pipeline N 10 0 0.2 . 0.2 0 0.4 Corridor 100 0.3 4.4 Q --0 0 0 0 . 0 R --0 0 0 0 0 East s 100 0 3.8 5.8 0 ~ 9.6 low-Pressure X 35 0 0 1.7 0 1.7 Pipeline y 35 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 Corridor 100 0.1 4.0 Wfl 100 0 0.2 n.o 0 11.2 . Gravel Sites Inject: ion Putul i gayuk Well Sites North 100 0 0 East Side ' Putuligayuk . 2 10 T 0.5 0.8 0.2 1.5 South. 100 0 1.4 3 12 0.4 0 0.2 0.6 1.2 . 4 10 0 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 West 5 14 0 0.4 0.4 0 0.8 Injection 7 13 T 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.9 Plant 100 0 1.0 9 12 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.5 2.4 - 11 1 T T 0.2 T 0.4 12 23 0 0 O.::l 0.7 1.0 Totals 1.3 20.5 13 12 0 0.3 o:3 0.5 1.1 . 14 13 T 0.3 0.7 (}.5 1.5 . 15 11 0 0.2 0.6 0 0.8 16 15 0 0.2 2.1 0 2.3 17 19 0 0.5 1.6 0 2.1 18 17 0 0.1 1.2 0 1.3 . . {(~)) Estimated percent of the mapped pad expansion areas that would be dedicated to Waterflood Project facilities. {c) Calculated areas equal total area for all future. uses x the percent dedicated to Waterflood Project facilities. T = trace --less than 0.05 hectares. Moderate ' 0 0.5 0.2 0 6.3 3.4 0 0 1.6 46.7 lo\'1 0.8 0 0 0 0.3 0.5 . 28.5 14':8 0 -- 51.2 Total 0.8 0.8 0.2 0 11.3 . 8.0 28.5 16.2 2.6 119.7 • ' w w .f TABlE ~-18 SURFACE AREAS DIRECTLY ALTERED BY WATERFLOOO PROJECT FACiliTIES--BIRD HABITAT VAlUES Affected Area ~Hectares} Uabitat Va1ue Rat ng Affected Area (Hectares} Habitat Value Rating Percent High low Percent High Project Site Waterflood(a) High Moderate Moderate low Total Project Site Waterflood(a) High Moderate Injection . Intermediate fdell Sites Manifolds '-''est Side o.8(b) 2W 100 0 0 A 50 0 0 0 ·0.8 3W 100 0 0.5 B 25 0 0 0.8 2.5 3.3 2E 100 0 0 D 30 0 0.3 1.3 0.2 1.8 3E --0 0 E --0 0 0 0 0 F 20 0 T(c) 0.5 0.2 0.9 West H --0 0 0 0 0 low-Pressure M JO 0 0.3 1.4 0.2 1.9 Pipeline . N 10 0 0 0.4 0 0.4 Corridor 100 2.5 0.7 Q --0 0 0 0 0 R --0 0 0 0 0 East s 100 0 0 6.0 3.8 9.8 low-Pressure X 35 0 0 1.9 0 1.9 Pipeline y 35 0 0 1.9 0 1.9 Corridor 100 2.3 0 WH 100 0 0 11.0 0.2 11.2 Gravel Sites Injection. Putuligayuk . Wert Sites North 100 0 0 East Side Putuligayuk 2 10 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.7 South 100 0 0 3 12 0.2 0 0 0.7 0.9 4 10 0 ·0 0.6 1.2 1.8 West 5 14 T . 0.4 0 0.4 0.9 Injection 7 13 0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.8 Plant 100 0 0 9 12 r 0 0.7 1.8 2.6 --- u. . 'l 0 T 0.2 T 0.3 : 12 23 0 0 0.3 0.7 0.9 Totals 5.5 3.7 13 12 T 0 0.9 0.4 1.4 14 13 T 0 0.9 0.8 1.8 15 11 T 0 0.4 0.4 0.9 16 15 T 0.2 1.9 0.2 2.4 17 19 0 0.9 0.9 0.5 2.3 18 17 0 0 1.3 0.1 1.4 ((~}) Estimated percent of the mapped pad expansion areas that would be dedicated to Waterflond Project facilities. (c) Calculated areas equal total area for all future uses x the percent dedicated to Waterflood Project facilities. T = trace --less than Oo05 hectares. low Moderate low I 0 . 0.8 0 0.3 0.2 0 0 0 3.5 4.7 2.9 4.3 0 34.7 0 16.3 1.6 0 ----- 43.2 77.7 Total --- 0.8 0.8 0.2 0 . 11.2 9.5 34.7 16.3 2.6 130.1 r I w ~ TABLE l-19 SURFACE AREAS DIRECTLY ALTERED BY WATERFLOOD PROJECT FACILITIES--MAMMAL HABITAT VALUES \ I Affected Area (H~ctares) Affected Area {Hectares} Percent Hab~tat Value Rating Percent Ha6itat Value Rating_ I Project Site Waterflood(a) High Moderate Lo\11 Total Project Site Waterflood(a) High Moderate Injection I nte nned i ate Well Sites Manifolds West Side 2W 100 0 0 A 50 0 0 o.a(b) 0.8 3W 100 0 0.3 B 25 0 2.5 0.8 3.3 2E 100 0 0 D 30 0 0.2 2.8 3.0 3E --0 0 E --0 0.1 o:1 0.8 F 20 0 0 0 0 West H --0 0 0 0 low-Pressure M 30 0.2 0 1.7 1.9 Pipeline N 10 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 Corridor 100 0.3 3.4 Q --0 0 0 0 R . ·-0 0 0 0 East : s 100 0 3.~ 6.0 9.8 low-Pres sur~ X 35 0 0 1,9 1.9 Pipeline y 35 0 0 1.9 1.9 Corridor 100 0.1 4.0 Wfl 100 0 0.2 11.0 11.2 Gravel Sites J,!jection . Putuligayuk ~ell Sites Nor'i:h 100 0 0 East Side Putuligayuk 2 10 T(c) 0.4 1.2 1.7 Sout~, 100 0 1.4 3 12 0.4 0 0.8 1.2 4 10 0 0.1 1.7 1.8 West 5 14 0 0.4 0.5 0.9 Injection 7 13 T 0.3 0.7 1.1 Plant 100 0 1.6 9 12 0.1 0.3 2.2 •. 2.6 11 1 T T 0.2 0.3 12 23 0 0 0.9 0.9 Totals 1.3 21.5 13 12 0 0.4 0.9 1.3 14 13 0 0.3 1.5 1.8 15 11 0 0.2 0.6 0.8 16 15 0 0.2 2.1 2.3 . 17 19 0 0.5 1.8 2.3 18 17 0 0.2 1.2 1.4 (a) Estimated percent of the mapped pad expansion areas that wol'~d be dedicated to ~laterflood Project fadlities. (b) Calculated areas equal total area for all future uses x the percent dedicated to Waterflood Project facilities. {c) T = trace --less than 0.05 hectares. . low I 0.8 0.5 0.2 0 7.5 5.4 34.7 14.8 1.0 -- 109.0 Total 0.8 0.8 0.2 0 11.2 9.5 34.7 ·16.2 2.6 131.8 TABLE L-20 . SURFACE AREAS DIRECTLY ALTERED BY WATERFLOOD PROJECT FACILITIES--OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY Affected Area (Hectares} --· Affected AreA.J.Hectares) Habitat Value/Sensitivitl Rating Habitat Value/S~nsitivitl Rating Waterfioad(a) High Law Percent High L0\'1 ProJect Site High Moderate Moderate Low Total Project Site Waterfload(a) High Moderate Moderate L0\'1 Total Injection Intennediate Well Sites ~tanifolds West Side o.8(b) 2W 100 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 A 50 0 0 0 0.8 3W 100 0 0 0.5 0.3 0.8 B 25 0 0 0.8 2.5 3.3 2E 100 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 D 30 0 0.3 1.3 0.2 1.8 3E 0 0 0 0 0 E -t;;.· 0 0 0 0 0 F 20 0 T(c) 0.5 0.2 0.8 West H 0 0 0 0 0 Low-Pressure M 30 0.2 0.3 1.4 o· 1.9 Pipeline N 10 0 0 0.4 0 0.4 Corridor 100 2.6 1.0 3.5 4.1 11.2 Q 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 East s !00 0 0 6.0 3.8 9.8 low-Pressure X 35 0 0 1.9· 0 1.9 Pipeline y 35 0 0 1.9 0 1.9 Corridor 100 2.3 0.1 2.8 4.3 9.5 -r-WF1 100 0 0 11.0 0.2 11.2 I Gravel Sites w Injection Putuligayuk U1 Well Sites North 100 0 0 6.3 28.5 34.8 East Side Putuligayuk 2 10 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.6 1.6 South 100 ·0 p 16.3 16.3 3 12 0.1 0.3 0 0.5 0.9 4 10 0 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 West 5 14 T 0 0.4 0.4 0.9 Injection 7 13 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.0 Plant 100 0 0 1.6 1.0 2.6 9 12 T 0.1 0.7 1.8 2.7 11 1 0.1· 0.1 1.9 0.2 2.3 12 23 0 0 0.3, 0.7 1.0 Totals 5.8 3.6 52.3 69.6 131.3 13 12 T 0 0.9 0.4 1.4 14 13 T 0 0.9 0.8 1.8 15 11 T 0 0.4 0.4 .0.9 16 15 T 0.;2 1.9 0.2 2.4 17 19 0 0.9 0.9 0.5 2.3 18 17 0 0 1.3 0.1 1.4 (a) Estimated percent of the mapped pad expansion areas that would be dedicated to Waterflood Project facilities. (b) Calculated areas equal total area for all future uses x the percent dedicated to Waterflood Project facilities. (c) T = trace --less than 0.05 hectares. r I w ~ TABLE L-21 SUMMARY OF RELATIVE HABITAT VALUE AND/OR SENSITIVITY OF TERRAIN DIRECTLY ALTERED BY ALL WATERFLOOD PROJECT FACILITIES COMBINED Habitat Vaiue/Sensitivity ···-Moderate Category High (High Moderate) I { L0\'1 Moderate) I 48~g(a) (37.2%)(b) I Primary Productivity 22.3 (17.0%) Saltwater Sensitivity 1.3 (1.0%) 20.5 (15.6%) i 46.7 (35.6%) I I Bird Habitat Value 5.5 (4 .. 2%) 3.7 {2.8%) I 43.2 (32.9%) t I Mammal Habitat Value 2.7 (2.1%) 21.6 ,I '(16.5%) I Overall Habitat Value/ I I Sensitivity 5.8 (4.4%) 3.6 (2.7%) • 52.3 {39.8%) • I Wetland Wetlands and O(!en Water Open Water Habitats 60.1 (46.1%) 11.0 (8.4%) .............. Total Area Affected . - (a) Area in hectares (b) Percent of total area . Low 35.1 (26q>7%) 51.2 (40.0%) 77.7 (59.2%) 109.0 (83.0%) 69.6 (53.0%) Non-Wetland ·- 60.2 (46.1%) 131.3 70"20' CORRIDOR MAP LOCATION 70"15' WeSTERN f (j) NORTHERN PORTION CORRIDOR 1 @SOUTHERN PORTION 148"40' EASTERN r@ NORTHeRN PORTION . CORRIDOR L@ SOUTHERN PORTION 70"15' 148"20' KEY TO H/~BtT AT MAPPING WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES (FIGURES L-2 to L-35) t:~-:1 WE1'LAND • OPF.N WATER D NON-WET.LAND OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY (FEGURES L~1 to L.....U.l--48 to L-87.1.-89 to L-7S) • HIGH MODERATE ~~~::·~~~~;~LOW M.ODERATE OLow FACILITIES (FIGURES L-38 to L-73) EXISTING FACILITIES AS OF JULY 1979 ~ EXPANS!ONS PERMITTED OR APPLIED FOR ~ BETWEEN JULY 1979 AND APRIL 1980 ~ PROPOSED FACILITIES I FIGURE L-1 I L-37 WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES WSSIERN CORRilJ()R ..,.., , ------.....-....n. ...,., _____ _ __ , --------------~no. DA -·lt.l.-~a-.as~rlf.£- ~ -!""*!. - -- I I ~ \, \ .•..••...•. ·•. , [ I ~ ; . ; . .-..> , ' .d ............. -- WETLAND ANC OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES I+ESI&IW CORNitXJII ..,.., ,., ----~-..... ---------,..,_, ---------------~-a•-•1!1.~ ...... lllf.C- - - = ---5~9 WIITLAND ~ CJNMWATIJII . ' \ weTLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES E'AS1ERN CORRIXJR ~~ -----ti'DIO---~ ---------1 -----------.---.. vaTATICIII 12A -. ,.1._ ..-aa-...IC.Jt.E- fWi - --.-- ,. I , ~ \ ' \ .. .. ' ,,, , ,' I ' I I r .. -·~ --·---· _ ... WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNmES E'ASTERN CORRDOR ·~ ,., -----TEDI--~ -------__ , -----··----~YN-n:uw~r- YBT&,_ D"' -· io.t-~a-...Kit.C- ------g WETLAND ~ OI'INWA'nlt 0 -·· -· .· 100 200 METERS J I Watw Boundarlll fro11u AIR PHOTO TECH "'bpotrapNc Mcp 1173 CuHurai BallldarfCII froM1 nt?l PM_.,, ...... He. PUo-tJN 7·· Yellfat50IU D.A. Wtl, • ~~J. WMJW Lllldfora a So111 K.lt. l_..,t WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUN.ITIES I Fig~re L-4 L-42 I DRILL SITE 3 I 7W 0 . -. _.... ----·· .. -' 100 200 300 400 METERS J I Watlr a Cultural lkuMJarlet frotn~ AIR PHOTO TECH, te79 PhotograpbJ Ptloto No. PiJG-UN T• 10 Veaetatlotu D. A. W.lnr • P.J.W•biN LanclforN a Solll: If. R. ~,.II WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES I Figure L-5 I L-43 . . . 0 100 ~ zoo )00 400 METERS &00 I / watlr a Cultural ltsiM•IM tre.s A..'ft PHOTO TECH, 1171t PMt-.rll* Pttoto Ns. PUO-UN 1-11 ' Vetlf•tiORt A A ........ ll ,lf,J.,.,.., LaiMifor11111 a hill& 1t. R. &.nil WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES I Figure L-6 L-44 l DRILL SITE 5 ·.··---0 200 ~ II EYERS I I wat• SoiiMicwiM franu AIR PHOTO TECH 1bttoti'apNc ..... ~ CUIUat Bculdarf• flOIIU 11?1 PMt..,, ...... Ne. PUG-UN S•QI v.tatloft: D.A. W11., • 1!.1. ,_,., LcNfora a Sallis K.lt. E~t WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES [ Figure L-7 ] L-45 -.. ··-· --. 0 100 200 ~ METERS I I C&Mural ........ ,.... 1111 PMMil_, • .......... fiUOoUN ?•IT Vtlllfatlolu D.A. ••• • Itt!.,..,. LandtonM a Soli' If. ~t &cw~t WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES I Figure L-8 L-46 I DRILL SITE 9 -~-. 0 100 100 100 400 METEPtl J / watw a Cultural lauMioriH frwl' AIR PHOTO TECH, .. .,. ~ Photo No. PUO-UN e-t V111tatlons D. A. W.lbr • P.J.W•»• LaMforiN a lollet If. If. Ewnil WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES I Figure L-9 L-47 J DRILL SITE II INTERMEDIATE .·. ~ ··~·~···- 0 100 100 400 METERS a MANIFOl-D 2 EAST ~00 I I .... ~ ___ ..._, AIR PHOTO TECH, 1111 PMIIil'_, fltloto Ne. PUG-UN veeet•tl•• A A. ,.,... • I! .1.,.,..,. LQ1l41for11e a leltla 1t. lt. Ertlnll WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES ·Figure L-10 L-48 0 ' I watw Bol:ltcllr!M fra.u AIR PHOTO TECH '1\lfl ..... -1173 ~lcaltdarlll frollla •11 ,.._.._,,...... Nt. PUcHJN 1•1& Vlllt•ta.s D.A. w~, • I!J. fl.., '--''--..... lt.ll. ~~ Vv ETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES I Figure L-11 L-49 I DRILL .···-·· · .. · ·0 100 zoo D) METERS J I Watw 9ounciarlel fro11u AIR PHOTO TECH '1'1'11D,II!Mt: -1D73 Cuth.nl BalM..._ frollla 11?1 PftoiOII'..,t ,..._ .... PUCHIN •·14 YttlfatiGIU D.A. Wa/INr • Itt!. Wt»- Lnf.-& Sollt K.lf. ~I WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES I Figure L-12 L-50 I DRILL SITE 14 ----·. 0 100 zoo 100 400 &00 MET!ftl J I water a Cuttt.:ral lculclarlu tro11u AIR PHOTO T!CH I tsr. P!PtiiMtOitttotf~-Dhw Photo No. PUo-tJN I• .. Vltltatlont D. A. W.Ktw S l!ti.W•M., LandforN a So311t If. R. ~r•lf WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUITIES I Figure L-13 L-51 I DRILL SITE 15 -......... !" ........ 0 100 400 soo J I wattr a Cultural SGu~M~art• ,_, All PHOTO TECH, liN PMfOif- Photo No. PUG-UN ··IT Vwt~tQ~11c;;: D. A. IY-.4':r ~ I! .t 1'1-~e LGft4foMM a Soltlt lr. II. EWnlll WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES [ Figure L-14 L-52 I DRILL SITE 16 .:· .·.---. . .·. 0 .... 40'1 MIT :till ,,.., a Cultwal louMirlll froas .ut PHOTO TECH • .18 ....., flllote IM. IIUO-UN 7•8 Vecet•tl•a D.A .......• '-tl.~ L11Mter• a ..alia 1t. 11 • ..,., WETLAN·o AND OPEN W A TEl~ COMMUNITIES Figure L-15 L-53 DRILL SITE 17 0 200 300 400 500 METERS I I Water G Cultural lcundariH ftotR, I .SA AM PHOTO TECH, 117'1 AMtfOII'CfhJ Pttoto No. PUo-uN 1•10 VetlfatiOIU D. A ......• P.J.W.jl., Landforlftl a Solla: K. If. ~,., WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNIT~ES L-54 [ Figure L-16 1 DRILL SITE 18 ,·.·~····· ....... :.. 0 400 500 METERS t ' Watlr a Cultwcl lculdarltt from~ AIR PHOTO TECH, 1971t PhotolrCIPh1 P'noto No. PUo-UN 5•15 Vttttatlotu D. A. W11,_, • P.J.W~bbH Landforlftl a Solll: K. R. ~r•ll WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-55 I Figure L-17 ] --0 liDO 400 100 MITER I t j W8t1r a Culturll --. .... fras AIR PHOTO TIC¥4, • .,. ,_,, ... _, fetota Na. PUO-WI a• II Vqatatl•• A A......,. • ltt!.W.Uw L.tf.,. a IIIII& /1 ••• ,_.., WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-56 I Figure L-18 ] PAD B Q METER I U4.M2 3.4 wat• Bouftdarlll fruu AIR PHOT.9 ·TECH T..-.c -1171 CIAirl6 ......,... tro.a •11 PMtOIRIIIIQ, ,._ Ne. PUG-UN l•a. Ylllfotllat /J.A. w • ., • /ttl...,., L•t•• a Ioiii lt.ll. E__,l WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-57 I Figure L-19 I PAD D METER I Water Boundarlal frOIIIU AIR PHOTO TECH TfiMI\Y~ Ulp 1173 CiAni laultMrill fr0111 •11 PMtoor_,, PMtl No. FUo-uN I• 2'2 Vlllfatllas /J.A. W11/lw • 1!.1. W.W .__, ... a lalla If. II.. Ewn~t WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-58 [ Figure L-20 I PAD F --· .. ···. 0 100 zoo 100 400 500 METERS t j Wa1tr a Cultwal loiMarl~t froM: AIR PHOTO TECH 1 II.,. PhotographJ Pt1oto No. PUo-tJN S•Q Veeetatlons D. A. W•ltfr • P.J.W•~• LCII'Miforn a SoUa: K. R. ~,., WETLAND A.ND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES l-59 [ Figure L-21 ] PAD H 0 METEIII Wtll• Boult--ftCIIII AM PHOTO TECH ,_.,JJhl!-IIQ Qlllwtl ---"-' 1111 .................. PUCHie 1•14 V~~~tata.s AA. ,._. • /ttl. AMrr ._..,__ A IIIIa lf.At 6tiHJII WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-60 ( Figure L -22 ) .·.··-' · .. 0 100 zoo soo 400 000 .. METERS Water (t Cul9wal Boundartea from' AIR PHOTO TECH, 1979 Photograpby l'tloto No. PUo-UN 7• 27 Veaetatlons D. A. Wtllk• 8 P.J.W•bll., L.cndforme a Sollls K. R. &cfT•ff WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-61 I Figure L -23 J Wthr ikMMmtM ,.. AIR fltiOTO TECH ._... ...... IIR METER I CUllin) ......... frat .... ,......,_,, ,._. Ne. PUCHJM 1•20 ~--D.A. ..... lftl.,..,. ~ .... lt..t Ewnll WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNlTIES L-62 [ Figure· L -24 I PAD Q 0 MET EllS Wat• Bouftcklrlla frG~tu AIR PHOTO TECH T..,apilc Yilt 1173 CUMurl6 ... darlll froa• •11 PMtourCIIIIIJ, PMt1 No. PUG-UN 7• 24 ,,.._..,._, D.A. 1¥11-., • l!tl. .,..,_. LI.Wf•• • Ioiii 1(.11. £_,.,, • WETLAND AND OPEN WAlTER COMMUNITIES L-63 ( Figure L-25 I PAD~~ ·.·. ·-. 0 100 400 500 METERS J I W8tw • ~ ~Mr.-... "-' All PHOTO TECH, nt7'1 ~1 Photo N.. P'UO-UN To 1• Vttetatlolu D. A. ,..., • I! J.,.,.,. LCIIMifor~~~e a lelll: If. If. £Wnll WETLAND AND OPEN WATER corv·tMUNI'TIES L-64 I Figure L-26 J . ' PADS ·.-. ~ . ' 0 100 200 300 -400 OOQ METERS J I Wr.tttr a Cultural BoundarltD from: AIR PHOTO TECH, 1919 Photo;raphJ Photo No. PUo-UN 7•2tt Vt;tta"on: D. A. Walk• ~ P.J.WMIJIJer Landform; a Solie: If. R. &t1rt1lf WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-65 I Figure L-27 ] PAD X METERS J I ..-a Cuthnl ~u:.•• tr.' Alft PHOTO TECH, .. .,. IDMQIIf.J Photo Nl). fiUO-Ula ~· .. v-.etatlotn D. A....... • IU.,.,.,. LCIIH1fora a Soltlc K. H. E'Winlt WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-66 I Figure L-28 I y ,· ... ·-··· 0 !00 zoo· 300 400 500 METERS J I Watlf a Cuthn1 lauMtlfiM "-' AIR PHOTO TECH, IWI PMI~~r•s ftloto Ne. PUG-UN •· a v .. atatiOIU D. A. ,.,.. • /!J. ,.jHj> LCIMfOfllll) a Sollcu /(. II. ~~~ WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-67 r Figure L-29 I WF I . j'·....... . ·. 0 100 400 METERS J I WGtlf 8 Cutfwtlt ICUMiarfta ffOIIU AIR PHOTO TECH I .. .,. l!ttotCIII'CIPhJ Atoto No. PUo-uN e-• Vetetat1otn 11. A.,....,. • P.J.WHHI' LaiHiforN '" !ohc: N. II. EW,., WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-68 [ Figure L-30 I INTERMEDIATE 0 100 :!00 300 METERS -~ I wat ... Boundcwlll trama AIR PHOTO TECH 'Tbltolrat*k: M4i1t 1173 CWtwa6 8cuMiarlel fratllt II1D ~···o ........... PUG-UN l•l'l' Vlptatlc!ltt D. A. 'W6#11Jir a I!.J. ,..,.,_. 4 LCitdfcnM a Soli' K.ll. Etwwtt WETLAND AND OPEN Y,J A TER COMMUNITIES L-69 [ Figure L -31 I 0 _ ...... _ ·--.· 100 200 ~ ~0 METERS ·~ I Watw. Bouftdarlea frGMt AIR PHOTO l'ECH ~ ... tWa ~ fbltllariGI fniMt 1811 ~t..,, ....... He. PUG-UN 1•17 ~atklts D.A.·Wa..,. I!J. W.U. ~ Lc:mlfonM a Solllr If. /f. EWIIWit WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-69 [ Figure L-31 ] INTERMEDIATE M 0 200 ¥10 A Z METER I .~ I Wat• Boundarlee frOMz AIR PHOTO TECH TopoerapNc Ma, 1975 C&AI'w Bauftdarlll frolna IllS PhotogrGIIhJ, f!tlaeo No. PUo-UN 8• 25 v.tetat'-: D.A. WQIIIJI' • It~ WI!IJW L•t•• ~ SGilll K.lt. Ewntt WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES [ Figure L -32 ] L-70 METER I ! ~ Wltlr lowMk!rlll "-• AIR PHOTO TECH ............ -•n ClllwtA ....... fnaa • .,. ,.......,, ,..... .... tJIUOoUN 7-!0 V~eMatllas D.A. • .., • l!tl. ~ ....... lolil1 1(11. &wwlt WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES L-71 ( Figure L -331 ·--·-0 100 200 300 400 IJOO METERS . .PT t I Wafer a Cultwal BcwM!arlll froml AIR PHOTO TECH , 1979 PhotOQfCIPhy Photo No. PUO.UN 1•18 Ve;etatlont D. A. Walw • P.J.W•~~.,. Landforms a Solla: K. R. Ev•r•fl WETLAND AN·o OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES ( . Figure L -34 ] L-72 SOUTHERN 0 100 200 ~ METERS GRAVEL SITE 400 500 / J Water· Boundaritl fronu AIR PHOTO TECH ,..apt'Jic -1173 CUb.nl Butdarfll frOIIU 19?1 PhotatrGIIIl7 1 ....... No. PUG-UN 1•17 v.tatloft: o.A. Wa11M IJ P.el. W«tw Landforllll a Solll' 1(./t. EM'tltl WETLAND AND OPEN WATER COMMUNITIES I Figure L-35 L-73 I -,...,. _____ ,_.,..__.n ----------1 1!-------------- ~-ll/1-·N.UIIII'I:MI a _... It II. E- ,._ ----· - f:;~!;!;!;!;J HIGH ··liiCOUAft DLOW ------ it:@~ HIM .YODPATK D t.ow ; I I I .. ,.· ... .-.. ~· / l •' .. ··. \ \ ! : (IIIIJGN) lB ... -~ ~JrtDf!) -·"'<IQ/~-.... --- . f---- C66 ,_,_ .. ,_.- 'Ill I I 0 ,.. ·~" ... :~:~: : .i.. 11 '!I ' ~CD :::: ~~~~ 1 .... !(1•11 ~~~m ·~ !f~Z~~m : ei • ' ~~ .. • ~ I I I. :. ,, h I :u i . I I . li lt;t•l ~~ i1 ;t It I ta --··-I m ·l t i (IIIROB) ll-1 •JntJt~ ~ \ ···~· ;· · m·r~-1• I ~'l! •• ~,~;: I ••• tlli • '="~--·n :,~.i~~,l ~~ 1e , u ~ i i I I ·II -----\ \, \ ' . .. . , t! II li 51 li q i 1 1~~~ --~~~~ II ~· ~--L-----r( ~~ "~ <:J ... ------.. ... BIRD HABITAT VAWE WE'S'1tRN CfJIIRD(JII _____ ,_....._.~ -----------------... -~,__,....... V~Kf&'IICIII a• -• FJ.-~•....,"'*-E- ·------..... ~ ..... ~ ~ H11H MaoaATII ~ D LO~ IIIOODATI! .OLow· \ ' . \ I . \ \ I ' ' ~-(~"'-.,; \ ' ( \ Blm .HABITAT VALUE. HESICIIW et:JHRDOR ..._ fiiUiltDI ------..... .-ar.~ ------.-----------__ "'"",_ __ --DA-·11.1.-~·-tr.t- ------ 11;l;:;:;:d H!GM ~ HIIH MODUA'n ~. D LOW MODIRATE DLQW . ! f ~ ·1 ~ .. f , ......... I ' MAMMAL liABITAT VALUE I'I!ISISfN ~ ..,., l'flltn6ll __ c ___ ,_...,_-..n _ _,_ __ ... __ __ , ·-----~------a.-... '<~aT&,_"_.,.~. ....,_~Qao ltR. ~- !*I*!. - --· -~ ........ ~· ~MODIMft ~· DLOW I 1 I I I I \ I ' I '· It I ·[ __ ,; .> • ',_ -..d ........ ~····· MAMMAl., HABITAT VALUE WES11WN CtJiiRitXJR ~,.,., ___ .,,.l'l!fll-..--..n • ..,._ __ ____ ..,. __ --1 --------__ ,.. ___ _ F': - : !II! - w=~=~=~l IMtG ~loiaORATa ~ DLOW ( . . I .. - OVERALL HABITAT VALJJE!/SENSA'IVITY H£5'7E'IW CORRfl)()ff -------------------1 -----------;'!Dr-- ~QA-·1/1.1. .__.-.S>It.lf.C- -Ill .... • -.... llODUA'n Ill LOW UODUA'n DLOW .. ' I I I ' I I 1 ' . ' ·~. , .... ,-., \ •' \ OVERALL HABITAT VALUEI.SENSA1VrrY WSTERN CORRIDQR ,.,.., ,.,.. ------.-..---...., _____ _ -------........------'!"'-- ~.Q·-·1!./.~a-...tUIC- -Ill ... •• tMHMODIJIA'n Ill LOW MODIIIATI DLOW .. ... , ',~ -..t:t ·i1. ,-' .................. --- \ \ \ I \ ·~~ , .... ,-., \ ) \ f \ I \ I I OVERALL HABITAT • VALUE/8EN8fTMTV WESTERN ctJIWIID(Jif ..,.. ,.,.. -----,_....._ __ ...... :--~....::> -----------.---------·-JIDI!-....... _,._U-·IAI.- .._ ...... It.l!-/ I ,. ,,.l j :· / ... - -/ F'ii : 5 !*'e W;:;:;1;J ..... ~ . ._ MOHIIATE D &.OW MODDATII Oa.ow / : / b /,l ' ' / ,•' -· ... .. -· / •' •' I -J I""'" t':'--V I I • ~; . ' l I I I I I I I I I I I I i . I : I • OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY e:ASTE1lN Ct:JiiRD()R Nl1lff1all! flf/l1riDIII ---·-rr!!:ll-------------~ --------------....... ~.,._a•-•P..I. ~•_.,,at.r- ·---!"'± --. HIGH • IMH MODiiiAta D LOW MODUlATE DLOW • l '· ... '\,· ...... ..... , ·. ........ ~· . .... ::::\.-., -· ,. . . \ ... \ .. I ' I I I ~ ' ' \ .. .. , .. , I , I ', , OVERAU.. HABITAT VALUE1SENSnnYrrY EASTERN COIIRDOR ..,., --_____ 'I'«<I...,_Ma.tP.t ___ , ___ _ --~ -------------- ..-TATDII D.A -· 1'./.-.__._..,A.C- .. ----.- ~~:1:1:~:1:1:11 HIGH • ~ HHJH MODIJU,TE D LOW ~DIIIATE DLOW DRILL SITE 2 .·-·.--0 100 200 ~ 400 500 METERS J J V'latw Boundarlll fronu AIR POOTO TECH 'l'bpotrCIIIhle Map 1973 ~ Baundarlll ~· 191'9 Phototrapky, PMIO He. PUCHSH 7• IS' VtQetatkRts D.A. Walkr lt F.J. Wab/xw LandforiM a Sclts K.lf. E~t OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY [ Figure L-42 J L-86 DRILL SITE 3 --.--'· 0 100 200 300 400 ~00 METERS j J water a Cultural ISoundcrltt from~ Alft PHOTO TECH, 197'9 PhctOQraphJ Photo No. PUD-UN 7• 10 VtQitatlon: D. A. W6'*-' II P. J. W•biJH P.o:nclfortM a Sella: 1(. R. Er•r•ff · OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-87 I Figure L-43 I ·.'-_'' . .. --..· :. 0 100 200 300 400 DOO METEitS I I Wafer a Cvltwal eo..Mcrlu fronu Alft PHOTO TECH, 197'8 Photogrcp~ty Photo No.. PUO.UN eJ-11 Ve~etatfotu D. A. Wllllr a .P.J.W"'!/J/JN' Landforlftl a Solie: it. R. &.'•II OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY Figure L-44 L-88 0 .· .·-..-o'·· ~~ . - 100 200 300 400 500 MET EllUl ~- ~-· Watlr a Cultural ~~~~ ftetn, AI! PHOTO TECH, !97'S Pttot.-, Plloto flo. PUQ-UN 5-11 Vsa•t~tlcms D. A. Wtllhtr II .P..t.W•66M' LandforGM a Solie: K. R. &."111 OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-88 -__ ........... : ....... - 0 100 200 ~ 4100 ~ "'ETERS HIGH HIGH MOO ERA TE LOW MODERATE I I Wcrtw ~--frclnt AIR h"WTT TECH ~flilHc 11qD 1173 CWkrat ~ frnl: 1918 PMtOII'CIIIIl7, .... No. PUCH..Ift S•li Yellt'~n.a: D. A. WaAt!r iJ ~.!. W,._, L~fcnt! A Sallis K. ~ ~~ D LOW OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY Figure L-45 ···-~ .. -·-· ••• ·-J· 0 100 200 300 -400 500 METERS I I !Nattr SNtdaril8 fromt AIR PH0'\'0 TEeM ,.,..~ -r;-r~ ~~ EJuH!clrill fnlll el79 l'e'lo~oera~,,.... Me. PUCI-O'if 7•11 v.tatlon: D.A. ~"~ a ~J. ,.,.,. i..W.i~":t~ fl f'ooii11: K.lf. E'rlo.~! OVERALL HABITAT V ALUE/SENSITIViTV ( Figure L -46 I DRILL SITE 9 -·~ ~ • • 1'--~. • 0 MET'£RS t I wcner a eu~rora~ lklllldarln ftonn Am PHOTO TECH~ 19'N .,.,Pho....,fotr--apey Phdo No. PUD-UM 6•9 Vtqetailoni D. A. lVII_. ~ P. J. W~l~u LC!IIdfor~ !l ~li= K. R. 1:1<-.F•tl OVERALL HABITAT V ALUE/SENSI'Tl'lflvY L-91 I Figure ~-471 water a Cultural l«<ndarlea from: o 100 200 300 400 !500 Nit PHOTO TECH, 19'fS Pt.ofOIJltJpbJ J Phot!'J ~'(). PUG-UN M~T ERS r VcrgltatiOftt D. A. fltt/IW a P.J.W•H• N LandfGrN a Soli•: /(. R. ~,., I . · .. ~··· .·· OVERALL HABIT AT V ALUE/SENSIVITY [ Figure L -4=; I L-92 DRILL SITE 12 100 t 1 fP Water Boi.MariM frOM• AIR PHOTO TECH T~-.-D U., 8n Cilllnl 8auMiarill froiRa .?1 ,... .... , ........ ~o-uN l•li v.tata.' D.A. W•M11r • /!.! • .,.....,. L•t•• a 8oiP If.~ EW!I'tlll OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY [ Figure L-49 4ZLE L-93 1 ·0 100 wa cg 200 300 ~ ~ M~TEftS J I Wattr Boundartn frcwm AIR PHO'fO TECH 1bfagrapHc Ya, 1973 Cutt:.I'G 8aultdarf• front& 1119 ~~ fliMec No. J:UG-UN •·14 Vr'Jitcrt~t D. A. !JY11,_, l!f I! t1. w•w Lmdfonna a S!JIIus K.lf! Er!WWt OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY Figure L-50 L-94 .· DRILL SITE 14 --· --~,~·_,.. 0 100 200 ·300 400 500 METERS ~ I Water a CuUurat Boundarln fl'«ftt AIR PHOTO TECH 1 1979 Photo;fCIIjJhJ Photo No. PUQ-UN 8• le Ve;etatiCIU D. A. Wlllfil' ~ P. J. Wob/JN' Landforn a Sol&l: K. R. E-Hr•lf OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY Fig, ~ L-51 L-95 ,.-\,·---......... 0 100 200 3CG 400 ,00 METERS J I "t'r~ .· .. -. .Kf.4-.-. ~---. - ~--.. :417' WdW a CultiWal louMiarln fnm~ -PHOTO TECH I 1911 PhotographJ Photo No. PUo-UN fSol7 V~getatl~: D. A. W•IUI' & P.J.W•b!J., Lc:ndforl'ftl a SoJII: !f. R. Ewr•lf OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY I Figure L-52 I L-96 lSZ 6,6 · ..................... ~; 0 100 1C0 MO -t08 100 IIITERI t ~ --• Cult... ..... ... f~l Ail POfOTO TECH • lll'tt ,.._,., PMte Ne. PUC>oUII 7•8 Vat•tetS.a A A....... II IU.w.M• L_,f.,lll a lallls ft. II. ,.,_, OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-97 [ Figun. L-sa] 0 100 200 400 ,00 METERS I I Water a Cuttwal lulclariH frown AIR PHOTO TECH, 19.,_ PMt.-aphJ Photo No. PUo-uN 8•1Q Vlttia~!OIU D. A. W.lftflr • P. J. W•Het' L.andforN a SoCia: K. R. &N•II OVERALL HABITAT V ALUE/SEf'JSITIVITY I Figure L -54 I L-98 DRILL SITE 18 .. , .......... .,. 0 100 200 300 400 ~00 MET EftS Wotlr S Cultwo! 8aundt. IIi frOIIU Mt PHOTO TECH, 1919 i»hotographlf Photo No. PUQ-UN 5"15 Vc;etatlotu D. A. W11/tw • P.J.W•jfiB Landfor!"JC & SoliS: If. R. ~T•If OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-99 I Figure L -55 I . • t . ': ·: ---. ~ ._: 0 100 100 1D0 400 COO MITEIII ! j Wfilr a Cultwal ~erln tro.: AIR PHOTO TECH 1 •tw PMfQI!apllr Ptlot• N•. IIUO-UN I• 21 Vqat~tloiu 0. A.,...., • 'f,J.WM~j., Letlfe:m a ltillla 11.11 • ...,.,., OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY Figure L-56 L-100 PAD B 0 ;,ETEIIJI WCIIW ao..dariM frOMt AIR PHOT9 TECH T .. lll'a:lib -.S QirUII _...,... tn.a ll1lt Pita......,,,.... ... PUCMJN , ... YtllfatiM' D.A. w • .., • I!J. WtJIJMr ......... ~ K.At c...,, OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-101 I Figure L-5~ ] PAD D METER I , Wat• Bo&.MoriM frOMt AIR PHOTO TECH TC11K4f .... -1171 CYUa} lautl~to frcNitz .?8 PM'~, PM!» No. PUCHJN I• 22 YeptotiiR: D.A. Wt11/tr • /!tl. W.., Lllllf•• • Sells I(. II. £,.,.,1 OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY Figure L-68 L-102 PAD F . ·· .. ~~ .. _. .· 0 100 zoo 300 400 500 METERS water a Cultwal Boundar!.. from\ Alft PHOTO TECH, 19.,.. PllotaQraphJ Ptloto No. PUo-uN s•a VIQttattOIU D. A. Wti/Hr IJ P.J.W•b!Jr Landforlftl a Solll: 1(, R. ~'•If OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY [ Figure L-59 I L-103 PAD H 0 METE~ I Wtn' BoulldariH frOMI ~PHOTO TECH Tcfatr .. tlll-1173 CIAni ....... ,_! 11?1 ,.__._,, PM!8 ill. PUG-Uie 8•24 \IIIM•t•s D.A. W•• • lltl...,.. ~ ..... 11.11. ~~ OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-104 0 ~-··--·--· 100 200 300 400 000 METERS ~ 1 Watw a Cu!'!wal Bculdarltl from~ AIR PHOTO TECH, 197'9 Photographf Photo No. PUD-UN 7• 27 Vt;ttatlon1 D. A, Wt1/kr lJ P. .1. W•!J!JN Land forma a Solll: If. R. Ev;:,~•ll . OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-105 I Figure L-61 I METER I . Wtll• BouiMiariiG fr•a .taR PHOTO TECH ,_.,._ .... -lin Cl&tfinl ........ fnMJ 111'1 ,_,..,_,, PW!e No. PUo-utt 8• 28 Vllltetllas D.A. W•.., • lftl. II.., Lall..,_ a lalla K..C Etllftll OVERALL HABIT AT VALUE/SENSiTIVITY I Figure L-62 ] L-106 PAD Q wafW Bouftclarlle frOMI AMI PHOTO TECH 1;,•••• Mitt lin M!ETERI CUIIInl ---m.a •a ,......,.-,, ......... PUG-UN 7•14 \lllltOtlaa& IJ.A. ,,., • /!tl. 1/.., L_f __ A loiet If.~ E~l OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY [ Figure L -63 I L-107 -... ~'-...... --. · .. 0 100 200 300 400 ~00 METERS J I WGter a ~'til laundarl• tro.' Alt".PHOTO TECH, .. .,. ,...., Pltoto Ne. PUo-uH T• 2e VeoatcatltMU D. A. Wtllftr It I! .1. W•M• LandforiN a SGlll: K. R. ~,., OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY I Figure L -64 ] L-108 0 . -.. -: 100 200 300 400 500 METERS J I Water a Cultural BQildarltt from: AIR PHOTO TECH , 1979 PhotGCJraphy · Photo No. PUo-UN 7•29 Veg1tatlon: o. A. Walklir ~ P.J.W•bb•r Land forma 6 Solla: K. R. Ev#T•II OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY I Figure l-65 ] L-109 X ; ...• <fl ·~ • .,· 0 100 200 300 400 500 METERS t J Water a Cultvrcil Soundarln from: AIR PHOTO TECH 1 1971 Photogr_., Photo No. PUo-UN 9•19 Ve;etatlon: D. A. Wt4/hr ~ P.J.Wf.lb!JN Landforlftl a Solie: K. H. E~T•fl OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-110 I Figure L -66 ] 0 400 500 . ~ ;· '··· ............. ~ .. :. water a Cultwel llcu!tdarln fr0111, AIR PHOTO TECH 1 ltt?'l Pholotrapltf Ptloto N... PUo-tJN e• 2S Vqetat10111 D. A. W.!ftr • P.ti.W•H• LCIMforN a Sollll: If. ll. EWr•tt OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY Figure L-67 l-111 WF I · .. ··~· . .;. ---·~ 0 100 zoo 300 400 500 METERS HIGH HIGH MODER A T.E LOW MODERATE J I W8t8r a Cult1nl 11..-llllel twAs Nit GIHOTO TECH 1 151. PMIII'...,..J Pltoto He. PUO-UN .... v .. et.tl•u D. A • ...,. • ltJ.,.,.., LIMforN 8 Ieiiia lt. II. ~~~ D LOW OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY I Figure L -68 ] 0 .·· .. - 100 200 . 300 ~ ~ METERS J j Watlr Bolmdarltl frolnt AIR PHOTO .'TECH lbttolra¢11e Malt 1973 C&Mwol Baunclart• fvoml 1979 Phototra,hy, Pltll8 No. PUOoUN 8-17 VltlfatiOIII D.A. Walllr a P.J. Wew Landfor• a &IIIII /(.If. &w.tl OVERALL HABITAT V.ALUE/SENSITIVITY L-113 I Figure L -69 I 100 200 ~ METER I Watlr Boun6ari11 fr011n AIR FHOTO 1'ECH TopoorapNc MaJt 1873 Cullurat Ballr.idnriee frotPu • te?r PMtoor_,, fiMQo No. PUCHJN 8• 25 Yellfatloll: D.A. Wt1*' • l!tl. W__, L..afor• a &Iii' K./1. C~t OVERALL HAB!T AT VALUE/SENSITIVITY . Figure L-70 L-114 0 IIETEI':I ~· -I water 8cM.ftdarlll ftOMI AIR PHOTO TECH TQPOtr_., -1W3 c::utknil Bcutdartll m.: •11 PMtoerCIIIIrl, PMie No.. PUG-UN 1'>20 -Ylpt•t._s D.A. W6., • P.J. U.., '--If._ a Solll K./1. EMWI OVERALL HABITAT VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-115 L Figure L-71 I NORTHERN GRAVEL SITE ·.-·:: .. 0 100 200 ~ 40~ 000 METERS Water a Cult\i'al Bculdarl11 from~ AIR PHOTO TECH , 1979 Pho10Qfapi\J Photo No. PUO.UN 8•18 VIQ1tat1ons D. A. Wt1/W ~ P.J.W•!Jbu Land forma a Sol&l: K. R. Enr•lf OVERALL HABITAT V ALUE/SENSITIV!TY L-ll6 I Figure L-72 I 0 SOUTHERN GRAVEL . SITE .. ··. --· .. _",. .~: ... 100 200 ~ .ao 500 METERS / I vtatw Boundarln from: AIR PHOTO TECH lbpotraphlc Malt 1973 Cultwal Baundarlee from: 1119 Phototra,llJ, IIMto No. PUo-UN 7• 17 v.tatlon: D.A. Wolftr II P..J. Wew Landfor• a Soli: K.lt. EM'tlft OVERALL HABITAT. VALUE/SENSITIVITY L-117 [ Figure L-73 I REFERENCES Alexandrova, V.D. 1970. The vegetation of the tundra zones in the USSR and data about its pro~uctivity. In: W.A. Fuller and P.G· .. Kevan., (Eds.) Productivity and conservation in northern circumpolar lands. Internat. Union Conserv. Natur., Morges, Switzerland, Pub. 16:93-114 .. . Bergman, R.D., R.L. Howard, K .. F. Abraham, and M.W. Weller, 1977. Water birds and their wetland resources in relation to oil development at Storkersen Point, Alaska. u.s. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlif.e Service, Resource Publication 129. 38 pp. Bliss~ l.CG (ed.), 1977. Truelove Lowland, Devon Island, Canada: a high arctic ecosystem. Univ. Alberta Press, Edmonton; 714 pp. Cameron, R~, 1980. Personal communication with John Morsell, Dames & Moore. Everett, K.R., 1975. Soi 1 and 1 andfonn associ at ions at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska: a soils map of the Tundra Biome Area. In: J. Brown (ed.): Ecological investigations of the tundra biome in the Prudhoe Bay. region, Alaska. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Special Report, No. 2; pp. 53-59.· Everett, K.R., P .. J. Webber, D.A. Walker, R.J .. Parkinson and J. Brown, 1978. A geoecological mapping scheme for Alaska coastal tundra. Third Internat. Conference on Pennafrost, Edomonton, Alberta, 10-13 July, 1978; pp. 359-365. Komarkova, V. and P.J. Webber, 1980. Two low arctic vegetation maps along the Meade River at Atkasook, Alaska. Arctic and Alpine Research 12:(in press). u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 1979. Alaska North Slope wetlands study, unpublished. Walker, D.A., K.R. Everett, P.J. Webber, and J. Brown, in press. Geobotanical atlas of the Prudhoe Bay, Alaska r~gion. CRREL Report. Walker, D.A., 1980. Haul Road mapping program. In: Webber, P.J., Vegetation mapping and response to disturbance in Northern Alaska. Progress report to u.s. Army CRRELL Contract No. DAC A89-79-C 0006. (Unpubl. Manusc.). Webber, P.Je, 1974. Tundra primary productivity. In: J.D. Ives and R.Ge Barry (Eds.), Arctic and alpine environments. London, Methuen, pp. 445-473. Webber, PoJ., 1979. SpatiaT and temporal variation of the vegetation and its productivity, Barrow, Alaska. In: L.L. Tieszen (Ed.), The ecology of primary producer organisms in Alaskan arctic tundra. ~pringer-Verlag, Inc., New York, pp. 37-112. L-118 Webber, PeJ. and Walker, D.A., 1975. Vegetation and landscape analysis at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska: A vegetation map of the Tundra Biome study area. In: J. Brown (ed.), Ecological investigati"ons of the tundra biome in the Prudhoe Bay region, Alaska; Biological papers of the U~iyersity of Alaska, Special Report No. 2; pp. 81~91. White, R.G.,-B.R. Thomson, T. Skogland, S.J. Person, D.E. Russel, D.F. Holleman, and J~R. Luick, .1975. Ecology of caribou at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. In: Brown~ J. (Ed.), Ecological investigations of the tundra biome in the Prudhoe Bay region, Alaska. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Special Report No. 2, pp. 151-201. L-119 APPENDIX M THE RELATIONSHIP OF INCREMENTAL OIL FROM THE PRUDHOE BAY FIELD TO THE U.S. ENERGY BALANCE 1.0 INTRODUCTION Without the proposed 1984 waterflood start-up, the Prudhoe Bay field will begin to decline in early 1986.. Given the existing OCS lease schedule, USGS resource estimates for Alaska, and 7 - 9 years lead- time, new Alaska supplies are unlikely to be found, developed, and supplied in large quantity to the Lower 48 before the early 1990's. Consequently, the timing of waterflood facilitates smooth transition to new Alaska supply sourceso Figure M-1 depicts an estimate of the d·ecli·ne of the Prudhoe Bay field with and without the planned 1984 start-up of water injection (Helton 1980). Table M-1 translates the decline curves into their . annual production flows. From these estimates, the incr.emental Prudhoe production attributed to waterflood is calculated on an annual, daily, and cumulative bas·is. Almost 1.2.billion bbl would be captured by waterflood. The· incremental production differences are highest {320,000 -366,000 bbl/d) for the years 198S -1990, when prospects for s·ignificant supplies from new Alaska discoveries are low. Petroleum development scena~ios (Dames & Moore 1977, 1978, 1979a 9 b, c, d) for five of the six earliest scheduled Alaska OCS sales --Beaufort {1979), second Gulf of Alaska (1980), Kodiak {1980), lower Cook Inlet {1981) and Norton Sound (1982) --indicate that the time from lease sale to potential production ranges between 7 - 9 years. Large production levels may not occur for 10 -12 years. Hence, ·significant new supplies of Alaska oil will not become available until after 1990. M-1 I .-... i I 10 4 8 cw I -% .. . § CD I ... a.· § -I 2 .:. 0 i: .. Cit -~ • I I % :I .., a· . z -"':J Clll· !: c: ca ft: -~ • /·/ c Q. 't .. .... I fA • ca 0 :E -5 .. II ., 0 q. \ ~ : ca .... iii\· % ca· Cit· -/I 2 .... .. I 0 &Ia . ; • ... t I a: * 116 ... c ell ~ ... I ·c:l ·i • 0 . :::. g .... l i .... ·~ t I -. i II: .. \ . •• • .... • "· . . . . . 1_1 L t_ I L l ' I • a 0 a I 0 a • - . PBlf Waterflooci Environmentai Impact Statement Figure M-1 .TABLE t'l-1 EFFECT OF WATERFLOOD ON SADLEROCHIT PRODUCTION With ~lith out Waterflood Waterflood Incremental Production -~~ Million Million Million Thousand Year Barrels/Year Barrels/Year Barrels/Year Barrels/Day 1986 547.5 . 529 .. 6 17 .. 9 49.0 87 547.5 462.3 85 .. 2 233.4 88 524.8 401 ~0 1~""..;.8 339.2 89 441.7 308.0 133.7 366.3 90 353.4 236.5 116.9 320.3 91 282.7 181.6 1.01 01 277.0 92 226.1 . 141 .1 85.0 232.9 93 181.0 160.9 70.1 192.1 94, 144.7 87.2 57.5 157.5 95 113.5 68.5 45.0 123.3 96 91.7 53.9 37.8 103.6 97 79.1 42.3 36.8 100.8 98 68.2 33.3 34.9 95.6 99 58.8 26.2 32.6 89.3 2000 50.8 20<.6 30.2 82.7 1 43.8 16 .. 2 27.6 75.6 2 37.7 --37.7 103.3 3 32.5 32.5 89.0 4 28.0 28.0 76.7 5 24.2 24.2 66.3 6 19.7 --19.7 54.0 2007 17.0 ...... 17.0 46.6 Cumu1 ative Incremental Production 1195.2 Based on Helton Engineering Co. estimates of decline, February, 1980. M-3 2.0 WORLD OIL SUPPLY AND DEMAND 2.1 OPEC The supply of oil is finite; however, oi·l shortages are more likely to depend on political considerations than 'on physical resource limitations in the near future. Political considerations within Middle East oil producing countries suggest that although proved rt1serves would allow higher production, OPEC oil during the 1980's probably will not ·be produced at maximum rates simply to meet demand. Tab 1 e M-2 revea 1 s that OPEC • s share of the non-communist world oi 1 production was over 61 percent ·in 1978. Various economists project that oil will constitute· nearly 48 percent of the non-communist world's 1990 energy consumption. To the extent· that oil supplies are politically curtailed, alternate sources or new technologies will have to be substituted faster than projected, or consumers will have to institute more conservation measures, or do without. The top half of Tab1e M-3 shows a consensus non-communist world oil demand forecast. According to Thiel (1979), most estimates put western world oil demand near 66 million bbl/d. by 1990--up from 52 million bb'l/d in 1978. This represents a 2 percent annual growth rate in consumption. ·rhie1 8 s consensus forecast shows considerably more upward risk (80 million bbl/d) than downward sensitivity {60 million bbl/d). The bottom half of Table M-3 depicts Thiel's estimate of western world oil supplies to 1990. Thiel estimates OPEC's upper production limit in 1990 will be 40.7 million bbl/d, resulting in a supply to the western world from all sou~ces of nearly 70 million bbl/d. The lower limit is under 60 million bbl/d if OPEC produces no more than 30 million bbl/d. Thiel, as well as other observers, predicts serious wor·l d oi 1 price instability and. supply disruption in the late 1980 1 s if non-OPEC demand for OPEC oil approaches 40 million bbl/d. Some believe OPEC production will never exceed 35 million bbl/d. M-4 TABLE M-2 NON-C0~1MUNIST WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: 1978 (Million Bbl/D) Total OECD 1 14.2 of which, u.s. 10.3 Total OPEC 3tJ.3 of which, Saudi Arabia 8.5 of which, Iran 5.2 Total other countries 5.1 of which, Mexico 1.3 . Total non-communist 47.0 1organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Source: u.s. Energy Information Agency Percent 28Q>6 61 .1 10.3 100.0 TABLE M-3 NON-COMMUNIST WORLD OIL DEMAND (Mil"Hon Bbl/D) Actual Forecast 1978 1980 1985 1990 Low 51.9 52 57 60 Probable 51.9 54 60 66 High 51.9 58 69 80 NON-COMMUNIST WORLD OIL SUPPLY (Million Bbl/D) 1978 1980 1985 1990 Non-OPEC LDC 5.1 6.8 9.3 11 .t OECD!t Excl U.,S .. 3.9 5.5 6o3 7.5 u.s. -10.3 9.1 10.0 9e8 Subtotal, Production 19.3 21.4 25.6 . 28.5 Sino-Soviet Imports 1.8 1.0 0.5 --Process Gain 0 .. 5 .5 .6 .6 Free World Supply, -- Excl OPEC 21.6 22.9 26.7 29.1 OPEC Production: Lower Limit 30.3 26.4 -29.8 -29 .. 7 - Upper Limit 35.2 39.4 40.7 -- Total Supply: Lower Limit 51 .. 9 49.3 -56.5 -58 .. 8 - Upper Limit 58.1 66.1 . 69.8 NOTE: Upper and lower limits of OPEC production are defined by conservative physical production limitations on the top side and estimated foreign exchange requirements on the bottom side. Source: Michael F. Thiel (1979). M-6 WORLD OIL PRODUCTION FORECASTS Table M-4 shows several crude oil production forecasts. The range in these forecasts after 1985 is generally explained by various company and agency assumptions about OPEC production. Most industry ·analysts expect OPEC production to remain about 30 million bbl/d at least through 1985 (Anonymous 19i9a). Thereafter, British Petroleum believes economic incentives to exporting countries will be reduced because incremental production would only increase the OPEC nations• financial assets held in foreign banks and would not benefit their domestic economic growth. Furthermore, if inflation continues, oil could earn more in the ground than as a financial asset in foreign banks. The British Petroleum forecast is also pessimistic about the remaining world ·production capacity. It assumes significant new supplies in areas other than OPEC will not be brought into production and believes non-communist world production capacity will peak by 1985 at the latest. The Ene\,.gy Information Admi ni strati on ( EIA) forecast is the most optimistic. Its high case calls for OPEC production to be 39 million bbl/d by 1990. EIA 1 s pessimistic case calls for OPEC production of 32 million bbl/d in 1990. Exxon•s forecast, the second highest, was made before the current Middle East turmoil; it estimates OPEC production of 38 million bbl/d by 1990. Standard Oil of California forecasts a production peak by 1990 and plateau to the end of the century; its forecast calls for OPEC to produce 37 million bbl/d by 1990. A CIA forecast (CIA 1979), not shown on Table M-4, contends that the potential oil shortage in the western world will be compounded by Soviet Bloc production capacity limitations. The Soviet production problem is regarded by analysts as a technological constraint. Russia•s oil production industry is heavily dependent on u.s. oil field tools and tech~ology. If the u.s. policy, announced in January 1980, limiting exports of American technology to Russia in retaliation for the Soviet invasion of Afganistan continues, Russia is not expected TABLE M-4 NON-COMMUNIST WORLD CRUDE PRODUCTION FORECASTS 1 ( Mi 11 ion Bb 1/D) . Forecast Description 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 British Pe-troleum -OPEC At Max -OPEC No Inc. Standard of Indiana -Base Case -Pessimistic ----64 55 53.8 59.1 52.5 55 .. 1 62 52 ---- Standard of Californja -1990 Plateau 53.0 58 60.5 60 Shell -Optimistic -Pessimistic Exxon -1978-Year-End ---- 54 -- 66 .. 5 57 68 Energy Information -Optimistic Administration (EIA) -Pessimistic --59 55 76 67 Michael F. Thiel -- -Upper OPEC Political Limit 56.6 65.0 69.8 -95% OPEC Limit 54.8 63.0 67.2 -Lowest OPEC 47.8 55.4 58.8 Production 85 69 1For consistency between forecasts NGL is excluded. NGL equals about an additional 5 percent. SOURCES: Anonymous (1979b,c). Popcock (1979). Thiel (1979). M-8 52 43 60 70.3 63.0 to meet its 1980 1 s production goals. The CIA predicts that t~e Sino-Soviets will change from a net exporter to the western world of . , 1.8 million bbl/d in 1978 to a net importer of 700,000 bbl/d by 1982. In view of the tenuous western world oil supply/demand balance extant in 1979 and-forecasted to continue, a 2.5 million bbl/d shift in Sino-Soviet supply patterns could be disruptive not only to the supply balance and to the real price of oil, but also to political conditions (Anonymous 1979a). 3.0 UNITED STATES OIL SITUATION DEMAND Oil will remain the predominant fuel in the u.s. at least through 1990 although its share of total energy consumed will d~cline. The 1990's will be a trans·ition period to alternate ·energy sources.. Methods wi 11 be sought to produce new energy resources on a 1 arge sea 1 e and integrate their use into the exi~ting distri·bution network in an economic and environmentally·compatible way. Shell, Exxon and Chevron forecast 1990 u.s. energy demand to range from 47.6 million bbl/d oil equivalent (O.E.) to 49.9 million bbl/d O.E. They further agree that crude oil will account for 20 -21 million bbl/d of this total. The 1978 u.s. crude oil demand was 19.2 million bbl/d of a total of 38 million bbl/d O.E. for u.s. energy consumption. Underlying the Shell, Exxon, and Chevron forecasts to 1990 are real GNP growth rates between 3.0 -3.5 percent. The 1978 -1990 u.s. oil consumption growth rate is forecast to range between 0.35 percent (to 20 million bbl/d) and ·0.75 percent (to 21 million bbl/d). Total u.s. energy use growth is expected to fall within 2.0 -2.25 percent between 1978 and 1990. Consequently, the rat:io of total energy use to real GNP, shown on Figure M-2 to be declining since the early 1970's, is projected to continue its decline as the u.s. replaces inefficient energy technology and other conservation measu1··es take hold. to meet its 1980's production goals. The CIA predicts that t~e Sino-Soviets wi 11 change from a net exporter to the western world of . . 1.8 million bbl/d in 1978 to a net importer of 700,000 bbl/d by 19:82. In view of the tenuous western world oil supply/demand balance extant in 1979 and-forecasted to continue, a 2.5 million bbl/d shift in Sino-Soviet supply patterns could be disruptive not only to the supply balance and to the real price of oil, but also to political conditions (Anonymous 1979a). 3.0 UNITED STATES OIL SITUATION DEMAND Oil will remain the predominant fuel in the u.s. at least through 1990 although its share of total energy consumed will d~cline. The 1990's will be a transition period to alternate ·energy sources. Methods wi 11 be sought to produce new energy resources on a 1 arge sea 1 e and integrate their use into the exi~ting distrtbution network in an economic and environmentc:lly.compatible way. Shell, Exxon and Chevron forecast 1990 u.s. energy demand to range frow 47.6 million bbl/d oil equivalent (O.E.) to 49.9 million bbl/d O.E. They further agree that crude oi 1 wi 11 account for 20 -21 mi 11 ion bbl/d of this total. The 1978 u.s. crude oil demand was 19.2 million bbl/d of a total of 38 million bbl/d O.E. for u.s. energy consumption. Undet .. l yi ng the She 11 , Exxon, and Chevron forecasts to 1990 are rea 1 GNP growth rates between 3.0 -3.5 percent~ The 1978 -1990 u.s. oil consumption growth rate is forecast to range between 0.35 percent (to 20 million bbl/d) and ·0.75 percent {to 21 million bbl/d). Total u.s. energy use growth is expected to fall within 2.0 -2.25 percent between 1978 and 1990. Consequently, the ratio of total energy use to real GNP, shown on Figure M-2 to be declining since the early 1970's, is projected to continue its decline as the u.s. replaces inefficient energy technology and other conservation measures take hold. • ... .!!· 0 'a .085 ___ _, ______ -r-----. :~eo~~----~~--~~~~~--~ • .... .. 0 • c: • A ! .a5t,s-----------t~.__.-~ ... •· -• -~ 1880 1H5 1870 1175 1980 Sourer.-Data Aeaaurc..,. ina.. Forecae Novembw .. 19-7&.. THE FtA-nd OF TOTAL ENERGY DEMAND· TO REAL GNP .. ~Bli Waterflood Environmentai Impact ~~tateinent M-10 Fegure· M-2 While absolute oil requirements are forecast to grow slightly to 1990, oil's relative share is expected to decline from 50 percent in 1978 to about 42 percent in 1990. The growth rate in oil use compared either to forecasted· growth rate in GNP during this period, or historical u.s. oil consumption growth rates from 1960 -1973 (4.4 percent annually), reflects a radical change in u.s. oil consuming patterns. THE ALASKA LINK TO DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION While u,s. oil consumption growth rates will drop significantly, the fact·remains that domestically produced oil consumed in the 1990's must be developed during the 1980 1 s to meet the projected demand.. The u.s. is current~y producing at a rate of approximately 3.75 billion bbl/yr. Proved reserves as of January 1, 1979, amounted to 27.8 billion bbl -- a sufficient inventory to last only 7 .. 5 years, through mid-year 1986 at current production rates. Thus, to hold domestic production-at current levels for another 7.5 years beyond mid-year 1986, additional reserves, at least equal to total current proved reserves, mu~t be found and developed during this period. Most forecasts of domestic oil production for the coming decade predict domestic production at about present levels. Production of crude and NGL in 1978 was 1 0 .3 mi 11 ion bb 1 I d. A number of forecasts (She 11 , ARCO, Chevron) peg a production range of 8.5 -10 million bbl/d in 1990. Gulf estimates 8, 10 and 12 million bbl/d as the minimum, probable, and maximum domestic 1 eve 1 s. domestic production at~ 7 million b~l/d, and probable at 7e5 million bbl/d. Exxon estimates 1990 minimum maximum at 9 million bbl/d, Alaska represents the largest potential source of new crude oil supplies within the u.s. Table M-5 illustrates the range in industry estimates for additional discoveries onshore and offshore Alaska by 1990o Domestic oil production from Lower 48 and Cook Inlet proved reserves are declining. Neither Shell nor Chevron expect new dis- covt:l"'ies to off-set this decline. While Shell and Chevron differ ~M-11 Shell 1978 Actual 1980 1990 Chevron 1978 Actual 1980 1990 TABLE ·M-5 DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION . . (Million Bbl/0) Lower 48 and South Alaska 9.2 :r .9 5.8 9.2 8.4 7.0 Arctic Alaska 1 .1 1 .6 3.0 1.1 1.6 1.8 Sources: Anonymous (1979d) California Energy Commission (1979) ·M-12 Sync rude 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 Total 1G.3 9.5 9.3 10.3 10 .. 0 9.3 in their view of the relative shares of 1990 Lower 48 and Alaska production, they agree that they expect 1990 production to be 1 million bbl/d lower than 1978, including 500,000-bbl/d of syncrude. By 1990, production from Prudhoe Bay will be declining, producing just over: 1 million bbl/d (with waterflood} including new production from Kuparuk. Shell's forecast assumes that incremental production from new discoveries in arctic Alaska will nearly triple the Prudhoe Bay production rate by 1990. Chevron is more conservative and assumes production only sufficient to maintain the trans-Alaska pipeline near its maximum design rate. {Shell does not specify an assumption about transportation of crude from a ret ic Alaska in excess of pipe- line capacity.) Delays in beginning exploration and development of potential offshore (Beaufort Sea) reserves reduce the 1 ikei ihood of realizing these predictions and could resul~ in production rates below pipeline capacity in the early 1990's. IMPORTS In view of the expected u.s. demand for oil in the 20 -21 million bbl/d range and domestic production --including production from yet undiscovered resources on the North Slope of Alaska --in the 8.5 -10 million bbl/d range, imports will have to amount to 10 -12.5 million bbl/d by 1990. The U.S., as well as much of the rest of the world, will remain dependent on oil from the politically unstable Middle East until sometime in the next century when alternative technologies and sources of energy are developed. Minor import supply disruptions will continue to have economic disruptions. To the extent that U.S. energy policies can stimulate domestic production above the 8.5-10 million bb1/d expected 1990 level or reduce expected 1990 demand for oil below the forecasted 20 -21 million bbl/d, the u.s. will become less vulnerable to unpredictable disruptions. ' :M-13 • REFERENCES Anonymous, 1979a. CIA: global oil supply outlook poor. Oil and Gas Journal, September 3, 1979, Po 50-51. Anonymous, 1979b.. . EIA optimistic on crude su pp 1 y, out 1 ook. Oi 1 and Gas Journal, September 10~ 1979, p. 102-103G Anonymous, 1979c. Oil in the eighties; tight supply, soaring capital outlays. Oil and Gas Journal, November 12, 1979, p. 163-169. Anonymous, 1979d. u.s. petroleum industry will face monumental task in next decade. Oil and Gas Journal, Novembe·r 12, 1979, p. 170-184. California Energy Commission, 1979. Fuel price and supply projections: 1980-2000. November, 1979. CIA, 1979. The world oil market in the years aheado August, 1979. Dames & Moore, Peat Marwick & Mitchell, CCC/HOK, URSA, 1977. Beaufort Sea basin petroleum development scenarios for the federal outer continental· shelf, interim report. Alaska OCS Socioeonomic .Studies Program~ Tech. Report No. 3. Bureau of Land Management, A 1 ask a OCS Office. Dames & Moore, 1978. Beaufort Sea petroleum development scenarios for the state-federal and federal outer continental shelf. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Technical Report No. 6. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Office. Dames & Moore, ·1979a. Northern Gulf of Alaska petroleum development scenarios. Alaska OCS Socioeconomics Studies Program, Technical Report No. 29. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Office. Dames & Moore, 1979b. l~estern Gulf of Alaska petroleum development scenarios. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Technical Report No. 35. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Office~ Dames & Moore, 1979c~ Lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait petroleum development scenarios. Alaska OCS Spcioeconomic Studies Program, Technical Report No. 43. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Office. Dames & f~oore, 1979d. development scenarios. Technical Report No. 49. Norton Basin OCS lease sale No·. 57 petroleum Alaska OCS Socioeco·nomic Studies Program, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Office. Helton Engineering and Geological Consultants, 1980. Prudhoe Bay wateri~:lood project reservoir engineering. Report prepared for Dames & Moore. Popock, c.c., 1979. Prospects for oil and gas: a look ahead to year 2000. World Oil, October, 1979, p. 107-111. Thiel, M.F., 1979. World oil and OPEC: the razor•s edge. World Oil, October, 1979, po 123-133. M-14 APPENDIX N · ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COORDINATION April 14~ 1980 Colonel Lee R: Nunn District Engineer UNIT.ED STATES DEPARTMENT 0~ COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NationaL MaPine Fisheries Service P. 0. Box 1668 Juneau~ AZaska 99802 Alaska Districts Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: This responds to you~ letter of January 17s 1980, in which you requested formal consultation under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act regarding the proposal by the SOHIO Petroleum Company and the Atlantic Richfield Company to construct the Prudhoe Bay Unit Waterflood Project. You stated that the Waterflood Project consisting of multiple component parts, including a causeway extension, construction of intake facilities, and the ultimate operation of these facilities could have the potential to impact the bowhead whale. Bowhead whales.could occur in and adjacent to the project area during the period between late August-October, they migrate northward in the. spring_ from Bering Sea wintering grounds. Most breeding and calving occur-prior ·to early April while the animals are in the Beri.ng Sea, although such reproductive activities have occasionally been reported during the spring and even in the summe~. During April-June, the whales move northward through leads in the pack ice and then eastward towards Banks Island and the Amundsen Gulf area, dispersing throughout the Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf north of the limit of heavy pack ice. The fall migration (late August-October) passes naarshore between the pack ice and the north coast of Alaska and Canada. Bowheads depart the Beaufort Sea during September and Octobers moving into the Chukchi and Bering Seas. In general, they occur in the proposed project area probably no sooner than August and probably no later than the end of October, de- pending upon ice conditions, although they may occur r>arely in the project area during spring and.summer. Inasmuch as bowhead whales are not apt to occupy the area in the vicinity of the proposed project, and because the 12 foot water depth in which the waterflood intake will be placed effectively precludes their presence at anytime~ it is our opinion that the proposed activity is not likely to jeopardize the endangered bowhead whale or its habitat.· Further Section 1 consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not required in this case. N-l:. -2- Other topics associated with the proposed acti.vity will be addressed in our Fish and Wildlife Coprdination Act review of the necessary Pub~ic Notices. Sincerely, -~~fe#17 Harry L. Rietze Directors Alaska Region IN REPLY REFER TO: (SE) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT O_F THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276·3800 -· 1 r r·.r 4n] l4liio ~ JJ.::.;. Jt; 9 Colonel Lee R. Nunn, District Engineer Alaska District Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 70Q2 - Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: Tnis responds to your 23 November, 1979, request for a list of threatened or endangered species which might be affected by the construction and operation of the Prudhoe Bay Unit Waterflood (PBUW) project. ·• Based on the best information currently available to us, no listed or proposed 'threatened or endangered species are present that would be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, preparation of a biological assessment as identified in Section 7(c) of the End~gered Species Act of 1973, ·as amendedjl is unnecessary and further consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning endangered species and the PBUW project. is not presently required. Please note, however, that this determination regards only those threatened or endangered species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibil;ty. New information indicating the presence of currently listed threatened or endangered species administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the listing of new speci~s which might be affected by the proposed project will. require reinitiation of the consultation pl:'ocess. We appreciate your concern for endangered wildlife. Please contact us if you have questions or.if we can be of further assistance. /7SincereJ.y '/) 'C!Tl·t~ · Area Director ... -..... December 13,_ 1979 Colonel Lee R. Nunn District tngineer . U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnletratlan NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ·p .' 0. BOX 1668 -JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801 Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: We have received your request for information on endangered species which may be affected by the proposed Prudhoe Bay Unit Waterflood Project. According to information presented by the applicant at a November 15, 1979 meeting in the Federal Building in Anchorage, the diagram presented on the location map included with your request is no longer valid. Apparently.the preferred plan now consists of a direct water intake system 1ocated at the end of a gravel causeway which will extend approximately 4,500 feet beyond the existing west dock·. · · · The species of primary concern in the vicinity of the proposed project is the bowhead whale. Although gray whales are known to occur in the Beaufort Sea~ it is unlikely they would be found in the area of concern. Bowhead whale studies have been ongoing in. the Beaufort Sea for-several years .. The following information provides a brief overview of available knowledge of the bowhead whale: Bowhead whales of the western Arctic ocean occur seasonally from the central Bering Sea northward throughout t~e Chukchi and eastern Siberian Seas and eastward throughout the u.s. Beaufort Sea to Banks Island a~d Amundsen Gulf, Northwest Territories, Canada. Bowheads are thought t~ winter in the northern and central B~ring Sea, timing their northward migration with the breakup of· the pack ice:. generally in April. The migration proceeds through the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea to Point Barrow. From Point Barrow the whales travel northeasterly in the Beaufort Sea through lead~ to Banks Island, Canada and Amundsen Gu·l f. e In August and September~ bowh~ads begin to leave ·the eastern Beaufort Sea on their fall migration back to the Bering Sea. The whales travel west through the southern Beaufort Sea to Point Ba1 .. row. During J:his migration, the whales. are hunted by Alaskan Eskimos from the villages of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow. Suspected migration routes are shown in Figure 1 •. N-4 Sightings made since 1974 indicate that bowheads occur in shallow coastal waters all the way out to the ice pack (beyond the 100m ~ontour), although their exact spatial distribution is not known. Nearshore areas in the western Beaufort Sea appear to be important t~-the bowhead since there have been numerous sightings in shall ow water from Smith· Bay to Point Barrow. (See F-igure 2.) The current population estimate of bowhead whales in the western Arctic is 2,264, with a range of 1,783 to 2,865. This estimate is the result of th.ree years of counting conducted by NMFS biologists. Key biological parameters (e.g., recruitment, morta~ity, and age structure) controlling the population of bowhead whales. are virtually unknown. Bowheads begin reaching sexual maturity· after attaining lengths exceeding 38 feet. Recent information obtained from harvested. whales indicates that sexual maturity may not be r:eached in some whales until those animals have attained a length ~f 45-50 feet. The breeding period of the bowhead .; s not well known. · Some researchers maintain that breeding occurs in early April before the whales reach Point Hope, whereas other researchers have reported witnessing copulatory behav1or in May near Point Hope and near Barrow. Gestation is estimated to last about 1 year, .and the calving season correspoPds with the ti~e of breeding. Observations of cows with calves passing Point Hope and Point Barrow from mid- April to mid-June suggest that most bowheads are probably born in the spring, either before (February -March) or during (April - June) migration. One researcher· classified the bowhead as a bottom skimmer in terms of its feeding habits, although it is probable that it feeds throughout the water column~ Although a comprehensive food habits. study has not been conducted, avail able data indicate that pelagic arthropods (euphausiids, mysids, copepods~ and amphipods) are the preferred food organisms, and that annelids, molluscs, and echinoderms are utilized to·a lesser degree. Stomach contents of a whale taken by Point Hope Eskimos during a spring migration incruded the remains of polychaetes, molluscs, crustaceansD and echinoderms, whereas stomach contents of two whales taken at Point Barrow in the fall of 1977 contained {by volume) 90.3% euphausiids and 9.6% amphipodso Researchers report whales moving past the NMFS ice camps in the spring at a rate of 1.0-4.0 knots depending on the direction of the current. During the spring migration, whales do not travel in close association with one another. Of 2,406 bowhead observations record~d during 1976-1978, 1,815 (75.4%) were singles, 470 (19.5%) were in pairs, 10~ {4.4%} were in groups of three, and 16 {0.7%) were in groups of four. During the fall migration, __ bowheads may -~ravel_ ~n larger _gro~:~ps •.. N-5 Bowheads• reaction to noise appears varied. A bowhead will leave the area when an outboard motor approaches. However, reaction to airplane-s flying ove·rhead seems mixedrt the whales reacting vigorously in some instances and showing little reaction in other instancesa It appears that fright reaction to noise vari~s greatly~ depending upon the source, environmental conditions, and activity of the animals. Bowhead-s are known to occur near Prudhoe Bay. Since 1974, 53 fall sightings have been made totaling approximately 323 animals for the entire Beaufort Sea. These sightings are the result of aerial surveys conducted mostly west of 150° W longitude. Although fewer animals were observed east of 150° W long'itude, the paucity of sightings is thought to be directly proportional to the effort expended (i.e., less extensive aerial surveys). Numerous sightings have been made in nearshore shallow waters between Point Barrow and Smith B.ay during the past 5 years; . suggesting that this is an area of importance tp bowheads. The whales appeared to be involved 'in feeding activity at the time of these sightings •. It is not pO$Sible at this time to determine whether the western portion of the Beaufort Sea is more critical to the bowh~ad than the eastern portion. Limited surveys east of 150° W longitude have not established heavily utilized areas in the eastern Be~ufort S~a~ although it is certainly possible that these areas exist.. · We: appreciate· the opportunity to comment on this project at this time. Please let me know if we can be of fu~ther assistance. Sincerely, J~~ ..J~Harry L. Ri etze f-Director, Alaska Region Attachments N-6 ARCTIC OCEAN SIBERIA ALASKA PACIFIC OCEAN .• SUSPECTED AUGRATION ROUTES PROPOSED MIGRATION PATTERN OF THE BOWHEAD WHALE, BALAENA MYSTICETUS . . IN THE BERING SEA AND THE ARCTIC OCEAN. NORTHERLY ui~ECTED ARROWS ·DEPICT T-HE MARCH TO JUNE MIGRATION AND SOUTHERLY DIRECTED ARROWS DEPICT .THE SEPTEMBER TO DECEMBER MIGRATION. SHADED AREAS ARE VJHERE DATA ARE AVAILABLE FROM HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS OR FROM RECENT SJGHTINGS • . Figure 1 N-7 SOURCE: 1c-u- Braham, Krogman. & Carroll Unpub11shed~mapuscript· 162' .. ·~, • BEAUFORT SEA ·. . . . .. .· Figure 2 .. -Bowhead whale siqhtings (.)in the Beaufort Sea, August throu,.,h Nove~er,. 1974•1978, mnda clurinCJ ~~~lFS nerinl survoya I and. from pontributinq sc:ientists I Only oightings w.i. th a vcrifie'l position aQta were ~sed •. Most oigbtings occurred in tho last b~1f of Sept~~er. ~ha dashed line·roprosonts the 12 m contou~o · . 111: ' . ... , . Appendix 0 Permit No.: Application No.: AK-002984-0 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq; the 11 ACt 11 ), ARCO Oil and Gas Company ( A division of Atlantic Richfield Company) and SOHIO Petroleum Company (A Division of SOHIO Natural Re•sources Company) is authori~~ed to discharge from a facility located at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska to receiving waters named The Beaufort Sea in accordance with discharge point(s}, ef)71uent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth herein. This p1ermit shall become effective on The pel'·mi t and the authorization to discharge sha 11 expire at midnight, fi've years fror.r the effective date. Signed this day of Director, Enforcement Division 0-1 A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1. During the period.beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date the pe;rmittee is authorized to discharge filter backwash, strainer backwash, traveling screen spraywater and untreated seawater from outfall number 001. a. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as follows: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS Month 1 y Jl.verage Daily Maximum Under Ice Open ~Jater Under Ice Open t~ater ' Flow 17,10om 3/day 18,90om3/day 18,900m3/day 94,70om3/day , ( 4. 5 mgd) (5.0 mgd) (5.0 mgd) (25.0 mgd) Total Suspended Solids 1,880kg/day {4,130lbs/day) 10,300kg/day (22,700lbs/day) 2,090kg/day {4,5901bs/day) 69,400kg/day (153 ,0001 bs/day) Volatile Suspended Solids N/A N/A N/A N/A Settleable Solids 5 ml/1 5 ~1/1 20 ml/1 20 m1/1 Chlorine Residual N/A N/A O.lmg/1 O.lmg/1 Ammonia (NH3-N) N/A N/A 1.5 mg/1 1.5 mg/1 pH No less than 6.0 standard units and no greater than 9.0 standard units Temperature· (°C) No greater than 2.0°C above ambient conditions n~? Page Permit No.: AK-002984-0 ' MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Measurement Frequency Sample · Type Continuous Recording Weekly 24Hr Composite Neekly 24Hr Composite Weekly Gra~--during backwash cycle Continuous Recording Monthly · 24Ur Composite Continuous Recording. Continuous Recort.Jing Page of Pe~mit No.: AK-002984-0 b. A single effluent sample shall be taken for analysis of the 65 priority pollutants d~signated pursuant to Section 307 (a)(l) of the Clean Water Acta This sample shall be taken during a backwash cycle at a time estimated to represent a maximum annual discharge during open water conditions. c. There shall be no discharge of floating solids, visible foam in other than trace amounts or oily wastes which produce a sheen on the surface of the receiving water. d. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring require- ments above shall be downstream of all discharge processes. e. In addition to the above effluent monitoring requirements the daily frequency of backwash cycles shall be recorded and reported on the monthly Discharge Monitoring Report. f. All sanitary wastes shall be transported and disposed of at on shore treatment systems. 2. During the period beginning on the effective date and lasting through the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge fish and other marine life sluiced with untreated seawater from travelling screens through outfall number 002. a~ A semi-annual monitoring program (representative. of both under ice and open water conditions) shall be established in order to ob- tain an estimate of the mortality rate and abnormalties in behavior of various life stages of marine species returned through the outfall. The permittee shall submit details of a proposed monitoring program to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation wi.thin six months following pennit issuance • . 3o During the period beginning with the commencement of waterflood treatment plant operations and lasting through the expiration date of the pef\mit, the pernrittee shall monitor the influent as specified below: INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS Flow m3/day(mgd) . Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/1) Temperature (Oc) MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Measurement Frequency. Continuous Weekly Weekly Continuous Sample Type Recording 24Hr Composite 24Hr Composite Recording influent samples shall be taken at approximately the same time during the same day as effluent samples. 0-3 B. RECEIVING WATER MONITORING PROGR~M 1. -Mixing Zone Page of P •t I'll erm1 nO.: AK-002984-0 An outfall diffuser system shall be utilized for the dispersal of the discharge into the Beaufort Sea. A mixing zone is provided below, the boundaries of which shall be monitored for determining compliance with the State of Alaska Water Quality Standards (lSAAC 70.020}. a. The sides of the mixing zone shall be no more than 1,000 feet from the diffuser center line. b. The ends of the mixing zone shall be no more than 1,000 feet from each end of the diffuser system. 2. Receiving \~a ter Mon·i tori ng The permittee shall implement the following receiving water and biological monitoring program. The emphasis of the program is on mon- itoring for subtle changes in water quality and sediment quality, sub- lethal responses of resident biota to waste water discharges, and to sample intensively at selected representative stations to provide a ri·gorous statistical basis for analysis of the .data. The following program encompasses studies that are considered necessary to objectively evaluate existing environmental conditions and any chronic effects of proposed effluent discharges on water quality and biota. This program shall be implemented no later than three (3) months following the effective date of this permit and w~ll be reviewed semi- annually. The permittee shall submit semi'-annual and yearly progress reports on the studies to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Pouch 0, Juneau, and the Environmental Protection Agency, Alaska Operations Office, and Director Enforcement Division. Semi-annual and annual reports shall be made available to other agencies upon request. The first semi- annual report shall be due on and semi-annually thereafter through A final summary report, including all data and conclusions contained by that time, shall be submitted on __ ~~~-- This repo.rt shall include a synthesis of data and a discussion and inter- pretation of major findings and also principal investigator reconunendations for further studi~s should any such studies be necessary. 0-4 Page of Permit No.: AK-002984-0 a. Subti da 1 Benthos ~toni tori ng Program ( 1 } Di s ~;..;..,r...;.i..;;.bu..;;.t.;...i;..;o...;.;n..:., ....;A...;.;b;..;u~n...;.d..;;.a n;.;.;c;;;.;;e;......;;;a..;;.n d.;;....;B....;i...;.o.;.;.;m..;;.as;...;s;...._;;;S...;.t..;;.ud.;...i....;e;..;;_s _ The subtidal benthos infauna program shali consist of annual grab or diver sampling at each of the following stations: Station 5, 12, 33 and 48 of the Woodward Clyde grid and single additional stations at both th~ western boundary of the mixing zone and one adjacent to the diffuser. E·ight replicate grabs per station shall be taken. Proposed methods for analysis of the data, including statistical treatments, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, at least two (2) months prior to initiating the field program. Temperature and salinity of the bottom water and percent or- ganic (volatile solids) composition of sediments shall be monitored concur- rently with this program. A benthic epifauna sampling program shall also be initiated emphasizing the distribution and abundance of ~lysia relicta and Onisimus/ Gammarus at stations identi-cal to the infauna programo Methods shall in- clude the replicate drop-net sampling protocol employed under the OCSEAP program in Simpson Lagoon. Proposed sampling frequency and methods for analysis of the data9 including statistical treatments, shalfbe submit- ted to and approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, at least two (2) months prior to initiating the field program. (2) Biological Studies of Individual Soecies· Astarte borealis and Ampharete vega shall be individuallY monitored for purposes of detailing Tmportant biolog~cal events, including, but not limited to: a) seasonal and annual growth, b) reproductive biology (histological examination of reproductive stages) and c) mortality. Should population densities of these species ba insufficient for monitoring purposes, liocyma fluctuosa ·is recommended as an alternate species. Sam- pling intervals shall include at least the winter and summer seasons. Sam- pling data reduction and measuring methodology shall be cpnsistent with techniques applied under the OCSEAP effort. • . In addition to the study of selected biological events of individual species as described above, the permitte~ shall provide a measure of the overall biological condition of Astarte borealis and Liocyrna fluctuosa using statistical methodologies consistent with published accounts 0-5 Page of Permit No.: AK-002984-0 on this index of health. These accounts generally spec·ify the following ratios for calculating the index, either of which are acceptable in re- porting results: or . (Reference: Stekoli, Clement and.Shaw. 1978. Sublethal effects of chronic oil exposure on the intertidal clam Nlacoma balthica. Un1vers1ty of Alaska. IMS) {Reference: Anderson, J.W. 1978. Condition index and free amino acid level of Protothaca stamir~ea exposed to 011 conta~inated sediment. Battelle Northwest Laboratories, Sequim, Washington.) Astarte and Liocvma shall be collected from the station along the western side boundary of. the mixing zone {see .aolo). Establishment of suitable control site{s) away from this area to assess gradients in condition factor as a function of distance from the diffuser is a critical requirement of this study. Sampling frequency at all sites shall be at.least semi-annually in conjunction with the elements in a.l. ·Temperature, salinity and percent organic composition of the sedi- ment shall.be monitored coincident-with sampling~ b. Total Residual Chlorine and All!!lonia (1) Seg~ment concentrations of total ·resident chlorine and ammonia (NH3-N} shall be monitored twice per year during summer and winter seasons at subtidal stations identified in a. above; and from a minimum of·four (4) total sites located equidistant from one another around the perimeter of the mixing zone. A fifth sample shall be taken near the diffuser and inside the side boundaries of the defined mixing zone. (2} Total residual chlorine and ammonia {NH3-~) levels shall be monitored twice per year in the soft tissues of Astarte borealis, l.\mpharete vega and Saduria entomoJl. Sample sites shall include each of those stations· listed in both a. and b. above. A sufficient number of 0-6 Pag~ of Permit No.: AK-002984-0 organisms shall be analyzed to provide a statistically defensible basis for comparing means. (3) Total residual chlorine and ammonia concentrations shall be determined in bottom water samples collected at stations listed in a. and b(1) above concurrent with the taking of sect.iment and tissue samples. · · c. Total Suspended and Volatile Solids r1onitoring Total suspended and volatile solids levels shall be determined at midwater depths at four (4) stations spaced equidistant from one another along the perimeter of the boundaries of the mixing zone. Sampling fre- quency shall be at 'least four times du~ing the open water period and once during the winter period. Amhient concentrations shall be established from sites located sufficiently upcurrent or upwind of the defined mixing zone to be considered outside the .zone of influence~ Ambient samples shall be taken at the same time as samjlles from stations along the mixing zone per- imeter. 3. ~ioassay Monitoring If appropriate methodology is developed which is mutually acceptable to EPA and AOEC in which to perform bioassay monitoring to determin~ acute toxicity levels of toxic pollutants from the expected effluent discharge, EPA may initiate a permit modification for review to establish a bioassaJ monitoring program to determine these levels. C. MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. Representative Sampl!~ Samples and measurements taken as required shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. The permittee shall take samples and measurements to meet the monitoring requirements specified. Samples shall be taken in the effluent stream before its discharge to the receiving water, at the specific locations identified in Part A of this penni t. · 2. Reporting Effluent and influent monitoring results shall be surmnarized each month on a Discharge ~1onitoring Report form {DMR: EPA No. 3320-1 ). Thes.e reports shall be submitted monthly and are to be postmarked by the four~ teenth day of the following month. Signed copies of these, and all other reports herein, .shall be submitted to the Director, Enforcement Division and the State agency at i:he following addresses: 0-7 Page of Permit No.A AK-002984-0 1) United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Attn: \4ater Compliance Section M/S 513 · 2) United States Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Operations Office 701 C Street, Box 19 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 3) Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Northern Regional Off~ce Box 1601 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 4) Alaska Departmant of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811 3. Additional Monitoring by Permittee . If the permittee monitors any effluent parameter identified in this permit more frequently than required, the results of such mon .... itoring shall be included in the DMR. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated. 4. Definitions a. · The 11 monthly average .. !) other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the arithmetic mean of samples collected during a calendar month. The monthly average for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of samples collected during a calendar month. b. The 11 dai1y maximum" discharge means the maximum allowable discharge in any calendar day .. c. "Bypass" means the intentional diver·sion of wastes from any portion of a treatment facility. d. "Severe property damage".means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which would cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Se- vere proper·ty damage does not mea.n economic: 1 oss caused by de 1 ays in pro.;, duct ion. 0-8 Page Permit ~o.: AK-002984-0 e. 11 Upset 11 means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused-by operational error. improperly designed treatment facilities, ·lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. f. mgd = million gallons per day g. m3/day = cubic meters per day h. mg/1 = milligrams per liter i. ml/1 =milliliters per liter 5. Test Procedures Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to 40 C.F.R. Part 136, which contains a list of approved methods. 6. Recording of Results f'or each me-asur·ement or samp 1 e taken pursuant to the require- ments of this permit, the permittee shall record the following information: a.. the exact place, date, and time of sampling and measurements; b. the dates the analyses were performed; c. the person(s) who performed the analyses~ ~ampling or measurements; d. the analytical techniques or methods used; and e. the results of all required analyses. 0-9 Page of · Fenni t No .. : 7. Records Retention All records and infonmation resulting from the monitoring activities required by this pe~it including all records of analyses performed, cal ibratii·ln and maintenance ·of instrumentation, and record- ings from continuous 1~nitoring instrumentation shall be retained for· a minimum of three (3) years, or longer if requested by the Director, Enforcement Division or the State water pollution control agency. 8. Noncomp 1 i.a.nc~ J: iport i ng a. Ncnecmpliance notification will bl! miJcl(o! whP.n any of the following situations -occur: - C.S., below). (i) Bypassing of any treatment facilities (Part· . (ii) Facility upset (Part 0.6., below). (iii) Failure of facility (Part 0.7., bP.low). (iv) Other instances not covered by above. b. Noncompliance notification shall consist of at least the following: (i) A description. of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; (ii) the period of noncompliance to include exact ~ates and times and/or the anticipated time when the discharge wi 11 aga·Sn be in compliance; and . · (iii) steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of t~e noncomplying discharge. c. Timing of report shall be consistent with the following: (i) Permittee shall report telephonically within 24-hours from the time of becoming aware of any violation of a daily maximum. A written submission shall be provided within five (5) days of becoming aware of the noncompliance. (ii) Permittee shall provide a written report of any violations of the monthly average. This report shall conform to a. and be above and be submitted concurrently with the Discharge Monitoring Report as a separate reporte 0-10 PREliMINARY DRAFT D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Reopene~ Clause Page of Permit No.: If any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified· in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant and that standard or prohibiti.on is more stringent than any l)mitation upon such pollutant in the permit, the Director shall institute proceedings under these regulations to modify or revoke and reissue the permit to conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition. 2. Modification The permit may be modified, terminated, or revoked during its term for cause as described in 40 C.FaR 122.31. Any permittee who knows or has reason to believe that any activity has occurred or will occur·which would constitute cause for modification or revocation and reissuance under 40 C.F.R. 122.31 must report its plans, or such information to the Director. 3. Right of Entry The permittee shall allow the Director or an authorized representati~e, upon the presentation of credentials and such other documents as may be required by law, . a. to enter upon the permittee's premises where a point source is located or where any records must be kept under the terms and conditions of the permit; b. to have access to·and copy at reasonable times·any records that must be kept under the terms and conditions of the permit; c. to inspect at reasonable times any monitoring equipment or method required in the permit; d. to inspect at reasonable times any collection, treatment, pollution management, or discharge facilities required under the permit;" and e. to sample at reasonable times any discharge of pollutants. 0-11 . 4. Operation and M;!intenance Page of Permit No .. : The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate as effieiertt1y as possible all facilities and systems (and re 1 ated appurtenances) for co 11 ecti on and treatment which are installed or used by the permittee for water pollution control and abatement to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes but is not limited to effective performance based on designed f.aeility removals. adequate funding; effective management, adequate operator staffing· and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls including appropriate quality assurance procedures. 5. Bypass a. Bypass is prohibited unless all of the following four (4.) conditions are met: (i) Bypass is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, p·ersonal injury or severe property damage; (ii) there are no feasible alternatives to bypass~ such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment. down-time; . . . (iii) permittee makes notification in accordance with Part C.S.b. and c.; and {iv) · where the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, prior notification shall be submitted for approval to the Director, if possible at least 10 days in advance·. The bypass may be a11owed urJder conditions determined to be necessary by the Director to minimize any adverse effects. The public shall be notified and given an opportunity to cotmtent on bypass incidents of significant duration, to the extent feasible. b. Prohibition of Bypass The Director may prohibit bypass in consideration of the adverse effect of the proposed bypass or where the proposed bypass does not meet the conditions set forth in Part 0.5. a., a.bove. 6. Upsets a. Effect of an Upset An upset shall constitute an affirmative defense t~ an action brought for noncompliance with such technology-based permit effluent limit~tions if the requirements of paraganaph b. below are me.t. 0-12 PRELIMINARY DRAfT Page of Permit No.: b. Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset The permittee t11ho wishes to establish the affinnative defens~ of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: (i) An upset occurred and that the permittee· can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset; {ii) the permitted facility was at the t·i~ ~eing operated in a prudent and workman-like manner and in compliance with proper operation and maintenance. procedures; · . (iii) the permfttee submitted i!'iformation required in Part C.B.b. and c. c. B-urden of Proof In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset shall have the burden of proof. 1. Failure of the Facility The permittee, in order to maintain compliance with its permit, shall control production and all discharges upon reduction, · loss~ or failure of the treatment facility until the facility i~ restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies in t~e situation where, among other things, the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost, or fails. . The permittee shall report such instances in accordance with Part C.S.b. and c. above. a. M_vers e Impact The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact to waters of the United States resulting. fl,.om noncompliance with the permit. 9o Removed Substances Collected screenin~s, grit, sludges, and other solids removed in· the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a f!lanner such as to prevent entry of those wastes or runoff from such materials into navigable waters unless otherwise authorized in this permit. 0-13 PRELIMiNARY. DRAfT 10. Transferability ~ Permnts Page of Permit. No.: This permit may be transferred _to another person by the penni t·tee if: · a. The permittee notifies the Director of the-proposed transfer; b. a written agreement containing a specific date fer trinsfer of per:mit responsibility and coverage between t~e cur~ent and new permittees (including acknowledgement that the existing permittee Js liable for ,riolations up to that date, and that the new permrtttee fs liable far violations from that date on) is submitted to the Director; and c. the Director within 30 days does not notify the current permittee and the new permittee af his or hm--intent to modify, revoke· and reissue, or terminate the permit and tc require that a new .application .be filed rather than agreeing to ·the transfer of the permit. 0-14 E. RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Availability of Reports Page of Permit No.: Except for data determined to be confidential under section 308 of the·Act~ all reports prepared in accordance-with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the Director, Enforcement Division. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making a false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in section 309 of the Act • . 2o Civil and Criminal liability Except as provided ·fn permit conditions on nsypassn (Part 0.5.) and •upset" (Part 0.6.) and "Failure of Facilitya (Part o. 7.), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil or crim1nal penalties for noncompliance. 3. Oi-·1 and Hazardous Substance L iabili~ Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieva the permittee from any responsib-ilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee. is or may be subject under section 311 of the Act. 4. State Laws Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State·law or regulation.under authority preserved by section 510 of the Act. 5. Property Rights The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or a~y invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. 6. Severability The p~ovisions of this permit are severable~ and if any provision of this pennit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid., the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the rt~ainder of this permit shall not be affected thereby. 0-15 APPENDIX P PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) OF AIR QUALITY . The Federal Clean Air Act requires review and approval of the construc- tion or modification of major sources of air pollution to assure that the air quality in areas attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards is not deteriorated beyond allowable limits for all pollutants regulated by EPA as a result of increased emissions from such new or modified facilities. Before an application to construct a major stationary source can be approved, it· must be demonstrated that the expected emissions of all applicable pollutants above the minimum level established by the Clean Air Act will not exceed the following: 1. Emission limits achievable by the application of best avail- able control technology (BACT). 2. N~tional Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 3o In the case of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, allowable air qua~ity increments. Prior to making a final determination o~ the application EPA is required to release for public review. its preliminary determination of approva- bility.. EPA has conducted a technical analysis of the application and has m~de a preliminary determination on the project. These two documents, together with the infonnation· submitted by the applicant are available for public inspection at the following locations: EPA, Region 10 Regional Library, 11th Floor 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 EPA, Alaska Operations Office 701 C Street Fedeull Building, Room E535 hnchorage, Alaska 99513 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 3220 Hospital Drive Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Fairbanks~North Star Borough Regional Library 1215 Cowles Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Z-J Loussac Library 427 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 P-1 -Interested persons are invited to submit for EPA•s consideration written comments concerning the proposed project appr,oval. To be most effective, commen·ts should address air quality considerations and include support materials where available. Comments should be submitted to-the Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 10~ 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Attention: Mr. Michael Johnston, M/S 521; or presented at the public hearingo This public hearing will be held in conjunction with the Corps of·Engineers• public hearing at .Barrow, Alaskao P-2