HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal enviromental impact statement lower cook inlet shelikof strait 1981s
..,
o-nZ
cnl> r-
""V m ::::az O< ., -o::::a
(1)0
mZ
c3:
m oz
-~ r-)>
QOr-
cn3: l>.,
(I))>
,-n
m-4
l>cn (I)~
m)>
cn-4
)>m
r-3: mm
en
:I:
m r--::::-::::
0
-n
,.,..
z
-4
r-
0
:E m ::c
n
0
0
Final Environmental pact Statement
LOWER C.OO INLET ·
SHELIKOF STRAIT
Alaska Outer Conti ental Shelf Office
Proposed Oil a d Gas Lease
Sal 60
~
.. ~. ~--:;;---
4 .. ------••
·~ ... ---"'-~ ..... -._ . -----.=.~ ....... ~ --_ ... _;,..-
I · .. '··
I 'i. , . ;. '
,·t.;,'\~.',~.1\."·'" \ r .,... .
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
P~POSED OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
~ OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE
LOWER COOK INLET/SHELIKOF STRAIT
Prepared by the
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Acting 4/~~ Director, BUreU of Land Management
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
( ) Draft
Proposed Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Lease Sale
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
SUDDary Sheet
(X) Final
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Office,
P.O. Box 1159, Anchorage, Alaska 99510.
1. Type of Action: Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof
Strait.
(X) Administrative ( ) Legislative
2. Description of the Action: A total of 349917 hectares of OCS lands are
proposed for leasing action. The 153 blocks which may be leased are located
in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait and are 5 to 37 kilometers (3 to 23
mi) offshore in water depths that range from 15 to 210 meters (49 to 689 ft).
If implemented, this sale is tentatively scheduled to be held in September 1981.
3. Environmental Impacts: The probability of an oilspill impacting significant
ecological resources is considered in the impact analysis and is based ori an
oilspill risk model (USGS, 1980). Given an estimated amount of resource, and
incorporating historic spill data, the model simulates the trajectories of
oilspills from hypothesized spill points. It must be emphasized that the
trajectories simulated by the model represent only hypothetical pathways of
oil slicks and do not involve any direct consideration of cleanup, dispersion,
or weathering processes which would determine the quantity or quality of oil
that could eventually come in contact with sections of coastline or specific
resources. Assuming the 5-percent probability that commercially recoverable
amounts of oil/gas are discovered in the proposed sale area, and that production
occurs, there is a 98-percent probability that at least four 1,000-barrel oil-
spills could occur during the estimated 26-year life of the field (USGS, 1980).
Viewed in this respect, all blocks in the proposed sale area pose some degree
of pollution risk to the environment. The potential effects of a large
(1,000 bbl) oilspill are discussed below and in greater detail in section IV
of this EIS. Chronic oilspills and spills smaller than 1,000 barrels would
likely occur during the life of the project and could result in adverse effects
on the environment and other resource uses. Onshore development would result
in socioeconomic impacts which could have State, regional, and/or local
implications.
Potential impacts have been analyzed with the view that all pertinent laws of
the United States would be in effect and would act to shape and/or mitigate
impacts. Several block deletion alternatives and mitigating measures may be
applied which could reduce the occurrence and extent of adverse impacts asso-
ciated with this proposal. Other measures, which are not the responsibility
of the Department of the Interior, have been identified. Despite mitigating
measures, some impacts are considered unavoidable. For instance, it is a
i
possibility that oilspills could occur, some disturbance to fishery and wildlife
resources could occur, and some onshore development could occur in undeveloped
areas.
A summary of probable impacts resulting from the proposed action follows:
Assuming the 5-percent probability that oil and gas are discovered in economi-
cally recoverable amounts and, assuming that an oilspill occurs, the spill
would have a 94-percent chance of reaching coastal habitats within 10 days
after the spill. The probability of a spill reaching coastal habitats is high
because the proposed sale area is relatively close to the shoreline. Although
species would be variously affected, intertidal dwelling species, such as
razor clams, could be destroyed outright or tainted for a period of up to 1
year.
Groundfish, halibut, and other populations of demersal fish species in the
Shelikof Strait area may be reduced by the effects of oilspills by some
unquantifiable amount during the life of the proposal. This is especially
true of halibut, a species widely distributed within the strait and whose
larvae are subject to pollution risk for 6 months of the year. Salmon generally
are the most vulnerable of the commercial species to pollution events due to
their dependence on inshore areas. Pink salmon populations are more susceptible
to the effects of pollution than other salmon species. A pollution event
could adversely affect a year class or more of fry, as well as a year class or
more of adults. Pink salmon populations that use the streams on the west side
of Kodiak Island, particularly between Uganik Bay and Malina Bay, and those
that spawn in Kamishak Bay, would be more adversely affected from an oilspill
event than elsewhere in'the area. Salmon using western Kodiak streams could
lose an entire year class, an effect that could last for 5 years or more.
The Uganik Bay to Malina Bay area of Kodiak Island and other sections of the
Shelikof Strait pose high risk from a pollution event to crab, shrimp, and
other shellfish. Impacts to such species would likely be local, but could be
long term. The egg and larval forms of crab species are most susceptible to
the effects of pollution events, although the cumulative effects of increased
oil and gas production and transportation could directly affect adult crab
populations to an unknown extent through contamination or reduction of food
sources. This could also be true of shrimp-and other shellfish, especially in
the Shelikof Strait area. Potential oilspills pose a high risk to shrimp
populations on the west side of Kodiak Island and in the larval drift area off
Kachemak Bay.
The proposed sale would have little or no affect on the Kodiak, Homer, Port
Lions, Seldovia, and Kenai commercial fisheries as a whole. Fisheries impacts
that may occur from chronic and catastrophic oilspill events are expected to
be localized. Multiple-use conflicts between oil and gas activity and com-
mercial fishing should be localized, of relatively short duration, and subject
to remedial action.
Marine and coastal birds and their habitats could be severely impacted by an
oilspill event, especially in the Shelikof Strait area. Major impacts (25-75%
mortality of a bird species population) from spill incidents could occur in
locations such as the Barren Islands, Shelikof Strait, Kupreanof Strait, and
Whale Passage. This risk is especially high in the proposed Talnik Point
ii
(Whale Pass) tanker te~inal area. Some vulnerable bird species indicated in
the impact discussion could take as long as 50 years to recover from a single
SO percent mortality event.
Among marine mammals, sea otter populations would likely sustain direct mortality
as a result of oilspills, particularly the relatively dense populations of the
northern Kodiak Archipelago. Harbor seals, particularly those of Kamishak Bay
and the Shuyak-Afognak Islands, would likely be subjected to indirect effects
through reduced habitat quality and/or food resources, but would be less
likely than sea otters to sustain direct mortality. Major sea lion concentra-
tions of the Barren Islands and Shelikof Strait would likely sustain indirect
and, possibly, direct effects from oilspill incidents. Sea lions could lose
from 1 to 2 years of productivity depending on the time of year a spill occurred.
The siting of tanker facilities on eastern Kodiak Island would increase the
risk of adverse effects on marine mammals of the Marmot Bay area and on marine
mammal habitats of Portlock Bank, a major feeding area for sea lions, fur
seals, and cetaceans.
It is possible that gray, fin, humpback, and possibly sei whales, endangered
species which frequent nearshore habitats of the northern Kodiak Archipelago
and Shelikof Strait, could be affected directly or indirectly if an oilspill
occurred in these areas. Construction of tanker facilities on eastern Kodiak
•Island may lead to localized disturbance of cetaceans, and, as a result of
tanker traffic, could pose oilspill risks to important offshore feeding
areas, such as Portlock Bank.
The impacts from oil and gas production and transport on primary and secondary
species (and associated habitat) harvested for subsistence purposes within
village subsistence-use areas cannot be quantified at this time, but are
assessed at a high probability of risk from oilspill incidents. The proposal
would subject the subsistence of the Kodiak Island villages.along Shelikof
Strait to a higher potential risk from an oilspill than for those villages
elsewhere in the proposed lease sale area. But, the cumulative effects of the
proposal in relation to other oil and gas activities in the vicinity places
the subsistence for the villages of English Bay and Port Graham at a risk
approximating those of Kodiak Island villages. Port Lions and Ouzinkie would
be additionally subject to the effects, undete~inable at this time, of chronic
discharges and tankering incidents resulting from an oil te~inal facility at
Talnik Point. The same may be true of Homer near the possible Anchor Point
environs terminal facility. The direct and indirect consequences at the
village level of a major oilspill incident damaging locally-used subsistence
resources and/or habitats could include restricted local hunting or fishing,
for a duration consistent with the damage incurred; social and cultural stress
associated with the shortage of customary and traditional resources in the
places they are usually found; increased cost in time and money to replace
lost resources, assuming local transportation means were suitable for using an
extended harvest range; and problems of food distribution and local storage
should crisis-oriented replacement programs be initiated.
Sociocultural systems impacts could be expected in Kodiak, Port Lions, and
Homer with differing effects. The potential for confrontation would exist in
Kodiak basically between fisheries-oriented residents and activities and newer
oil-related residents and activities. Conflict could be intensified by a
significant oilspill incident. Impacts on sociocultural systems of Port Lions
iii
also could be significant, including the addition of a substantial new subpopu-
lation to the town, temporary degradation of the town environment during
construction activities, and temporary reduction in the quality of life asso-
ciated with these changes. In Homer, the potential for major oil and gas
onshore facilities nearby would likely increase debate over the direction of
community growth and character and could result in controversy similar to that
experienced in Homer earlier over lease sale Cl.
Port Lions could anticipate major population, employment, and economic stimuli
if an oil storage and tanker terminal facility were sited there. Being a
small community with an expected slow (3%) annual rate of growth, the oper-
ations of an oil terminal facility and related functions could almost double
the number of jobs available over the next two decades. Likewise, the Homer
area would probably experience similar, though less extensive, effects if an
oil terminal were to be located in the vicinity of Anchor Point. Homer is
expected to be impacted less from OCS activities than from other sources of
economic stimulus, which are expected to produce an employment growth rate of
5.2 percent annually during the next decade. This rate of growth in employment
would increase to 6.5 percent with the lease sale. Elsewhere, the lease sale
would be expected to produce only marginal increments in employment growth in
the Kenai, Kodiak, and Anchorage areas and little or no economic stimulus to
the villages on the Kenai Peninsula or Kodiak Island.
Significant impacts could be expected to all modes of transportation serving
Port Lions. A major expansion of the Port Lions airfield, possibly including
extension of the runway into Kizhuyak Bay, would be required for the facility
to function as a forward air support base to OCS operations in Shelikof Strait.
Air traffic volume would increase dramatically, especially during the develop-
ment phase, as would ground traffic in and around Port Lions. An additional
21 kilometers (15 mi) of roadway would be required to connect the airfield
with the oil storage and marine tanker terminal near. Talnik Point, as well as
to service the onshore pipeline system. The operations near Talnik Point
would produce the primary marine transportation impacts, in the short run,
through summer barge traffic of rock and construction materials to the site.
This would temporarily interfere with fishing in Kizhuyak Bay. The impact of
tanker traffic (approximately 5 vessels per month) to and from an oil facility
near Talnik Point, could produce the long-term impact of reducing the availa-
bility of nearby fishing grounds over the life of the facility. The navigational
uncertainties of Whale Passage suggest it would be unlikely that a marine
service and supply base would be constructed at Port Lions. Thus, there would
be no impact from this source. Transportation impacts from this proposed sale
would likely be minor to insignificant in the Anchorage area and minor to
moderate, especially with respect to ground transportation, on the transpor-
tation systems of the Kenai Peninsula.
The cumulative effects which could result from the proposed action and other
major projects (sec. IV.A.l.h.) would be similar to, but more extensive than
the impacts which have been previously described with the exception of trans-
portation. A major cumulative effect in marine traffic congestion c~uld
result if the need arises to simultaneously construct an oil facility at
Talnik Point and the Port Lions small boat harbor. Increased marine traffic,
approximating 30-40 percent of all tanker traffic generated in the next decade,
would be the principal cumulative effect with regard to transportation within
Cook Inlet.
iv
4. Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
a. No Sale (alternative II).
b. Delay the Sale (alternative III).
c. Modify the Proposed Sale by deletion of 19 blocks in lower Cook
Inlet and 66 blocks in Shelikof Strait (alternative IV).
d. Modify the Proposed Sale by deletion of 19 blocks in lower Cook
Inlet and 81 blocks in Shelikof Strait (alternative V).
e. Modify the Proposed Sale by deletion of all blocks in lower Cook
Inlet (86 blocks) (alternative VI).
f. Block deletion alternatives recommended by individuals, agencies, and
organizations as a result of public review of and comment on the DEIS (see
sec. IV.B. of this EIS).
5. Scoping comments were requested from the following:
Federal Agencies
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Office of Ecological and Environmental Conservation
Department of Defense
Air Force
Army Corps of Engineers
Naval Operations
Department of Energy
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management, State Director
Bureau of Mines
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
National Park Service
Office of Aircraft Services
Special Assistant to the Secretary
Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
Department of the Treasury
Economic Regulatory Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
State of Alaska
The Honorable Jay S. Hammond, Governor
Department of Administration
v
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Health and Social Services
Department of Labor
Department of Law
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Public Works
Department of Revenue
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Office of Coastal Management
Office of the Governor
Division of Policy Development and Planning,
State-Federal Coordinator
University of Alaska
Local Government
Anchorage Municipality
Honorable George Sullivan, Mayor
Homer Municipality
Honorable Leo Rhode, City Mayor
Larry Farnem, City Manager
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Honorable Don Gilman, Mayor
Kodiak, Alaska
Gary Stevens, City Mayor
Claire Harmoney, former City Manager
Kodiak Island Borough
Honorable Betty Wallin, Borough Mayor
Stuart Denslow, former Borough Manager
OCS Advisory Council
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Honorable Ron Larson, Mayor
Native Organizations
Kodiak Area Native Association
Kodiak Island Native Health Authority
Koniag, Inc.
Special Interest Groups
Alaska Conservation Society
Alaska Packers Association
Alaska Pacific Seafoods
Alaska Shrimp Trawlers Association
B & B Fisheries
Citizens Coalition of Coastal Communities
Coluabia-Ward Fisheries
Cook Inlet Commercial Fishermen
East Point Seafood Company
The Homer News
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
Kachemak Bay Defense Fund
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Cooperative Association
vi
Kodiak Area Community Development Corporation, Inc.
Kodiak Historical Society
Kodiak King Crab, Inc.
League of Women Voters of Kodiak
H. V. All Alaskan
New England Fish Company
New Northern Processors, Inc.
North Pacific Fisheries Association, Inc.
North Pacific Processors
Pacific Pearl
Pan-Alaskan Fisheries
Radio Station KBBI
United Fisherman's Marketing Association
Ursins Seafoods
Whitney-Fidalgo Seafoods
Individuals
Michael EDIDick
Hank Gain
Evan Haynes
Pat Holmes
Hank Pennington
6. Contacts
For further information regarding this final environmental impact statement
contact:
George H. Allen or
Nancy K. Swanton
P.O. Box 1159
Anchorage, AK 99510
907-276-2955
vii
Ralph V. Ainger
BLH (542) U.S.D.I.
Washington, D.C. 20240
202-343-6264
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed
Sale 60........................................................ 1
I. Purpose for Action ••••...•...•.....................•....•.•.•. 1
A. I.easing Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Leasing History. . . • . . • . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . 2
C. Legal Mandates and Authority •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3
D. Federal Regulatory Responsibilities ••••••••••••••••••••••• 4
E. Relationship of the Proposed Sale to the Overall OCS
Leasing Program. . • • . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
F. Results of the Scoping Process for Proposed OCS
Sale No. 60. • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. Alternatives Including Proposed Action ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9
A. Resource Estimates and Production Assumptions............. 9
B. Analysis of Proposal and Alternatives ••••••••••••••••••••• 11
1. Alternative I-Proposal ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11
a. Description of the Proposal ••••••••••••••••••••• 11
b. Mitigating Measures that are Part of the
Proposed Act ion. . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 13
c. Potential Sale-Specific Mitigating Measures ••••• 15
d. Possible Information to Lessee •••••••••••••••••• 20
e. Federal Grant Assistance •••••••••••••••••••••••• 21
f. Summary of Probable Impacts ••••••••••••••••••••• 21
2. Alternative II-No Sale ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25
a. Description of the Alternative •••••••••••••••••• 25
b. Summary of Probable Impacts ••••••••••••••••••••• 25
3. Alternative III-Delay the Sale ••••••••••••••••••••• 26
a. Description of the Alternative •••••••••••••••••• 26
b. Summary of Probable Impacts ••••••••••••••••••••• 26
4. Alternative IV -Modify the Proposed Sale Area by
Deletion of 19 Blocks in Lower Cook Inlet and
66 Blocks in Shelikof Strait •••••••••••••••••••• 26
a. Description of the Alternative •••••••••••••••••• 26
b. Summary of Probable Impacts ••••••••••••••••••••• 27
5. Alternative V -Modify the Proposed Sale Area by
Deletion of 19 Blocks in Lower Cook Inlet and
81 Blocks in Shelikof Strait •••••••••••••••••••• 28
a. Description of the Alternative •••••••••••••••••• 28
b. Summary of Probable Impacts ••••••••••••••••••••• 29
6. Alternative VI -Modify the Proposed Sale Area by
Deletion of All Blocks in Lower Cook Inlet •••••• 29
viii
a. Description of the Alternative •••••••••••••••••• 30
b. Summary of Probable Impacts ••••••••••••••••••••• 31
c. Comparative Analysis of Impacts and Alternatives •••••••••• 31
D. Analysis of Other Block Deletion Alternatives ••••••••••••• 33
III. Description of the Affected Environment •••••••••••••••••••••••• 34
A.
B.
c.
*D.
*E.
F.
G.
H.
Physical Characteristics ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
*1. Geology .............................................
2. Meteorological Conditions and Oceanography ••••••••••
a. Meteorological Conditions •••••••••••••••••••••••
b. Physical Oceanography •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
c. Chemical Oceanography •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Biological Characteristics ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1. Vulnerable Coastal Habitats ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
*2. Commercial and Sportfish (on back of sraphics 5-8), ••
3. Marine and Coastal Birds ............................
*4. Marine Mammals ......................................
*5.
6.
Endangered Species and Non-Endangered Cetaceans
Terrestrial Mammals ................................ .
Social and Economic Components ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
*1. Social Factors ..................................... .
2.
3.
4.
*5.
*6.
a. Population ..................................... .
b. Community Infrastructure ••••••••••••••••••••••••
c. Sociocultural Systems •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
d. Subsistence ...................................... .
Economy ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cultural Resources
Visual, Wilderness, and Recreation Resources
Land Status and Land Use ••••• , •••••••••••••••••••••••
Transportation Systems .............................. .
Co as tal Management ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Water Quality .•..•.......•.........................••...
Air
BLM
1.
2.
Quality .............................................. .
Studies Programs ..................................... .
Environmental Studies Program ••••••••••••••••••••••••
Objectives of the Alaska OCS Environmental Assessment
34
34
34
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
38
39
39
40
40
40
40
41
42
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
49
49
Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3. Socioeconomic Studies Program •••••••••••••••••••••••• 52
Future Environment without the Proposal .................. .
1.
2.
Social Factors ......................... · ............. .
Economy.
54
54
55
*Major scoping issue.
ix
IV. Environmental Consequences ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 56
A. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Including the
Proposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
1.
2.
Basic Assumptions Regarding Causes of Possible
Impacts Resulting from the Alternatives Including
the Proposal ........................................ .
a. Activities Associated with Exploration ••••••••••
b. Activities Associated with Development ••••••••••
c. Activities Associated with Production •••••••••••
d. Oilspill Risk Analysis ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
e. Coastal Oilspill Persistence Index ••••••••••••••
f. Oilspill Response •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
g. Constraints on Oil and Gas Development ••••••••••
h. Other Major Projects Considered in Analyzing
Cumulative Effects .....................•........
Alternative I-Proposal •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
a. Vulnerable Coastal Habitats •••••••••• Impacts on
*b. Commercial and Sportfish ••••••••••••• Impacts on
*c. Commercial Fishing ••••••••••••••••••• Impacts on
d. Marine and Coastal Birds ••••••••••••• Impacts on
56
56
59
60
61
67
70
74
78
80
80
84
95
99
*e.
*f.
Impacts on Marine Mammals ••••••••••••••••••••••• l05
Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered
Cetaceans ....................................... 114
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals •••••••••••••••••• l22
*h. Impacts on Social Factors ••••••••••••••••••••••• l24
*i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local
Economies ...........•.•.....•.••...•.•.•..•..... 135
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources ••••••••••••••••••• l37
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness, and Recreation
Resources ....................................... 140
*1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use ••••••••••••• l41
*m. Impacts on Transportation Systems ••••••••••••••• l49
*n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management
Program ......••....•...............••...•..•.... 156
*o. Impacts on Water Quality ••••.••••••••••••••••••• l61
p. Impacts on Air Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••••• l64
3. Alternative II-No Sale ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l68
a. Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats •••••••••• l68
*b. Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish ••••••••••••• l69
*c. Impacts on Commercial Fishing ••••••••••••••••••• l69
d. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds ••••••••••••• l69
*e. Impacts on Marine Mammals ••••••••••••••••••••••• l69
*f. Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered
Cetaceans ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l69
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals •••••••••••••••••• l69
*h. Impacts on Social Factors ••••••••••••••••••••••• l69
*i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local
Economies •••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••• 170
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources ••••••••••••••••••• l70
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness and Recreation
Resources ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 0
*1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use ••••••••••••• l70
*Major scoping issue.
X
4.
*m. Impacts on Transportation Systems ••••••••••••••• l70
*n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management
Program .••••.••.•••••••.••••••••••.•.••••••••••• 171
*o. Impacts on Water Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••• l71
p. Impacts on Air Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••••• l71
q. Impacts on Marine Sanctuaries ••••••••••••••••••• l71
Alternative III -Delay the Sale ••••..••.•••••••••••. l71
a. Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats •••••••••• l71
*b. Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish ••••••••••••• l72
*c. Impacts on Commercial Fishing ••••••••••••••••••• l72
d. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds ••••••••••••• l72
*e. Impacts on Marine Mammals •••••••.••••••••.••.••. 173
*f. Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered
Cetaceans ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 4
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals •••••••••••••••••• l74
*h. Impacts on Social Factors ••••••••••••••••••••••• l74
*i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local
Economies •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. • ••••••••• 17 5
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources ••••••••••••••••••• l76
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness and Recreation
Resources ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 7 6
*1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use ••••••••••••• l76
*m. Impacts on Transportation Systems ••••••••••••••• l76
*n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management
Program ••..•.•.•••••••••.••••••••••••••••••..••• 17 6
*o. Impacts on Water Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••• l79
p. Impacts on Air Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••••• l79
q. Impacts on Marine Sanctuaries ••••••••••••••••••• l80
5. Alternative IV •••..••.•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••..•• l82
a.
*b.
*c.
d.
*e.
*f.
Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats •••••••••• l82
Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish ••••••••••••• l83
Impacts on Commercial Fishing ••••••••••••••••••• l83
Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds ••••••••••••• l84
Impacts on Marine Mammals •.•••••••••••.••.••..•• 185
Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered
Cetaceans ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 188
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals •••••••••••••••••• l90
*h. Impacts on Social Factors ••••••••••••••••••••••• l91
*i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local
Economies ..•.•••••••••..•••••••.•••••••.•••••.•• 19 2
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources ••••••••••••••••••• l93
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness and Recreation
Resources ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 193
*1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use ••••••••••••• l93
*m. Impacts on Transportation Systems ••••••••••••••• l93
*n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management
Program •.••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••....•• 194
*o. Impacts on Water Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••• l94
p. Impacts on Air Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••••• l94
6. Alternative V .•....•.•.•..•........................•. 195
a. Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats •••••••••• l95
*b. Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish ••••••••••••• l95
*c. Impacts on Commercial Fishing •••••••••••• , ••••••• 195
*Major scoping issue. xi
d. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds ••••••••••••• l95
*e. Impacts on Marine Mammals ••••••••••••••••••••••• l96
*f. Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered
Cetaceans ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 197
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals •••••••••••••••••• l98
*h. Impacts on Social Factors ••••••••••••••••••••••• l98
*i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local
Economies ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 200
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources ••••••••••••••••••• 200
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness and Recreation
Resources .............•......•......•....•.•.... 200
*1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use ••••••••••••• 201
*m. Impacts on Transportation Systems ••••••••••••••• 201
*n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management
Program •.......•..•••.•••.••.••.••.••••....••.•• 201
*o. Impacts on Water Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••• 201
p. Impacts on Air Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 201
7. Alternative VI ...•••.•..•.•..•••••••.••.•.•.••••....• 202
a.
*b.
*c.
d.
*e.
*f.
Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats •••••••••• 202
Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish ••••••••••••• 202
Impacts on Commercial Fishing ••••••••••••••••••• 203
Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds ••••••••••••• 203
Impacts on Marine Mammals •.••••..•••...••••••.•• 204
Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered
Cetaceans ...•...........•.........•............. 205
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals •••••••••••••••••• 207
*h. Impacts on Social Factors ••••••••••••••••••••••• 207
*i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local
Economies •..........••.......•.................. 209
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources ••••••••••••••••••• 209
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness and Recreation
Resources ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 210
*1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use ••••••••••••• 210
*m. Impacts on Transportation Systems ••••••••••••••• 210
*n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management
Program ...••.................•.................. 211
*o. Impacts on Water Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••• 211
p. Impacts on Air Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 211
B. Analysis of Other Block Deletion Alternatives ••••••••••••• 211
1. Block Deletion Alternative A ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 212
2. Block Deletion Alternative B ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 213
3. Block Deletion Alternative C ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 215
C. Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses and Maintenance
and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ••••••••••••••••• 216
D. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources •••• 218
1. Mineral Resources ...•.•.............................. 218
2. Biological Resources ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 218
3. Endangered Species ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 218
4. Social Factors •.................•.................... 218
5. Visual and Wilderness Resources •••••••••••••••••••••• 218
*Major scoping issue. xii
E. Worst Case Analysis ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 219
1. Endangered Species •.•..•.••...••..•••..•••.•••.••••••• 219
V. Review and Analysis of Comments Received ••••••••••••••••••••••• 224
A. Block Deletion Recommendations •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 224
B. Mitigating Measures ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 226
C. Approach, Assumptions, and Methods Used ••••••••••••••••••• 231
1. Oilspill Risk Analysis ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 231
2. Design of Alternatives and Development Scenarios ••••• 234
3. Environmental Studies and Data Gaps •••••••••••••••••• 235
4. Other Procedural Aspects ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 236
D. Environmental Impact Assessment ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 238
1. Cumulative Effects with Proposed OCS Sale 61 ••••••••• 238
2. Biological Environment ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 240
3. Physical Environment ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 245
4. Coastal Zone Management •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 246
5. Air and Water Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 249
6. Worst Case Analysis •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 250
E. General Issues ............................................ 251
F. Public Hearings and Comments •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 255
VI. List of Preparers ••.•••.••••••••.••...•••••..•.•.•••.•••••.••.. 261
A. Contributing Authors and Supporting Staff Members ••••••••• 261
B. List of Contacts for Preparation of the Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 261
Bibliography
List of Appendices
A. Petroleum Development Scenarios and Basic Assumptions
Utilized to Develop the Alternatives Including the
Proposal
B. Estimation of Direct Employment and Description of Basic
Assumptions Utilized
C. USGS Analysis of Gulf of Alaska OCS Operating Orders
D. USGS -Oilspill Risk Analysis
E. Inventory and Location of Pollution Cleanup Equipment and Materials:
Cook Inlet Response Organization (CIRO) and Gulf of Alaska Cleanup
Organization (GOACO)
F. Offshore Oil Pollution Compensation Fund
xiii
G. Fishermen's Contingency Fund
H. Biological Opinion on Endangered Whales as Required Under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended
I. BLM/OCS Environmental Studies Publications
J. List of Block Size, Distance from Shore, and Water Depth
K. Weights and Measures
L. USGS Memorandum -Geologic Hazards to Hydrocarbon Exploration and
Production in Lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait
M. USGS Environmental Geology Maps, Shelikof Strait, 1980
N. Leasing Process
0. Legal Mandates and Authority
P. Federal Regulatory Responsibilities
Q. Description of the Environment -Economy
R. Description of the Environment -Land Status and Land Use
S. Description of the Environment -Transportation
T. Description of the Environment -Coastal Zone Management
U. Description of the Environment -Water Quality
V. Description of the Environment -Air Quality
W. Description of the Environment -Future Environment Without the
Proposal
X. Comments Received from Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals
Regarding the DEIS for Proposed Sale 60
Index and Acronym Glossary
xiv
I. PURPOSE FOR ACTION
The Federal Government is authorized by the OCS Lands Act, as amended (see
sec. I.C.), to preserve, protect, and develop oil and gas resources in the
OCS. These responsibilities must be carried out consistent with the need to
make these resources available to meet the nation's energy needs as rapidly as
possible, to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of
the human, marine, and coastal environments, to ensure a fair and equitable
return on these resources, and to preserve and maintain free enterprise compe-
tition. Section 21(b) of the act provides for establishing a program to
insure that OCS technologies are continuously and systematically reviewed to
insure the best available and safest technologies (BAST) are applied to OCS
operations. A U.S. Geological Survey report describes the use of best
available and safest technologies during oil and gas drilling and producing
operations on the outer continental shelf (USDI, 1980).
This proposed action is part of the overall United States effort to reduce
dependency on foreign sources of petroleum. Implementation of this proposal,
assuming a commercial discovery, would contribute to the goals of ensuring
uninterrupted energy supplies and reducing the balance of payments deficit
resulting from petroleum imports.
A substantial imbalance e¥ists between domestic oil and gas production, and
consumption. Energy imports rose from 9 to 24 percent of the total energy
supply over the 15-year period from 1962-1977, and despite increases in prices
in recent years, energy imports almost doubled in the 5-year period from 1972
to 1977. Oil comprised 94 percent of the total energy imports in 1977.
The annual share of energy supplied by imports is forecasted to decline to 18
percent in 1990, compared to 24 percent in 1977. This reflects a net energy
consumption growth rate of 1.8 percent per year during the period. This is
significantly lower than the 2.6 percent annual growth rate experienced be-
tween 1962 and 1977, but shows a reversal in trend from the 0.5 percent annual
growth rate in the 1972-1977 period.
Though other projections differ, including DOE's, under varying assumptions,
it is clear that the United States will remain dependent on imported energy
through this century. This dependency exposes the country to both threats of
and actual interruption of imported energy supplies, having both national
economy and security implications. Other energy forms, including solar,
geothermal and nuclear fusion, will not significantly reduce dependence on
foreign sources of energy before the end of this century. Therefore, the goal
is to make OCS resources available to meet national energy needs consistent
with the safeguards of the OCS Lands Act.
Reversal in the historical trend and/or prevention of its worsening depends
heavily on Alaskan production maintenance or increase. The General Accounting
Office has estimated that through the period of 1985-2000, Alaskan sources
will be responsible for some 16 to 19 percent of all U.S. crude oil production.
Similarly, the Alaskan contribution to U.S. natural gas production is expected
to increase. By the year 2000, Alaska sources will comprise some 18.6 percent
of all U.S. natural gas production.
1
A. Leasing Process: The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as
amended, charges the Secretary of the Interior with administering mineral
exploration and development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), as well as
conserving natural resources of the shelf. The law requires that the Secre-
tary of the Interior develop oil and gas, in an orderly and timely manner, to
meet the energy needs of the country, to protect the human, marine, and coastal
environments, and to receive a fair and equitable return on the resources of
the OCS. The Secretary delegated responsibility for the leasing of submerged
Federal lands to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the responsibility
for the supervision of offshore operations after lease issuance to the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). BLM works closely with USGS, particularly on tech-
nical matters. USGS also supervises and regulates exploration, development,
and production activities after the leases are issued. The leasing process is
described in detail in appendix N.
B. Leasing History: The first Federal OCS lease sale in Alaska was
held April 13, 1976, for the northern Gulf of Alaska (sale 39). Of the 186
tracts (408,134 hectares, or about 1 million acres) offered, 76 tracts
(165,543 hectares, or 409,057 acres) were leased; the accepted high bids
totalled $559,836,587.
Exploratory drilling on Federally leased tracts in the northern Gulf of Alaska
began in September 1976, and resulted in 11 dry holes in the Yakataga shelf
area. The last of the wells was abandoned in July 1978, and no further dril-
ling activity has occurred nor is expected to occur. As of December 1980, 74
of 76 leases in the Gulf of Alaska issued pursuant to sale 39 have been
relinquished.
The first Federal offshore oil and gas lease sale in Cook Inlet was held
October 27, 1977 (sale CI). A total of 135 blocks covering 518,080 acres was
offered on a cash bonus and variable royalty basis (46 blocks offered on a
royalty basis and 89 blocks offered on a cash bonus basis. The total bonus
received for the leased blocks was $398,471,313.36 of which 30 royalty blocks
and 57 bonus blocks were leased, comprising 200,448 hectares (495,307 acres).
At the present time, OCS leases in lower Cook Inlet are in the post-sale
exploratory phase. As of July 1980, 8 exploratory wells and one COST well
have been drilled in the area. No commercial finds have been announced. As
of December 1980, 18 leases issued pursuant to sale CI have been relinquished
and 69 leases remain active.
For a description of OCS oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Alaska and
lower Cook Inlet and their onshore impacts, see Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-1028.
Since 1959, the State of Alaska has held 19 competitive oil and gas lease
sales in upper Cook Inlet, leasing about 1.9 million acres. Total bonus
revenues received by the State for these leases were about $90 million. The
last State sale in Cook Inlet was held in 1974. Production figures for 1978
for upper Cook Inlet reflect 45 million barrels of oil and 65.5 million cubic
feet of gas produced.
Lease sale 55 in the eastern Gulf of Alaska was carried out in October of
1980; an FEIS on this sale was released in March 1980. Of the 210 tracts
2
(483840 hectares, or almost 2 million acres) offered, 35 tracts (80640 bee-
tares, or almost 200,000 acres) were leased; the accepted high bids totalled
.$109,751,072.96.
A DEIS on the lease sale 46 area (Kodiak) was printed in April 1977. A change
in the leasing schedule was announced shortly after publication, changing the
sale date to December 1980, and a second DEIS was prepared in December 1979.
Public hearings were conducted in Kodiak in March 1980. Based on the low
resource potential and interest in exploration and on concerns expressed by
the residents and officials of the Kodiak area, sale 46 was canceled. A sale
in the Kodiak area (proposed sale 61) is now scheduled to be held in April 1983.
A DEIS on this proposal will be available in March 1982. If both sales 60 and
61 are held as scheduled, there will be oil and gas exploratory activities on
both sides of Kodiak Island. The cumulative effects of both sales will be
discussed in the DEIS on proposed sale 61 (off the east coast of Kodiak Island).
OCS leasing in the Cook Inlet area has been the subject of controversy and
litigation. In 1967, the Federal government and the State of Alaska began a
jurisdictional lawsuit involving Cook Inlet, which arose when the State pre-
pared to permit oil and gas exploration and development in portions of lower
Cook Inlet. This dispute was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1975
(United States v. State of Alaska A-45-67, 422 U.S. 184), in which the court
ruled that the State's proof was insufficient to establish Cook Inlet as an
historic bay, and that the United States had paramount rights to the submerged
land toward the lower or seaward portion of Cook Inlet.
The English Bay Village Corporation filed suit against the Cook Inlet sale CI
in February 1977 (English Bay Village Corporation v. Secretary of Interior,
Civil No. 77-174), alleging that the environmental impact statement did not
meet NEPA requirements due to its failure to adequately discuss potential
impacts to the village, and also its failure to discuss onshore support facil-
ities siting and long-term impacts on lower Cook Inlet fisheries.
Interior Secretary Andrus canceled the sale in February of 1977. He resched-
uled it to October of 1977. Following the sale, the English Bay suit was
resumed. A settlement was entered in this case for amicable resolution of the
suit and the case was dismissed in March 1978, subject to compliance by DOl
with the settlement agreement.
As a result of the settlement agreement, USGS is required to prepare a devel-
opmental phase EIS for lower Cook Inlet leases should a discovery be made and
to conduct a public hearing in English Bay. Also, studies on toxicity of
drilling muds on biota are ongoing to determine adverse effects of exploratory
drilling on fisheries in the area (Rice, 1980 and Rice, Korn, and Karinen,
1979). The results of these studies are anticipated by February of 1981 in
draft form.
C. Legal Mandates and Authority: The description of legal mandates and
authority for OCS leasing is contained in appendix 0. The description contains
a summary of the OCS Lands Act, as amended, and the provisions of the act for
Federal/State coordination, the establishment of compensatory funds, and the
environmental studies program. The functions of the National OCS Advisory
Board and the Intergovernmental Planning Program are also included. As pointed
3
out in comments by the State of Alaska (sec. V), the Intergovernmental Planning
Program primarily serves an advisory function on technical matters of the OCS
program.
D. Federal Regulatory Responsibilities: Federal regulatory responsi-
bilities that affect the OCS leasing program are contained in appendix P.
Responsibilities of components of the Departments of Interior, Transportation,
Commerce, and Energy are described as well as those for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Interstate Commerce
Commission. The criteria for ocean discharge has been promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency, published October 3, 1980, and is effective
30 days thereafter.
E. Relationship of the Proposed Sale to the Overall OCS Leasing Program:
In compliance with the act, the Secretary of the Interior has approved and
submitted a new proposed 5-year leasing program to the Congress, the Attorney
General, and the governors of affected states. The Secretary is further
directed to prepare, periodically revise, and maintain the oil and gas leasing
program. The leasing program is to consist of a schedule of proposed lease
sales indicating, as precisely as possible, the size, timing, and location of
leasing activity which will best meet national energy needs for the 5-year
period following its approval or reapproval. The goal of the leasing program
is to provide for orderly development of OCS oil and gas resources and to.
maintain an adequate contribution of OCS production to the national supply in
order to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The current 5-year leasing program,
covering the period from mid-1980 through mid-1985, was approved by the Secretary
in June 1980. Proposed sale 60 is scheduled for September 1981.
The United States has three overriding energy objectives outlined in the
National Energy Plan:
as an immediate objective that will become even more important in the
future, reduce dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to supply
interruptions;
in the medium term,.to keep U.S. imports sufficiently low to weather the
period when world oil production approaches its capacity limitation; and
in the long-term, to have renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources
of energy for sustained economic growth.
Full development of OCS resources is an integral part of that plan (the National
Energy Plan, Executive Office of the President, Energy Policy and Planning,
1977).
The DEIS on the proposed 5-year OCS oil and gas lease schedule was released in
August 1979. Public hearings were held in Anchorage in October 1979 and the
FEIS was published in January 1980. The final 5-year schedule, which runs
through May 1985, was approved by the Secretary in June 1980.
An OCS leasing program does not represent a decision to lease in a particular
area. It represents only the Department's intent to consider leasing in
4
certain areas, and to proceed with the leasing of such areas only if it should
be determined that leasing and development in such areas would be environment-
ally, technically, and economically acceptable.
As reflected in the final OCS oil and gas leasing schedule (June 1980), proposed
sale 60 in the lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait is scheduled for September
1981. Another proposed sale in the area is sale 61 (Kodiak), scheduled for
April 1983. Proposed sale 61 encompasses about the same area of call as the
now cancelled sale 46. Tracts will not be selected for further study in a
DEIS until February of 1981.
F. Results of the Scoping Process for Proposed OCS Sale 60: Due to the
proximity, both in timing and location, of lease sales 46 and 60, an attempt
was made to combine, whenever possible, the scoping efforts for the two sales.
Hany of the concerns and opinions expressed in regard to sale 60 were also
expressed in previous meetings on sale 46. Public concern, especially in
Kodiak, is equal for both sales, however, due to fishing season activities
among other reasons, the open scoping sessions conducted in August 1979 were
not as well attended as previous meetings. For this reason, the reader is
invited to review section I.F. of the 1979 DEIS for lease sale 46 for additional
insights into the concerns of the citizens of the affected area.
Three public scoping meetings were held for proposed sale 60. The first was a
combined sale 46 and 60 session and was held in Anchorage on May 23, 1979.
The meeting was advertised in the Anchorage papers as a public gathering. At
the Anchorage meeting seven people participated. Four of the participants
were from oil companies (ARCO, Marathon, Shell, and Texaco), one was from a
Native corporation, one was from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and one indi-
vidual represented the municipality of Anchorage. The concerns raised are
shown below.
Issues Surfaced:
Proceed with the proposal.
The adequate treatment of environmental constraints on oil and gas opera-
tions.
Onshore impacts on the social and economic environment.
The second public scoping meeting was held on August 14, 1979, in the Kodiak
Island Borough Assembly Hall. The turnout was low, most likely due to fishing
activities. There were only 11 people present to represent the people of
Kodiak. The results of the meeting are as follows.
Issues Surfaced:
Cumulative effects of lease sale 60 and the since-cancelled sale 46.
Impacts on the bottomfishing industry in particular, and fisheries re-
sources in general.
Lack of fisheries and oceanographic studies regarding Shelikof Strait.
Impacts on the island's socioeconomic infrastructure, i.e., housing,
social services, etc.
The need for clearly defining shipping lanes.
The handling, fate, and effects of drilling muds and cuttings.
Suggested Mitigating Measures:
Elimination of all blocks south of number 1055.
Cancellation of the lease sale.
5
The final public scoping meeting was held in Homer on August 17, 1979. Again
turnout was low; six individuals were in attendance. The individuals present,
however, represented a broad spectrum of local society. They were the Honor-
able Don Gilman, Mayor of the Kenai Peninsula Borough; Ms. Randy Somers of
public radio station KBBI; Mr. Joseph Wills, editor of the Homer News; Mr.
Kenton Bloom of the Kachemak Bay Conservation Society; Bob Ducker, president
of the Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Cooperative Association; and Ms. Lettie
Edleman, vice president of the same organization. The issues of concern that
were raised and mitigating measures suggested are as follows.
Issues Surfaced:
Possible interference with the commercial fishing operations, speci-
fically, the driftnet salmon fishery, shellfish, and bottomfish fisheries.
Land use and coastal management impacts, particularly in regard to
facilities siting.
Impacts on the socioeconomic infrastructure.
Impacts resulting from increased vessel traffic.
Proper enforcement of existing regulations.
Environmental data gaps in Cook Inlet.
Water quality, i.e., discharge of muds and cuttings.
Impacts of a lengthy pipeline under Cook Inlet.
Suggested Mitigating Measures:
Deletion of all blocks north of a line composed of blocks 266 through
276, as listed on protraction diagram no. S-2.
Hypothetical facility sites used in this document should comply with and
be coordinated wi~h any borough coastal zone management program.
In light of the low turnout at Homer, it was decided to send letters to each
of the attendees to request additional information and to urge them to ask
their constituencies to contact the Alaska OCS Office in writing and register
their concerns. As a result of our requests, radio station KBBI broadcast
public service messages telling their listeners that we wanted to hear from
them, the Homer News published a January 10 article informing their readers of
our desires for additional input, and finally, in their January Newsletter,
the Kachemak Bay Conservation Society requested their members to contact the
BLM/OCS Office and indicate their concerns. As a result of these efforts the
BLM/OCS Office received two letters. One letter was received from Mayor
Gilman and one letter from Ms. Joy Post of Homer. The issues which were
outlined in the letters will be summarized at the end of this section with the
rest of the written comments.
Three scoping meetings were held which involved State and Federal personnel.
The first meeting was held in Anchorage on May 14, 1979. The meeting was a
combined sales 46 and 60 effort; it drew eight people. The attendees repre-
sented the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service (HCRS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Geological Survey
(USGS), and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). The results are
as follows.
Issues Surfaced:
Impacts on the socioeconomic environment which would result from the
development phase of OCS activity.
6
Proceed with the proposal.
The importance of assessing and including viable mitigating measures
within the EIS including pipeline, cultural, resource, and orientation
program stipulations.
Onshore impacts on the biological environment.
The adequate treatment of environmental constraints on offshore oil and
gas operations.
The second meeting took place in Juneau on May 19th, 1979. This meeting was
supposed to be a combined sales 46 and 60 scoping session. The Juneau meeting
was not well attended. Representatives of the Coast Guard and one employee of
the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services attended. No issues of
significance were surfaced.
The third Federal scoping meeting took place on February 1, 1980. The meeting
involved the in-house BLH/OCS staff. The results of the scoping activities
were analyzed during this gathering. As a consequence of the meeting, alter-
native VI was added to the DEIS and the issue of subsistence was elevated as a
topic of concern.
On Karch 5, 1980, a final scoping meeting was held in Kodiak. The purpose of
the gathering was to receive the comments of members of the Kodiak Area Native
Association, Overall Economic Development Committee. This committee represents
the Native villages of Kodiak Island. The results of the meeting are as
follows.
Issues Surfaced:
Impacts to subsistence activities.
Impacts to commercial fisheries.
Cumulative effects of sales 46 and 60.
Impact of proposed sale 60 on the delivery of services to the villages.
Impacts on endangered species and marine mammals.
Limiting access by oil and gas workers to Native villages.
Suggested Mitigating Measures:
Orientation program for all oil and gas workers.
Any oil and/or gas terminal should be set apart in an enclave similar to
the enclave created outside Yakutat following OCS sale 39.
As a result of scoping activities, the Alaska OCS Office received a total of
nine written comments from the following organizations and individuals:
Department of the Interior; Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Director;
Assistant Conservation Manager, Alaska Area U.S. Geological Survey; Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service; Department of Energy; Coast Guard; Kenai
Peninsula Fishermen's Cooperative Association; Mayor Don Gilman of the Kenai
Peninsula Borough; Mayor George Sullivan of Anchorage; and Ms. Joy Post of
Homer.
Their suggestions for further focus in the DEIS included discussion of:
Impacts on all commercial crab species.
Impacts on bottomfish and the bottomfish industry.
Impacts on the salmon fisheries, specifically the drift net salmon fisheries.
Economic impacts occurring onshore to the fisheries industry.
7
Impacts on marine mammals and endangered species.
Impacts on recreation, tourism, and wilderness values.
Impacts on land use.
Impacts on cultural resources.
Impacts on the marine transportation systems.
Likelihood and severity of pollution events.
Impacts on subsistence activities and lifestyle.
Impacts on social services and socioeconomics, in general.
Seismic hazards within the sale area.
It should be noted that all organizations, government agencies, and indivi-
duals listed in the foreword of this FEIS were invited to attend the various
scoping meetings and/or submit their written comments.
The results of these meetings and the issues raised in the written comments
were analyzed by the EIS team during the early months of 1980. Concerns
raised during the scoping efforts conducted for the now cancelled sale 46 were
also considered. The following major issues and alternatives were determined
from this analysis. They are the principal foci around which this EIS developed
(CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1501.7).
Major Issues Surfaced:
1. Impacts on commercial fish and the commercial fishing industry.
2. Cumulative effects impacts.
3. Impacts on land use and coastal zone management.
4. Local socioeconomic impacts.
5. Marine transportation impacts.
6. Environmental data gaps.
7. Impacts on subsistence activities.
8. Impacts on water quality.
9. Geological hazards.
10. Marine Mammals.
11. Endangered Species.
Alternatives:
The proposal as stated: lease all 153 blocks.
Deletion of all blocks south of block 1055. This action would result in
deletion of all 81 blocks within Shelikof Stra1t (alternative V). Alternative IV
is a modification of this option.
Deletion of all blocks north of a line from block 266 through block 276.
Such an action would result in the deletion of 19 blocks all within the lower
Cook Inlet. This option has been included in alternatives IV and V.
The inclusion of a Shelikof Strait-only option. This alternative would
result in the deletion of 86 blocks contained in the lower Cook Inlet and
would limit saleable blocks to Shelikof Strait. The Shelikof Strait-only
option is represented in this EIS as alternative VI.
The focus of this FEIS is in keeping with the objectives of the CEQ regulations
(40 CFR 1500). The objectives are to produce a more precise, easily under-
standable document which can function more effectively as a decisionmaking
tool. In order to accomplish this task, major issues surfaced during the
scoping process receive the greatest share of analysis within this document;
secondary issues are treated less extensively.
8
II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION
This section describes the proposed action and each alternative to the proposed
action. It also outlines the various production assumptions, development
scenarios, resource estimates, and mitigating measures which shape the envi-
ronmental analysis contained within this document. Finally, this section
includes a summary of probable impacts of the proposed action and each of its
alternatives.
A. Resource Estimates and Production Assumptions
Undiscovered recoverable resources are those quantities of oil and gas which
are reasonably expected to exist in favorable geologic settings, and which
after discovery, can reasonably be expected to be produced with present
technology and economic conditions. If exploration confirms the existence of
recoverable oil and gas, such resources are reclassified as reserves.
The resource estimates used in this EIS assume that favorable geologic condi-
tions exist so that oil and gas are present and are contained in traps within
the proposed lease area in commercial quantities. However, there is a 95
percent probability that no commercial resources will be discovered or a 5
percent chance that commercial resources will be found within the proposed
lease sale area. This degree of risk is applicable to all alternatives dis-
cussed within this EIS. The proposed lease area is, therefore, considered to
be a high risk area in terms of discovering commercial oil or gas. This risk
factor is subject to modification as more is learned about the area. Any
citation of this unrisked resource data should clearly state that the infor-
mation assumes discovery. Estimates of resource potential are inherently
speculative, particularly in areas where geologic information is limited and
the presence of oil and gas has not been demonstrated.
The method used to develop the resource estimates involved an analysis of
geophysical and geologic information on subsurface and adjacent surface form-
ations. This information became the input to engineering and economic calcu-
lations to determine minimum commercial field sizes. These minimum field
sizes, plus the hydrocarbon structure information were statistically blended
in a model using a Monte Carlo (random) technique to produce the proposed
lease area's commercial resource distribution curve. Then, assuming that
commercial resources were found, the minimum case, the mean case, and the
maximum case were then rerun using a Monte Carlo technique to determine pro-
duction factors such as number of wells and reservoir decline patterns.
The resource estimates include primary production only; no assumption has been
made regarding secondary recovery. Improvement of drilling technology and
exploration science might increase the estimates. Differing assumptions
regarding exploration and development costs, operating expenses, the price and
market for oil and natural gas, taxes, depreciation, and royalty and produc-
tion rates would affect the estimates of the recoverable resources. Similarly,
a significant change in one or several of these factors in the future could
affect the amount of resources actually recovered.
The Geological Survey has estimated the maximum resource (5~) level, the mean,
and the minimum resource (95~) level of recoverable oil and natural gas
resources within the proposed lease area as follows:
9
Oil (MMbbls)
Natural Gas (Bcf)
Maximum
1,015
1,776
Mean
670
1,173
Miminwn
332
581
The indicated resources are based upon unrisked statistical resource estimates,
or the 5-percent probability that commercially recoverable resources are
discovered.
Information exists for a reasonable resource for each alternative. Accordingly,
the environmental analysis of each alternative is based on the assumption that
resource development would result in the following production estimates:
Oil (MMbbls)
Natural Gas (Bcf)
Alt. IV
260
456
Alt. V
180
316
Alt. VI
335
-0-
Alternative I is represented by the mean resource level of the proposed action.
Alternative II is the no sale case. Alternative III portrays a situation in
which the sale of the blocks in question is delayed 2 years. Resource esti-
mates indicated for alternatives IV, V, and VI are all variations of the mean
level resource estimate.
For the development scenario of the proposed action, crude oil produced in
lower Cook Inlet is hypothesized to be transported via pipeline to an oil
storage and tanker loading terminal constructed at a point between Anchor
Point and Stariski Creek. Crude oil extracted from the Shelikof Strait is
hypothesized to be transported by pipeline to an oil storage and tanker loading
terminal located near Talnik Point on the shore of Marmot Bay. Natural gas
produced in both the Shelikof Strait and the Cook Inlet would be piped to a
gas compressor station located on or near the Anchor Point terminal. From
Anchor Point, the gas would be transported via pipeline to Nikiski where it
would be liquefied at the present Phillips or proposed Pacific LNG plant and
then transported to market on the west coast. The transported LNG would most
likely undergo regasification at Point Conception, California. On September 26,
1979, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) conditionally approved
construction of an LNG facility at Point Conception. This facility will
receive LNG shipments from both Indonesia and Cook Inlet. The Point Conception
facility will eventually vaporize LNG at an average plant output of 900 MMcfd
with an additional peaking capacity of 300 MMcfd. Any expansion of the presently
planned operating capacities of either the proposed Pacific or Point Conception
LNG factlity would be subject to review by the Federal Energy Regulatory
CoOJDission.
In regard to alternatives IV and V, all oil and gas produced would be trans-
ported by pipeline to Anchor Point and Nikiski, respectively. No facilities
construction is hypothesized for any portion of the Kodiak Archipelago for
either alternative IV or V. Alternative VI would require all extracted oil to
be transported by pipeline to a tanker loading terminal near Talnik Point; gas
would not be economically recoverable and would be reinjected into the formation.
The lower Cook Inlet scenario of the proposed action represents just one
option by which the resources extracted as a result of sale 60 could be pro-
cessed. The purpose of the development scenarios included in this EIS is to
provide a reasonable framework within which the possible impacts of oil and
10
gas activities may be judged. Given the projected decline of oil and gas
production in upper Cook Inlet, excess refining and storage capacity at existing
facilities could increase to the point so that resources produced from lower
Cook Inlet could be processed at these facilities.
No facilities exist on either Kodiak or Afognak Island to handle hydrocarbons
produced from the Shelikof Strait. In regard to industry, the islands are
largely undeveloped. Several facility sites have been identified as being
physically adequate (excluding biological considerations) for development
(fig. II.A.-1). The location and construction of a pipeline to an oil storage
terminal near Talnik Point is just one of several options. The option selected
was chosen for a variety of reasons, probably the most important being its
gulf coast location which would allow tankers to operate without entering
Shelikof Strait. Favorable features of the site are the depth of adjacent
waters, the existence of source rock for breakwater construction, land with
slopes suitable for development, and an airport that could be enlarged to
support offshore operations. For a review of potential development sites for
hydrocarbons produced in the Shelikof Strait see, "Oil Terminal and Marine
Service Base Sites in the Kodiak Island Borough," Woodward and Clyde Consul-
tants, 1977, Anchorage, Alaska; and "Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait Petro-
leum Development Scenarios, "Technical Report No. 43," prepared by Dames and
Moore for the BLM Alaska OCS Office, 1980, Anchorage, Alaska.
Figure II.A.-1 shows some of the other sites which appear to be physically
capable of hosting facilities. Conceivably, none of the sites may be used if
other factors (community resistance, land use policies, restrictive zoning,
etc.) limit or cause industry disinterest in these sites, and if other physi-
cally capable sites are made more attractive. Because of the many assumptions
involved, this analysis is not intended as, nor should it be used as, "a local
planning document" by potentially affected coJIIDunities, nor is it a forecast
or prediction of the future. All facility locations/scenarios described in
this EIS are intended to represent only a few plausible locations/scenarios
that presently seem likely. They serve only as a basis for identifying
characteristic activities and resulting impacts for this EIS and do not repre-
sent a BLM recommendation, preference, or endorsement of facility sites or
development schemes.
B. Analysis of Proposal and Alternatives
1. Alternative I (Proposal):
a. Description of the Proposal: This proposal involves the
possibility of leasing 153 blocks in lower Cook Inlet and the northern portion
of Shelikof Strait (fig. II.B.1.a.-1). Each block is approximately 3 square
miles. These blocks cover an area of approximately 349917 hectares (864,646
acres), and are located from 5 to 37 kilometers (3 to 23 mi) offshore in water
depths that range from 15 to 210 meters (49 to 689 ft). A summary of these
blocks by water depth and distance to shore is in appendix J of this FEIS.
In November of 1979, the U.S Geological Survey estimated that, based on geo-
physical data, the 153 blocks offered for lease by this proposal may contain
undiscovered recoverable resources ranging from 332 to 1,015 MHbbls of oil and
from 581 to 1,776 Bcf of natural gas. Based on these estimates, the proposed
action may result in a peak daily production of between 151,500 and 342,200
barrels of oil, and between 265.2 and 598.9 MMcf of gas per day.
11
s
1 • 154° 1S3"
FIGURE II. A :-1
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL
OIL TERMINAL SITES
O INDICATES EXISTING PETROLEUM
FACILITY SITES
• INDICATES POTENTIAL MARINE
01 l TERMINAL SITES.
+
+
~.~ '1 <::;>
Jt.o.ct.~-~ S'·
8t .... '~, 6tr/Jcoe
+
0~ ,~
t" s~
Dames & Moore 1979
Ch2M Hill 1978
BLM I OCS 1980
154°
'4-Jl-+ 59' ll's
ll'"
o(c
60 "(c
+ 511"
1 S1•
FIGURE II . B. 1. a.-1
LOWER COOK INLET-SHELIKOF STRAIT
PROPOSED OCS SALE NO. 60
ALTERNATIVE I (PROPOSAL)
COMPOSITE PROTRACTION DIAGRAM
OF AREA SELECTED
,AREA OF CALL
TRACTS LEASED IN SALE NO. Cl
BLOCKS CONSIDERED .FOR
ALTERNATIVE I
1f. OIL TERMINAL (Hypothetical)
0 GAS TERMINAL (Hypothetical)
ISLAND CAPE CHINIAK
Source : Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
Basic Development Assumptions: Environaental, social, and economic impacts
may occur as a result of a Federal decision to permit exploration for a com-
mercially producible offshore gas field. Estimated levels of oil and gas
discovered are a prime determinant in estimating the amount of activity and
impact caused by such a decision.
This EIS is based on the 5-percent probability that commercial quantities of
hydrocarbons will be found. Further, discussion of oil and gas development
activity centers on the more probable intermediate level of assumed resource
discovery (the mean case) rather than the more extreme minimum or maximum
cases. The minimum and maximum cases are discussed in appendices A and B.
Estimated Activity Resulting from the Proposal: The amount of commercial
activity that may be generated in Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait is dependent
on many variables. Chief among these would be the amount of recoverable
resources; however, also of great importance would be the availability of
capital, work force, equipment, and the willingness of regional and local
authorities to work with industry in the implementation of development pro-
grams. The quantity of recoverable resources (oil and natural gas) is pre-
sently unproven and, therefore, is presented in three levels (minimum, mean,
maximum) in order to show an estimated range of resource potential. This
range of resource potential has been discussed briefly in section II.A. A
detailed description of development scenarios and schedules of investment and
production in appendix A. The following discussion will assu.e a degree of
activity which might be associated with a mean level discovery of hydrocarbons
(see resource estimates previous pages).
Estimated Activity Based on the Mean Scenario: Should the sale be held,
exploration would likely begin in 1982 and continue through 1986 with a total
of 16 exploration and delineation wells drilled. No more than three rigs
would be assumed to be working during any one year of the exploratory period.
Drilling during the exploratory phase would be carried out by semi-submersibles;
however, jack-up rigs could be used in selected locations of shallow water
depths of about 61 meters (200 ft) or less.
Primary maritime support and supply activities would occur from existing
hydrocarbon industry facilities located at Nikiski. Aircraft support would be
launched from fields located on the Kenai Peninsula in Port Lions, the city of
Kodiak and, possibly, at Cape Chiniak.
For the proposal (alternative I), it is assumed a total of 640 kilometers (400
mi) of pipeline would be constructed. This mileage would be divided between
two separate oil pipelines and one gas pipeline. One oil pipeline system
would drain the lower Cook Inlet, would total about 128 kilometers (80 mi),
and would be emplaced entirely under water. It would terminate in an oil
storage terminal located between Stariski Creek and Anchor Point on the Kenai
Peninsula. The second oil pipeline would service Shelikof Strait. It could
be constructed through Kupreanof Strait to Chernof Point, and then overland to
the vicinity of Talnik Point. A Talnik Point facility would be exposed to
northern weather and would require a protective breakwater. Oil tankers
enroute to a Talnik Point facility would arrive from the Gulf of Alaska via
Marmot Bay. Total length of the Talnik Point pipeline could be about 144
kilometers (90 mi), with 16 kilometer (10 mi) of the total allotted for over-
12
land passage. The gas pipeline would traverse both the Shelikof Strait and
Cook Inlet. It could landfall at or near the Stariski/Anchor Point oil ter-
minal. The gas could then be pumped by a compressor station through a 7Q-mile
overland pipeline system to Nikiski. At Nikiski the gas would be liquefied
and transported to market. Total length of the gas pipeline would be approxi-
mately 368 kilometers (230 mi).
Pipeline diameters assumed for the mean case of the proposal would be 22
inches for oil, and 18 inches for gas. Pipeline construction could begin in
1984 and finish during 1986. Standard pipe lay barges can operate in wave
heights up to 1.5 meters (5 ft). As the weather throughout the proposed sale
area is generally inclement and wave heights may exceed 1.5 meters, it is
possible that larger lay barges, such as the "Viking Piper," could be used in
order to minimize downtime.
Nikiski currently hosts the Phillips LNG plant. The Phillips facility is
capable of processing 185 MMcf of natural gas per day. By 1982, a second LNG
facility (operated by Pacific Alaska LNG Associates) will be constructed
adjacent to the Phillips plant. Total processing capacity for the new plant
will be 400 MMcf per day. Taken together, the combined refining capacity of
the two plants should be sufficient to process any LNG produced from the Cook
Inlet aqp Shelikof Strait.
Oil and gas production could begin by 1986. By that year, it is hypothesized
that four pile-supported steel tower production platforms would be installed.
By 1991, some 195 production wells could have been drilled. It is assumed
that oil would be produced until 2011. Natural gas production would cease in
2012. The total life of the field is estimated at 26 years.
A summary of activities required to develop the estimated mean resoutces is on
table II.B.l.a.-1.
b. Mitigating Measures that are Part of the Proposed Action:
Any laws, regulations, or orders that provide mitigation are considered part
of the proposal. Some examples are the OCS Operating Orders, coastal zone
management regulations, the Fishermen's Contingency Fund, and the Offshore Oil
Pollution Control Fund. Appendices 0 and P contain brief descriptions of some
of these laws, regulations, and orders.
Protection of Cultural Resources: This measure was used in the analysis and
considered part of the proposal.
Background: In the past, there has been agreement that prelease cultural
resources probability studies would be conducted as a basis of information for
BLM to request invocation of this stipulation by the DCM. The Alaska OCS
Office has sponsored these studies for the Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait area.
As a result of field level interbureau coordination meetings held on November
14, 18, and 26, and December 4, 1980, this measure was revised· from the measure
which appears in the DEIS. At a Washington level interbureau coordination
meeting held on January 30, 1981, consensus was reached to use the wording
that appears in the DEIS.
Stipulation: If the DCM, having reason to believe that a site,
structure, or object of historical or archeological significance,
13
1.
Table II.B.1.a.-1
Summary of Activities Required to Develop the
Estimated Resources Within the Proposed Action
Mean Case (Alternative I)
Estimated acreage, construction activity,
a. Sale Acreage Offering: 350182
b. Exploration and Delineations Wells:
C. Production Platforms:
d. Production Wells:
e. Workover Wells:
f. Pipelines:
Oil (22" diameter)
and resources:
hectares (864,646
16
4
195
624
acres)
Gas (18" diameter)
Offshore length: 129 km (80 mi to Anchor Point) 225 km (160 mi to Anchor Point)
129 km (80 mi to Chernof Point)
Onshore length: 0 113 km (70 mi to Nikiski)
16 km (10 mi to Talnik Point)
g. Terminal(s):
Oil: 2 (Anchor Point and Talnik Point)
Gas: Use existing terminal(s) at Niskiski.
h. Recoverable Hydrocarbons:
Total Production:
Peak Production:
Average Annual Production:
Oil
670.0 MMbbls
265.2 Mbbls/D
26.8 MMbbls
2. Estimated peak annual transportation by tanker:
Oil: 96.8 MMbbls
LNG: 50 MMbbls
Gas
1,173.0 Bcf
464.4 MMcf/D
45.1 Bcf
3. Estimated tonnage (2,000 lbs/ton) of commercial muds and volume of drill cuttings
(assuming 16 exploration wells at 4864 meters (16,000 ft) and 195 production wells at
3040 meters (10,000 ft):
Muds:
Cuttings:
Exploration/Production
Exploratory Period
Per Well Total Field
947 metric tons 15,152 metric
(1,044 tons) (16, 704 tons)
539m3
(704 yd3 )
8,624m3
(11,264 yd3 )
tons
Production Period
Per Well Total Field
680 metric tons
(750 tons)
206m 3
(269 yd3 )
15,708 metric to:
(17,278 tons)
3 40,170m
(52,455 yd3 )
* Please note that during the production and development period drill mud is reused.
Approximately 10 percent of the total drill mud used is lost downhole.
Est~ted volume of formation water produced:
A prediction cannot be made at this time due to incomplete knowledge of the subsur-
face geology of the Shelikof Strait. However, based upon the behavior of the upper
Cook Inlet field we may hypothesize that at midlife the sale 60 field will be pro-
ducing one barrel of formation water for every two barrels of oil. This figure would
equal some 12-15 MMbbls per year.
EstLaated land use requirements for onshore facilities:
Support/Supply: Existing facilities will suffice.
Terminal(s) and Oil
related facilities: 2 terminals
(49 hectares/120 acres
each)
Gas
1 compressor station
(16 hectares/40 acres)
Estimated burial disturbanc§ of offshore ~ipeline (assuming 2734 m3 /km (5,750 yd3 /mi)
for oil pipeline and 2377 m /km (5,000 yd /mi) for gas pipeline) will be:
Oil: 352686 m3 (460,000 yd3 ) each to
Anchor Point and Chernof Point
Gas: 534825 m3 (700,000 yd3 )
hereinafter referred to as a "cultural resource," may exist in the
lease area, gives the lessee written notice that the lessor is
invoking the provisions of this stipulation, the lessee shall, upon
receipt of such notice, comply with the following requirements:
Prior to any drilling activity or the construction or placement of
any structure for exploration or development on the lease, including,
but not limited to, well drilling and pipeline or platform placement,
hereinafter in this stipulation referred to as "operation," the
lessee shall conduct remote sensing surveys to determine the poten-
tial existence of any cultural resource that may be affected by such
operations. All data produced by such remote sensing surveys, as
well as other pertinent natural and cultural environmental data,
shall be examined by a qualified marine survey archeologist to
determine if indications are present suggesting the existence of a
cultural resource that may be adversely affected by any lease opera-
tion. A report of this survey and assessment prepared by the marine
survey archeologist shall be submitted by the lessee to the DCM and
the Manager, Bureau of Land Management Alaska Outer Continental
Shelf Office, for review.
If such cultural resource indicators are present, the lessee shall
(1) locate the site of such operation so as not to adversely affect
the identified location; or (2) establish, to the satisfaction of
the DCM, on the basis of further archeological investigation con-
ducted by a qualified marine survey archeologist or underwater
archeologist using such survey equipment and techniques as deemed
necessary by the DCM, either that such operation shall not adversely
affect the location identified or that the potential cultural resource
suggested by the occurrence of the indicators does not exist.
A report of this investigation prepared by the marine survey archeolo-
gist or underwater archeologist shall be submitted to the DCM and
the Manager, BLM Alaska OCS Office, for their review. Should the
DCM determine that the existence of a cultural resource which may be
adversely affected by such operation is sufficiently established to
warrant protection, the ·lessee shall take no action that may result
in an adverse effect on such cultural resource until the DCM has
given directions as to its preservation.
The lessee agrees that if a site, structure, or object of historical
or archeological significance should be discovered during the conduct
of any operations on the lease area, he shall report immediately
such findings to the DCM and make every reasonable effort to preserve
and protect the cultural resource from damage until the DCM has
given directions as to its preservation.
Evaluation of Effectiveness: BLM has sponsored studies in lower Cook Inlet
and Shelikof Strait to evaluate the potential of cultural resources in the
area. The lessee or agent, during any activities on the leasehold, is re-
quired to report any findings to the Supervisor in the event any site or
object of historic or archaeologic significance should be discovered. The
contractor is also required to make every reasonable effort to preserve and
protect such site or object from damage until the DCM makes a determination on
an appropriate course of action.
14
Through the imposition of this stipulation and compliance with applicable
Federal and State laws regarding cultural resources, and adherence with rules,
regulations, policies of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, the Kenai
Peninsula Borough District Program, when approved, and the Intergovernmental
Planning Program for OCS Oil and Gas Leasing, Transportation, and Related
Facilities, the protection and preservation of cultural resources is assured.
There was agreement to adopt this measure at the Washington level interbureau
coordination meeting held on January 30, 1981.
c. Potential Sale-Specific Mitigating Measures: Because
formal acceptance of the following measures has not occurred, they are noted
here only as possibilities that could be utilized. The analysis in this FEIS
is not based on these measures; they are not part of the proposal.
Field level interbureau coordination meetings were held on November 14, 18,
and 26, and on December 4, 1980. Mitigating measures which appear in the DEIS
for this proposed sale were discussed and evaluated. Further discussion and
refinement of these measures occurred at a Washington level interbureau coor-
dination meeting held on January 30, 1981.
Potential Mitigating Measure No. 1 -Well and Pipeline Requirements:
Background: This measure was previously accepted for OCS sales 42, 48, and 55.
The intent is to mitigate potential damage to fishing gear by marine vessel
traffic through pipeline design. The intent is also to mitigate cumulative
effects of various projects in the area (sec. IV.A.l.h.).
Subsea Wellhead Measure: Subsea wellheads and temporary abandonments,
or suspended operations that leave protrusions above the seafloor
shall be protected, if feasible, in such a manner as to allow commer-
cial fishing trawl gear to pass over the structure without snagging
or otherwise damaging the structures or the fishing gear. Latitude
and longitude coordinates of these structures, along with water
depths, shall be submitted to the DCM (Deputy Conservation Manager,
Field Operations, Alaska Region, USGS). The coordinates of such
structures will be determined by the lessee utilizing state-of-the-art
navigation systems with accuracy of at least ± 50 feet (15.25 m) at
200 miles (322 km).
Pipeline Design Measure: All pipelines, unless buried, including
gathering lines, shall have a smooth-surface design. In the event
that an irregular pipe surface is unavoidable due to the need for
valves, anodes, or other structures, it shall be protected in such a
manner as to allow trawl gear to pass over the object without snagging
or otherwise damaging the structure or the fishing gear.
Evaluation of Effectiveness: Although the wording of this mitigating measure
has become standard, other existing measures, may adequately preclude the need
for a special stipulation. As a result of a Washington level interbureau
coordination meeting held on January 30, 1981, it was agreed that this measure
be deleted for the following reasons:
15
Existing OCS Orders 1 and 3 require that all subsea objects hazardous
to navigation or commercial fishing be marked by navaids as directed
by the U.S. Coast Guard. OCS Order No. 3 requires that all casing,
wellheads, and pilings, when abandoned, must be removed to a minimum
depth of 5 meters (16 ft) below the ocean floor; and that temporary
abandonments must be identified and marked, as directed by the Coast
Guard, when a casing stub extends above the ocean floor.
U.S. Coast Guard regulations provide for marking and protection of
subsea objects. Obstructions must be accurately reported and the
location published in a public notice. The U.S. Coast Guard has
regulations, 30 CFR 147 (Federal Register, May 1, 1980), which
establish "safety zones" around OCS objects in other OCS areas.
Rights-of-way are subject to environmental safety assurance through
regulations requiring best available and safest technology (BAST)
and regulatory and CZM consistency reviews (OCS Lands Act, Section
5(e), as amended).
Potential Mitigating Measure No. 2 -Transportation of Hydrocarbon Products:
Background: The following measure was accepted for OCS sales 42, 48, and 55
(open ocean areas). The intent of the stipulation is to protect pipelines
from damage by climatic, geologic, or human factors, and from various traffic
and projects to an area. In response to a suggestion by the State of Alaska,
the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1221), has been cited in the
last sentence of the last paragraph of this measure.
Pipeline Requirement Measure: Pipelines will be required a) if
pipeline right-of-way can be determined and obtained; b) if laying
such pipelines is technically feasible and environmentally prefer-
able; and c) if, in the opinion of the lessor, pipelines can be laid
without net social loss, taking into account any incremental costs
of pipelines over alternative methods of transportation and any
incremental benefits in the form of increased environmental protec-
tion or reduced multiple-use conflicts. The lessor specifically
reserves the right to require that any pipeline used for transporta-
tion production to shore be placed in certain designated management
areas. In selecting the means of transp.ortation, consideration will
be given to any recommendation of the intergovernmental planning
program for assessment and management of transportation of Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas with participation of Federal, State,
and local government and industry.
All pipelines, including both flow lines and gathering lines for oil
an1 gas, shall be designed and constructed to provide for adequate
protection from water currents, storms, geohazards, fisheries trawling
gear, and other hazards as determined on a case-by-case basis.
Following the development of sufficient pipeline capacity, no crude
oil will be transported by surface vessel from offshore production
sites, except in the case of emergency. Determinations as to emer-
gency conditions and appropriate responses to these conditions will
16
be made by the DCM (Deputy Conservation Manager, Field Operations,
Alaska Region, USGS).
Where the three criteria set forth in the first sentence of this
stipulation are not met and surface transportation must be employed,
all vessels used for carrying hydrocarbons to shore from the leased
area will conform with all standards established for such vessels,
pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (46 U.S.C. 39la) and
the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C 1221).
Evaluation of Effectiveness: The intent of this measure is to transport
hydrocarbons by the safest and environmentally preferable method. The measure
has been standard for most lease sales, but has not yet been implemented on
the Alaska OCS since there has been no commercial discovery of oil or gas on
the Alaska OCS.
The measure also recognizes and takes into account the Intergovernmental
Planning Program (IPP) whose recommendations take into account local land use
planning, coastal management, environmental data gaps, local socioeconomic
conditions, transportation, routing and planning. This measure takes into
account the vulnerable coastline surrounding lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof
Strait. Although this stipulation requires pipelines, it allows the flexi-
bility for alternative methods of transportation of hydrocarbons from the
lease area as long as such modes of transportation do not pose additional
unacceptable risks to the human, marine, and coastal environments. The pro-
posed stipulation is consistent with the stipulation in Cook Inlet lease area
(sale CI).
Some minor word changes were made at the Washington level interbureau coordina-
tion meeting held on January 30, 1981, and agreement was reached to adopt this
measure.
Potential Mitigating Measure No. 3 -Environmental Training Program:
Background: Uninformed workers and subcontractors could unknowingly destroy
or damage the environment, or be insensitive to local historical or cultural
values, as well as biological resources. Due to the importance of fisheries,
subsistence, economics, and vessel operations in the Cook Inlet/Shelikof
Strait area, these issues would be covered in the orientation program. These
subjects have been identified in the scoping process as a major concern.
This stipulation has the potential to provide an increased measure of protec-
tion to the environment and addresses concerns of local residents. This
program was implemented for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and in the lower Cook
Inlet OCS lease sale. The wording of this mitigating measure was used for the
lower Cook Inlet sale. Wording has been added to paragraph two in response to
comments on the DEIS submitted by the State of Alaska.
Training Requirement Measure: The lessee shall include in any
exploration and development plans submitted under 30 CFR 250.34 a
proposed environmental training program for all personnel involved
in exploration or development activities (including personnel of the
lessee's contractors and subcontractors) for review and approval by
17
the DCM (Deputy Conservation Manager, Field Operations, Alaska
Region, USGS). The program shall be designed to inform each person
working on the project of specific types of environmental, social,
and cultural concerns which relate to the individual's job. The
program shall be formulated by qualified instructors experienced in
each pertinent field of study, and shall employ effective methods to
ensure that personnel are informed of archeological, geological, and
biological resources, to include bird and sea mammal rookeries, to
identify the importance of avoidance and nonharassment of wildlife
resources.
The program shall also be designed to increase the sensitivity and
understanding of personnel to community values, customs, and life-
styles in areas in which such personnel will be operating and shall
include information concerning avoidance of conflicts with com-
mercial fishing operations and with commercial fishing gear.
The lessee shall also provide for review and approval a continuing
technical environmental briefing program for supervisory and mana-
gerial personnel of the lessee and its agents, contractors, and
subcontractors.
Evaluation of Effectiveness: This mitigating measure was chosen over a similar
one used in the offshore area near Massachusetts. This measure was felt to be
more applicable than the sale 42 (Georges Bank) measure which focusses on
fisheries.
Although this measure provides no direct prohibitions of activities which may
have cultural or social impacts on the area, it provides a positive mitigating
effect by making workers aware of the unique environmental, social, and cul-
tural values of the local residents and their environment. This orientation
program would promote an understanding of and appreciation for local community
values, customs, and lifestyles of Alaskans without creating undue economic
costs to the lessee. It would also provide necessary information to personnel
which could result in minimized behavioral disturbance to wildlife, and avoidance
of conflicts with commercial fishermen.
Agreement was reached at the Washington level interbureau coordination meeting
on January 30, 1981, to adopt this measure.
Potential Mitigating Measure No. 4 -Protection of Biological Resources:
Background: Variants of this measure have been accepted in various OCS areas.
It provides a mechanism for defining important biological populations and the
effects drilling operations may have on the biota. The measure may fill some
data gaps and thereby assist the DCM in making specific recommendations on the
location of a drilling vessel.
Biological Protection Measure: If the DCM, having reason to believe
that significant biological populations or habitats requiring addi-
tional protection may exist within the lease area, gives the lessee
written notice that the lessor is invoking the provisions of this
stipulation, the lessee shall, upon receipt of such notice, comply
with the following requirements:
18
Prior to the commencement of any drilling activity or construction
or placement of any structure for exploration or development acti-
·vity, the lessee shall conduct site-specific environmental surveys
or studies, including sampling as approved by the DCM, to charac-
terize existing environmental conditions in an indentified zone
prior to oil and gas operations, and to determine the extent and
composition of biological populations or hab~.tats, and the effects
of proposed operations on the populations or habitats which
might require additional protective measures. The nature and extent
of any such surveys or studies will be determined by the DCM on a
case-by-case basis.
Based on any surveys or studies which the DCM may require of the
lessee, the DCM may require the lessee to: 1) relocate the site of
operations so as not to affect adversely the significant biological
populations or habitats deserving protection; 2) modify operations
in such a way as not to affect adversely the significant biological
populations or habitats deserving protection; or 3) establish to the
satisfaction of the DCM that such operations will not adversely
affect the significant biological populations or habitats deserving
protection. Based on any surveys or.studies which the Supervisor
may also require of the lessee, the DCM may require the lessee to
provide for periodic sampling of environmental conditions during
operations.
The lessee shall submit all data obtained in the course of such
surveys or studies to the DCM, with the locational information for
drilling or other activity. The lessee may take no action that
might result in any effect on the biological populations or habitats
surveyed, until the DCM provides written directions to the lessee
with regard to permissible actions.
In the event that important biological populations or habitats are
identified subsequent to commencement of operations, the lessee
shall make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect all
biological populations and habitats within the lease area, until the
DCM provides written instructions to the lessee with regard to the
biological populations or habitats identified.
Evaluation of Effectiveness: Biological surveys in connection with lease
requirements and COST wells in the Gulf of Alaska, lower Cook Inlet, Kodiak,
St. George Basin, and Norton Sound have not resulted in any significant, new,
or unexpected biological information which required any well relocations or
changes in normal operating procedures.
Exploration plans are reviewed by various agencies who could recommend a
survey be put forth. Surveys could be enforced during production and develop-
ment and during exploration studies. For example, in the Beaufort Sea lease
area, the BLM Studies Program (sec. III.G.) showed that specific areas of
biological sensitivity can be surveyed through stipulation. Shelikof Strait
may be an area of particular concern.
Agreement was reached, at a Washington level interbureau coordination meeting
(January 30, 1981), to adopt this measure.
19
d. Possible Information to Lessee: Information to lessee
provides notice to operators of special concerns in or near a lease area. The
following were considered and accepted at field and Washington level interbureau
coordination meetings.
Information on Bird and Mammal Protection: Bidders are advised that
during the conduct of all activities related to leases issued as a
result of this lease sale, the lessee and it's agents, contractors,
and subcontractors will be subject to the provisions of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended, and International Treaties. Violations under these Acts
and Treaties may be reported to the National Marine Fisheries Service
or Fish and Wildlife Service, as appropriate.
The lessee or his contractors should be aware that disturbance of
wildlife could be determined to constitute harassment, and thereby
be in violation of existing laws. Behavioral disturbance of most
birds and mammals found in or near the sale 60 area would be unlikely
if ocean vessels and aircraft maintained at least a 1-mile distance
from observed wildlife or known wildlife concentration areas such as
bird colonies or marine mammal rookeries. Therefore, in concurrence
with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, it is recommended that aircraft or vessels operated
by lessees maintain at least a 1-mile distance from observed wildlife
or known wildlife concentration areas. Human safety will take
precedence at all times over distances recommended herein for avoidance
or disturbance of wildlife. Maps locating major wildlife concentra-
tion areas are available through the DCM and appropriate resource
agencies.
Evaluation of Effectiveness: Conformance by lessees with the recommendations
described above would help to insure that behavioral disturbance of wildlife,
particularly at known concentration areas, would be minimized. Maps provided
to the DCM will clearly designate locations habitually used as concentration
areas. Tract-specific recommendations may be made by the DCM\ as appropriate.
Appropriate authorities may issue more specific regulations under existing
legislation that could further minimize behavioral disturbance to wildlife.
Information Concerning Fairways: Some of the tracts offered for lease may
fall in areas which may be included in fairways, precautionary zones or traffic
separation schemes.
At the field level interbureau coordination meetings, a consensus was reached
to modify the version of this measure that appears in the DEIS to reflect
consideration of critical fishing areas. Wording is the same as that used in
the Final Notice of Sale for OCS sale 55. At the Washington level interbureau
coordination meeting held on January 30, 1981, agreement was reached to adopt
this measure.
Some of the tracts offered for lease may fall in areas which may be
included in fairways, precautionary zones, or traffic separation schemes
which may be established, among other reasons, for the purpose of pro-
tecting commercial fisheries. Bidders are advised that the United States
20
reserves the right to designate necessary fairways through lease tracts
pursuant to the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1221).
e. Federal Grant Assistance: In addition to the protection
of the human and ecological environments through the applicaton of the pre-
viously described USGS OCS operating orders, mitigating measures in place, and
other potential sale-specific mitigating measures, the following discussion is
offered to inform the affected communities of additional Federal assistance
which may be available and which, if available, can act as a mitigation of
sale impacts.
There are additional mitigating measures available to the Kenai Peninsula
Borough and the Kodiak Island Borough. ~ese take the form of planning assis-
tance, because both the boroughs have planning and zoning capabilities as
outlined in Title 29 of Alaska Statutes. Planning and zoning capabilities are
by themselves mitigating measures.
Four Federal grant programs have had, and do have, funding available for land
use planning. The first of these is Special Economic Development and Adjust-
ment Assistance Program (known as title IX) of the Economic Development Admi-
nistration. A title IX study was done by Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc. in 1978
for the Kodiak Island Borough, but present assumptions and scenarios are
different in many cases. There is funding available for comprehensive community
planning under the Department of Housing and Urban Development's 701 program.
Funds from this program have not been used in recent years in the Kodiak
Island Borough, but the borough has received other HUD moneys, such as block
grants.
There are two grant programs under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The first
under section 306 gives coastal states funds to plan for the allocation of
land and water resources in their respective coastal zones. In Alaska, funding
is available to organized coastal communities, via the State, to undertake
this kind of planning. Section 308 provides for coastal energy impact program
funding, available in the forms of grants, loans, and bond guarantees to
provide up-front public services and facilities necessitated by energy devel-
opment, and to mitigate the loss of environmental and recreational resources.
There are other assistance programs available for airports, roads, ports and
harbors, water systems, sewage treatment plants, etc., on an individual basis.
f. Summary of Probable Impacts: The probability of an oilspill
impacting significant ecological resources is considered in the impact analysis
and is based on an oilspill risk model (USGS, 1980). Given an estimated
amount of resource, and incorporating historic spill data, the model simulates
the trajectories of oilspills from hypothesized spill points. It must be
emphasized that the trajectories simulated by the model represent only hypo-
thetical pathways of oil slicks and do not involve any direct consideration of
cleanup, dispersion, or weathering processes which would determine the quality
or quantity of oil that could eventually come in contact with sections of
coastline or specific resources. Assuming the 5-percent probability that
commercial amounts of oil/gas are discovered in the proposed sale area, and
that production occurs, there is a 98-percent probability that at least four
1,000-barrel oilspills could occur during the estimated 26-year life of the
field (USGS, 1980). Viewed in this respect, all blocks in the proposed sale
21
area pose some degree of pollution risk to the environment. The potential
effects of a large (1,000 bbl) oilspill are discussed below and in greater
detail in section IV of this EIS. Chronic oilspills and spills smaller than
1,000 barrels would likely occur during the life of the project and could
result in adverse effects on the environment and other resource uses. Onshore
development would result in socioeconomic impacts which could have State,
regional, and/or local implications.
The following discussion assumes that all laws, regulations, and orders, as
well as the mitigating measure concerning protection of cultural resources
(sec. II.B.2.b.) are part of the proposal. If the mitigating measures described
in sections II.B.2.c. and d. were adopted, it is expected that some impacts
described in this FEIS would be reduced.
Assuming the 5-percent probability that oil and gas are discovered in economically
recoverable amounts and assuming that an oilspill occurs, the spill would have
a 94-percent chance of reaching coastal habitats within 10 days after the spill.
The probability of a spill reaching coastal habitats is high because the proposed
sale area is relatively close to the shoreline. Although species would be
variously affected, intertidal dwelling species, such as razor clams, could be
destroyed outright or tainted for a period of up to 1 year.
Groundfish, halibut, and other populations of demersal fish species in the
Shelikof Strait area may be reduced by the effects of oilspills by some un-
quantifiable amount during the life of the proposal. This is especially true
of halibut, a species widely distributed within the strait and whose larvae
are subject to pollution risk for 6 months of the year. Salmon generally are
the most vulnerable of the commercial species to pollution events due to their
dependence on inshore areas. Pink salmon populations are more susceptible to
the effects of pollution than other salmon species. A pollution event could
adversely affect, in unquantifiable terms, a year class or more of fry, as
well as a year class or more of adults. Pink salmon populations that use the
streams on the west side of Kodiak Island, particularly between Uganik Bay and
Malina Bay, and those that spawn in Kamishak Bay, would be more adversely
affected from an oilspill event than elsewhere in the area. Salmon using
western Kodiak streams could lose an entire year class, an effect that could
last for 5 years or more.
The Uganik Bay to Malina Bay area of Kodiak Island and other sections of the
Shelikof Strait pose high risk from a pollution event to crab, shrimp, and
other shellfish. Impacts to such species would likely be local, but could be
of long duration. The egg and larval forms of crab species are most susceptible
to the effects of pollution events, although the cumulative effects of in-
creased oil and gas production and transportation could directly affect adult
crab populations to an unknown extent through contamination or reduction of
food sources. This could also be true of shrimp and other shellfish, especially
in the Shelikof Strait area. Potential oilspills pose a high risk to shrimp
populations on the west side of Kodiak Island and in the larval drift area off
Kachemak Bay.
The proposed sale would have little or no affect on the Homer, Port Lions,
Seldovia, and Kenai commercial fisheries as a whole. Fisheries impacts that
may occur from chronic and catastrophic oilspill events are expected to be
localized. Multiple-use conflicts between oil and gas activity and commercial
22
fishing should be localized, of relatively short duration, and subject to
remedial action. Impacts on the Kodiak-based fisheries would be localized,
and could be of moderate intensity depending on the intensity of U.S. bottom-
fishing in the Shelikof Strait area.
Marine and coastal birds and their habitats could be severely impacted by an
oilspill event, especially in the Shelikof Strait area. Major impacts (25-75%
mortality of a bird species population) from spill incidents could occur in
locations such as the Barren Islands, Shelikof Strait, Kupreanof Strait, and
Whale Passage. Some vulnerable bird species indicated in the impact discussion
could take as long as 50 years to recover from a single 50 percent mortality
event.
Among marine mammals, sea otter populations would likely sustain direct mortality
as a result of oilspills, particularly the relatively dense populations of the
northern Kodiak Archipelago. Harbor seals, particularly those of Kamishak Bay
and the Shuyak-Afognak Islands, would likely be subjected to indirect effects
through reduced habitat quality and/or food resources, but would be less
likely than sea otters to sustain direct mortality. Major sea lion concentra-
tions of the Barren Islands and Shelikof Strait wo~ld likely sustain indirect
and, possibly, direct effects from oilspill incidents. Sea lions could lose
• from 1 to 2 years of productivity depending on the time of year a spill occurred.
The siting of tanker facilities on eastern Kodiak Island would increase risk
of adverse effects on marine mammals of the Marmot Bay area and to marine
mammal habitats of Portlock Bank, a major feeding area for sea lions, fur
seals, and cetaceans.
It is possible that gray, fin, humpback, and possibly sei whales, which fre-
quent nearshore habitats of the northern Kodiak Archipelago and Shelikof
Strait, would be affected directly or indirectly if an oilapill occurred in
these areas. Construction of tanker facilities on eastern Kodiak Island may
lead to localized disturbance of cetaceans, and, as a result of tanker traffic,
could pose oilspill risks to important offshore feeding areas, such as Portlock
Bank.
The impacts from oil and gas production and transfer activities on primary and
secondary species (and associated habitat) harvested for subsistence purposes
within village subsistence-use areas cannot be quantified at this time, but
are assessed at a high probability of risk from oilspill incidents. The
proposal would subject the subsistence of the Kodiak Island villages along
Shelikof Strait to a higher potential risk from an oilspill than for those
villages elsewhere in the lease sale area. But, the cumulative effects of the
proposal in relation to other oil and gas activities in the vicinity places
the subsistence for the villages of English Bay and Port Graham at a risk
approximating those of Kodiak Island villages. Port Lions and Ouzinkie would
be additionally subject to the effects, undeterminable at this time, of chronic
discharges and tankering incidents resulting from the oil terminal facility at
Talnik Point. The same may be true of Homer near the Anchor Point environs
terminal facility. The direct and indirect consequences at the village level
of a major oilspill incident damaging locally-used subsistence resources
and/or habitats could include restricted local hunting or fishing, for a
duration consistent with the damage incurred; social and cultural stress
associated with the shortage of customary and traditional resources in the
places they are usually found; increased cost in time and money to replace
23
lost resources, assuming local transportation means were suitable for using an
extended harvest range; and problems of food distribution and local storage
should crisis-oriented replacement programs be initiated.
Sociocultural systems impacts could be expected in the communities of Kodiak,
Port Lions, and Homer with differing effects. The potential for confrontation
would exist in Kodiak basically between fisheries-oriented residents and
activities and newer oil-related residents and activities. Conflict could be
intensified by a significant oilspill incident. Impacts on sociocultural
systems of Port Lions also could be significant, including the addition of a
substantial new subpopulation to the town, temporary degradation of the town
environment during construction activities, and temporary reduction in the
quality of life associated with these changes. In Homer, the potential for
major oil and gas onshore facilities nearby would likely increase debate over
the direction of community growth and character and could result in controversy
similar to that experienced earlier in Homer over lease sale CI.
Port Lions could anticipate major population, employment, and economic stimuli
if an oil storage and tanker terminal facility were sited there. Being a
small community with an expected slow (3%) annual rate of growth, the operations
of an oil terminal facility and related functions could almost double the
number of jobs available over the next two decades. Likewise, the Homer area
would probably experience similar, though less extensive, effects if an oil
terminal site were to be located in the vicinity of Anchor Point. Homer is
expected to be impacted less from OCS activities than from other sources of
economic stimulus, which are expected to produce an employment growth rate of
5.2 percent annually during the next decade. This rate of growth in employment
would increase to 6.5 percent with the lease sale. Elsewhere, the lease sale
would be expected to produce only marginal inc~ements in employment growth in
the Kenai, Kodiak, and Anchorage areas and little or no economic stimulus to
the villages on the Kenai Peninsula or Kodiak Island.
Significant impacts could be expected to all modes of transportation serving
Port Lions. A major expansion of the Port Lions airfield, possibly including
extension of the runway into Kizhuyak Bay, would be required for the facility
to function as a forward air support base to OCS operations in Shelikof Strait.
Air traffic volume would increase dramatically, especially during the develop-
ment phase, as would ground traffic in and around Port Lions. An additional
21 kilometers (15 mi) of roadway would be required to connect the airfield
with the oil storage and marine tanker terminal near Talnik Point, as well as
to service the onshore pipeline system. The operations near Talnik Point
would produce the primary marine transportation impacts, in the short run,
through summer barge traffic of rock and construction materials to the site.
This would temporarily interfere with fishing in Kizhuyak Bay. The impact of
tanker traffic (approximately 5 vessels per month) to and from an oil facility
near Talnik Point could produce the long-term impact of reducing the availa-
bility of nearby fishing grounds over the life of the facility. The navi-
gational uncertainties of Whale Passage suggest it would be unlikely that a
marine service and supply base would be constructed at Port Lions. Thus,
there would be no impact from this source. Transportation impacts from this
proposed sale would likely be minor to insignificant in the Anchorage area and
minor to moderate, especially with respect to ground transportation, on the
transportation systems of the Kenai Peninsula.
24
Tbe cumulative effects which could result from the proposed action and other
major projects (sec. IV.A.l.h.) would be similar to, but more extensive than
the impacts which have been previously described with the exception of trans-
portation.
A major cumulative effect in marine traffic congestion could result if the
need arises to simultaneously construct an oil facility at Talnik Point and
the Port Lions small boat harbor. Increased marine traffic, approximately
30-40 percent of all tanker traffic generated in the next decade, would be the
principal cumulative effect with regard to transportation within Cook Inlet.
2. Alternative II -No Sale
a. Description of the Alternative: This alternative is one
which removes the entire proposed sale area from consideration for lease.
b. Summary of Probable Impacts: To eliminate the proposed
sale may reduce future OCS oil and gas production, require escalated imports
of oil and gas, and create the national need to develop alternative energy
sources to reduce the impacts from the cancellation of the sale (table
II.B.2.b.-l).
Recent surpluses of high sulpher, low gravity Alaskan crude oil in southern
California are short-term until permanent transportation systems are in place
to move the crude to inland markets or until the system adjusts fully to
shipping the crude to the Gulf of Mexico coast. The oil and gas that could
become available from the proposal over the next 25-year period could add to
national domestic production. If this proposal is cancelled, an additive
impact of greater oil and gas deficits resulting in increased imports can be
expected (table II.B.2.b.-l). If sales such as this are cancelled, the energy
actions or sources shown in the table might be used as substitutes. Based
upon the range of undiscovered resources estimated by the USGS for the pro-
posed sale area, table II.B.2.b.-l presents the energy equivalents which would
be required for other energy sources to substitute for this proposed action.
The Department of the Interior's FEIS for OCS lease sale 48 (sec. VIII.D.) and
the FEIS for the proposed 5-year OCS oil and gas lease sale schedule (sec.
I.B.7.). contain a discussion of trends in alternative energy sources.
The future u.s. energy source mix will depend on a multiplicity of factors,
among them the identification of resources, research and development efforts,
development of technology, rate of economic growth, the economic climate,
changes in lifestyle and priorities, capital investment decisions, energy
prices, world oil prices, environmental quality priorities, government policies,
and availability of imports. Table II.B.2.b.-l shows the amount of energy
from other souces needed to replace anticipated mean level resources from
proposed sale 60.
The acceptability of oil and gas imports as an alternative is diminished by:
The security risks inherent in placing reliance for essential energy
supplies on sources which have demonstrated themselves to be politically
unstable and prone to use interruption of petroleum supplies as a way to
exert economic and political pressure on their customers.
25
Table II.B.2.b.-1
Energy Needed from Other Sources to Replace Anticipated
Oil and Gas Production from Proposed OCS Sale 60
(Mean Level of Resources if Resources are Found)
Total Crude Oil Production (bbls)
Total Natural Gas Production (cf)
Crude Oil BTU Equivalent @ 5.6 x 106 BTU/bbl (BTU)
Natural Gas Equivalent @ 1021 BTU/cu.ft. (BTU)
Total Oil and Gas Equivalent (BTU) (T O&G 7 5.6)
Alternative Energy Sources
Import Equivalents 6
Oil Import Equivalents (bbls) 5.6 x 10
Gas I~ort Equivalents (cu.ft.) Tot. O&G . 1021
Coal~ Import Equivalgnts (tons)
Tot. O&G 7 24 x 10
Coal for Gasifica~?n (tons)
Coal Gasifi~ation , Low BTU Number of Plants
Oil Shale £ (tons)
Nuclear Capacity -Number of Light H2o Reactors
with 1000 KW(e) capa~ity
First Core Fuel u3o8 ~ (tons)
Annual Reload
670 X 106
1.173 X 10 12
3752 X 1012
1197.633 X 10 12
4949.633 X 10 12
9 .883863 X 1q2
4.8478 X 10
206.2347 X 106
2.0618 X 108
1.22 9
1.262 X 10
3.764
112.933
37.64
~/ 1 Ton = 24 x 106 BTU hence 4949.633 x 10 12 7 24 x 10 6 = 206.2347 x 106
~/ Assuming Koppers-To~zek processing requiring 10,570 tons/day of coal
for an output of 250 x 10 BTU's/day. Also assumes coal of 8,780 BTU's
per pound.
Note: The above, and following conversion ratios were developed from sale
BF December 1979, for this application:
Wh 1.56 z
e.g. ere 5.86 x 1015 is to ~4-.9-4~9~x--1-015 a = 1.21748. Rounded to 1.32
Assuming high grade shale recovery of 0.7 barrels per ton of oil shale.
~/ One kilowatt-hour equals 3,421 BTU at a theoretical conversion rate of
other energy forms to electricity at 100 percent efficiency. Capacity is
calculated assuming an 80 percent plant factor and 33 percent efficiency of
fossil fuel electricity generation.
~I Assuming 30 metric tons enriched u3 o8 first core fuels, and 10 metric
tons enriched u3 o8 annual reloads with plutonium recycle for each normalized
1,000 KW(e) ligfit water reactor.
The aggravation of unfavorable international trade and p~yments balances
which would accompany substantial increases in oil and gas imports.
Apparent high costs of liquefying and transporting natural gas other than
overland by pipeline.
Impacts could occur as a result of development of alternative energy sources.
Refer to the FEIS for the proposed 5-year oil and gas lease sale schedule and
the FEIS for OCS sale 55 (DOl, 1980) for general discussions of potential
impacts associated with the development of alternative energy sources.
This alternative would retain the proposed sale area in its present form for
consideration as a marine sanctuary (see sec. IV.A.4.q.).
3. Alternative III -Delay the Sale:
a. Description of the Alternative: This alternative would
delay the implementation of the proposal as previously described in section
II.B.l.a. for a 2-year period. The impacts associated with this alternative
are not necessarily avoided, but are delayed and may be reduced to some extent
by future changes that might occur to improve the environmental controls
applied to this action. The nature and extent of such controls are unknown.
b. Summary of Probable Impacts: The impacts of the delay of
sale alternative are similar to those for the proposal, delayed but not avoided.
For a few impacts, however, the delay could make a difference in degree of
severity. Potential impacts on Port Lions could be reduced if the city used
the time to study and prepare strategies/plans in the context of existing
community facilities, services, expectations, and limitations to accommodate
major population and oil facility impacts. Additional time would also provide
the opportunity to fill biological data gaps, existing especially in the
Shelikof Strait area, for finfish and shellfish populations, marine mammals
and cetaceans, marine and coastal birds, and vulnerable coastal habitats.
Such data has biological as well as social significance to the renewable
resource sector of Kodiak Island's economy and to localized, subsistence-oriented
village economies. Especially for the Shelikof Strait subsistence-use villages,
delaying the sale would allow time for localized biological studies to be
carried out on primary and alternate (secondary) subsistence species used by
village residents. Such studies would be useful for better assessing the bio-
logical impact of oilspill incidents on discrete ecosystems and for pollution
contingency planning to lower the risk to village subsistence resources.
The cumulative effects which could result from the proposed action and other
major projects (sec. IV.A.l.h.) would be similar to, but more extensive than
the impacts which have b~en described for the proposal (sees. II.B.l.f. and
IV.A.2.).
4. Alternative IV: Modification of the proposed sale area by
deletion of 19 blocks within Cook Inlet and 66 blocks within Shelikof Strait
(total deletion of 85 blocks).
a. Description of the Alternative: This alternative involves
the leasing of 68 blocks within lower Cook Inlet and the northern portion of
the Shelikof Strait (fig. II.B.4.a.-l). The blocks proposed for leasing under
26
FIGURE II. B. 4. a.-1
LOWER COOK INLET-SHELIKOF STRAIT
PROPOSED OCS SALE NO. 60
ALTERNATIVE IV
COMPOSITE PROTRACTION DIAGRAM
OF AREA SELECTED
•
0
AREA OF CALL
TRACTS LEASED IN SALE NO. Cl
BLOCKS CONSIDERED FOR
ALTERNATIVE IV
OIL TERMINAL (Hypothetical)
GAS TERMINAL (Hypothetical)
ISLAND
CHINIAK
Source : Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
this alternative comprise an area of about 154484 hectares (381,443 acres).
The blocks are located approximately 11 to 37 kilometers (7 to 23 mi) offshore
in water depths of 35 to 187 meters (115 to 613ft). See appendix J for block
size, distance from shore, and water depth.
According to known geophysical data, the Geological Survey, based on unrisked
statistical estimates, projects the 68 blocks offered in this alternative have
a S percent chance of containing commercial resources amounting to 260 MMbbls
of oil and 456 Bcf of natural gas. The deleticn of the blocks required by
this alternative would result in reducing the estimated recoverable resources
by some 410 MMbbls of oil and 717 Bcf of gas below those of the proposal.
Exploration is hypothesized to begin in 1982 and continue through 1985 with a
total of 10 exploration and delineation wells drilled. No more than two rigs
will be assumed to be in operation during any year of the exploratory period.
Jack-up rigs could be used in areas where water depths are less than 61 meters
(200ft). Semisubmersibles could be used in areas of deeper water.
Primary maritime support and supply activities would occur from existing
industry facilities at Kenai. Aircraft support would be conducted from air-
field(s) on the Kenai Peninsula.
Pipeline construction would begin in 1984 and continue through 1986. There
would be two pipeline systems totaling about 402 kilometers (250 mi). Of that
length, 290 kilometers (180 mi) would be offshore pipeline, split evenly
between an oil and a gas pipeline system. Both pipelines would landfall at a
site located between Anc~or Point and Stariski Creek on the Kenai Peninsula.
The oil would be processed at a terminal at this site; the gas would continue
113 kilometers (70 mi) by overland pipeline to Nikiski. There the gas would
be liquefied at an existing LNG facility and transported to market.
Pipeline diameters assumed for this alternative are 18 inches for oil and 10
inches for gas. All offshore pipe would be emplaced by either a lay or reel
barge. Standard pipe lay barges can operate in wave heights up to 1.5 meters
(5 ft). As the weather throughout the proposed sale area is generally incle-
ment, it is probable that larger lay barges, such as the "Viking Piper," would
be used in order to minimize downtime.
Oil and gas production would begin in 1987. By that year, two pile-supported
steel tower production platforms would be installed. By 1989, some 76 produc-
tion and service wells would be drilled. Both oil and gas production would
cease in 2009. The estimated life of this field is 22 years.
A summary of activities required to develop the estimated resources of this
alternative is on table II.B.4.a.-1. Note the frame of reference as described
in section II.A. ('Resource Estimates and Production Assumptions').
b. Summary of Probable Impacts: The deletion of blocks in
Shelikof Strait and the elimination of offshore air support and oil terminal
facilities from the Kodiak Archipelago, would significantly reduce potential
impacts on these areas as compared to the proposal. Potential impacts from
oilspills on marine mammals, birds, and coastal habitats would be reduced
substantially in the Shelikof Strait. Risk to marine mammals and marine
27
Table II.B.4.a.-1
Summary of Activities Required to Develop the
Estimated Resources Within
Alternative IV
1. Estimated acreage, construction activity, and resources:
a. Sale Acreage Offering: 154484 hectares (381,443 acres)
b. Exploration and Delineation Wells: 10
c. Production Platforms: 2
d. Production and Service Wells: 76
e. Workover Wells: 244
f. Pipelines:
Oil (18" diameter) Gas (10" diameter)
Offshore length: 145-153 km (90-95 mi to Anchor Point) 145-153 km (90-95 mi to
Anchor Point)
Onshore length: 0
g. Terminal(s):
Oil: 1 (Anchor Point)
Gas: Use existing terminal at Nikiski.
h. Recoverable Hydrocarbons:
Total Production:
Peak Production:
Average Annual Production:
Oil
260.0 MMbbls
119.7 Mbbls/D
11.3 MMbbls
2. Estimated peak annual transportation by tanker:
Oil: 43.7 MMbbls
LNG: 23 MMbbls
113 km (70 mi to Nikiski)
Gas
456.0 Bcf
209.0 MMcf/D
19.8 Bcf
3. Estimated tonnage (2,000lbs/ton) of commercial muds and volume of drill cuttings
(assuming 10 exploration wells at 4864 meters (16,000 ft) and 76 production wells at
3040 meters (10,000 ft):
Muds:
Cuttings:
Exploration/Production
Exploratory Period
Per Well Total Field
947 metric tons 9,470 metric tons
(1,044 tons) (10,440 tons)
539m3 5390m3 3
(704 yd3 ) (7 ,040 yd )
Production Period
Per Well Total Field
680 metric tons
(750 tons)
206m3
(269 yd3 )
6,392 metric tons
(7 ,031 tons)
15,656m3
(20,444 yd 3 )
* Please note that during the production and development period drill mud is reused.
Approximately 10 percent of the total drill mud used is lost downhole.
Estimated volume of formation water produced:
A prediction cannot be made at this time due to incomplete knowledge of the subsur-
face geology of the Shelikof Strait. However, based upon the behavior of the upper
Cook Inlet field we may hypothesize that at midlife the sale 60 field will be pro-
ducing one barrel of formation water for every two barrels of oil or approximately 5
HMbbls per year.
Estimated land use requirements for onshore facilities:
Support/Supply: Existing facilities will suffice.
Oil
Terminal(s) and 1 terminal
related facilities: (31 hectares/76 acres)
Gas
0
Estimate burial disturbance 3 of offshore p~peline (assuming 2377 m3 /km (5,000 yd 3 /mi)
for oil pipeline and 1902 m /km (4,000 yd /mi) for gas pipeline):
Oil: 344665-363681 m3 (450,000-475,000 yd 3 )
Gas: 275790-291006 m3 (360,000-380,000 yd3 )
mammal habitats from direct and indirect effects of pollution would remain
high in the northern Kodiak Archipelago area, but would be much less than that
of the proposal, particularly since no tanker facility would be located on
eastern Kodiak Island, and less tanker traffic would occur in the vicinity of
eastern Kodiak Island and over Portlock Bank. Risk to areas of high subsistence
use and dependence along the strait would be significantly reduced.
Impacts on the human and biological environments of the Kenai Peninsula/Cook
Inlet area would similar to those described for the proposal. Marine mammals,
cetaceans, and bird populations that use the Barren Islands area would be
subject to essentially the same impacts, principally from potential oilspill
incidents, as described for the proposal. Risk to the subsistence use areas
of the villages of English Bay and Port Graham from potential oilspills would
be the same as the proposal for both the alternative alone and for the cumu-
lat~ve case.
The cumulative effects which could result from this alternative and other
major projects (sec. IV.A.l.h.) would be similar to, but more extensive than
the impacts which have been described above, but would be less than the proposal
because of the deletion of blocks in Shelikof Strait.
5. Alternative V: Modification of the proposed sale area by the
deletion of 19 blocks in Cook Inlet and 81 blocks in Shelikof Strait (total
deletion of 100 blocks).
a. Description of the Alternative: This alternative involves
the leasing of 53 blocks located entirely within the lower Cook Inlet (fig.
II.B.S.a.-1). The blocks proposed for leasing under this alternative comprise
an area of about 126816 hectares (313,125 acres). The blocks are located
approximately 11 to 37 kilometers (7 to 23 mi) offshore in water depths of 35
to 150 meters (115 to 492ft). See appendix J for block size, distance from
shore, and water depth.
According to known geophysical data based on unrisked statistical estimates
(USGS, 1980), the 53 blocks offered in this alternative have a 5 percent
chance of containing commercial resources amounting to 180 MMbbls of oil and
316 Bcf of natural gas. The deletion of the blocks required by this alternative
results in a reduction of the estimated recoverable resources by some 490
MMbbls of oil and 857 Bcf of gas below those of the proposal.
Exploration is hypothesized to begin in 1982 and continue through 1985 with a
total of six exploration and delineation wells drilled. No more than two
drilling rigs would be assumed to be working during any year of the explora-
tory period. Jack-up rigs could be used in areas where water depths are less
than 61 meters (200ft). Semisubmersibles would be used in areas of deeper
water.
Primary maritime support and supply activities would occur from existing
industry facilities at Kenai. Aircraft support would be conducted from air-
field(s) located on the Kenai Peninsula.
Pipeline construction would begin in 1985 and continue through 1986. There
would be two pipeline systems totaling about 369 kilometers (230 mi). Of that
length, 257 kilometers (160 mi) would be emplaced under water. The mileage
28
FIGURE II. B. 5. a.-1
LOWER COOK INLET-SHELIKOF STRAIT
PROPOSED OCS SALE NO. 60
ALTERNATIVE V
COMPOSITE PROTRACTION DIAGRAM
OF AREA SELECTED
AREA OF CALL
TRACTS LEASED IN SALE NO. Cl
BLOCKS CONSIDERED FOR
ALTERNATIVE V * OIL TERMINAL (Hypothetical)
0 GAS ;TERMINAL (Hypothetical)
CAPE
CAPE CHINIAK
Source: Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
would be split evenly between an oil and gas pipeline system. Both of these
routes would terminate at an oil terminal located between Anchor Point and
Stariski Creek. The gas pipeline would continue overland 113 kilometers
(70 mi) to Nikiski. There, the gas would be liquefied at a then-existing LNG
facility and transported to market.
Pipeline diameters assumed for this alternative are 18 inches for oil and 10
inches for gas. All offshore pipe would be emplaced by either a lay or reel
barge. Standard pipe lay barges can operate in wave heights up to 1.5 meters
(5 ft). As the weather throughout the proposed sale area is generally incle-
ment, it is probable that larger lay barges, such as the "Viking Piper," could
be used in order to minimize downtime.
Oil and gas production would begin in 1987. By that year, two pile-supported
steel tower production platforms would be installed. By 1988, some 53 produc-
tion and service wells would be drilled. Both oil and gas production would
cease in 2008. The estimated life of this field is 22 years.
A summary of activities required to develop the estimated mean resources of
this alternative is on.table II.B.S.a.-1. Note the frame of reference as
described in section II.A. ('Resource Estimates and Production Assumptions').
b. Summary of Probable Impacts: The deletion of blocks in
Shelikof Strait and the elimination of offshore oil/gas support and oil terminal
facilities from the Kodiak Archipelago, would significantly reduce potential
impacts on these areas as compared to the proposal. Potential impacts from
oilspills on marine mammals, birds, and coastal habitats would be reduced
substantially in Shelikof Strait. Risk to marine mammals and marine mammal
habitats from direct and indirect effects of pollution would remain high in
the northern Kodiak Archipelago area, but would be much less than that of the
proposal, particularly since no tanker facility would be located on eastern
Kodiak Island, and less tanker traffic would occur in the vicinity of eastern
Kodiak Island and over Portlock Bank. Risk to areas of high subsistence use
and dependence along the strait would be significantly reduced. Alternative V
provides an increased, but unquantifiable, level of protection from potential
oilspills to the east side of Afognak Island (commercial fishing) and other
areas of the northern Kodiak Archipelago compared to the proposal and alterna-
tive IV.
Impacts on the human and biological environments of the Kenai Peninsula/Cook
Inlet area would be similar to those described for the proposal and for alterna-
tive IV. Marine mammals, cetaceans, and bird populations that use the Barren
Islands area would be subject to fewer impacts from potential oilspill incidents
compared to the proposal. Risk from potential oilspills to the subsistence
use areas of the villages of English Bay and Port Graham would be the same as
the proposal.
The cumulative effects which could result from this alternative and other
major projects (sec. IV.A.l.h.) would be similar to, but more extensive than
the impacts which have been described above but would be less than the proposal
because of the deletion of blocks in Shelikof Strait.
6. Alternative VI: Modification of the proposed sale area by the
deletion of all blocks within lower Cook Inlet (total deletion of 86 blocks).
29
1.
Table II.B.5.a.-1
Summary of Activities Required to Develop the
Estimated Resources Within
Alternative V
Estimated acreage, construction activity,
a. Sale Acreage Offering: 126815
b. Exploration and Delineation Wells:
c. Production Platforms:
d. Production and Service Wells:
e. Workover Wells:
f. Pipelines:
Oil ( 18" diameter)
and resources:
hectares (313,125
6
2
53
168
acres)
Gas (10" diameter)
Offshore length: 129 km (80 mi to Anchor Point) 129 km (80 mi to Anchor Point)
Onshore length: 0 113 km (70 mi to Nikiski)
g. Terminal(s):
Oil: 1 (Anchor Point)
Gas: Use existing terminal at Nikiski.
h. Recoverable Hydrocarbons:
Total Production:
Peak Production:
Average Annual Production:
Oil
180.0 MMbbls
89.9 Mbbls/D
8.2 MMbbls
2. Estimated peak annual transportation by tanker:
Oil: 32.8 MMbbls
LNG: 17 MMbbls
Gas
316.0 Bcf
157.5 MMcf/D
14.4 Bcf
3. Estimated tonnage (2,000 lbs/ton) of commercial muds and volume of drill cuttings
(assuming 6 exploration wells at 4864 meters (16,000 ft) and 53 production wells at
3040 meters (10,000 ft):
Huds:
Cuttings:
Exploration/Production
Exploratory Period
Per Well Total Field
947 metric tons 5682 metric tons
(1 , 044 tons) (6,624 tons)
539m3 3 3234m 3
(704 yd 3 ) (4,224 yd )
Production Period
Per Well Total Field
680 metric
(750 tons)
206m 3
(269 yd 3 )
tons 4828 metric tons
(5,311 tons)
10918m3
(14, 25 7 yd 3 )
* Please note that during the production and development period drill mud is reused.
Approximately 10 percent of the total drill mud used is lost downhole.
4. Estimated volume of formation water produced:
A prediction cannot be made at this time due to incomplete knowledge of the subsur-
face geology of the Shelikof Strait. However, based upon the behavior of the upper
Cook Inlet field we may hypothesize that at midlife the sale 60 will be producing one
barrel of formation water for every two barrels of oil, or approximately 4 HMbbls per
year.
5. Estimated land use requirements for onshore facilities:
Support/Supply: Existing facilities will suffice.
Terminal(s) and Oil
related facilities: 1 terminal
(23 hectares/59 acres)
Gas
0
6. Estimated burial disturbanc§ of offshore ~ipeline (assuming 2377 m3 /km (5,000 yd3 /mi)
for oil pipeline and 1902 m /km (4,000 yd /mi) for gas pipeline):
Oil: 306633 m3 (400,000 yd 3 )
Gas: 245358 m3 (320,000 yd3 )
a. Description of the Alternative: This alternative involves
the leasing of 67 blocks located entirely within Shelikof Strait (fig. II.B.6.a.-l).
The blocks proposed for leasing under this alternative comprise an area of
about 154080 hectares (380,630 acres). The blocks are located approximately
10 to 27 kilometers (6 to 16 mi) offshore in water depths of 119 to 219 meters
(390 to 718ft). See appendix J for block size, distance from shore, and
water depth.
According to known geophysical data, the U.S. Geological Survey projects that
the 67 blocks offered in this alternative have an estimated 5 percent chance
of containing commercial resources amounting to 335 MMbbls of oil, or one-half
of the amount stated for the proposed action. All gas produced in this alterna-
tive would probably not be viewed as being economically recoverable and would
be assumed to be reinjected into the formation.
Exploration is hypothesized to begin in 1982 and continue through 1986 with a
total of 11 exploration and delineation wells drilled. No more than two rigs
would be assumed to be in operation during any year of the exploratory period.
Jack-up rigs could be used in areas where water depths are less than 61 meters
(200ft). Semisubmersibles could be used in areas of deeper water.
Primary maritime support and supply activities would occur from existing
industry facilities at Kenai. Aircraft support would be conducted from air-
field(s) at Port Lions and possibly at Cape Chiniak.
Pipeline construction would begin in 1985 and continue through 1986. A single
144 kilometers (90 mi) oil pipeline system would be constructed. Of the total
pipeline length, some 128 kilometers (80 mi) would be constructed offshore
with the final 16 kilometers (10 mi) emplaced on land.
Oil pipeline diameter assumed for this alternative would be 18 inches. The
oil pipeline would service the entire Shelikof Strait. It would be constructed
through Kupreanof Strait to Chernof Point, and then overland to a tanker
loading terminal constructed near Talnik Point. A facility near Talnik Point
would be exposed to northern weather and would require a protective breakwater.
Oil tankers enroute to a facility near Talnik Point would arrive from the Gulf
of Alaska via Marmot Bay.
Standard pipe lay barges can operate in wave heights up to 1.5 meters (5 ft).
~ the weather throughout the proposed sale area is generally inclement, it is
probable that larger lay barges, such as the "Viking Piper," would be used in
order to minimize downtime.
Oil production could begin in 1987. By that year, two pile-supported steel
tower production platforms could be installed. By 1989 some 96 production and
service wells may be drilled. By 2009 oil production could cease. The estimated
life of this field is 23 years.
Alternative VI is the result of input which was received late in the scoping
process. As a result, the scenario associated with this alternative did not
receive the same level of detailed statistical analysis as was afforded alter-
natives I, IV, and V. However, the activities required to develop the re-
sources of this alternative are very similar to that which is portrayed for
30
FIGURE II. B. 6. a.-1
LOWER COOK INLET·SHELIKOF STRAIT
PROPOSED OCS SALE NO. 60
ALTERNATIVE VI
AREA OF CALL
TRACTS LEASED IN SALE NO. Cl
BLOCKS CONSIDERED FOR
ALTERNATIVE VI
.. OIL TERMINAL (Hypothetical)
ISLAND
Source: Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
the minimum case of the proposed action with the exception that gas is assumed
to be reinjected. Refer to the appropriate minimum case tables in appendices
A and B.
b. Summary of Probable Impacts: The deletion of tracts in
lower Cook Inlet by alternative VI and the centering of onshore oil facilities
on Kodiak Island would result in impacts on the human and biological resources
of the Kodiak Archipelago and the Shelikof Strait area similar to those described
for the proposal, with some exceptions. The location of onshore facilities on
Kodiak Island could increase the impact from oilspill events to vulnerable
coastal habitats in Marmot Bay if the hydrocarbon find in Shelikof Strait were
such to warrant placing the entire offshore support operation there. Poten-
tially reduced, but unquantifiable impacts on the subsistence resource-use
areas of Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions could be expected, although the
impacts to renewable resources used in Marmot Bay may be similar to those
described for the proposal. Fishermen who use the area from Uganik Bay to
Malina Bay would have the same potential of being adversely impacted from an
oilspill event as in the proposal. Risk from oilspills would be reduced
somewhat over the proposal to the marine mammal and bird habitats of the
northern Kodiak Archipelago and Shelikof Strait. The impact on sea lions, fur
seals, and cetaceans that use Portlock Bank and nearshore marine habitats east
of Kodiak Island could be as high as under the proposal from the cumulative
effects of tankering out of Talnik Point.
The impacts on the biological and human environments of the lower Cook Inlet
area would be substantially reduced compared to the proposal. Especially
notable would be the reduction in impacts on marine mammal and bird habitats
in the Anchor Point area and in Kamishak Bay.
The cumulative effects which could result from this alternative and other
major projects (sec. IV.A.l.h.) would be similar to those described for the
proposal in the Shelikof Strait and Kodiak and Afognak Island areas. There
would be a slight reduction in cumulative effects on resources of the Cook
Inlet area compared to the proposal because no blocks would be offered for
lease in the inlet. However, because of existing and assumed oil and gas
activities in lower Cook Inlet (sale CI and tdnkering through the inlet), risk
to biological and human resources from potential oilspills would still be
high.
C. Comparative Analysis of Impacts and Alternatives
This discussion deals with the most significant differences and similarities
among impacts and alternatives in comparison with the proposed action, alter-
native I. Refer to page 21 for a summary of impacts that could result from
the proposed action.
Alterative II could pose potentially adverse impacts on the national economy
by causing increased dependence on imported oil and gas. Impacts could occur
as a result of development of alternative energy sources. Refer to the FEIS
for the proposed 5-year oil and gas lease sale schedule and the FEIS for OCS
sale 55 (DOl, 1980) for a general discussion of potential impacts that could
result from various alternative energy sources.
31
Alternative III (delay tl1e sale) would delay potential impacts of the proposal,
but would not avoid them. A reduction in biological and social impacts by
some unquantifiable degree could be achieved if the delay were used to strate-
gically plan for community impacts on Port Lions and to fill biological data
gaps, especially with regard to birds and marine mammals. These studies could
help to better understand potential impacts on the biological resources of
Shelikof Strait and could provide more information so that potential impacts
could be more effectively mitigated.
Alternative IV could significantly reduce major potential impacts on the human
and biological resources of Kodiak Island and Shelikof Strait through signifi-
cant block deletion within Shelikof Strait. Because no oil/gas activities
would occur in Shelikof Strait, and onshore facilities would not be located at
Talnik Point, the probability of an oilspill or chronic pollution occurring
and contacting biological resources in the Kodiak Island area and Shelikof
Strait would be lower than for the proposal. As a result, potentially adverse
impacts associated with oil pollution would be significantly reduced with this
alternative, particularly for marine mammals (especially sea otters), coastal
birds, and nearshore fish that inhabit the northern portion of Shelikof Strait,
Kupreanof Strait, and Marmot Bay. Potentially adverse effects of petroleum
activity-related noise and disturbance on marine mammals (sea lions, ha~bor
seals, and whales) and coastal birds would be eliminated in Shelikof Strait
and the Kodiak Island area. Effects on the economies and sociocultural systems
of Kodiak Island communities would be significantly reduced {eliminated) with
this alternative compared to the proposal.
Since no petroleum-related activity would occur in Shelikof Strait, competition
for ocean space between the oil industry (platforms, dock space, supply and
support vessels) and the commercial fishing industry would not occur.
Likewise, loss of commercial fishing gear due to petroleum-related activity
would not occur in the Shelikof Strait and Kodiak Island areas.
Potential impacts on the human and biological environments of the Barren
Islands and lower Cook Inlet are expected to be the same as those described
for the proposed action.
Alternative V would delete the entire Shelikof Strait area from leasing and
follow the same developmental scenario as alternative IV. Major potential
impacts on Kodiak Island and the Shelikof Strait may be significantly reduced
compared to the proposal and would be about the same as those described for
alternative IV. Potential impacts from oilspills to biological resources of
the Barren Islands and Afognak Island would likely be reduced compared to the
proposal, and would be reduced slightly compared to alternative IV. Major
potential impacts on the human and biological environments of lower Cook Inlet
and the Kenai Peninsula are expected to be similar to those described for the
proposed action and alternative IV. Of all the alternatives, alternatives IV
and V provide the greatest reduction of risk of potential impacts on bio-
logical resources.
Alternative VI would delete from leasing all blocks located in lower Cook
Inlet. Thus, potential impacts on the biological and human environments of
Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula would likely be eliminated. Although this
alternative would pose no risk to the biological and human resources of lower
32
Cook Inlet, risk to these resources from potential oilspills would still be
high (though not as high as for the proposal or alternatives IV or V) because
of existing and assumed oil and gas activities in the inlet (sale Cl and
tankering through the inlet). Potential impacts on the human and biological
environments of Kodiak and Afognak Islands and Shelikof Strait would be essen-
tially the same as those described for the proposal.
D. Analysis of Other Block Deletion Alternatives
Block deletions were recommended by eight agencies, organizations, and indivi-
duals as a result of the DEIS review and public hearing process. The descrip-
tion and environmental impacts of these recommendations can be found in section
IV.B.
33
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. Physical Characteristics
1. Geology: This discussion summarizes a portion of the descrip-
tion of the affected environment contained on the back of graphics 1 through 4.
Visual information is presented on graphic 1 and in appendix M of this FEIS.
The more significant potential physical constraints that could affect OCS
activities in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait are potential hazards
associated with earthquakes and seismic activity, tsunamis, and potential
hazards associated with volcanism, especially Augustine Volcano.
The Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait region is susceptible to earthquakes of magni-
tude 6.0 to 8.8 on the Richter scale. The recurrence of such great earth-
quakes as the 1964 Alaska earthquake in Prince William Sound is estimated to
range from a minimum of 33 years to a maximum of 800 years. Damage to man-made
facilities can be caused by ground shaking, ground failure, fault displacement,
surface warping, seismic seawaves (tsunamis), and consolidation of soils.
The narrow elongated geometry of Cook Inlet reduces the chance that a tsunami
generated outside the inlet would propagate significant destructive energy
into it. However, local or subregional tsunamis generated within lower Cook
Inlet or Shelikof Strait could significantly damage facilities located close
to shore.
The occurrence of volcanism along the Aleutian Arc is the result of plate con-
vergence between the North American and Pacific plates. Nineteen volcanoes
form the eastern Aleutian Arc from the upper Alaska Peninsula to Cook Inlet.
Eight of these have erupted during this century. The 1912 eruption of Mt. Katmai
adjacent to the Shelikof Strait area was one of the world's largest eruptions.
Augustine Volcano has erupted in recent years in lower Cook Inlet.
Various potential hazards of an eruption of Mt. Augustine include glowing
avalanches (pyroclastic flows), mud flows, floods, minor lava flows, bomb and
ash falls, noxious fumes, poisonous gases, acid rainfall, and local tsunamis.
Most of these potential volcanic hazards, with the exception of ash falls,
acid rain, and local tsunamis, would be confined to Augustine Island itself,
but could extend a limited distance offshore.
Recently, the U.S. Geological Survey published a series of six maps and cross
sections depicting the environmental geology of the Shelikof Strait region
(Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Reports Nos.
80-2031 through 80-2036, 1980). These maps show the distribution of faults,
potential unstable bottom sediments, potential gas-charged sediments, bathy-
metry, and the geologic features of Shelikof Strait. In addition, a recently
published report by M. Hampton and A. Bouma (1979) on various environmental
geology aspects of Cook Inlet and the Kodiak Shelf serves to augment descrip-
tive material included on graphic 1.
2. Meteorological Conditions and Oceanography: This discussion
summarizes a portion of the description of the affected eDvironment contained
on the back of graphics 1 through 4. Visual information is shown on graphic 2.
34
a. Meteorological Conditions: Meteorological conditions in
lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait are strongly influenced by the presence
of mountains. Lower Cook Inlet is a transition zone between continental and
marine meteorological conditions; whereas Shelikof Strait and the Alaska
Peninsula are ch~racteristic of Pacific maritime climatological conditions.
The variability in temperature, average annual precipitation, and annual
maximum sustained winds for selected return periods between the two oceano-
graphic regions can be found in the tables on the back of graphics 1 through 4.
In addition, a discussion is also given on temperature, precipitation, skycover,
winds, and storms.
b. Physical Oceanography:
Circulation: The circulation of seawater throughout the proposed lease sale
area can vary considerably on a seasonal and daily basis. A generalized
circulation pattern from a variety of study efforts in Cook Inlet and Shelikof
Strait was presented in graphic 2. The general circulation pattern for the
area is influenced by waters from the Gulf of Alaska and fresh water input
from the Copper River and from rivers of the Kenai Peninsula. These waters
enter Kennedy and Stevenson Entrances where some of it moves northward and
mixes with a strong surface outflow from upper Cook Inlet.
Short term fluctuation from a few days to a week occurs throughout the area
and is generally more pronounced in areas of weaker current systems such as
occur in parts of lower Cook Inlet. For a graphic example of the type of
variation in surface transport that can occur spatially and seasonally in
lower Cook Inlet refer to figures IV.A.1.d.2 through 6.
Some recent satellite infrared photographs have shown that during October and
November there can be as much as a threefold increase in the amount of water
entering lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. The general circulation pat-
tern of this study area is not significantly changed from this input but does
create more eddies and wave length flow. There may be as much as a threefold
increase in the rates of the flow for some parts of Shelikof Strait during
this 2-month period (Hufford, personal communications).
Tides: The main driving force for surface circulation is the tides. Typical
ranges between successive high and low waters are from 3.7 to 5.5 meters (12
to 18 ft) with wider ranges in the upper reaches of the inlet. Tidal currents
of 2 to 3 knots have been measured at Kennedy Entrance, 4 to 5 knots at Cape
Douglas, and up to 8 knots at the Forelands.
Energy from the tides is dissipated largely by bottom friction. Submarine
television observations have revealed extensive sand transport moving at 10 to
14 centimeters per second near the bottom. Bottom currents causing this sand
transport may be as great as 50 centimeter per second in the lower Cook Inlet
region (Bouma, 1978).
Noise: The background noises from biotic sources is addressed in sections
IV.A.2.d. and e.
Surface Trajectories: Several drift bottle studies were discussed in section
III.A.2.b. of the DEIS. These studies provide some indication of the trajectory
of a surface pollutant but no indication of the actual rate of movement. The
results of more extensive modelling techniques of surface flow are presented
in section IV.A.1.d. of this FEIS.
35
The discussion of vulnerable habitats with respect to surface trajectories is
given in section IV.A.1.e.
c. Chemical Oceanography:
Salinity: On graphic 2, the salinity ranges are units part per thousand
(0/00) •.
Heavy Metals: Suspended particulates were collected from the same two tran-
sects shown in figure III.A.2.b.-1 on the back of graphics 1 through 4.
Suspended particulates are significantly higher (2-3 orders of magnitude) in
heavy metal content than was found in the filtered water samples. The bio-
availability of heavy metals sorbed to the suspended particulate fraction is
presently poorly understood.
Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Water Column: Seawater samples in the study
area were found to be less than one part per billion in petroleum hydrocarbons.
Surface tows made in Cook Inlet yielded low background tar levels. Drift
bottle studies, however, conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
in 1978 suggest significant amounts of tar in the inlet. Approximately 7
percent of the drift bottle returns were coated with tar. The quantitative
significance of drift bottle studies is limited because of the differing and
unknown residence times of the bottles in the water, contact with beach tar
deposits, relocation along the beach, and reporting bias due to differences in
human population densities and activities along the coastline.
Concentrations of hydrocarbons in the water column below an oil slick can be
expected to be approximately 200 parts per billion and perhaps relatively
uniformedly distributed down to about 50 meters. It could be assumed that oil
which comes in contact with suspended particulate material could be eventually
transported to the bottom. Concentrations of hydrocarbons on the bottom could
be approximately .025 gram of oil per gram of detritus.
B. Biological Characteristics
1. Vulnerable Coastal Habitats: This discussion summarizes a
portion of the description of the affected environment contained on the back
of graphics 1 through 4. Visual information is shown on graphic 2.
This section focuses on coastal habitats, which almost entirely surround this
proposed OCS lease area. Some of the important coastal habitats include the
kelp beds on shallow-water banks in which sea otters feed, the streams and
estuaries in which salmon spawn, and the intertidal region. These habitats
are described in this section; the likelihood of accidental oilspills im-
pacting these habitats, and persistence of oil in these habitats, will be des-
cribed later.
Descriptions of the biota and food webs have been analyzed by Dames and Moore
(1975, a and b), by Palmisano and Estes (1977), and by Lees (1978).
Evidence from California and the Aleutian Islands indicates that the sea otter
is a key species in determining the structure of nearshore communities. In
areas with dense sea otter populations, sea urchins, limpets, and chitons are
reduced to sparse populations of small individuals; macroalgae flourish, pro-
36
viding food and shelter for a variety of organisms, especially crustaceans;
wave exposure is reduced, siltation is increased, and overall productivity is
high. In contrast, similar areas with few or no sea otters have dense popula-
tions of large herbivores; macroalgae are severely overgrazed; bare rocky sub-
strates are exposed to wave action; and overall productivity is low.
The lowest reaches of the rocky intertidal and nearshore eelgrass beds are
critical to the life cycle of such commercially important species as the king
crab, Paralithodes camtschatica and Dungeness crab, Cancer magister.
The nearshore region of lower Cook Inlet is also an important spawning area
for several commercially important pelagic, demersal, and anadromous fish
species. In the summer, maturing salmonids congregate at the mouths of natal
streams before migrating upstream to spawn. In late spring and summer, Pacific
herring, chum and pink salmon, and some demersal species spawn in intertidal
and shallow subtidal regions. Some flatfish are thought to spawn near shore
in lower Cook Inlet in winter and spring.
The kelp and macroalgae beds, as well as providing habitat for sea otters,
provide a substrate on which herring spawn. Both the herring and their roe
(herring eggs) are quite valuable commercially (section III.B.2).
Other shallow-water organisms that are commercially valuable are the razor
clam and scallop. The distribution in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait of
these organisms in commercially exploited quantities and/or areas of dense
concentration is shown on graphic 2. The distribution of both scallops and
razor clams is based on information from the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (1978).
The vulnerable coastal habitats have been outlined in the previous paragraphs.
The probability of these habitats being impacted by oilspills is described in
section IV.A.1.d. The persistence of spilled oil·in these habitats is des-
cribed in section IV.A.1.e., and the possible effects on the biota are des-
cribed in section IV.A.2.a.
2. Commercial and Sportfish: Refer to graphics 2 through 8 of
this FEIS for visual information and the back of graphics 5 thrvugh 8 of this
FEIS for descriptive text.
3. Marine and Coastal Birds: This discussion summarizes a portion
of the description of the affected environment contained on the back of gra-
phics 9 through 12. Visual information is presented on graphic 10.
At least 100 species of marine and coastal birds numbering several million
occur in the proposed sale area. Among the marine species, the sooty and
short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus griseus and ~-tennuirostris) are the most
dominant species during the summer in the offshore areas, while the most
abundant nesting species are common murres (Uria aalge), tufted puffins (Lunda
cirrhata), forked-tailed storm petrels (Oceanodroma furcata), black-legged
kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla), and glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens).
There are at least 60 seabird colonies in the lower Cook Inlet area and 120
colonies in the Shelikof Strait area (see graphic 10). At least 30 species of
37
seabirds and waterfowl, numbering in the tens of thousands, overwinter in
ice-free bays and inlets of both Shelikof Strait and lower Cook Inlet. The
Wha~e Passage/Afognak Strait area and Kachemak Bay are the most important
winter concentration areas. Murres, crested auklets (Aethia cristatella), and
several species of sea ducks, which are all species highly vulnerable to oil
pollution, represent the predominant wintering birds in these areas.
The major food sources of the bird species predominant during the spring and
summer include capelin, sand lance, euphausiid crustaceans, squid, and pollock.
Various benthic invertebrates and demersal fish are winter food sources.
Several million migrant waterfowl, including ducks, geese (including the rare
tule goose), swans, and many species of shorebirds, either stop over at several
staging areas along the coast of lower Cook Inlet or nest in the coastal
marshlands. Some of these important staging and nesting areas include inner
Kachemak Bay, Tuxedni Bay, Redoubt Bay (habitat of the rare tule goose),
Douglas and Kenai River flats, Drift River, Chinitna Bay, Iliamna Bay, Ursus
Cove, Iniskin Bay, and other coastal areas in lower Cook Inlet.
Several species of shorebirds, including oyster-catchers, plovers, turnstones,
sandpipers, phalaropes, and two major coastal birds of prey; the bald eagle
(Haliacetus leucocephalus) and the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), feed
and nest along the coast of the proposed sale area. Significant populations
of bald eagles and peregrine falcons occur year-round in the sale area.
4. Marine Mammals: This discussion summarizes a portion of the
description of the environment contained on the back of graphics 9 through 12.
Visual information is shown on graphic 11.
Section III.B.4. on the back of graphics 9 through 12, addresses in detail the
natural history, distribution, and abundance of the northern fur seal, Steller
sea lion, harbor seal, and sea otter as relevant to the proposed sale area.
Evidence to date indicates that the bulk of the fur seal population migrates
east of Kodiak Island and the Kenai Peninsula in the Gulf of Alaska although
an unknown portion of this population occurs seasonally in Shelikof Strait.
Steller sea lions are particularly abundant near and in the proposed sale area
with major breeding rookeries located at Sugarloaf and Marmot Islands. These
two rookeries alone contribute close to half of the entire sea lion producti-
vity in the Gulf of Alaska. Movements of large segments of the sea lion
population may occur throughout the Shelikof Strait area. Harbor seals occur
throughout the coastal zone of lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. Major
concentrations (including breeding animals and pups) occur on Augustine Island,
Shuyak Island, northern Afognak Island, several locations along the east and
west shorelines of Kodiak Island, and the largest known concentration in the
world at Tugidak Island. Sea otter concentrations occur in several important
areas including the Barren Islands, Shuyak-Afognak Islands, Kamishak Bay, and
the Trinity Islands. The waters of the northern Kodiak Archipelago are habitat
for as many as 3,000-6,000 sea otters and represent an important source of
animals from which range expansion is occurring, as do certain other habitats
occupied at present.
Errata: Section III.B.4. on the back of graphics 9 through 12.
* *
Paragraph 1, line 11: change Eumotopia's to Eumetopia's.
Sea Otter, paragraph 1, last sentence. Change 2,000 to 3,000.
38
5. Endangered Species and Non-Endangered Cetaceans: This discus-
sion summarizes a portion of the description of the affected environment
contained on the back of graphics 9 through 12. Visual information is shown
on graphic 12.
Section III.B.S., on the back of graphics 9 through 12 addresses in detail the
natural history, distribution, and abundance of endangered species and non-
endangered cetaceans.
There are at least 17 cetacean species which may occur in the proposed sale
area. Seven of these species and one avian species are considered to be
endangered. Listed (Federal Register, vol. 44, No. 12) endangered species
which may ~ in the proposed sale area include the gray whale, humpback
whale, fin whale, sei whale, blue whale, sperm whale, right whale, and the
Aleutian Canada Goose.
Other species listed as endangered may occur in various locations of the Gulf
of Alaska or are possible transients through southcentral Alaska, including
the peregrine falcon (Falco ere rinus anatum and ~· 2· tundrius) and short-
tailed albatross (Diomeda immutabilis . None of the latter species are known
to make significant use of or have been recently reported in or near the
proposed sale area.
Of the endangered whales, gray, fin, humpback, and, possibly sei whales are
most likely to occur in or near the proposed sale area on a seasonal basis.
Recent observations of Aleutian Canada geese have been reported in the Semidi
Islands which suggests that migrants may pass to the south of Kodiak Island.
There have been no sightings of this species by researchers conducting marine
bird and waterfowl surveys in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait.
Non-endangered cetaceans most likely to occur in or near the proposed sale
area include beluga, killer, and minke whales; harbor porpoise, and Dall
porpoise.
Errata: Section III.B.S. on the back of graphics 9 through 12.
* *
* *
*
*
*
Paragraph 1, line 29, change novaenoline to novaeangline.
Blue Whale: Paragraph 1, line 17, insert "to" between "Alaska" and
"Vancouver."
Right Whale: Paragraph 1, line 10, change "western" to "eastern."
Northern Right Whale Dolphin: The heading and material after it should
come before the material at the top of the column.
Aleutian Canada Goose: Insert after line 17 "The fall population in 1977
was estimated to be 1,600 geese."
Beluga: Paragraph 3, first sentence, change "an unknown number" to "an
unknown but substantially larger number."
Killer whale: Paragraph 1, sentence 2, "Scheffer (1972) estimated ... "
Delete entire sentence. Paragraph 3, last sentence, delete "such as near
sea lion or other marine mammal rookeries."
6. Terrestrial Mammals: This discussion summarizes a portion of
the description of the affected environment contained on the back of graphics
9 through 12. Visual information is shown on graphic 9.
39
About 38 species of terrestrial mammals occur in the coastal habitat of the
sale area. Eleven of these species utilize the marine resources regularly:
river otter (Lutra canadensis), brown bear (Ursus arctos), black bear (Ursus
americanus), red fox (Vulpes fulva), arctic fox (Alo~ex lagopus), wolf (Canis
lupus), coyote (Canis latrans~nk (Mustella vison , wolverine (Gulo luscus),
moose (Alces alces), and Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus heinionus sitkensis).
In the proposed sale area the brown bear, the Sitka black-tailed deer, the
river otter, and the red and arctic foxes utilize the coastal beaches, tidal
habitat or nearshore waters most frequently. Brown bear rely heavily on
coastal beaches during the spring for carrion, and depend primarily on salmon
runs during the summer and fall, especially on Kodiak Island. The Sitka
black-tailed deer on Kodiak Island depends primarily on beaches and other
coastal habitat during the wintertime. River otter commonly occur in coastal
waters, on beaches, and tidal habitats, while red and artie fox frequently
hunt along the shoreline and beaches of the proposed sale area.
C. Social and Economic Components
1. Social Factors:
a. Population: This discussion summarizes a portion of the
description of the affected environment contained on the back of graphics 13
through 16.
The history of human habitation of the Kodiak Islands and the coasts of Cook
Inlet date back at least 2,000 years when the area's original inhabitants, the
Aleut and Chugach Eskimos, and later the Koniag and Kenaitze Indians estab-
lished permanent settlements in the area. The more recent history of settle-
ment in the area, stimulated by the growth of the fishing industry, home-
steading, tourism, and more recent military and oil and gas populations have
added new towns and predominant industries to the area. The present popula-
tion of the area consists of approximately 22,000 residents in three towns and
a number of villages and unincorporated areas of the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
and approximately 9,000 residents of Kodiak Island located in Kodiak City and
six villages, as well as scattered unincorporated settlements within the
Kodiak Island Borough.
b. Community Infrastructure: This discussion summarizes the
description of the affected environment contained on the back of graphics 13
through 16.
Local government, housing, water services, sewer services, solid waste dis-
posal, electrical power, fire protection, police protection, communications,
health services, and education were covered in this discussion. The communi-
ties discussed include Kenai, North Kenai, Soldotna, Homer, Kodiak, and Port
Lions.
There is a wide range of disparity among these communities for each of the
various topics, some communities having adequate supplies or services and
others inadequate. For example, the central peninsula area has an adequate
housing supply and an inadequate water supply. Port Lions, on the other hand,
has an inadequate housing supply and an adequate water system. Kodiak has
both an inadequate housing supply and water service.
40
c. Sociocultural Systems: This discussion summarizes a por-
tion of the description of the affected environment contained on the back of
graphics 13 through 16.
Kodiak City depends on the sea for its livelihood, income, and way of living.
Fishermen and most other residents of Kodiak are socially, politically, and
economically organized around the fishing seasons and the fishing industry.
In 1977, for example, 2,489 people worked in Kodiak area canneries, while over
1,100 Kodiak residents held commercial fishing licenses. Fishing crew, Coast
Guard, other State and Federal agency support services, tourism, and other
economic, social, and political activities are all interdependent with and
supportive of the fishing industry in Kodiak.
Approximately 15 percent of Kodiak's population is Aleut, Eskimo, or Indian,
according to 1970 census reports. Russian, Scandinavian and Filipino popula-
tions and cultures are also important within the Kodiak community. Racial
conflict occasionally flares here. Other conflict tends to be associated with
or result from characteristics of fishermen and their families, particularly
the demands of Kodiak's fisheries, including long hours out, danger, and risk.
The villages of Shelikof Strait depend on the sea for both subsistence and
cash. These relatively isolated Aleut settlements have long maintained a
distinctive Aleut-Russian culture and way of life that they value highly and
want to maintain. Each village is composed of from one to three extended
families who are socially, economically, and politically organized around
subsistence and commercial fishing, hunting, and gathering activities. Port
Lions is a merger of the former village of Afognak and the former Port Wakefield
independent fishing fleet at the Port Wakefield site. It is somewhat larger,
more diverse culturally, and more prosperous than villages located along the
coast of Shelikof Strait.
The sociocultural systems of the lower Cook Inlet area are somewhat more
varied than are those on Kodiak Island. A system of roads connects most of
the towns and unincorporated areas of the Kenai Borough. English Bay, Port
Graham, and Seldovia across Kachemak Bay are exceptions, being accessible only
by air and sea.
Homer is a fishing, recreational, and subsistence-oriented hub, as are the
unincorporated communities close by, including Ninilchik and Anchor Point.
Kenai, on the other hand, considers itself the "oil capital of Alaska" while
at the same time maintaining a substantial commercial and recreational fishing
industry. Soldotna's economy and social system have grown out of government
and university populations and residential developments catering to the Kenai-
Nikiski oil workers. Homesteaders were earlier settlers of all these communi-
ties.
The villages of English Bay and Port Graham are long established Aleut-Russian
villages with a fishing-subsistence way of life and close-knit extended family
systems. Seldovia, too, is a small fishing community, but its residents are
now less involved in subsistence activities and more dependent upon fishing
incomes than formerly. As in the case of Kodiak Island, numerous families
maintain a subsistence way of life outside the boundaries of established
communities in and around Kachemak Bay and lower Cook Inlet.
41
Errata: Section III.C.l.c. on the back of graphics 13 through 16.
* The source of Cook Inlet sociocultural information is Braund, S. R. and
Behnke, 1980. * Port Lions, 2nd paragraph, last sentence, substitute the following:
"During local discussions here, it was learned that community opinion
about OCS has shifted somewhat. In contrast to villages located along
the coast of Shelikof Strait, Port Lions is actively encouraging well
planned, orderly growth consistent with current lifestyles, community
goals, and a community size of 400-500 people." * Lower Cook Inlet: 3rd paragraph, last sentence should read: "The pre-
sence of a cannery in Port Graham provides more cash in this village's
economy and may account for the more extensive subsistence use range (see
graphic 14 of the 60 DEIS) utilized by Port Graham residents."
d. Subsistence: This discussion summarizes a portion of the
description of the affected environment contained on the back of graphics 13
through 16.
According to Alaska Statutes, "subsistence uses" are those customary and
traditional uses in Alaska of wild renewable resources for direct personal or
family consumption (AS Sec. 16.05.940). Subsistence use of local resources is
very important to local Kodiak Island and lower Cook Inlet people. Several
villages along Shelikof Strait are primarily organized around subsistence
activities, supplemented by commercial fishing incomes. These are the villages
of Karluk, Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions. In Cook Inlet, the villages
of English Bay and Port Graham are primarily subsistence-oriented communities.
Table III.C.1.d.-1 lists resources of these six villages, which are used as
part of the present yearly subsistence cycle. In addition to these villages,
significant subsistence dependence also exists in Homer, Seldovia, Ninilchik,
and Anchor Point, as well as in the scattered rural residences outside the
towns and villages of the area. Subsistence information is illustrated on
graphic 14.
Errata: Section III.C.1.d. on the back of graphics 13 through 16.
* Table III.C.1.d.-1, Source of information: KANA and Alaska OCS Office, 1980. * Table III.C.1.d.-2, Source of information: North Pacific Rim, Inc. 1980. * Add the following paragraph to the end of the discussion of lower Cook Inlet:
"For a more complete discussion of the cultural meanings and organization
associated with subsistence, subsistence cycles and village life in Cook
Inlet and Kodiak, see Braund and Behnke, 1980 and Davis, 1980. Also,
refer to Native Livelihood and Dependence, Field Study 1, June, 1979, for
a discussion of subsistence cycles and primary and secondary resource
designations."
2. Economy: This discussion summarizes a portion of the descrip-
tion of the affected environment contained in appendix Q and is limited to the
local areas of Kodiak and the central and southern Kenai Peninsula. State,
regional, and some non-Kodiak or non-Kenai descriptions are not presented
because of the minimal impact of sale 60 on the respective areas. Detailed
information from which this abstraction is made was provided from the University
of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research (1978 and 1980), and
Alaska Consultants, Inc. (1979).
42
Table III.C.1.d.-1
Subsistence Resource Summary Sbelikof Strait Villages
Resource Karluk Larsen Ba~ Ouzinkie Port Lions
Finfish
Sockeye Salmon 1 1 1 1
Chinook Salmon 2 1 1 2
Coho Salmon 1 2 1 1
Pink Salmon 1 1 1 1
Chum Salmon 2 2 2 0
Herring 2 2 0 2
Halibut 2 1 1 1
Cod 0 1 2 2
Flounder 1 1 2 2
Bass 2 1 0 0
Trout 1 1 2 2
Fish Eggs 2 2 2 2
Shellfish
Clams 1 1 2 2
Octupus 2 2 2 0
Shrimp 0 2 1 2
Prawns 0 2 1 2
"Beach Food"* 2 2 2 2
King Crab 2 2 1 1
Tanner Crab 2 2 2 0
Dungeness Crab 2 2 1 1
Sea MaliiDals
Seal 1 1 1 0
Sea Lion 2 1 2 0
Land MaDJDals
Deer-Elk 1 1 1 1
Rabbit 1 1 1 1
Ptarmigan 1 1 1 1
Ducks 1 1 1 1
Geese 0 0 0 0
Bird Eggs 2 2 0 0
Vegetation
Salmonberries 2 2 2 2
Cranberries 2 2 2 2
Other berries 2 2 2 2
Other vegetation 2 2 2 2
0 = Rarely utilized/occurring
1 = Primary Subsistence Resource
2 = Secondary Subsistence Resource
*Includes sea urchins, chitons, and other small shellfish found at low tide.
The most important economic sector in Kodiak is commercial fishing and fish
processing, both in terms of employment and investment. Other significant
economic activities include tourism and recreation, the wood products indus-
tri, and the U.S. Coast Guard base. Future growth in these industries and
others will be influenced to a large part by the'actions of the Regional
Native Corporations. Villages in the Kodiak region are principally involved
in commercial fishing and to some degree in timber operations. It is not
anticipated that the sources of livelihood or the character of these villages
will change in the foreseeable future. In contrast to villages located along
the coast of Shelikof Strait, Port Lions is actively encouraging well planned,
orderly growth consistent with current lifestyles, community goals, and a
community size of 400-500 people.
The Kenai/Cook Inlet census division economy is significantly different from
that of Kodiak. The economic base of this region is principally the oil and
gas industry followed by commercial fishing and fish processing, tourism and
recreation, and the wood products industries. The geographic distribution of
the industries is roughly as follows. The Kenai/Nikiski area is the center of
the oil and gas related industries, and is the support base for petroleum
activities in Cook Inlet. This area would also support development of the oil
and gas resources in the Kodiak/Shelikof Strait region, if such development
occurs. Soldotna, lying southeast of Kenai, is the center for government and
education. A significant number of oil industry workers also live in Soldotna.
Kenai Peninsula communities such as Ninilchik, Homer, and Seldovia are rela-
tively strongly tied to the commercial fishing industry and have incurred
rather substantial growth in the tourism and recreation sectors in recent
years.
3. Cultural Resources: This discussion summarizes a portion of
the description of the affected environment contained on the back of graphics
13 through 16. Visual information is shown on graphic 13.
The shoreline surrounding the proposed lease area has numerous cultural re-
sources of prehistoric and historic value. The predominant types of prehis-
toric resources found on the shores near the proposed sale area are housepits
containing the household and subsistence artifacts (stone lamps, sinkers,
arrowheads, etc.) of early people. Rock carvings and rock painting are also
found. Historic artifacts found onshore near the proposed lease area consist
of early Russian houses, roadway inns, fish camps, mining camps and other re-
minders of historic times. There is a high probability that archeological
sites occur in some blocks in the proposed lease sale area. Submerged artifacts,
if found, would be similar to those listed above (burins, stone arrowheads)
and would have been scattered by tidal currents and geologic changes
(David Hopkins, 1967). It is estimated that less than 1 percent of all rig
emplacement surveys would locate these artifacts because only rather large
anomalies, 1 meter or larger, can be distinguished with side-scan sonar.
Magnetometers detect only metal objects and these, if found, would most likely
be from historical objects. It is estimated that less than 2 percent of all
surveys for rig emplacement might locate a sunken ship within the boundaries
of the sale area.
43
Errata: Section III.C.3. on the back of graphics 13 through 16.
* Replace the historical sequence that appears in paragraph one with the
following:
Koniak (Kodiak)
1000 A.D. to Contact
Kachemak (I, II, III Central South Alaska)
800 B.C. to 1000 A.D.
Three Saints Bay (Kodiak)
100 B.C. to 1000 A.D.
Old Kiavok (Kodiak)
1300 B.C. to 100 B.C.
Ocean Bay II (Kodiak)
2500 B.C. to 1300 B.C.
Ocean Bay I (Kodiak)
4500 B.C. to 2500 B.C.
4. Visual, Wilderness, and Recreation Resources: This discussion
summarizes a portion of the description of the affected environment contained
on the back of graphics 13 through 16. Visual information is shown on graphic 15.
Visual, wilderness, and recreation resources of the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak
Island, and the Alaska Peninsula are described. Visually, each area is varied
and outstanding. Rugged mountains, forest, grassy areas, lakes, rivers, and
coastline characterize each area. The Alaska Peninsula is famous for its
volcanoes. Each area is well known for its wildlife, be it moose, brown bear,
black bear, or birds.
Each area contains vast acreage of what most would term "wilderness." Prac-
tically all of the Alaska Peninsula and most of Kodiak Island are roadless.
The Kenai Peninsula contains a road system that seems extensive in comparison.
Outdoor recreation not only draws people to vacation in Alaska but is an
extremely important ingredient in the lifestyle of most Alaskans. Sightseeing,
fishing, hunting, boating, camping, photography, berry picking and other food
gathering, cross-country skiing, wildlife viewing, hiking, and snowmobiling
are among the available recreation opportunities. Fishing is the most popular
recreational activity (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1979). The Kenai
Peninsula is accessible to the greatest number of people and is much more
highly utilized for recreation than the Alaska Peninsula or Kodiak Island.
Errata: Section III.C.4. on the back of graphics 13 through 16.
* The Kenai River should be included as one of several areas that are used
heavily for recreation. * All material describing recreational use of the Katmai National Monument
was obtained through telephone contact with National Park Service personnel
at the monument.
44
* All "areas of particular concern" along the coast of the Alaska Peninsula,
as identified by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (1978, 1979),
are depicted on graphic 15. In addition to the "areas of particular
concern" shown on the graphic, there are numerous areas on Kodiak Island
and the Kenai Peninsula which are described in two reports by the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (1978, 1979), but are not shown on graphic 15.
Since sufficient recreation information exists for these two areas for
the purposes of this environmental statement, the "areas of particular
concern" are not shown on the graphic. For a complete description of all
"areas of particular concern," refer to the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources' reports cited above.
5. Land Status and Land Use: This discussion summarizes a portion
of the description of the affected environment contained in appendix R. Existing
land status and land use is depicted on graphic 8. The graphic shows land
status and land use patterns for upper and lower Cook Inlet, the Kenai Peninsula,
Kamishak Bay, the Alaska Peninsula, and portions of the Kodiak Archipelago
facing the Shelikof Strait portion of the leasing proposal.
Land status topics include Federal and State land ownership and Native land
selections and interim conveyances under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA). Also discussed are the various monument actions under the
Antiquities Act and the withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA). State public interest lands on the Kenai Peninsula
lowlands are identified and a tabulation of Native corporation land status
under ANCSA is portrayed. Existing land use in the coastal zone of the pro-
posed sale area is described for developed portions of the Kenai Peninsula
lowlands. Approved land use plans for incorporated communities in the coastal
zone of the proposal are identified and discussed. Plans are described only
for those communities the land status or land use of which may be affected by
the petroleum development scenario set forth in the leasing proposal. These
communities include the cities of Kenai, Homer, Anchor Point, Ninilchik, and
Port Lions.
Additionally, approved management plans for the Katmai National Monument, the
Kenai National Moose Range, and the Corps of Engineers' Kenai River Review are
described. Interim management regulations for the national monuments and
FLMPA areas are identified; however, permanent land use plans for these areas
have yet to be prepared.
Errata: Section III.C.5. of the DEIS (appendix R of this FEIS).
* The city of Port Lions has adopted an Industrial Development Plan (1980)
since publication of the DEIS. The DEIS acknowledges industrial land
uses contemplated in an earlier comprehensive plan of 1975 (Galliet and
Silides, 1975). -A specific area of land presently zoned for industrial
uses is on the Peregrebni Peninsula and consists of 60 acres. The plan
indicates that industrial land use and development decisions will be made
by the city on an individual project basis in accordance with the city's
overall planning goals and policies.
The industrial land uses allowed by the Port Lions Industrial Development
Plan are not explicitly identified. The plan summary indicates that "the
45
community has the resource potential to support a seafood processing
industry, timber industry, marine services industry, and possibly a
marine service base for offshore oil and gas exploration, but with so.e
reservations in the community's attitude towards development." The plan
summary additionally states that:
"An assessment of Port Lions' location, history, present economy,
community goals, facilities and services, clearly points to the
conclusion that Port Lions would be an excellent site for the devel-
opment of a marine industrial park which might include seafood
processing, by product processing, marine gear and boat repair and
storage, or marine sales and services."
* The city has additionally prepared and adopted a Port Lions Comprehensive
Parks and Recreation Plan (1979). The plan identifies nine parklands
which are important to the city as recreational opportunities. The
parklands comprise eight small areas in proximity to the village, and one
large reserve on Peregrebni Peninsula. Two of the parklands are scheduled
to be conveyed to the Afognak Native Corporation, and one area is located
on private property. The parklands identified in the plan include Lukin
Park, Boskofsky Park, Agick Park, Larsen Beach North, Knagin Beach South,
Naumoff Park, Pestrikoff Lagoon, Noya Park, Petersen Park, and Nelson
Park. The locations of the parklands are identified on a reference map
which accompanies the plan.
6. Transportation: This discussion summarizes a portion of the
description of the affected environment contained in appendix S.
a. Kodiak Archipelago: Port Lions, a city hypothesized as an
area of possible onshore development, lies some 26 air kilometers (17 mi)
northwest of the city of Kodiak. The town has no overland communications with
any part of Kodiak and relys entirely on air and water transport for resupply
and passenger movement.
Air service to Port Lions is facilitated by a State-maintained 808-meter
(2,650 ft) gravel runway. Marine activities at Port Lions are serviced by two
docks. The largest pier (the former Wakefield cannery dock) is an L-shaped
structure which extends some 305 meters (1,000 ft) into Port Wakefield before
assuming a right angle. The second pier is a floating dock which is joined to
the cannery dock. The floating dock provides 22 berths for fishing vessels
with a total of 244 meters (800 linear ft) available for docking space.
b. Anchor~ge: The city of Anchorage is the primary trans-
portation center in Alaska. It is an important stop for the Alaska Railroad;
it has access to a major north-south, year-round highway; it is serviced by an
international airport; it has the State's most extensive dock facilities; end
it has the largest market area in the State. Any development activity that
occurs within Alaska will probably affect the social, economic, and transpor-
tation system of the city of Anchorage.
c. Cook Inlet: Unlike the western shore of the inlet, which
has no roads, potential oil and gas facility sites on the Kenai Peninsula are
all located near primary vehicle routes. These routes connect the Kenai
Peninsula with Anchorage and the rest of southcentral Alaska.
46
Scheduled air service is conducted through both Kenai and Homer airports.
Either airport can handle jet traffic and both are operating well below flight
capacity. The Homer airport, however, is in need of improvement in regard to
passenger facilities.
The marine terminals in Cook Inlet which may be affected by proposed sale 60
related activities are principally those of Nikiski and Homer. The Nikiski
facilities are more than adequate to handle exploratory and development activi-
ties. The most used facility would be the Rig-Tenders dock. This facility
was built by the Crowley Maritime Corporation for the dedicated use of the oil
industry. It is from this dock that existing upper Cook Inlet platforms are
serviced. The Homer port facilities are currently adequate to accommodate
OCS-support boat activities. Existing Homer port facilities are located at
the end of Homer Spit in Kachemak Bay. The Homer city pier extends some 140.2
meters (460ft) from shore and can serve vessels drawing 7.6 meters (25 ft) of
draft.
D. Coastal Zone Management
Appendix T is summarized as follows.
The State of Alaska has a coastal management program approved by the U.S.
Department of Commerce. The State program requires local government in the
coastal zone to participate in the program through adoption of a district
Coastal Management Program (CMP). The State program includes policies on
siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone as a use of State concern.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough is currently preparing a district CMP. At the
time the DEIS was prepared, the Borough plan was not completed. The DEIS
assumed hypothetical energy facility siting policies based upon other docu-
ments and studies sponsored by the Borough. The DEIS also identified two
proposed "Area Meriting Special Attention" designations in the coastal zone of
the Kenai Peninsula. The energy facility sites identified by the Borough are
generally the same locations identified in an earlier FEIS on proposed OCS
sale Cl (DOl, 1977). These sites include the following: oil terminals at
Cape Starichkof, Trading Bay, and Nikiski; LNG terminals at Nikiski and Cape
Starichkof; support supply facilities at Homer, Kenai, Nikiski, Cape Starichkof/
Anchor Point, and Seldovia; and processing and treatment facilities at Drift
River, Trading Bay, Cape Starichkof, and Nikiski.
The Kodiak Island Borough is currently preparing a district CMP. At the time
of DEIS preparation on proposed OCS sale 60, the Borough's plan was not com-
pleted. The DEIS assumed hypothetical energy facility and siting policies
based upon other documents and studies sponsored by the Borough. Unfortunately,
these prior studies did not treat the Shelikof Strait portion of the proposal.
The Borough did adopt a policy statement that OCS-related facilities should
not be located around population centers and should be sited at self-sustaining
and remote locations.
Errata: Section III.D. of the DEIS for proposed sale 60 (appendix T of this
FEIS).
* Since preparation of the DEIS, the Kenai Peninsula Borough has released a
draft version of its district CMP. The recommended energy and industrial
47
facility sites identified in the draft plan are essentially the same as
those previously discussed in the DEIS on the OCS leasing proposal. The
draft CMP does identify an additional potential OCS service base at
Port Naskowhak across from Seldovia in Kachemak Bay.
* Since preparation of the DEIS, the Borough has officially adapted a Ports
and Harbors Master Plan, that includes a short-range action plan for port
and harbor development. Section III.D. of the DEIS presented findings of
a Department of the Interior report in this planning effort that pertained
to energy facility siting in the coastal zone. Those findings include
options regarding OCS facility siting. These options have been adapted
as policy recommendations in the Final Ports and Harbors Master Plan.
E. Water Quality
The following summarizes information presented in the DEIS (see appendix U of
this FEIS). A summary of the existing framework of Federal water quality
management is provided. Existing water column concentrations of toxic trace
metals in the sale area are shown to be below applicable Federal water quality
criteria. Dissolved hydrocarbon concentrations in the water column in the
sale area are also provided. Difficulties with hydrocarbon measurement techniques
and selection of the toxic aromatic fractions are discussed in context of the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) requirements. From the
available data, dissolved aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in upper Cook
Inlet, near producing platforms and treatment facilities, are below applicable
water quality criteria.
No local data are available on the concentrations of synthetic, or organic
chemicals in the waters of the proposed sale area. The existing levels of
these toxic substances are presumed to be extremely low given absence of major
industrial sources of discharge in Alaska.
Existing waste water discharges in upper Cook Inlet are several. For the most
part, these discharges are comprised of sanitary wastes and urban run-off from
coastal communities. Exceptions to these coastal discharges would be treated
waste water discharge from producing oil and gas platforms in upper Cook Inlet
and ballast water discharge transportation sources.
Errata: Section III.E. of the DEIS for proposed sale 60 (appendix U of this
FEIS).
* Subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) promulgated final rules on Ocean Discharge Criteria
under section 403(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act as amended. At the time
of DEIS preparation, EPA's rules were not promulgated (correction to
page 102, DEIS).
* Also on page 102 of the DEIS, the State water quality standard for petro-
leum hydrocarbons was erroneously described as not applying to marine
sediment quality. The applicable state standard reads in part "There
shall be no concentration of hydrocarbons, animal fats, or vegetable oils
in the sediment which causes deleterious effects to aquatic life" (Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, 1979).
48
* The first paragraph, second sentence on page 105 of the DEIS, should be
corrected to read "asswaing an LD 50 effect at 1 ppm, ... 0.01 of this
value, or 10 ppb, .... "
* The discussion of aromatic hydrocarbons in upper and lower Cook Inlet
waters on page 104 of the DEIS is expanded to include the following
paragraphs. These should follow paragraph 4 on page 104.
"The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has applied
its aromatic hydrocarbon criteria to continuous low level releases from
discharge sources. This State is more interested in identifying and
evaluating the chronic and sublethal effects of aromatic hydrocarbons as
it does not expect permitted discharge levels to result in acute or toxic
concentrations to marine biota."
"Investigators have suggested that more complex monoaromatic and diaro-
matic compounds may play a larger role in toxicity. This means that
compounds in low concentrations may have significant effects on sensitive
organisms. Since these compounds are less volatile, and therefore have a
longer residence time, their influence may also be greater."
F. Air Quality
The following summarizes information presented in section III.F. of the DEIS
for proposed sale 60 (see appendix V of this FEIS). The proposed sale area is
located in the Cook Inlet and Southcentral Alaska Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR). Ambient air quality in the Cook Inlet AQCR was reported
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be in compliance with all
of the national Ambient Air Quality Standards, with the exception of total
suspended particulates and carbon monoxide in the Anchorage area only. Under
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions of the Federal Clean
Air Act, the Tuxedni National Wildlife Range (HWR) on the west side of Cook
Inlet has been designated as a Class I area. No ambient air quality monitoFing
is available at or near the Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge to establish its
"baseline" air quality.
G. BLM Studies Programs
1. Environmental Studies Program: In each OCS area proposed for
gas and/or oil development, extensive environmental studies are conducted
before such development is allowed. As manager of the Outer Continental Shelf
Leasing Program, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the Department of the
Interior (DOI) initiated the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment
Program (OCSEAP) as an essential part of its management responsibility. The
environmental studies program is conducted under interagency agreement between
BLM and OCSEAP offices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
In 1974, BLM requested NOAA to initiate an environmental assessment program in
northeastern Gulf of Alaska and eight additional Alaska Outer Continental
Shelf areas. A studies program for lease areas and some nonspecific study
areas in Alaska were planned. This program assembled historical data about
the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf and addressed new study needs to provide a
basis for assessment of pretroleum exploration and development impacts.
49
Major study efforts began in 1975 in the Gulf of Alaska, including the Kodiak
area. In 1977, studies began in the lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait sale
area 60. These studies were broad-scale surveys and produced information
defining circulation patterns, seafloor faults, seismic activity, unstable
sediment areas, critical habitats, and biological populations. Baseline data
for hydrocarbon and trace metal concentrations were also provided. Special
studies were intensified in fiscal year 1978 to fill data gaps in nearshore
processes and to determine possible environmental impacts due to OCS develop-
ment.
2. Objectives of the Alaska OCS Environmental Assessment Program:
In July 1979, the Alaska OCS Office received an Interim Synthesis Report on
the Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait from Science Applications, Inc., through OCSEAP.
The report contains considerable descriptive information on the affected
biological and geophysical environment and represents a comprehensive encyclo-
pedia for environmental information.
a. Contaminant Distribution: Marine chemistry efforts began
in 1975 in the Gulf of Alaska and on the Kodiak Shelf. In 1977, contaminant
studies were initiated in lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait. These studies
were intended to establish predevelopment hydrocarbon and trace metal concen-
trations along carefully designed station grids.
A significant part of the 1977 marine chemistry program was directed towards
process orientated studies. These studies were designed to give insight into
processes that control hydrocarbon distributions in the Alaska OCS and to
answer questions of seasonal variability of pollutant concentrations in water,
biota, and sediments due to biological activity or petroleum exposure. Rig
monitoring studies of toxicity of drilling fluids and cuttings on commercial
shellfish was begun in FY 80. The results of these studies will be available
in 1981.
b. Geologic Hazards: Geologic hazards to petroleum-related
activities center around seismicity, surface, and near-surface faulting,
sediment instability, erosion and deposition, and stratigraphy.
Many hazards present in Alaska lease areas also occur in other U.S. shelf
areas; ho~ever, in Alaska, these problems are unique in terms of severity and
complexity. A knowledge of the nature, frequency, and intensity of severe
environmental events is essential.
Seismic field studies began in fiscal years 1975 and 1976 to supplement exist-
ing studies being funded by other agencies. The Bureau of Land Management is
directly supporting part of the seismic program in an ongoing Geological
Survey study, employing a land-based network of seismographic stations. All
geohazard studies conducted by the University of Alaska have been funded
through BLH/OCSEAP. The major objectives of these seismic studies are to
determine a probability scale for earthquake hazards and to improve the sta-
tistical reliability of the existing data base. This is accomplished through
continuation of present observational programs and use of additional or im-
proved instrumentation, such as ocean-bottom seismometers and strong motion
accelerometers. Sufficient geohazard information is available on Cook Inlet;
an interim geohazards evaluation of Shelikof Strait will be available prior to
the proposed lease sale 60.
so
Shelf faulting, and sedimentation studies are conducted in order to define
potential hazards so that environmental risks can be minimized by out-right
avoidance or by appropriate regulation of facility siting, design, and con-
struction. Certain geologic features, identified as potentially troublesome
during regional reconnaissance of the proposed lease area, are studied in
further detail. The regional reconnaissance phase requires about a 2-year
study effort. Focused studies on special problems take an additional 2 to 3
years. These are time estimates which vary depending upon the proposed lease
area size, geological complexity, and nature of the identified hazards.
Shelf faulting and sedimentation studies began in fiscal year 1975. The
studies have produced basic information on geologic hazards of the area,
including location of probable active faults, potentially unstable sediments,
and erosional and deposition areas on the shelf. The work is being continued
through fiscal year 1980 to gather additional tract specific hazards informa-
tion. Refer to sections III.A.l. and IV.A.l.g. for more detailed discussion
about geologic hazards.
c. Pollutant Transport: Transport and transformation (wea-
thering) of petroleum-related contaminants are significant considerations in
an assessment of potential impacts of OCS developments. Petroleum and other
contaminants introduced into the environment can be transported in the atmos-
phere, in the water column, and by sea ice. During transport, contaminants
undergo continual physiochemical changes, such as evaporation, flocculation,
emulsification, weathering, biodegradation, and decomposition.
Transport studies are designed to provide information that will enable the
Department of the Interior and other agencies to 1) plan stages and siting of
offshore petroleum development to minimize potential risks to sensitive envi-
ronments, 2) provide oilspill trajectories, coastal landfall, and effects of
oilspill cleanup operations, and 3) assist in planning the location of long-
term environmental monitoring sites in the study area.
Prior to the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Program, no systematic physical
oceanographic studies were conducted on all the Gulf of Alaska Continental
Shelf. No long-term direct measurements of coastal winds and currents had
been performed. Transport studies were designed to proceed from a regional
description of oceanographic and meteorological features to analyses of pro-
cesses. Oceanographic investigations included literature summaries, current
measurements, hydrographic station data, remote data sensing, and computer
modeling. Meteorologic studies have concentrated on field observations and
computer simulation of coastal wind patterns.
Study efforts in fiscal year 1980 were devoted to analysis and synthesis of
data, and continued modeling activities involving weathering, transformation,
and spreading. The expected product will be a single report summarizing what
is known about transport systems of the Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait.
d. Biological Resources: A major reason for conducting
biological population studies in the Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait has been to
determine which populations, communities, and ecosystems are at risk from
either acute or chronic oilspills. The studies are intended to give insight
into the cumulative risks to biological resources around Kodiak Island and in
lower Cook Inlet. Distribution and abundance estimates, migration patterns,
51
feeding sites, and population behavior are the first studies undertaken. The
study results are used to determine potential vulnerability. Should vulner-
ability be indicated, detailed site-specific studies are undertaken. These
studies focus on ecosystem processes, trophic and population dynamics, dis-
turbance sensitiviy, habitat dependence, and physiological characteristics.
The first few years of biological studies have been concerned with the distri-
bution and abundance of key species through reconnaissance surveys. For
higher trophic levels, these studies identify critical habitats, migratory
routes, and principal seabird and marine mammal breeding locations.
A few remaining reconnaissance studies will be completed in fiscal year 1980.
These studies pertain to data gaps with respect to commercial fisheries,
marine birds, and marine mammals, including endangered whales.
e. Effects: Effects research is ongoing, not tied to any one
lease area. The research results are used to establish possible causal rela-
tionships between OCS-related perturbations and biological changes, and to
form the basis for developing discharge regulations and operating stipula-
tions. Also, the studies program is evaluating biological responses to stresses,
in order to determine their potential usefulness as early warning indicators
or monitoring aids in detecting and/or quantifying environmental changes.
Prior to 1979, most effects studies were conducted in the laboratory. How-
ever, in fiscal years 1979 and 1980, the emphasis shifted toward field studies.
The field studies are designed to validate laboratory observations and to
obtain data on exposure concentrations and compositions likely to occur under
various environmental conditions.
A bibliography of environmental studies completed in fiscal year 1979 can be
found in appendix I.
3. Socioeconomic Studies Program: The socioeconomic studies
program (SESP) of the Alaska OCS Office was created to determine and assess
the potential onshore social, economic, and physical impacts from outer con-
tinental shelf oil and gas development. As a multiyear, multidiscipline
program, the SESP conducts studies on the sociological and anthropological
aspects of diverse groups. The SESP focuses on a longitudinal investigation
of the development process, beginning from the assembly of predevelopment
information to the monitoring of project development as it affects specific
communities, regions, or the State as a whole. In addition, the program makes
economic analyses of rural and urban communities, regions within the State,
and the State as a whole, with assessments of both natural and man-made infra-
structures.
The overall methodology is divided into three broad research components. The
first component identifies an alternative set of assumptions regarding the
location, nature, and timing of future petroleum events and related activities.
In this component, the program takes into account the particular needs of the
petroleum industry and projects the human, material, economic and environmental
offshore and onshore development requirements of the regional petroleum indus-
try.
52
The second component focuses on data gathering that identifies those quantifi-
able and qualifiable facts by which OCS-induced changes can be assessed. The
critical community and regional components are identified and evaluated.
Current sources of change and functional organization among different sectors
of community and regional life are analyzed. Susceptible community relation-
ships, values, activites, and processes are also included.
The statewide/regional analysis focuses on the statewide effects of cumulative
and incremental lease sales and the distribution of these effects among cer-
tain defined subregions of the State. The local level analysis focuses on the
direct effects of the lease sale on affected communities.
The SESP identified the study area for the lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
petroleum development region to include the census divisions of Matanuska-
Susitna, Anchorage, Kenai-Cook Inlet, Kodiak, and Seward. The following major
study tasks were conducted.
a. Petroleum Development Scenario: Numerous oil and gas
options were constructed through a combination of U.S. Geological Survey
resource estimates and locational data from independent geologic assessment.
A parameter economic analysis was conducted to assess their economic viability.
These scenarios were then detailed according to-technology; facility, material,
and manpower requirements; and scheduling. Four different levels of petroleum
development were prepared.
b. Statewide and Regional Population and Economic Forecasts:
A non-OCS base case was developed that assumed no new significant oil, gas, or
other mineral development in Alaska beyond current commitments. Forecasts
were then prepared for four different potential levels of oil and gas develop-
ment. Forecasts to the year 2000 were made for population, employment, income,
and State government fiscal impacts.
c. Impacts on Socioeconomic and Physical Systems: Community
facility standards were developed and applied to the non-OCS base case and
each of the four oil and gas scenarios. The data included education, public
safety, recreation and tourism, utilities, housing, and local government
resources, investments, and capital needs.
d. Impacts on Transportation Systems: A methodology was
developed and applied to assess impacts of the land-, air-, and water-related
transportation modes. The ability of these modes to move goods and materials
in and out of the region and throughout the State for the non-OCS base case
and for the four scenarios was assessed.
e. Impacts on the Sociocultural System: Issues analyzed were
traditional use of all resourecs including land, marine, and ice environments;
subsistence; cultural values; politics; interethnic relationships; social
health; and familty relationships.
From September 1976 until early 1980, Peat, Harwick, Mitchell and Co. had the
responsibility to hire subcontractors to perform the work required for impact
assessment. The following is a list of contractors who have conducted research
tasks for the lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait petroleum development region
and impacted area: Peat, Harwick, Mitchell and Co.; Jim Lindsay and Associates;
53
Dames and Moore; Peter Eakland and Associates; University of Alaska Sea Grant
Program; Alaska Consultants, Inc.; Policy Analysts, Ltd.; Institute of Social
and Economic Research; U.S. Coast Guard; the Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;
Stephen R. Braund and Associates; University of Alaska Museum; James T. Payne
and Associates; and Cultural Dynamics, Ltd.
H. Future Environment Without the Proposal
1. Social Factors: This discussion summarizes section III.H.1. of
the DEIS for proposed sale 60 (appendix W of this FEIS). Anticipated growth
through the year 2000 in Kenai, Soldotna, Homer, Kodiak, and Port Lions without
the proposed lease sale is covered. Sources of information for this discussion
include: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980, Technical Report Number 46, Volume 2;
Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979, Technical Report Number 40; Kodiak Native
Association, 19~0, Overall Economic Development Program 1980; Kodiak Area
Native Association, 1979, Five Year Regional Health Plan 1981-1985.
Kod1ak: The base case forecast is for steady population growth in the Kodiak
urban area at an average rate of over 5 percent annually and a cumulative
increase of over 120 percent over the forecast period. The key economic
activities in Kodiak's future will remain the fishing and seafood processing
industries. ·nue to the existing pattern of harbor and processing plant facili-
ties, the city of Kodiak is forecast to strengthen its preeminent role as the
center of"the island's fishing industry. Thus, about two-thirds of the Kodiak
area's population growth and most of the employment growth is expected to take
place within the city. Kodiak is forecast to grow from an estimated 4,818 in
1980 to 10,229 in 2000.
Port Lions: Port Lions is estimated to grow at an annual rate of 3 percent
under the base case forecast. This growth rate is slightly higher than other
Kodiak Island villages and stems primarily from the community's expressed
desire to attract new industry and the expanded housing availability which
will encourage a larger· proportion of the younger populace to remain in the
community rather than emigrate as has been the case in the past. The popu-
lation of Port Lions is forecast to grow from an estimated 266 in 1980 to 481
in 2000. Even this moderate 3 percent annual growth rate is substantial for a
community the size of Port Lions.
Kenai: The-pace of population growth, estimated to average just over 2 per-
cent annually, is even slower than during the post-1970 period and is quite
different from the explosive growth pattern of the 1960-70 decade. In sum,
the base case projection envisions a diminished rate of economic and popula-
tion gr9wth for the City of Kenai. The population is forecast to rise from an
estimated 4,755 in 1980 to 7,000 in 2000.
Soldotna: Soldotna is estimated to grow at an annual average rate of about 4
percent under the base case forecast. This growth rate is slower than in the
previous decade and much slower than the decade before that. As Soldotna's
population is estimated to increase by about 81 percent over the forecast
period, the city should experience a trend toward a more urbanized community.
The population of Soldotna is forecast to grow from an estimated 2,572 in 1980
to 4,667 in 2000.
54
Homer: The economic base analysis indicates that the city of Homer's growth
will be stimulated by a continuing dynamic economy during the forecast period.
The net result of these factors is that Homer is projected to average growth
at aoout 7.5 percent annually, for a cumulative increase of 153 percent over
the forecast period. Homer's population is forecast to increase from an
estimated 2,148 in 1980 to 5,429 in 2000. For a community of Homer's size,
this is a high rate of sustained growth.
2. Economy: This discussion summarizes section III.H.2. of the
DEIS for proposed sale 60 (appendix W of this FEIS).
Historically, fishing and fish processing have been the foundation of the
Kodiak economy. In recent years, the fisheries industry has broadened to
include other species of fish and shellfish. From 1969-1978, the average
annual contribution of the Shelikof Strait fisheries to Kodiak, expressed in
1978 ex-vessel dollars, was about $13,541,100. The figure includes all the
species listed in the next sentence except groundfish and herring roe. Com-
mercial industry now includes halibut, herring, herring roe, king crab, tanner
crab, dungeness crab, shrimp, and some species of groundfish. Thus, the
fishing industry in Kodiak has evolved from a seasonal salmon fishery to a
more diversified year-round industry with a relatively large degree of diver-
sity among the fleets and processing facilities. The no-sale case assumes
that this trend towards diversification will continue.
The wood products industry is expected to expand. Under terms of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, substantial quantities of timber will be trans-
ferred to the private sector, and presumably, harvested. The tourism and
recreation industry is also expected to show modest growth. Promotion of
Kodiak historical and recreational assets should attract an increased number
of tourists, conventioneers, and vacationers. The status of the Kodiak Coast
Guard station is expected to remain relatively unchanged, although passage of
the 200-mile fishery conservation zone act may be seen as a sign that the
activities of the Coast Guard station will increase.
Kodiak Villages: Without the sale, the future of the six Kodiak villages is
likely to bring little, and at most, moderate change in the foreseeable future.
Employment is principally in the commercial fishing industry, which offers a
high degree of flexibility and freedom to pursue subsistence lifestyles.
Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division: The future of the Kenai/Cook Inlet census
division without the proposal is not a non-OCS forecast. It includes a level
of OCS activity corresponding to the medium case scenarios from the CI sale.
A strong level of oil and gas related industrial facilities already exists in
the Kenai/Cook Inlet census division. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that the significance of any impact from proposed sale 60 would be relatively
minimal since industrial facilities with excess capacity would probably be
utilized. Excess capacity will result from the decline of production in oil
and gas activities from the now developed upper Cook Inlet as well as acti-
vities from sale CI.
55
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEqUENCES
A. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Including the Proposal
1. Basic Assumptions Used Regarding Causes of Possible Impacts
Resulting from the Alternatives Including the Proposal: Under the terms of
the proposed action a total of 349917 hectares (864,646 acres) would be leased
for oil and gas exploration and development. For the other alternatives the
considered lease areas are as follows: alternative IV, 154484 hectares (381,443
acres), alternative V, 126816 hectares (313,125 acres), and alternative VI,
154080 hectares (380,630 acres) •. Undiscovered recoverable resources resulting
from the mean case of the proposed action are estimated by USGS to be 670
MMbbls of oil and 1.17 Tcf of natural gas.
Within the following sections, every effort has been made to quantify impacts
which could result from this proposed sale. The mean case has been utilized
to quantify probable development activity levels. Mean case variables
have been used in measuring impacts. There are, however, areas in which quanti-
fication of impacts is difficult due to lack of data and the variability of
factors affecting any potential development. (Information regarding the
minimum and maximum cases can be found in appendices A and B.)
Impacts described within this document are written with the view that all
pertinent laws of the United States, including USGS Gulf of Alaska Operating
Orders (see appendix C), would be in effect and would act to shape and/or
mitigate impacts. Further, the discussion of cumulative effects contained
in each impact section is based on the interrelationship of the proposed
action and other major current and proposed projects. Section IV.A.l.h.
contains a list and a discussion of projects considered in preparation of the
cumulative effects sections.
a. Activities Associated with Exploration: It is assumed
that 16 exploration and delineation wells May be drilled in Cook Inlet and
Shelikof Strait as a result of this proposed sale. Moderate exploratory
drilling activity would take place during the primary terms of the leases,
with a maximum of three exploratory rigs working at any one time.
Vessels for drilling exploratory wells would probably arrive from a variety of
regions (most probably offshore eastern Canada, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
North Sea). Two types of rigs, jack-ups and semisubmersibles, would probably
be used. Once a drilling rig is in place and drilling commences, special muds
are circulated through the well bore to provide pressure control, lubrication
of the drill bit, and the removal of drill cuttings from the hole. (Amounts
are shown in table IV.A.l.a.-1.)
Drill cuttings are composed of rock fragments and liquids contained in the
geological formation through which the drilling bit travels. To remove the
drill cuttings, drilling muds (fluid) from the mud tanks are circulated down
the hole (well) through the drill pipe. Drilling muds are passed out the
drilling bit nozzle picking up drill cuttings, and returned to the surface
between the drill pipe and walls of the bore hole and/or casing. At the
surface, drill cuttings are physically separated from the muds by screening
and washing techniques. After the drill cuttings and drilling muds are separ-
56
!/Drill
Minimum
Case
Table IV.A.1.a.-1
Estimated Volume of Drilling Muds and Drill Cuttings
Exploratory Period
Mean
Case (Alt. I)
Maximum
Case Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI
Muds 10395 mt (11550 st) 15120 mt (16800 st) 2740 mt (3Q450 st) 9450 mt (10500 st) 4725 mt (5250 st) 10395 mt (11550 st)
?:./Drill
Cut-
tings
!/ Assumes 945 metric tons (1050 short tons) per well.
?:.1 Assumes 259 m3 (375 y 3 ) per well ..
mt = Metric Ton
st = Short Ton
Source: Geological Survey, 1980. BLH/Alaska OCS Office, 1980.
NOTE: For a discussion of muds and cuttings produced during the production phase of the proposal and each of the alternatives,
please see tables II.B.1.a.-1, II.B.4.a.-1., II.B.5.a.-1, and II.B.6.a.-1.
ated, the drill cuttings are discharged to the ocean and the muds are returned
to the mud tank for recirculation down the hole. Drilling muds that are riot
separated from the drill cuttings are discharged to the ocean.
Removal of drill cuttings from the bole is only one function of drilling muds.
To obtain satisfactory results in the completion of any well, drilling muds
serve a variety of functions. To receive maximum benefit from drilling muds
at each hole, the mud engineers must change the drilling mud component as new
physical information is found at deeper well bole depths. Discharges of
drilling muds must comply with regulations found under OCS Order No. 7 (appendix C
of the DEIS), and 40 CFR (Part 435, Section 435.22). Both of these regula-
tions restrict the discharge of any drilling muds containing oil. Addition-
ally, OCS Order No. 7 forbids the discharge of drilling muds containing toxic
substances into the ocean waters. The Geological Survey, Conservation Division,
states if any oil-based muds are used, the muds would not.be released into the
ocean, and cuttings would be cleaned or barged to shore for disposal. Currently,
the only mud components used to make up drilling muds that must be registered
with the Environmental Protection Agency are bacteriocides.
In drilling, the volumes of drilling muds and drill cuttings are dependent on
the well and the hole size; both dictated by the well casing program. The
estimation of the volumes of both drilling muds and drill cuttings for the
exploration and delineation wells are based on USGS estimates developed for an
average well depth of 4878 meters (16,000 ft). These volumes are summarized
on table IV.A.l.a.-1. for the proposal (alternative I) as well as for alter-
natives IV, V, and VI.
The amoun~ of drilling muds discharged during the normal operation of a w~ll
depends mainly upon the type of formation drilled. The more active clays
contained in some formations are the more difficult to remove from muds, thus
requiring more mud disposal. The formation and conditions also dictate the
mud densities required. This determines the cost and type of equipment needed
in separation of mud compounds. Other considerations include the cost of the
additives and disposal. Generally, the m~re difficult it is to separate
solids from the mud compound, the greater the need for discharge. Conversely,
the more costly the additives or disposal, the lesser the discharge. The USGS
estimates that the overboard loss of mud (discharge) would be small; downhole
mud loss would be 10 percent of the used mud. Mud system discharge on production
wells would be recycled and reused. ·
Approval of mud disposal may or may not be site-specific, but may be applied
to the entire drilling program. A small amount of drilling muds is normally
discharged 1) with the drill cuttings, 2) when cleaning shale or sand tanks,
3) while drilling the upper portion of the hole before establishing circulation
to the drilling platform, and 4) upon disconnection of a marine riser. The
last two cases apply only to operations from floating drill platforms and not
to jack-ups or fixed-production platforms.
Chromium, present in some marine drilling muds, is of concern because of its
possible toxic effects on marine organisms. Overboard loss or discharge of
drilling fluids would introduce some of this chromium into the marine envi-
ronment. Chromium occurs in the form of an organic complex ferrocbrome ligna-
sulfonate, which may be used in mud programs on the Alaska OCS. Most oil-based
muds are used for well ~ompletions and other special operations, such as
coring.
57
The use of chrome materials, oil, and other toxic materials in some Pacific
offshore mud systems has been avoided for several years. Sodium lignosul-
fonate has replaced ferrochrome lignosulfonate in some Pacific offshore mud
systems.
Barium sulfate is essentially non-toxic to marine organisms. It is used as a
weighting agent to control formation pressures while drilling in the middle to
bottom portions of the hole. Chromium lignosulfonates are thinners and are
placed into a mud system for control of viscosity, gel strength, and filtrate
loss. There is concern about products containing chromium because of the
possibility that they may be toxic and could be released into the environment.
Occasionally, abnormal formation pressures, exceptionally tight formations, or
other problems require the use of oil-based mud or highly treated drilling
muds. Drill cuttings are then separated and cleaned of entrained oil before
being discharged overboard. The drilling muds are retained and shipped to
shore and stored in tanks for future use.
Solvents which are used primarily to clean equipment on mobile rigs and plat-
forms pose no significant threat to the OCS environment. Solvent that is
spilled on the platform is collected by curbs, gutters, drains, or drip pans.
The drainage is then treated in a gravity separator or transferred to the
production treatment system. Discharge must meet EPA oil and grease limita-
tions. Sewage treatment and disposal on offshore rigs and platforms is very
similar to a holding and settling tank, except for the addition of a chlorina-
tion system. In this case, the system is normally a fiberglass container
somewhere on the platform into which all toilet, kitchen, and laundry drains
discharge. The usual settling and bacterial digestion takes place in•the tank
and the final effluent is chlorinated.
EPA regulations and OCS Orders require that the effluent have a m1n1mum chloride
residual of 1.0 mg/1 after a minimum retention time of 15 minutes. As in
every other instance in which chlorination is used as a method of disinfection,
the potential exists that trace quantities of chlorinated compounds may be
discharged that may be harmful to organisms. However, the effects of such
trace quantities are only now beginning to be investigated.
Since all sites occupied by drilling rigs must be avoided by fishing boats,
this could result in the removal of some fishing grounds during the explora-
tory phase could result. Jack-ups remove some 1 to 2 hectares (2-5 acres) per
structure, while semisubmersibles using 458 meters (1500 ft) anchoring radii
would remove up to 65 hectares (162 acres) each. Permit applications for
drilling normally request a 1-mile avoidance area. If such an avoidance
buffer is included around each drilling rig, then 804 hectares (2,011 acres)
per rig would be temporarily withdrawn from use. During the exploratory
phase, 2412 hectares (6,033 acres) could be removed from fishing at any one
time as a result of the proposed action. In the cases of alternatives IV, V,
and VI, 1608 hectares (4,022 acres) would be removed from fishing activities.
For the maximum scenario, about 3216 hectares (8,044 acres) would be removed
during the year of peak exploratory activity (1984).
It has been assumed that Kenai, primarily, and Homer, secondarily, would
function as marine support bases for proposed sale 60 exploratory activities.
In the mean case, six service vessels would operate from these support facili-
ties. Up to ten service vessels would be required in the maximum case.
58
Air support activities would come most probably from fields located near the
proposed sale 60 marine support bases. The exploratory phase of the mean case
would require up to four helicopters, while that of the maximum case would
require up to six helicopters.
Peak employment during the 5-year exploratory phase is estimated to occur in
1985 when 519 persons would be employed. For a detailed description of the
basic assumptions used to estimate employment, and summary tables of direct
employment, refer to appendix B of the DEIS.
b. Activities Associated with Development: If oil and gas are
discovered as a result of this proposed sale, fixed platforms may be installed
offshore. Technology presently exists to install platforms in all water
depths within the proposed sale area.
It is assumed that all production platforms would be constructed outside of
Alaska; either at existing U.S. west coast or Japanese shipyards. The plat-
forms would then be transported to location via barges.
Once platforms were installed, one or two drilling rigs would be placed on
each platform to drill production wells. For purposes of this analysis, it is
estimated that as a result of this proposal there may be 195 development and
service wells drilled from 4 platforms. The maximum case would involve the
drilling of 295 production and service wells from 6 platforms. Since all
sites occupied by production platforms must be avoided by fishing boats, this
could result in the removal of some fishing grounds. Each platform occupies a
site of 1 to 2 hectares (2-5 acres). Assuming a 1-mile buffer zone around
each, 3216 hectares {8,044 acres) might become off limits for fishing because
of platforms installed as a result of the proposal. The sites would be usable
again once platforms were removed after the termination of production.
During the development stage, drilling muds are recycled from·one well to
another (the downhole loss being about 10\). The amount of mud used for each
initial 10,000-foot platform production well is estimated to be some 750 tons.
The vo]ume 3of drill cuttings for the field is assumed to be 40170 3 cubic meters
(52,455 yd ) for the proposal, and 60770 cubic meters (79,355 yd ) for the
maximum case.
The development period of proposed sale 60 is expected to occur between 1986
and 1991. (Please note that there is no clear time distinction between the
exploratory, development, and production periods. In reality the wind-down
phase of one activity or period would extend into the time frame of another.)
It is during this period that drilling and construction activities would reach
their greatest intensity. In this 5-year timeframe, the bulk of developmental
drilling would occur, all trunk pipelines would be emplaced, and the oil
terminals and gas compressor station, as well as all necessary industrial
infrastructures, would be constructed.
Existing support and supply facilities at Kenai would likely be sufficient to
handle any proposed sale 60 activity emanating from that port. However, by
1986, a second 10-hectare (25 acres) marine support base could be constructed
at Homer. In the same year two oil terminals and a gas compressor station
would be built. The oil terminals would require 120 acres apiece and the gas
compressor station about 40 acres. The compressor station and one oil terminal
59
Oil Pipeline Diameter
Gas Pipeline Diameter
Onshore (lengths)
Oil Pipeline
Gas Pipeline
Offshore
Oil Pipeline
Gas Pipeline
Table IV.A.l.b.-1
SWIIDary of Pipeline Lengths 11
and Sea Bottom Disturbances-
Minimum Mean Maximum
Case Case (Alt.I) Case
18"
10"
-o-
97 km
110 km
110 km
24"
18"
14 km
97 km
221 km
221 km
26"
26"
14 km
97 km
221 km
221 km
Alt.
IV
18"
10"
-o-
97 km
124 km
124 km
Alt.
v
18"
10"
-o-
97 km
110 km
110 km
Alt.
VI
18"
-o-
-o-
-o-
110 km
-o-
Total Sea Bottom
Disturbance 441600 m3 1104000 m3 1324800 m3 496800 m3 441600 m3 441600 m3
!/ It is assumed that the oil and gas pipeline will be laid in separate cut parallel
trenches.
Source: USGS, 1980; and BLH Alaska OCS, 1980.
could be located at a point somewhere between Anchor Point and Stariski Creek.
The other terminal could be located north of Port Lions in the Talnik Point/
Inner Point area. Both terminals would have the capacity to store up to
5-days production. Additionally, the airfield at Port Lions could undergo
construction activities aimed at improving its effectiveness in supporting
developmental efforts.
By 1987 a total of 380 miles of 18-inch gas and 24-inch oil trunk pipeline may
be operating (please review table IV.A.l.b.-1 for a breakdown of onshore and
offshore pipeline lengths). The oil pipeline is hypothesized to consist of
two systems, one of which would drain the oil production of Cook Inlet into
the Anchor point facility. The other pipeline would drain the oil production
of the Shelikof Strait into the facility near Talnik Point. All gas could be
piped to the compressor station near Anchor Point and, hence, overland 113
kilometers (70 mi) to the existing LNG plant(s) at Nikiski. The hypothesized
pipeline route from near Anchor Point to Nikiski would traverse a flat, wooded
coastal plain dissected by occasional creeks and rivers. By 1991, with the
drilling of the last of the production and service wells, the developmental
stage would end.
In comparing the development phase of the proposal with those of the other
alternatives, it is apparent that the scenarios for the other alternatives
are, for the most part, variations on the scenario described for the proposal.
Alternatives IV and V are essentially the Cook Inlet portions of the proposal's
scenario. Alternative VI is essentially the southern half of the proposal,
but differs from it in that any gas produced would be reinjected into the
formation. The maximum case scenario (see appendix A) is the same as that
described for the proposed action.
Peak employment for the development phase is hypothesized to occur in 1986
with a total annual employment of 1,607. This would include 430 persons
involved in offshore drilling, 325 persons for service vessels and helicopter
support, and 852 workers for construction of the onshore facilities. For a
detailed description of the basic assumptions used to estimate employment, and
summary tables of direct employment, refer to appendix B. For supply vessel
and aircraft requirements, refer to appendix A.
c. Activities Associated with Production: During peak produc-
tion, offshore employment supporting oil and gas operations would be less than
during the development phase. Transportation requirements, and consequently
onshore operating base employment, would also be reduced. At peak production,
two helicopters and two supply vessels would be needed. Hypothetically,
annual employment during the peak production year (1991) would be 987 persons;
617 people would be involved in offshore drilling and onshore production
activities, and 370 persons would be employed in the various transportation
support systems.
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that 195 production and service
wells would be drilled (mean case). Daily production of 265 Mbbls of oil and
464 mmcf of natural gas could result from the amounts of recoverable resources
estimated by the USGS. As previously indicated, production is expected to be
conducted from four platforms. These production platforms would contain all
the equipment and perform the same functions as an onshore field gathering
station.
60
Using the upper Cook Inlet oilfield as a yardstick, it can be hypothesized
that at mid-life (12 yrs), the proposed sale 60 field might produce one barrel
of formation water for every two barrels of oil.
The transportation of natural gas, produced as a result of proposed sale 60,
from near Anchor Point to Nikiski may necessitate the expansion of the then-
existing LNG facilities. Pacific Alaska LNG Associates is scheduled to begin
construction of their 400 MKcf/day LNG plant in spring of 1982. The new
Pacific plant coupled with the existing Phillips plant would bring the processing
capacity of Nikiski to 585 MKcf/day of natural gas. Pacific-Alaska LNG officials
have discussed informally the possibility of adding an additional 200 MKcf/day
capacity to their future Nikiski plant; however, such an eventuality (or even
the planning for such an event) would depend entirely on the success of resource
explorations in Cook Inlet and on the Kenai Peninsula.
All LNG produced as a result of proposed sale 60 would be transported to the
west coast of the United States. The point of reception would likely be the
proposed LNG degasification plant at Point Conception, California. However,
should a major gas strike be realized within the proposed sale 60 area, the
Point Conception plant may not be able to handle the full amount of production.
This possible west coast "glut" of natural gas may necessitate transportation
schemes different from those outlined within this EIS.
A 25-year life for the production of oil and 26-year life for natural gas has
been forecast for the proposal. Upon cessation of production, OCS orders
require wells to be plugged, the casing severed well below the mudline, the
platform removed, and all obstructions cleared from the area. Major trunk-
lines may be used for future production from adjacent areas, but smaller lines
would probably be abandoned in place. Abandonment consists of purging the
lines of entrained hydrocarbons by water flushing (the water is disposed of
onshore after reclaiming the hydrocarbons) and severing the ends below the
mudline. Water from the flushing operation would be disposed of according to
State and Federal regulations. The necessity for removal of pipelines near-
shore is usually regulated by the State.
d. Oilspill Risk Analysis: Oilspills are one of the major
concerns associated with offshore oil production. There is uncertainty about
whether oil will be discovered, or the amount of oil which may be produced.
In addition, uncertainty exists as to the number and size of oilspills which
might occur, and the wind and current conditions which would transport the
proposed oil.
The oilspill risk analysis was conducted in three parts. The first part dealt
with the probability of oilspill occurrence, and the second with the trajec-
tories of oilspills from potential launch points to various targets. Results
of these two parts of the analysis were then combined to give estimates of the
overall or final oilspill risk associated with oil and gas production in the
lease area.
Estimating Quantity of Oil Resources: The estimated oil resources used for
oilspill risk calculations in this report are "unrisked mean estimates"--the
amount of oil expected to result from the proposed sale assuming that oil is
discovered in economically recoverable quantities.
61
Where the likelihood of not finding oil is high--as is the case for proposed
lease sale 60--the risked mean estimate will be much lower than the unrisked
mean estimate. The unrisked mean estimate used in this analysis therefore
represents a greater number of potential oilspills than the risked mean esti-
mate. For the entire proposed lease area, the unrisked mean estimate over the
26-year life of the field is 670 MMbbls. For alternative IV, the unrisked
mean estimate was calculated to be 260 HMbbls; for alternative V, 180 MMbbls;
and alternative VI, 346 HMbbls. The estimates for the alternatives could
differ by about 10 percent, depending upon assumptions made in estimating the
amount of oil in each subarea. The unrisked mean estimate of resources from
existing leases in lower Cook Inlet is 826 MMbbls (sec. II.B.1.a.). Again, it
is very unlikely that all of these oil resources would be discovered. However,
over the 26-year life of the proposed sale 60 field, an estimated 1,050 MMbbls
of oil from other sources will be transported by tankers through the study
area.
Probability of Oilspills Occurring: Statistical distributions for estimating
probabilities of oilspill occurrence were taken from Devanney and Stewart
(1974), Stewart (1975), and from USGS files of offshore platform accidents.
Greater risks are associated with greater volumes of oil. In this analysis,
it was assumed that 1) future spill frequencies can be predicted from past OCS
experience, 2) spills occur independently of each other, and 3) the spill rate
is dependent on volume of oil produced and handled. The first assumption
might be modified by a decrease in future spill rates due to experience and
improved standards, or by an increase because of unknown conditions in new
territory. The assumption that spills occur independently of each other could
be modified by assuming a positive correlation (if a spill occurs, conditions
are such that more will follow shortly) or by assuming a negative correlation
(if a spill occurs, extra precautions are taken). This analysis takes the
middle ground between these two assumptions by using historic spill rates.
The final assumption--that the spill rate is a function of the volume of oil
handled--might be modified on the basis of size, extent, frequency, or dura-
tion of the handling. In the case of tanker transport, for example, the
number of port calls and the number of tanker-years have been contemplated
(Stewart, 1976 and Stewart and Kennedy, 1978). This analysis uses volume of
oil handled, since all other estimates must ultimately be derived from this
quantity.
Spill frequency estimates for oilspills greater than 1,000 barrels in size
were calculated for production and transportation of oil from proposed sale
60, from sale CI, and for existing transportation of oil by tankers from upper
Cook Inlet. For proposed lease sale 60, an average of four spills greater
than 1,000 barrels are projected over the 26-year life of the field. There is
a 98 percent chance that at least one spill of this magnitude will occur.
Table 1 in appendix D· shows the expected number of spills and the most likely
number of spills that could occur during the production life of the proposed
lease area.
Oilspill Trajectory Simulations: To model oilspill movement in the complex
wind and current regime of the study area, two trajectory models were mathe-
matically linked. The first was a model developed for the Cook Inlet and
Shelikof Strait areas by Dames and Moore, Inc., under the BLM Environmental
Studies Program. This model incorporates tidal currents and the effects of
62
nearby mountains on winds, two effects which significantly influence oilspill
movement in both Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. For any spill originating
within either area, the wind record was sampled by randomly selecting a starting
time and date, and the tidal currents were calculated to match the wind record.
The movement of each trajectory was simulated in 30-minute increments, updating
the winds and currents for each movement. The spill trajectory information
was transmitted to the U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, via computer
tapes.
The second trajectory model was the U.S. Geological Survey Oilspill Trajectory
Analysis (OSTA) model, which was used to simulate the movement of any oil-
spills moving outside the boundaries of the Dames and Moore, Inc. model. This
was essentially the same model used by Samuels and others (1980) for an earlier
oilspill risk analysis of the cancelled western Gulf of Alaska lease sale 46.
It should be emphasized that the trajectories simulated by the models repre-
sent only hypothetical pathways of oil slicks and do not involve any di~ect
consideration of cleanup, dispersion, or weathering processes which would
determine the quantity or quality of oil that could eventually come in contact
with targets. Results of spill trajectories are presented for 3 days, 10
days, and 30 days. Three days represent relatively high toxicity potential
with minimal weathering and dispersion. Within 10 days, most of the trajec-
tories have made contact with land and resource targets within the proposed
lease area. Within 30 days, considerable weathering would be expected and
most spills are difficult to track or locate after this time if they have not
come in contact with land.
A total of 38 hypothetical point source and line spill locations were selected
as likely spill locations from potential transportation routes and drilling
sites within the study area (fig. IV.A.1.d.-1). In order to obtain a statis-
tically significant sample, 200 trajectories were initiated at each launch
site for both summer and winter seasons for a total of 15,200 trajectories.
The summer season was defined as the period from April through September.
The major overall seasonal effect in the trajectories was a northward shift of
the paths and impact locations during the summer season due to the decreased
net transport and increased frequency of winds from the south during the
summer. Sample trajectories launched from line segment P7 and point source P3
showed a net movement into Shelikof Strait during the winter period (figs.
IV.A.l.d.-2 and IV.A.1.d.-3). Some of the trajectories from the more northern
source, P7, moved into Kamishak Bay and also through Stevenson Entrance to the
west in the winter (fig. IV.A.l.d.-2). Trajectories launched further south at
P3 behaved similarly, but did not enter Kamishak Bay durin& the winter.
During summer, at both sample launch points, the trajectories from P7 were
more variable, but predominantly dispersed northward where the patterns sug-
gest an expected greater influence from tidal flux (figs. IV.A.l.d.-4 and
IV.A.l.d.-5).
The sample trajectories from P3 during the summer season were also highly
variable and remained somewhat confined within the area of P3. Those trajec-
tories which entered the Shelikof Strait made contact with land segments along.
the east bdnk (fig. IV.A.l.d.-5). For additional information concerning the
seasonal effects of oilspills on biological resources, see sections IV.A.2.a.
through g.
63
Figure IV. A . 1. d. -1 ._
J
~
I~
1-
~Tu ~/
li::t
I I
1/
I
-----.
-!_..~
Location of trajectory launch lit8l
(line segments and point IOUrC*)
representing potential pl ltform
locations, pipeline trans portation
& tanker routes.
Platform locations T1, P1 -P16
Pipeline or tanker routes T1 -T18
ALASKA
--.. ----------_ ..... ----------!J· -----------
Source : Alaska OCS Office
Source: Schlueter, R.S. & Rauw, C.l., 1980.
Figure IV A. 1. d. 2
• ~c?Q , -Barren
Islands
TEN SAMPLE TRAJECTORIES LAUNCHED
FROM LINE SEGMENTS P 7 DURING
WINTER CONDITIONS (OCTOBER -MARCH
Source: Schlueter, R. S. & Rauw, C.l., 1980
Figure IV A. 1. d. 3
TEN SAMPLE TRAJECTORIES LAUNCHED
FROM POINT SOURCE P 3 DURING
WINTER CONDITIONS (OCTOBER -MARCH)
Figure IV A. 1. d. 4
0
TEN SAMPLE TRAJECTORIES LAUNCHED
FROM LINE SEGMENT P 7 DURING SUMMER
._So_u_r_ce_: Sch_l_ue_te_r.:...., R..:..s:..:.·..=&:....:.R.:.:a=:uw:.:.!'...:c::.:..l.:...:1:..:980::.:... _______ c_o_N_D_ITIONS (APRIL -SEPTEMBER) •• ___________ _J
•
Source: Schlueter, A.S. & Aauw, C.l. 1980
Figure IV A. 1. d. 5
TEN SAMPLE TRAJECTORIES LAUNCHED
FROM POINT SOURCE P 3 DURING
SUMMER CONDITIONS (APRIL-SEPTEMBER) ----------------------------------------------
Combined Anal sis of Oils ill Occurrence and Oils ill Tra ector Simulations:
Data in table 1 of appendix D indicate the probabilities o di ferent numbers
of oilspi1ls greater than 1,000 barrels occurring during the production life
of the field. Tables 2 through 7 (appendix D) indicate the conditional proba-
bilities that targets or land segments will be contacted, given that an oilspill
occurs. Combining these two sets of probabilities yields the final probabilities
(tables 8-31, appendix D) that oilspills will occur and contact targets or
land segments.
Conditional probabilities depend only on the winds and currents of the study
area--elements over which the decisionmaker has no control. Final probabil-
ities on the other hand, will depend not only on the physical conditions, but
also the expected recoverable oil resource as determined by the decisionmaker,
i.e., choosing the proposal or one of the alternatives.
A relative scale using the final probabilities was used to identify levels of
potential impact. Land segments which had a greater than 20 percent final
probability of contact by an oilspill were classified as high potential impact
areas. Land segments which had an 11 to 20 percent final probability of
contact were designated as moderate potential impact areas. Those areas with
less than an 11 percent final probability of contact were designated areas of
low impact potential. These impact ranges were somewhat arbitrarily selected
to provide a reasonable basis upon which impacts from oilspills could be
analyzed.
Compared to the proposal (fig. IV.A.l.d.-6), alternatives IV (fig. IV.A.l.d.-7)
and V (fig. IV.A.l.d.-8) offer significant reduction in the potential impact
to land segments primarily in Shelikof Strait. For the proposal, there is a
77 percent chance of an oilspill contacting land within 3 days, and a 94
percent chance within 10 days. For alternative IV there is a 38 percent
chance of an oilspill contacting land in 3 days and a 69 percent chance in 10
days. For alternative V there is a 32 percent chance of an oilspill contact-
ing land in 3 days and a 59 percent chance in 10 days (table IV.A.1.d.-l).
For 3-day trajectories then, alternatives IV and V reduce the potential impacts
of the proposal by 39 percent and 45 percent respectively. For 10-day trajec-
tories, the reduction is 25 percent and 36 percent. For a more complete
assessment of the types of impacts associated with these land segments, see
sections IV.A.2 through IV.A.7.
Compared to the proposal, alternative VI would reduce the probability of an
oilspill reaching shore by 18 percent for 3-day trajectories and by 19 percent
for 10-day trajectories. Alternative VI would result in a greater portion of
the Shelikof Strait being contacted by oilspills than would occur with alterna-
tives IV or V (fig. IV.A.l.d.-7 and -8). Less of the coast would be contacted
by oil than would occur with the proposal. Two land segments would face
relatively high potential impact with this alternative. The west bank of
Shelikof Strait at land segment 45, which extends from Kukak Bay to Kuliak
Bay, has a relatively high potential for impact. On the east bank of Shelikof
Strait, land segment 15, which extends from Malina Bay to Kupreanof Strait,
has a moderate potential impact. Overall, however, the magnitude of impacts
from potential oilspills would be low for this alternative and would be less
than for the proposal. For a more complete assessment of impacts associated
with land segments, refer to sections IV.A.2. through IV.A.7.
64
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d-6
POTENTIAL IMPACT TO LAND SEGMENTS
(NOS. 1 -96) BASED ON THE FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR THE PROPOSED LEASE SALE
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
~ High -Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHETICAL
). TANKER ROUTE
t--t PIPELINE
REN
ISLAND~
Source : Iaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-7
POTENTIAL IMPACT TO LAND SEGMENTS
( NOS. 1 -96) BASED ON THE FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR ALTERNATIVE IV
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
~ High -Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHETICAL
) TANKER
ROUTE ._._, PIPELINE
FIGURE IV. A 1. d.-8
POTENTIAL IMPACT TO LAND SEGMENTS
( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON THE FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR ALTERNATIVE V
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
~ Hlgn -Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHETICAL • TANKER
ROUTE
......... PIPELINE
Proposal
Alternative IV
Alternative V
Alternative VI
Trans2ortation
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative c
Table IV.A.1.d.-1
Final Probabilities (percent chance) of an Oilspill
Contacting Land Within 3 Days, 10 Days, and 30 Days
Over the Production Life of the Proposed Lease Area
3 Da:fS 10 Da:fS
Proposed Cumulative* Pro2osed Cumulative*
77 95 94 99
38 85 69 99
32 83 59 99
59 95 75 100
72 93 95 99
72 93 94 99
78 95 93 99
30 Dais
Pro2osed Cumulative*
96 99
74 99
65 99
80 100
97 99
96 99
96 99
* Cumulative includes existing leases in Cook Inlet, proposed leases, and existing tanking from upper Cook Inlet.
Cumulative Potential Impacts: Cumulative potential impacts were considered
with the estimated resource development of the existing leases (CI) and with
the existing tankering from upper Cook Inlet. Based on the above relative
scale of potential impact, the existing leases alone yield high potential
impact for Kamishak Bay and moderate potential impact for the following:
Shelikof Strait {segments 17 and 45), Anchor Point (segment 75), the Barren
Islands (segment 81) and in and around Chinitna Bay (segments 58 and 59)
(fig. IV.A.1.d.-9).
The proposal plus the existing Cook Inlet leases produce 9 high and 11 moder-
ately impacted land segments from the 10-day trajectories (fig. IV.A.1.d.-10).
Alternative IV yields 6 high and 9 moderately impacted land segments (fig.
IV.A.1.d.-11). Alternative V produces 5 high and 7 moderate impact areas
(fig. IV.A.1.d.-12).
When considering the cumulative effects of the proposal with the existing
leases in Cook Inlet, there is a 95 percent chance of an oilspill contacting
land in 3 days and a 99 percent chance in 10 days. Alternatives IV and V
reduce the cumulative probabilities only about 11 percent for the 3-day trajec-
tory and are not significantly different for the 10-day trajectory (table
IV.A.1.d.-1).
The addition of data concerning existing tankering from upper Cook Inlet to
the oilspill risk analysis significantly increases the risk of the proposal.
Additional high impact areas are produced at Kalgin Island (segment 64), north
of Chinitna Bay (segment 60), English Bay (segment 76) and Viekoda and Uganik
Bays (segment 14, fig. IV.A.1.d.-13).
The potential of an oilspill from the existing leases and tankering in Cook
Inlet with respect to alternative VI increases the potential impact to both
the east and west banks of Shelikof Strait (fig. IV.A.1.d.-14). Based on
10-day trajectories, the west bank of Shelikof Strait (land segments 44-45)
has a 42 percent chance of contact by an oilspill. When potential spills from
existing leases and tankering are considered there is a 28 percent increase or
70 percent chance, of oil contacting the west bank. Along the east bank (land
segments 12-18) there is a 33 percent chance of contact by an oilspill from
the existing leases and tankering activity.
A treatment of transportation scenarios different from those of the proposal
by the oilspill risk model demonstrated very little difference in the areas of
potential impact or in the magnitude of impact with respect to land segments
(table IV.A.1.d.-1). For the four transportation scenarios analyzed in this
environmental statement, the probability of an oilspill contacting a land
segment ranged from 72 to 78 percent in 3 days, and 93 to 95 percent in 10
days.
Cumulative effects with respect to the proposal (fig. IV.A.1.d.-15) produce
similar levels of potential impact for each of the transportation scenarios
(fig. IV.A.1.d.-16 through -18). Cumulative final probabilities for the four
scenarios range from 93 to 97 percent for 3-day trajectories and 99 percent
for 10-and 30-day trajectories (table IV.A.1.d.-1).
For an evaluation of the relative impacts and feasibility of the transporta-
tion scenarios, refer to section IV.A.2.m.
65
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-9
POTENTIAL IMPACT TO LAND SEGMENTS
( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON THE FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR ALTERNATIVE VI
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT -High -Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHETICAL • TANKER ROUTE
PIPELINE
~a BARREN ";Kf~1 ISLANDS
Source: AIISka Outer Continental Shelf 1980
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-10
POTENTIAL IMPACT TO LAND SEGMENTS
( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON THE FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR THE EXISTING LEASES
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
VA High
-Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHELICAL
-->i' TANKER ROUTE
PIPELINE
-SALECI
Source : Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-11
POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO LAND
SEGMENTS ( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON THE
FINAL PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR THE PROPOSED LEASE SALE AND
THE EXISTING LEASES
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
VA High -Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHETICAL
) TANKER
ROUTE
t-----t PIPELINE -SALE Cl
X
Source : Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-12
POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO LAND
SEGMENTS ( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON THE
FINAL PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES )
FOR ALTERNATIVE IV AND THE
EXISTING LEASES
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
WJ High •• Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHETICAL
> TANKER
ROUTE
~ PIPELINE -SALE Cl
X
Source: Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
•
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-13
POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO LAND
SEGMENTS (NOS. 1-96) BASED ON FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES) FOR
ALTERNATIVE V AND THE
EXISTING LEASES
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
~ High -Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHETICAL
) TANKER
ROUTE
PIPELINE
SALE Cl
So urce : A laska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-14
POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO LAND
SEGMENTS ( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR ALTERNATIVE VI AND THE
EXISTING LEASES
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
~ High -Medium
~ Low
D None -SALE Cl
HYPOTHETICAL • TANKER ROUTE
PIPELINE
RREN
ISLANDS ~
Source: Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-15
POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO LAND
SEGMENTS ( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR THE PROPOSED LEASE SALE, EXISTING
LEASES AND EXISTING TANKERING
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
~ High -Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHETICAL
) TANKER
ROUTE
PIPELINE -SALE Cl
X
Source : Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-16
POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO LAND
SEGMENTS ( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR THE PROPOSED LEASE SALE WITH
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE A
LEGEND
LANO SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
~ High -Medium
~ lDW
D None
HYPOTHETICAL
) TANKER
ROUTE
~ PIPELINE
SALE Cl
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-17
POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO LAND
SEGMENTS ( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR THE PROPOSED LEASE SALE WITH
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE B
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
P'A High -Medium
~ Low
D None
HYPOTHETICAL
) TANKER
ROUTE .._..... PIPELINE -SALE Cl
X
: Aleska Outer Contlnentel Shelf Office 1
FIGURE IV. A. 1. d.-18
POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO LAND
SEGMENTS ( NOS. 1 -96 ) BASED ON FINAL
PROBABILITIES ( 10 DAY TRAJECTORIES)
FOR THE PROPOSED LEASE SALE WITH
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE C
LEGEND
LAND SEGMENT -POTENTIAL IMPACT
>
Medium
Low
HYPOTHETICAL
TANKER
ROUTE
PIPELINE
SALE Cl
BARREN
ISLANDS
~
Source : Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
Proposal Modifications Based Upon Limited Oilspill Risk: The optimal leasing
plan.is to choose from the list of tracts those areas which will offer the
maximum potential production without exceeding acceptable levels of environmental
risk. To assist the decisionmakers in this endeavor, the oilspill risk analy-
sis of the proposal can be modified using linear programming techniques (Smith,
et al., 1979). The analysis that follows is based on the objective to maximize
petroleum resource production within subjectively established limits of environ-
mental risk. If alternative objectives were able to be used, it is likely the
analysis would produce a different treatment of block deletions. An example of
an alternative objective would be to realize an acceptable relationship between
petroleum resource production and fisheries production.
As previously shown, the major shoreline areas which received relatively high
frequencies of simulated oilspill trajectories include the east bank of Shelikof
Strait (land segments 13-18), the west bank of Shelikof Strait (land segments
44-49), Kamishak Bay (land segments 53-56), the Anchor Point area (land segments
74-75), and the Barren Islands and vicinity (land segments 79-82). Based on
the relative scale of potential risk discussed earlier in this section (10~
low, 11-20% moderate, and greater than 20% high potential impact), these major
geographic areas are the most vulnerable with respect to oilspills hitting
specific land segments within these areas. The land segments that are highest
in potential risk to impact by an oilspill (using the 3-day trajectories)
include the Kupreanof Strait area, with a probability of 17 percent (segment
15) on the east bank of Shelikof Strait, and from Kukak Bay to Kuliak Bay,
with a probability of 23 percent (segment 45) on the west bank of Shelikof
Strait. When considering the potential impact of the proposal, Kamishak Bay,
Anchor Point, and the Barren Islands are low risk areas, but become high risk
areas when potential cumulative impacts are considered.
If it is hypothesized that the maximum acceptable risk to any of the land
segments were not to exceed a low potential impact of 10 percent, the proposal
could be modified to stay within this constraint. The resulting modified
proposal could be expected to produce about 430 HMbbls of oil. All of the
blocks included in the proposal could be leased except for 40 percent of the
Tl area and 100 percent of the PI area (fig. IV.A.l.d.-19). These deletions
would reduce the potential risk to land segments 15 and 45. The 40 percent
block deletion is allocated to the eastern and western boundaries of the Tl
area, since these tracts represent the greatest risk to the proposal in this
area. However, the greatest reduction of risk is derived from the deletion of
blocks in the PI area.
If the hypothesized acceptable environmental risk were increased to a uniform
limit of 20 percent, which is the upper moderate level of potential impact,
the proposal would be limited primarily by the vulnerability of Kukak and
Kuliak Bays (segment 45). Modifying the proposal to keep within a 20 percent
potential risk level would mean that approximately 610 MHbbls of oil would be
produced over the life of the field. The entire proposed sale area could be
leased except for 60 percent of area PI (fig. IV.A.l.d.-20). Deletion of 60
percent of area PI could keep the Kukak Bay and Kuliak Bay areas (segment 45)
within a moderate level of potential impact. When considering the current and
circulation patterns in this area, the westernmost tracts of area PI face the
greatest risk of contact by an oilspill. The 60 percent block deletion,
consequently, is allocated in this part of area Pl.
66
IV. A. 1. d.-19
Modified proposal limited to a 10 percent (low) risk
to the surrounding land segments.
(Estimated production potential 430 million barrels)
-DELETED
PARTIAL ~DELETIONS
• <D! <?o , .
Barren
Islands
Source: Alaska OCS Qffi,
IV.A.1.d.-20
Modified proposal limited to 20 percent (modetate) rilk
to the surrounding land segment.
(Estimated production potential 610 million barrels.)
PARTIAL
W§4 DELETIONS
Source: Alaska OCS Office
In both the 10 and 20 percent maximum potential risk cases the proposal is
limited primarily by land segment 45. Additional considerations, such as the
high biological resources within this area and the relatively high persistence
potential of an oilspill, suggest a conservative 10 percent constraint may be
aore appropriate level of risk. However, should adequate contingency measures
be developed for this area, the element of risk could be significantly reduced.
With respect to cumulative impacts, the present tankering activity from upper
Cook Inlet and the expected production from lower Cook Inlet (OCS sale CI),
many areas already face high potential risk from oilspills. These areas
include Kamishak Bay (land segments 54 and 56) and Anchor Point (land segment
75). Assuming adequate cleanup and contingency measures are in place for
these more vulnerable areas, the level of acceptable risk could be increased.
In this portion of the analysis, the limits to segments 45, 54, and 56 were
increased to 25 percent. The high vulnerability of the Anchor Point area
(segment 75), with respect to cumulative impact potential, was given a limit
of 30 percent. Acceptable risk of all of the remaining land segments for the
entire area was limited to a maximum potential risk of 10 percent. Under
these constraints, the proposal could be modified to yield 530 HHbbls of oil.
The potential level of production would be achieved by leasing all of the
blocks in sections Pl, P2, and P14; 80 percent of the blocks in sections Tl
and P15; and 90 percent of the tracts in area P4 (fig. IV.A.l.d.1.-21). In
this case, deletions are those that would reduce potential impact to the lower
Cook Inlet. The blocks in P6, P7, P8, P10, and P12; 20 percent of the blocks
in PIS and T1; and 10 percent of the blocks in P4 present the greatest risk.
The impacts associated with this modification of the proposal are addressed
primarily in the cumulative impact sections concerning alternative VI (sec.
IV.A.7).
In conclusion, if the estimated oil resources from the existing leases in
lower Cook Inlet are realized, the proposal could be modified as shown in
figure IV.A.l.d.-21. In the absence of significant discoveries of oil from
the existing leases and with adequate available contingency measures, the
modified proposal as shown in figures IV.A.l.d.-19 and -20 may be more envi-
ronmentally acceptable within the framework of the analysis done in this
section (IV.A.l.d.).
e. Coastal Oilspill Persistence Index: This section describes
the persistence of oilspills on coastlines. Coastlines essentially surround
the proposed lease area, so are especially vulnerable to accidental oilspills,
as described in the previous section (IV.A.1.d.).
The effect of oilspills that impact the coastline has been described by Hayes
and Ruby (1979).
There is abundant literature with case studies of the numerous major
and minor oilspills that have taken place in the coastal waters of
the contiguous United States and around the world. Predictive
models for oilspill dispersal, spreading, bio-degradation, and
physical degradation have been developed from these studies. The
Arrow oilspill in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia, probably comes closest
~comparative model for the sub-Arctic. However, the cleanup
effort and later studies made very little reference to the special
problems encountered as a result of the colder environment (i.e.,
67
IV.A.1.d.-21
Modifl8d proposal based on potenial cumulative effects.
(Estimated production potential is 530 million barrels.)
- DELETED
PARTIAL ~DELETIONS
Source: Alaska OCS Office
oil on ice and snow; ice-oil interaction with beach sediments; oil
dispersal in heavily iced environments, etc.). Studies of the Arrow
spill strongly support the concept that physical degradation of
spilled oil is directly related to the marine energy in the spill
environment. Rashid (1974) gives strong supportive quantitative
data in this regard. Further, evaporation losses and biodegradation
are slower in colder environments. Biodegradation can be reduced as
much as 90 percent in water of 0° C when compared to water of 25° C.
Burning may be the only feasible method of cleaning oilspills in
iced areas; however, this may represent a trade of one type of
pollution for another. During the Buzzards Bay spill clean-up,
burning was an effective method for cleaning oil which was not
accessible from the shore. Only a small amount of particulate
matter resulting from the fires was noticed.
Finally, intense tidal currents and winds in the study area can
disperse the spilled oil in an unpredictable manner, making it
nearly impossible to recover before it impacts on nearby shorelines.
It may not be feasible to recover or disperse oil slicks in regions
of high tidal currents."
In Cook Inlet with its intense tidal currents, flushing is estimated to be 90
percent complete in 10 months (Kinney, et al., 1969). The same study con-
cluded that microbiology degradation is much more important than tidal flush-
ing in removing spilled oil from Cook Inlet.
Several indexes have been developed to estimate the persistence of oilspills
on the coastlines. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has developed a
very good index (Map Din Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1979). The
Alaska Department of Fish and Game index is not described extensively in this
section because only part of the area is indexed (only lower Cook Inlet).
Also, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game index includes other factors than
coastal vulnerability, such as oilspill trajectories and probabilities of
areas being impacted by an oilspill. (For this EIS, oilspill trajectories
have been extensively modeled by Dames and Moore (1980) and USGS (1980).)
Another index of the persistence of oilspills on coastlines has been developed
by Michel, et al. (1978), and Hayes, et al. The results of this study are
also described in chapter 8 of the Lower Cook Inlet Interim Synthesis (Science
Applications, Inc., 1979) and in Blackburn (1979). The coastline has been
categorized into morphological and sedimentary types with similar oilspill
vulnerability ratings. The most vulnerable sections of the coastline are
paraphrased below.
Stable shorelines and tide-dominated bayhead depositional systems:
Stable mountainous shorelines are dominated by steep valley walls,
pocket beaches of mixed sand and gravel and extensive tidal flats.
Stable lowland and hilly shorelines are generally sediment starved
and fronted by thin tidal flat deposits covering wide rock plat-
forms. Extensive sand waves and shoals, mud flats, and salt marshes
are found in the depositional zone at the head of tidally dominated
bays. Almost all areas are subject to long-term oilspill damage,
especially salt marsh areas and tidal flats; fewer problems at the
68
mouth than at the head of the embayment. Lower parts of intertidal
areas would be flushed by tidal currents; oil may not enter an area
if fresh water run-off is high.
Hayes, et al., estimate that spilled oil will persist on these parts of the
coastline for 10 years or longer. Similar to the long-term persistence of oil
in a toxic condition after it became buried in marsh sediments near the Buzzards
Bay oilspill (Blumer, et al, 1970). (This estimate of persistence is very
important for later assessments of the time period over which recreational,
commercial, and subsistence fisheries may have to be closed as a result of a
spill.) The locations of these stable shorelines and/or tide-dominated bay-
head depositional systems in lower Cook Inlet are shown in dark red on graphic 2.
Another type of vulnerable coastline is described below by Hayes, et al.
Deltas of heavy sediment laden streams entering areas of low wave
energy and deltas of smaller streams. Low wave energy conditions
and coarse grain size would allow oil to remain for years; fresh
water plume would probably keep oil off delta during periods of high
run-off.
Hayes, et al., estimate that spilled oil would persist on these sections of
the coastline for several years. The locations of these deltaic shorelines in
lower Cook Inlet are shown in light red on graphic 2.
Along the Kodiak Island side of Shelikof Strait the coastline vulnerability
has been described thoroughly by Hayes and Ruby (1979). The types of coastline
which they consider most vulnerable to oilspills are protected estuarine salt
marshes and tidal flats. The locations of protected estuarine salt marshes
and/or tidal flats on the southeastern Shelikof Strait coastline are shown in
dark red on graphic 2. Hayes and Ruby estimated, on the basis of past spills
on similar coastlines, that spilled oil could persist in a toxic state in
these localities for up to 10 years.
Another category of vulnerable coastline along the Kodiak Island side of
Shelikof Strait includes sheltered, rocky headlands and gravel beaches. The
locations of these areas along this side of the Shelikof Strait coastline are
shown in light red on graphic 2. Hayes and R~by estimated that spilled oil
could persist in a toxic state in these localities for a year to as many as 8
years.
Figure (C.4.1.a.) of the Kodiak Interim Synthesis Report (Science Applications,
Inc., 1979) shows the coastal sediment or substrat~ types in Shelikof Strait.
Muddy sediment, in which spilled oil might become buried most easily and
persist longest, is shown to occur only at the head of Wide Bay. Another
study of the Alaska Peninsula side of Shelikof Strait, the Alaska Intertidal
Survey Atlas (Sears and Zimmerman, 1977), is very useful for determining
coastal morphology and sedimentation. Some sections of the coastline have
characteristics similar to those which Hayes and Ruby (1979) describe above
for very vulnerable coastlines; i.e., tidal flats and estuarine marshes with
muddy sediments in enclosed bays and lagoons. The location of sections of the
Alaska Peninsula coast of the Shelikof Strait with these characteristics (as
portrayed by Sears and Zimmerman, 1977) are shown in dark red on graphic 2.
Hayes and Ruby (1979) estimate that spilled oil could persist for up to 10
years on coastlines with similar characteristics.
69
A slightly less vulnerable type of coastline was also identified by Hayes and
Ruby. This type is characterized by sheltered or protected rocky headlands,
and/or flat gravel beaches. The locations of sections of the Alaska Peninsula
coast of the Shelikof Strait with these characteristics (as portrayed by Sears
and Zimmerman, 1977) are shown in light red on graphic 2. Hayes and Ruby
estimate that spilled oil could persist from 1 year to as many as 8 years on
coastlines with similar characteristics.
Hayes' oilspill persistence index has recently been prepared for the Alaska
Peninsula coast of Shelikof Strait (Domeracki, et. al., 1980). Drafts of this
index do not differ significantly from the persistence index described immediately
above and shown on graphic 2.
The estimated persistence of spilled oil on coastline segments can be combined
with the probability of the coastline segments being impacted by oilspills
(sec. IV.A.l.d.) in order to determine the most vulnerable sections of the
coastline. The relative vulnerability of the coastline segments will be
further modified by the biological and socioeconomic resources of the coast-
lines, as described in section IV.A.2.
f. Oilspill Response: Federal r~sponse capabilities and
responsibilities in the event of an oil pollution incident are prescribed by
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, published
in final revised form March 19, 1980, by the Council on Environmental Quality.
Since Federal contingency planning in Alaska had been done in accordance with
earlier National Plans, information used here from Alaska regional planning
documents is subject to revision, which is presently underway. Wherever
possible, changes expected to be made in regional contingency plans to reflect
the new National Plan will be cited.
The National Plan provides the framework for a geograpnically integrated
Federal response capability and encourages the participation of State and
local governments in coordinated preparedness and action. The National Re-
sponse Team serves as the model for regional response organizations, makes
available special forces and equipment to regional organizations, and serves
in an oversight capacity to evaluate and make recommendations for improving
response capabilities nationally.
In Alaska, the entire coastal area is a geographic zone of responsibility
covered by the Alaska Coastal Region Multi-Agency Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan. The Plan specifies responsibilities among Federal
and State government agencies, and designates the primary responsibility for
effecting a coordinated response to pollution incidents in the marine environ-
ment with the United States Coast Guard. In Alaska, as elsewhere in the
nation, primary responsibilities for coastal and inland waters are divided
between the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with
the EPA assuming primary responsibility in those geographic areas upstream of
tidal influence.
The Alaska Coastal Region Plan specifies governmental response to a pollution
incident as primarily a function of the Regional Response Team (RRT), the On
Scene Coordinator (OSC), and the Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC). The
RRT is composed of Federal and State agency representatives and is chaired by
the Chief, Marine Safety Division, lith Coast Guard District, covering all of
70
Alaska. (The new National Plan, oriented toward integrating coastal and
inland waters pollution contingency planning, places the chairmanship jointly
with the Coast Guard and the EPA.) The RRT is responsible for planning and
preparedness actions prior to a pollution discharge and for coordination and
advice during a pollution emergency. In addition to the Coast Guard, members
of the Alaska Coastal RRT are designated representatives from the State of
Alaska, the EPA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the following
Federal departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human
Services, Interior, Justice, Labor and State. The previous National and
Regional Plans had differentiated between primary and advisory members. All
representatives now have equal status, as would representatives of local
governments designated to participate in the activities of the RRT. And, as
at the national level, the Coast Guard additionally maintains and operates the
Regional Response Center, in Alaska at the District Headquarters in Juneau.
Alaska coastal waters are divided into geographic zones of responsibility for
which an On Scene Coordinator (OSC) is predesignated by the Coast Guard. The
designated OSC for the lease sale area is the Commanding Officer, Marine
Safety Office, Anchorage. The function of the OSC is to develop and maintain
a Federal local contingency plan for Federal response in the area of the OSC's
responsibility; and, at the scene of a discharge, to serve as the single point
of contact for advising the spiller on cleanup measures or, if necessary, to
coordinate and direct the Federal response and expedite pollutant removal
efforts. The OSC provides information to and receives advice from the RRT
during a spill emergency. The Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC), provided
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Depart-
ment of Commerce, is on the staff of the OSC at the scene of a spill to pro-
vide scientific advice and mediate advice from the scientific community on the
scene.
To assist the RRT, OSC, and SSC in performing their duties, there are national
special forces on call, such as the Pacific Strike Team of the Coast Guard and
the Environmental Response Team established by the EPA; a computerized national
inventory of pollution response and support equipment for locating specialized
equipment tailored to the characteristics of the spill; memoranda of agreement
and interagency agreements to explicitly define areas of responbibility in
cases where ambiguity among agency responsibility may exist; and specialized
funtional groups within the RRT to provide expertise and leadership in areas
such as public information, pollution control techniques, damage assessment,
and protection of different types of living marine resources.
Petroleum Industry Oilspill Response Organizations: There are two petroleum
industry oilspill response organizations operating in the proposed lease sale
area, the Cook Inlet Response Organization (CIRO) and the Gulf of Alaska
Cleanup Organization (GOACO). These response organizations are made up of a
number of petroleum industry companies and operate through voluntary private
industry agreement to jointly acquire oilspill containment and cleanup equipment,
train personnel in its deployment and use, and provide a pooled capability of
response greater than any individual company could provide alone.
GOACO was formed in 1975 in preparation for exploratory drilling in the OCS
lease sale area 39 in the Gulf of Alaska. Composed of five member companies,
GOACO maintains an inventory of equipment originally costing in excess of one
million dollars. The organization has a manager housed in Anchorage, with
71
equipment and materials based in Anchorage, Yakutat, and Kenai. CIRO was
formed in 1978 as a joint venture of 13 petroleum companies operating in the
Cook I~let area. Equipment, originally costing approximately $1.3 million, is
maintained in Anchorage, Kenai, Nikiski, and Homer. A manager is housed in
adjacent offices with GOACO for coordination purposes. Much of the GOACO
equipment currently is under the temporary control of CIRO due to the lack of
offshore drilling activity in the Gulf of Alaska. CIRO currently is organizing
the Cook Inlet Response Team to provide rapid initial response and follow up
to an oilspill in CIRO's area of interest. Equipment and materials owned or
under the control of CIRO and GOACO are listed in appendix E.
Petroleum Industry Oilspill Contingency Planning: Each of the petroleum
~ndustry oilspill response organizations in the proposed lease sale area has
produced and continues to maintain an oilspill contingency plan, which essen-
tially is a compilation of information needed by on-site response personnel.
Such information generally includes inventories and operating characteristics
of equipment resources; lists of supplies and purveyors of containment and
cleanup services and supplies; procedures for containment, cleanup and disposal;
the names and phone numbers of specific individuals in key government and
business organizations; and organizational policy and operating agreements
with other firms.
Additionally, the industry response organizations in the proposed lease sale
area belong to the Alaska Cooperative Oilspill Response Planning Committee
(ACORP), an informal organization formed in 1977 among the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation, the United States Coast Guard, and the petroleum
industry in Alaska. The ACORP Pollution Response Plan is intended to provide
the means to coordinate Federal, State and petroleum industry resources in
response to a significant oil pollution incident in coastal waters of Alaska.
The plan provides for the sharing of resources, including equipment and tech-
nical expertise, among public and private spill response organizations and
specifies procedural and fiscal terms and conditions for such sharing. Besides
facilitating cooperative oilspill response, the plan allows the spiller (the
responsible party in a spill incident) to gain access to State, Federal and
industry oilspill and logistic equipment, technology, and manpower.
Oilsyiil Preparedness by OCS Lessees: The revised Outer Continental Shelf
orders··governing oil and gas lease operations (FR 12/21/79) specify require-
ments of OCS lessees for oilspill prepare9ness. OCS Order No. 2 (drilling
operations) requires the lessee to submit with the Exploration Plan or Devel-
opment and Production Plan evidence to the Deputy Conservation Manager (DCM)
(of the USGS) of the fitness of the drilling unit to perform the planned
drilling operation, such evidence to include information on pollution pre-
vention equipment associated with the drilling operation. Based on past
experience, minimum equipment and supplies for initial containment are based
at the drilling site, usually including an inflatable containment boom, a
mechanical oil skimming device, a storage container for recovered oil, sorbent
pads, surface collecting and dispersant chemicals and chemical applicators.
(See the June, 1979 revised oilspill contingency plan for exploratory drilling
in OCS lease area CI, listing equipment aboard the Atlantic Richfield Company
vessel Ocean Bounty. Also see the GOACO Oilspill Cleanup Manual of March,
1977, listing onboard equipment for drilling vessels SEDCO 706, Ocean Ranger,
and Alaska Star.) The operational capabilities of the containment booms
generally (based on manufacture type) are to function in waves up to 5 to 6
72
feet and in winds of up to 20 to 25 knots. Oil skimming equipment of the type
generally on board operates in waves up to 2 to 3 feet in height, whereas
sorbent booms and pads are used only with contained spills.
OCS Order No. 7 prescribes measures required of each lessee for pollution
prevention and control. Included are requirements for inspections and reports,
pollution-control equipment and materials, oilspill contingency plans and
annual drills and training of personnel. Oilspill contingency plans are
required of each lessee, submitted for approval to the DCM with or prior to
submitting an Exploration Plan or a Development and Production Plan. Required
in the contingency plans is information on response equipment and deployment
times, response capability for varying spill severity, the means for identifying
and protecting areas of special biological sensitivity, procedures for notifying
key personnel, and provisions for response action at the scene of a spill.
Pollution control equipment and materials are required to be maintained by, or
available to, each lessee at an offshore location or at a location approved by
the DCM. Such equipment and materials are required to be available prior to
the commencement of drilling and production operations. For example, in the
case of OCS sale 39 exploratory drilling off Yakutat, pollution control equip-
ment and materials were in place in Yakutat and Seward as well as on the
drilling vessel itself.
Cleanup Policies and Techniques: According to the Alaska Coastal Region Plan,
the primary consideration in any spill response is the protection of life and
property, followed by protection of the natural environment. (Endangered and
threatened species identified by Federal law are also specifically addressed
in the new National Plan.) Action to protect critical areas and remove pollu-
tants therefrom takes priority where total removal of the pollutant from the
environment is not possible.
Mechanical methods and sorbents are preferred in Alaskan waters for control of
the source of discharge as well as the containment and removal of the pollutant.
The use of chemical agents is governed by the National Plan and the circum-
stances of the spill. Generally, approval for use of chemical agents must be
obtained from the seniQr EPA representative on scene at the spill on a case-
by-case basis, after consultation with other appropriate State and Federal
representatives. Exceptions to this general rule are for the use of surface
collecting agents in accordance with the National Plan listing of approved
chemicals where the use of chemicals will reduce the immediate hazards to
human life due to explosion and/or fire.
Oilspill Incident Response: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires
that all harmful discharges of oil and all discharges of hazardous substances
into the navigable waters of the United States must be reported immediately to
the appropriate Federal authority. The designated "authority" in Alaskan
coastal waters is the United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard can be
contacted in the following ways:
1. Calling the toll-free number ZENITH 5555.
2. Calling the designated OSC for the area in question. In the case of
the lease sale area, the OSC is Captain R. H. Spoltman, 907-271-5137.
3. Calling any Coast Guard unit in the vicinity of the incident.
4. Calling the Commander, 17th Coast Guard District in Juneau, 907-586-7195.
73
The OSC has the responsibility to respond to all reports of spill incidents.
Oilspills in coastal waters are classified according to the National Contin-
gency Plan by the amount or potential amount of discharge, as follows:
Minor discharge:
Medium discharge:
Major discharge:
less than 10,000 gallons
10,000 to 100,000 gallons
more than 100,000 gallons
The report of the existence or potential of a major spill, even an unconfirmed
report, requires the OSC to immediately notify the National and Regional
Response Centers. A minor spill normally will not require the OSC to alert
the full membership of the RRT, but the decision to do so is based on the
judgment of the OSC after investigating the spill report. Alerting the member-
ship of the RRT usually is carried out by telephone conference call and nor-
mally is cause for activating the full or partial membership of the team to
the scene of discharge.
Federal policy strongly encourages those responsible for a spill take appro-
priate abatement and cleanup actions voluntarily. When the responsible spiller
takes appropriate actions, the OSC will observe and monitor progress and
provide advice and counsel to the spiller. Federal cleanup activities are
instituted when 1) the spiller is unknown or 2) in the judgment of the OSC,
the spiller does not act promptly, does not take an interest to take appro-
priate cleanup action, or is unable to take adequate cleanup measures.
If an alleged spiller can be identified and cleanup is required, the OSC.must
immediately give written notification to the owner, operator or appropriate
responsible party of Federal interest, his liability for cleanup, and other
aspects of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or National Contingency
Plan as appropriate. If the alleged spiller fails to initiate cleanup activi-
ties, or initiates improper or inadequate cleanup actions, the OSC must advise
the spiller in writing that his actions are considered inadequate and that he
is liable for cleanup costs incurred in the event of a Federal cleanup. Such
notice failing, the spill incident becomes a Federal responsibility.
g. Constraints on Oil and Gas Development: Potential geo-
logic, oceanographic, and meteorologic hazards could restrict site selections
for onshore or offshore facilities, and limit development of special engi-
neering designs of facilities and operational precautions to meet the environ-
mental conditions according to OCS Order No. 8 (appendix C).
The following describes the more significant potential natural hazards that
could affect OCS development. Less significant potential oceanographic hazards
such as sea ice, low or freezing air temperatures, and winds were considered
during the environmental analysis but found not to be significant enough to
require detailed treatment here.
Seismicit and Earth uake Associated Hazards: The environmental geology
graphic (graphic 1 describes several aspects of large magnitude earthquakes
and their effects on areas adjacent to the proposed lease area. According to
a report by Thenhaus, et al. (1980), the proposed lease area occurs in a zone
where the ground acceleration ranges from 40 to 60 percent of gravitational
acceleration for those earthquakes with a 500-year return period. Estimates
of great earthquake recurrence intervals range from a minimum of 33 years to a
maximum of 800 years (Plafter, 1971).
74
The most significant constraint earthquakes pose to potential OCS development
is the design of onshore and offshore facilities. These facilities should be
designed to safely withstand large magnitude (greater than 6.5) earthquakes.
Both onshore and offshore bottom-founded oil and gas facilities should also
withstand ground accelerations predicted by Thenhaus, et al. (1980). In lower
Cook Inlet and upper Shelikof Strait, ground shaking could be quite severe and
platforms would have to adequately withstand it. If an offshore production
platform fails or a pipeline ruptures due to seismically induced slumping or
foundation failure, an oilspill could occur. However, potential slump areas
in lower Cook Inlet and northern Shelikof Strait have not been found (Bouma
and Hampton, 1979).
In the event of structural failure of an offshore production and storage
facility, the lives of personnel onboard would be endangered. Severe finan-
cial losses could occur. Oilspills could occur depending on the nature of
damage to pipes, wellhead facilities, feeder pipelines, and storage facili-
ties. See section IV.A.l.d. for probabilities of oilspills.
Industry has attempted to design earthquake-proof platforms, one of which
Exxon recently installed in the Santa Barbara Channel. Th2 platform is a
290-meter production platform designed to withstand 500 em /sec horizontal
ground accelerations.
Production wells are required to have subsea safety valves which will shut off
flow from the wells in the event of an earthquake.
Mass Movement: During· some earthquakes, fine, well-sorted sandy or silty
soils, especially water-saturated soils, could liquefy, lose bearing strength,
and tend to slide or slump downslope. Landslides or mudflows could occur and
threaten onshore facilities located in the area. The apparent stability of
the sand wave field in lower Cook Inlet suggests that this large mass of sand
has not been affected or significantly moved due to earthquakes in lower Cook
Inlet.
Tsunamis: Both local and regional tsunamis can be generated by earthquake-
induced submarine mass movements or tilting of the sea floor. Such tsunamis
have the potential to severely threaten the physical existence of coastal
communities and OCS development facilities·, especially at elevations less than
30 meters above sea level. Tsunamis would probably not cause damage to offshore
structures because their physical movement in deep water does not cause large
waves.
The seismic sea wave warning system was established in 1948 by the U.S. Coast
and Geodetic Survey. Advance notices of tsunamis are issued throughout Pacific
coastal areas. Improved earthquake and tsunami warning systems have been
installed in Alaska since 1964 to provide better and faster warnings to threat-
ened coastal areas. Historically, Port Graham and English Bay coastal areas
were severely impacted by a cross-inlet tsunami generated by volcanic activity
on Augustine Island.
Tsunamis generated by a mudflow or large slump near Augustine Island could
affect some coastal areas such as Port Graham and English Bay. Tsunamis can
potentially rupture oil storage tanks, as well as overturn or severely damage
oil tankers in ports.
75
In coastal areas, the best protection for onshore facilities is a careful site
selection and design procedure with all due consideration being given to the
potential occurrence of tsunamis.
Faulting: Faults pose moderate hazards to offshore drilling in lower Cook
Inlet and upper Shelikof Strait (see graphic 1). During earthquakes, active
faults and their movement pose potential problems for sea floor completion
facilities and pipelines. Pipelines could be ruptured if much displacement
occurred along a fault crossing a pipeline route.
In addition, if high abnormal formation pressures exist at producing horizons,
and a serious oil blowout occurs, then active shallow, near-surface faults
could prove to be potential hazards for oil and gas to reach the sea floor
outside the well casing. Such a situation would represent a worst case scenario
for a blowout. However, blowouts occurring inside the well casing have a much
better chance of being brought under control more rapidly.
Volcanoes: Volcanoes in the Aleutian-Alaska Peninsula and Cook Inlet areas
are the result of weak areas in the convergence between the North American and
Pacific plates. Nineteen volcanoes exist in this region, eight of which have
erupted in the last 100 years. OCS operations and facilities located on or
very close to Augustine Island in lower Cook Inlet would most likely be af-
fected by potential hazards of the Augustine volcano. The proposed lease area
in upper Shelikof Strait probably would be more affected by a significant
eruption of Mt. Katmai than Augustine. The 1912 Katmai eruption was one of
the world's largest in this century.
The major potential hazards of Augustine Island are glowing avalanches (pyro-
clastic flows), mudflows and floods, minor lava flows, bomb and ash falls,
noxious fumes, poisonous gases and acid rains, and tsunamis. Of these, the
most serious hazard to offshore oil and gas development is the glowing ava-
lanche. Ballistic studies indicate that the ejection range of large bombs is
mainly restricted to the island itself.
The proposed lease area in lower Cook Inlet could be affected by bomb and ash
falls, and possibly noxious fumes due to a hot glowing ash cloud moving up to
perhaps 9.6 to 16 kilometers offshore of Augustine Island. Acid rainfalls
over the lower Cook Inlet area could also occur. Ash from the past eruption
spread over southern Alaska, as far north as Anchorage and Talkeetna, and as
far east as Sitka, 1100 kilometers away. Ash dispersal is strongly dependent
on the prevailing winds. No place on Augustine Island is safe to erect perma-
nent or semi-permanent structures.
Protection from such atmospheric effects of a volcanic eruption on Augustine
could be mitigated by adequate public notice of volcanic activities.
The 1883 eruption produced tsunamis that crossed the entire lower Cook Inlet.
The tsunami warning system, the Palmer Seismic Observatory, the Geological
Survey, and the University of Alaska scientists studying Augustine Volcano
could provide OCS operators notice of any impending potential volcanic erup-
tions on Augustine.
Neither ash fall nor acid rainfalls have the potential to affect offshore
production platforms, pipelines, tanker terminals, or vessel traffic to such
76
an extent that a major oilspill would occur. However, personnel, air intake
filters, and exposed mechanical equipment could be affected by either acid
rainfalls or abrasive ash deposits.
An evaluation of potential geologic hazards in the lease sale area has been
carried out by the USGS and is included in Appendix L. This evaluation, which
substantiates the analysis performed here, concludes "that no tracts within
the proposed sale area are sufficiently impacted by geologic hazards to prevent
safe exploration and development for hydrocarbons."
Conclusion: Table IV.A.l.g.-1 summarizes physical constraints which could
affect various types of oil and gas operations in the proposed lease area.
Host potential geologic hazards in either lower Cook Inlet or Shelikof Strait
can be mitigated by adequate compliance with OCS Operating Orders and appro-
priate facility design.
OCS Operating Order No. 8 mitigates most potential hazards by requ1r1ng that
offshore facilities design complies with Geological Survey standards.
Faults per se would not affect offshore structures because of mitigation by
design and OCS operating orders. Large magnitude earthquakes and ground
shaking could damage OCS-related onshore facilities, especially oil storage
tanks, but not offshore structures, because of mitigation by engineering
design and compliance with OCS operating orders. Ash falls and acid rainfalls
due to volcanic eruptions could adversely affect OCS personnel and equipment
both onshore and offshore. The coastal effects of a seismically or volcanic-
induced tsunami could be devastating, but appropriate consideration of tsunami
potential during actual onshore facility siting and design would considerably
reduce the risk to human life by tsunamis. Offshore structures, however,
would not be affected by tsunamis.
The large sand wave field in lower Cook Inlet appears to have been relatively
stable over a 5-year period of time. In view of this, the potential risk to
seabed pipelines crossing the sand field could be considerably reduced.
Selective pipeline routing in and around the sand field could also minimize
the potential hazard of the sand field to seabed pipelines.
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effect of potentially recurring earth-
quakes close to oil and gas facilities in lower Cook Inlet or upper Shelikof
Strait could result in repeated occurrences of severe damage to such facili-
ties. Repetitious, severe earthquakes over the life of the project could
result in significant losses to physical facilities, human resources, and the
local lifestyle and economy. However, given appropriate facility design and
compliance with local, State, and Federal regulations such occurrences would
be considered unlikely. Offshore facilities would not be affected because of
their engineering design and compliance with OCS operating orders.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: There would be no unavoidable adverse effects to
offshore structurts because of earthquakes, faulting or tsunamis, because each
of these physical environmental constraints can and would be designed in
compliance with petroleum industry standards and OCS operating orders.
77
Table IV.A.l.g.-1
Sale 60 -Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Estimated Physical Constraints on
Oil and Gas Development
I'll cu e I'll
CQ 0
j:Q ~ I'll '+-4 z ~ I'll e 4-J 0 » ~ cu CQ 1-4
~ ...... d 0 ...... E-o I'll
c:l. ~ •P'I '+-4 ~ ~ cu
~ c:l. 0 ...... 4-J .....
0 ::3 ...:I cu CQ "0 0 .c
...:I Cll ~ c:l. ..... cu ...:I •P'I
~ cu ...... •P'I ~ "0 ~ I'll = "0 CQ ~ ~ § ...
~ •P'I = = = ~ I'll cu
~ ..... 4-J CQ •P'I I'll cu 0 0 c:l. a cu = e cu t1 = •P'I '+-4 t1 I'll •P'I .c
t1 c:l. CQ 4-J = •P'I 4-J I go .d ::3
•P'I ..... ... cu •P'I 0 ... (J a ~ I'll Cll
~ ~ ~ 0 E-o ..... = CQ ::3 0 I ..... I
c:l. cu Cll a "0 4-J Cll -"1 ..... •P'I
Cll I'll C.!) c:l. ..... c:l. ~ .c 0 4-J t: (J •P'I a ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS z CQ 3 ::3 •P'I •P'I ::3 ... 0 CQ ... cu
0 C.!) Cll 0 ~ Cll ~ j:Q 0 ...., ~ Cll
Earthquake Magnitude H H H H H H H H L L
Ground Shaking or Breaking H H M H H H H H L L
Mass Movement (slumping,
landslides, mudflows,
liquefaction of soils,
and avalanches) H H M H H H H H L L
Faulting M L L L M M L L L L
Gas-Charged Sediments L L L L L L M M M M
Tsunamis L H H H L T L L L L ....
Storm Waves L L L L L L M M L L
Sediment Transport and
Seabed Bedforms L L L L L M-H M M L L
High Abnormal L L L L L L M-H M-H M-H M-H
Formation Pressures
Coastal Erosion L L M L M M L L L L
Note: The H (high), M (medium), and L (low) designations are based on a combined assessment of
(1) the severity of potential environmental hazards to oil and gas operations, (2) the avail-
ability of technical information necessary to either develop or implement appropriate offshore
technological systems, and (3) the extent of the relative availability of present and future
technology in response to potential natural hazards.
h. Other Major Projects Considered in Analyzing Cumulative
Effects: This section contains a brief description of major projects which
may occur, in the near future, within or close to the proposed sale area.
Ongoing projects are not considered in this section, since they are considered
as part of the baseline environment. The projects listed in this section have
been considered in the cumulative effects sections of this document. The
listing is not comprehensive. Other specific projects which are not major or
which occur at some distance from the proposed sale area but which are felt to
be germane to a discussion of a particular topic, are incorporated within the
pertinent cumulative effects section.
Beluga Coal Field: The Placer Amex Company is currently planning to mine the
Beluga Coal Fields on the west side of Cook Inlet. The coal will be strip
mined for export or will be used to satisfy local energy needs. According to
the Placer Amex's development scenarios, coal mining and exporting activities
would begin in 1990 or 1991. A community of 1,300 residents could develop
near the field.
The produced coal would be either shipped in bulk form as methanol, or as coal
slurry. Although it is unknown exactly where the shipping terminal for the
Beluga field would be located, it is proposed that the methanol option would
utilize the Drift River-Granite Point oil pipeline and would load traffic at
the Drift River facil~ty. To be economically viable the field would have to
annually yield 6 x 10 tons of coal for shipment. If converted into slurry,
it would take approximately 60 tankers per year of the 100,000 DWT cargo
category to move the product.
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project: Bradley Lake occupies an ice scoured
basin in the Kenai Mountains, some 36 air miles northeast of Homer. The Corps
of Engineers ·proposes to construct a concrete gravity dam at the point where
Bradley Lake flows into Bradley River. The dam will be capable of generating
70 megawatts of power with a future maximum capacity of 118 megawatts. The
Bradley Lake dam was originally expected to be constructed in the mid-60's;
however, the discovery of oil and gas in the Cook Inlet deprived the proposed
dam of its energy market area and postponed its construction. Presently, the
earliest funding approval possible will allow Bradley Lake construction to
begin in 1983.
Materials and equipment needed to construct the dam could be brought on site
by two methods. First, a road could be constructed from H~er to Bradley
Lake. A second idea under consideration would result in the barging of all
materials to a dock facility located at Bear Cove whereupon they would be
transported overland to the dam site. The site of the construction base camp
for the dam is unknown but could possibly be Homer.
Pacific LNG Plant: In spring of 1982, construction should begin on a natural
gas liquefication plant located at Nikiski, Alaska. The plant, operated by
the Pacific-Alaska LNG Company, is projected to have a peak liquefication
capacity of 400 million cubic feet per day, and will require about 59 acres of
land. The facility will be located on borough owned lands, and will be part
of an existing industrial park which contains the Tesoro refinery, the Standard
refinery, the Chugach Electric power company, the Phillips LNG plant, and the
Colliers Ammonia and Urea facility. Erection of the Pacific LNG plant will
78
require the addition of one loading dock, and will generate between 50 to 60
loads of LNG per year. The LNG tanker size employed will probably be of the
130,000 cubic meter class.
Peak employment during the construction phase of the Pacific plant would re-
quire some 1,200 workers. Annual employment during the production phase of
the plant's life would be 65-75 people. Total life of the plant is projected
to be between 20 and 40 years.
Homer Harbor and Fisheries Industry Expansion: The city and port of Homer
have been targeted by a number of organizations for various types of harbor
expansion and bottomfish industry development schemes. Of the various pro-
posals, three have advanced to the point of actual construction or near con-
struction.
First, the Homer Fisheries Industrial Park, operated by Douglas Sweat, would
provide industrial fisheries lots for the siting of marine oriented private
industries, such as fish and shellfish processors, tug and barge operations,
marine repair firms, and marine service companies. The Homer Fisheries Indus-
trial Park would occupy 65 acres each. At peak operation the project would
employ 130 people. The Homer Industrial Park has obtained construction appro-
val from the Corps of Engineers; however, adequate private funding bas not
been forthcoming.
Second, the World Seafood Corporation is currently constructing a large bottom-
fish processing facility on the Homer Spit, north of the small boat harbor.
The facility will be able to process 1,800 metric tons of fish per hour. The
facility should require 30 people to build it and 40 to operate the facility
year round.
Third, the city of Homer is proposing the expansion of its existing small boat
harbor, and the construction of a new 1,400-foot dock. The new dock would
reach into Kachemak Bay, and would provide Homer with the capacity to service
deep draft vessels. Total costs of the projects would be about 20 million
dollars. The new dock and expanded small boat harbor would be designed to
serve many interests, including development of existing commercial fisheries,
development of a bot~omfishing industry, and OCS related development. Ap-
proval of the project is pending; it should be constructed in the early 1980's.
Kodiak Small Boat Harbor: The Corps of Engineers bas proposed to build a
second small boat harbor in the vicinity of Kodiak city. This proposed harbor
has been funded by Congress, and work will probably begin on the project in
the early 1980's.
Present harbor capacity (in Kodiak) leaves some 580 fishing vessels without
protected mooring space. Dog Bay, the proposed small boat harbor site, is a
100-acre site located on the southwestern side of Near Island, across a narrow
channel from the city of Kodiak. Within Dog Bay, an area of 45 acres fulfills
the city's current 25-acre mooring space requirement, and leaves 20 acres for
potential space growth.
Port Lions Small Boat Harbor: Currently awaiting congressional funding ap-
proval is the Corps of Engineers' proposed Small Boat Harbor at Port Lions on
Kodiak Island. The proposed Corps project is located at Settlers Cove at Port
79
Lions. The purpose of the project is to provide safe anchorage for the local
fleet of 52 commercial fishing boats, and a transient fleet in excess of 128
commercial fishing vessels. The harbor will also provide refuge for increas-
ing numbers of sport fishing and recreational boats. The project will consist
of two rock-fill breakwaters located across the mouth of Settlers Cove enclos-
ing an area of 52 acres.
Proposed OCS Lease Sale 61: An evaluation of cumulative effects in regard to
lease sale 61 is not included within this EIS. This topic has been the
source of a number of comments resulting from the review of the DEIS. A
thorough response to the issue of considering proposed OCS sale 61 in the
cumulative effects of proposed sale 60 is contained in the response to comments
(sec. V.D.1.). Essentially, sufficient information to make such an analysis
is unavailable and the timing of OCS leasing processes is such that considerable
time remains to affect future decisions on sale 60 in the series of subsequent
decision points involved.
Lower Cook Inlet Sale: To date some seven dry holes have been drilled as a
result of OCS sale CI. ARCO is scheduled to drill one more well in the fall
of 1980. As of December 1980, 18 of 87 leases have been relinquished. Unless
a significant oil and/or gas find is soon located within the boundaries of the
sale area, industry activities will probably cease.
State of Alaska Sale 35: The State of Alaska proposes leasing lands offshore
and onshore in lower Cook Inlet for oil and gas exploration during the first
quarter of 1982, coordinated with proposed OCS sale 60 to be conducted in
September of 1981. Results of the geological evaluation process are not
available at this time. Offshore, the bulk of the proposed sale 35 area
extends from Nikiski to the southern boundary of State waters within Cook
Inlet and continues intermittently on the west side of Cook Inlet within the
3-mile limit of State waters to Oil Bay. This southern extens~on of the
State's proposed lease sale area is situated west of the northern blocks
considered for proposed lease sale 60 (generally from block 484 northward).
2. Alternative I -Proposal (153 blocks): The following sections
assess the impacts of oil and gas leasing in the proposed sale area (see fig.
II.B.1.a.-1).
a. Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats: A coastal habitat
is defined here as a geographic area, bounded by the highest tide line shore-
ward and a 20-meter (65.6-ft) depth oceanward, within which many living organisms
reside. Coastal habitats are especially vulnerable to oilspills which form
oil slicks on the surface of the water. On some sections of the coastline,
spilled oil may persist in a toxic condition for up to 10 years (sec. IV.A.1.e.).
Another factor which makes coastal habitats especially vulnerable is that they
are the main areas within which a wide variety of sensitive and valuable
species reside. The probable impacts on some of these species are described
in more detail in section IV.A.2.b. (razor clams and nearshore larval fish),
IV.A.2.e. (sea otters and coastal marine mammal rookeries), and IV.A.3.h.(4)
(intertidal organisms that are harvested as subsistence foods). These coastal
organisms and habitats, which essentially surround the proposed lease area (as
described in sec. III.B.1.), may be primarily impacted by oilspills, and only
slightly impacted by discharges of drilling fluids and by disturbance during
construction.
80
Oilspills: According to USGS oilspill statistics (sec.IV.A.l.d.), if the
estimated amount of petroleum is discovered, four oilspills exceeding
1,000 barrels are most likely to occur. These major spills have a high (94')
likelihood of contacting the surrounding coastal habitats within 10 days
(while the oil is fresh and still quite toxic). Spills of natural gas are not
included in these calculations because of the rapid evaporation of gas and,
thus, lack of impact.
Major oilspills due to blowouts on the U.S. outer continental shelf (more than
3 mi from land) have become relatively infrequent with recent improvements in
technology (Danenberger, 1980, and table IV.A.l.d.). Oilspills from pipelines,
which may occur close to shore, are typically small because th~ flow can be
controlled.
In contrast, tanker spills are usually very large, are usually quite close to
land, and are still a major source of oilspills (Ross, 1980). The impact of
tanker spills on coastal habitats can be estimated with the amount of oil
spilled during three past tanker accidents, and with the amount of coastline
that was affected. A 1970 discharge of "hundreds of barrels" of oily ballast
water from a tanker near Kodiak Island affected portions of its coastline for
150 kilometers (93.2 mi). The Metula tanker spill in the Straits of Magellan
impacted 150 kilometers {93.2 mi) of rocky coastline with a large amount of
crude oil. The Arrow tanker spill in Nova Scotia impacted a 25-kilometer
(15.5-mi) stretch of deeply indented, rocky coastline with about 70,000 barrels
of Bunker C fuel oil. The accidents indicate that a major tanker spill may
affect a 25-to !50-kilometer (15.5-93.2 mi) stretch of rocky coastline. This
distance equals one-sixth to one-half of Kodiak's westside coastline; i.e., a
tanker spill may impact.a very long segment of coastal habitat.
As will be discussed later in the paragraphs on "Cumulative Effects," it is
important to understand that a definite risk already exists of tanker spills
in Cook Inlet and near Kodiak Island. For example, spills associated with
only the proposed lease sale have a 9 percent probability of contacting Augustine
Island within 10 days, but spills associated also with the existing leases and
the existing tanker traffic in lower Cook Inlet have a 49 percent probability
of contacting the island (sec. IV.A.1.d.).
Oilspills that contact coastal habitats can have a very toxic affect on the
biota. A previous environmental statement for the Kodiak area (DOl, p. 43,
1977) concluded about oilspills:
"Maximum adverse impacts would occur on the upper and mid-intertidal
zone, in areas of extensive semi-protected or protected heavily
vegetated coastline. Inshore bays and estuaries having muddy and
sandy bottoms and limited circulation patterns would also be se-
verely impacted."
Infauna, such as razor clams, are one of the main organisms that might be
affected by oilspills contacting the coastline. After the Amoco Cadiz tanker
spill in France, many razor clams died. Razor clams in Shelikof Strait and
lower Cook Inlet occur in large, commercial concentrations in several areas
(see graphic 2). In northwestern Shelikof Strait near Swikshak, $100,000
worth of razor clams have been harvested annually by commercial fishermen.
Oilspills resulting from the proposed lease sale have over a 40 percent like-
81
libood of occurring and contacting at least one of the important razor clam
beaches (see appendix D). Most of these beaches have an oilspill persistence
rating (sec. IV.A.1.e) of less than 1 year, so the toxic effect of any spill
on the razor clam population may persist for that length of time. Even if the
razor clams are not killed, a spill may taint the clams and the area would
likely be closed to clamming. After an oilspill in another area (Buzzards
Bay, Massachusetts) all of the shellfish beds on the eastern shore of the bay
were closed for one and a half years (Palmer, 1980). The effect of a closure
would be most disruptive along the eastern part of lower Cook Inlet where a
million razor clams are removed annually by sport fishermen (sec. III.B.2.d.).
As indicated by the oilspill model, size of spills, and persistence index
(sees. IV.A.1.d. & e.), there is an additional 9 percent chance that spills
from the proposed lease area could affect a large portion of these razor clam
beaches for 1 year during the life of the project. The impacts of oilspills
on commercial harvests of razor clams are discussed further in section IV.A.2.b.
and c.
Hydrocarbons dissolved in water below a fresh surface slick may kill or taint
the scallops on the shallow water banks, but the toxic affect would probably
not persist long because of the continual flushing action of the water on the
shallow-water banks. Spills from the proposed lease area have a 7 percent
chance of contacting within 3 days (while a slick is still fresh) the shallow-
water banks on which scallops are harvested (shown on graphic 2; see also
appendix D and sec. IV.A.1.d.).
The risk of oilspills to other coastal organisms, such as herring, which spawn
on kelp in certain areas, is discussed in other sections (IV.A.2. biological
sections). In addition to specific organisms, some entire bays are sensitive
habitats and/or are used extensively for commercial and subsistence purposes.
One of these bays is Kachemak Bay. Interestingly, the bay has a negligible
chance of being impacted by additional spills from the pr~posed lease area
(sec. IV.A.1.d.). Kamishak Bay bas a much higher chance (29%) of being im-
pacted by spills within 10 days of the accident. (As stated earlier, a risk
which is actually twice as large is posed to Kamishak Bay by the existing
tracts and tanker routes.) The deeply indented bays on the northwest side of
Kodiak Island have a substantial, additional risk of being impacted. For
example, Kupreanof Strait alone has an additional 23 percent probability of
being impacted by additional spills. In these bays along the northwest coast
of Kodiak Island, many coastal organisms are harvested as subsistence food
(sec. III.C.l.d.). The subsistence foods include vulnerable infauna organisms,
such as the razor clams, and slightly less vulnerable intertidal and subtidal
organisms, such as sea urchins.
For the proposal, oil is hypothesized to be transported by pipe through Kupreanof
Strait to Talnik Point, and by tanker through Marmot Bay. The oilspill risks
posed by these activities are primarily associated with the development scenario
(sec. IV.A.1.b.), i.e., with later decisions about whether and how to produce
a field if one is discovered. Later decisions about pipeline routes may
substantially change the risks. For example, a pipeline to the Shuyak Strait
area rather than to Kupreanof Strait area displaces about one-third of the
projected impact away from the Kupreanof Strait area.
Discharges: The toxic discharges that are associated with the proposed action
include drilling muds and formation waters. Drilling muds are mainly inert
82
clays, but contain some toxic components and trace amounts of hazardous heavy
metals, as described at a recent symposium on the environmental rate of drilling
fluids (Alaska Petroleum Institute, 1980). All of the components are rapidly
diluted upon discharge in turbulent deep water, as in lower Cook Inlet (Dames
and Moore, 1978):
11 The results indicate that, in most cases, within a few meters of
the discharge point, drilling fluids were well below concentrations
expected to cause mortalities in the most sensitive organism tested.
For a short period (up to 3 hours) discharges during 11 cementing" of
the well and at the end of the well resulted in calculated concen-
trations of drilling mud within a few meters of the discharge that
exceeded levels found to be toxic in the 96-hour laboratory tests."
Since none of the drilling locations are, of course, within 3 miles of land
where the water is shallower and less turbulent, toxic concentrations would
not accumulate.
Formation waters may be discharged (if oil is discovered). Formation waters
can be quite toxic to organisms, as observed around a drilling rig in a very
shallow (2.5 m or 8.2 ft) bay (Armstrong, et al., 1979). Any platforms where
formation waters might be discharged will, of course, be 3 miles from land.
The minimum water depths in the proposed lease area are: in lower Cook Inlet,
about 10 meters (32.8 ft) on the very turbulent bank just south of Kalgin
Island; and in Shelikof Strait, about 20 meters (65.7 ft) along the northwestern
shore. Because of the water depths and turbulence, there would be no toxic
affect of formation waters on organisms.
Disturbance: Pipelines that cross the shoreline would cause some disturbance
of coastal habitats. Two oil pipelines and one gas pipeline that cross the
shoreline are hypothesized for the proposal. Burial of these pipelines would
destroy a strip of benthos and intertidal organisms about 5 meters (16.4 ft)
wide. If the pipeline routes cross densely populated habitats, such as kelp
beds, the impact could be substantial. Coastal areas in lower Cook Inlet in
which pipeline burial would be least disruptive have been identified by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1979). Utilization of this publication
during post-lease routing of pipelines would result in greatly minimized
impacts.
Conclusion: Discharges during the exploratory and/or production phases, and
habitat disturbance during the development phase would probably cause no
substantial impacts to vulnerable coastal habitats. In contrast, oilspills
may cause occasional large-scale impacts. Four additional, major spills are
most likely to occur as a result of the proposed leasing; these spills have a
94 percent chance of impacting the coastal habitats and infaunal organisms
which almost entirely surround this particular OCS area. Oilspills that reach
the coastal habitat would probably kill or temporarily taint for up to 1 year
infaunal organisms, such as the razor clam, which are valuable for recre-
ational, commercial, and subsistence purposes. The costs of oilspill impacts
to the coastal habitats and infaunal organisms would not be costs which only
the fishermen, the surrounding communities, and the State would necessarily
assume because of the existing Offshore Oil Pollution Compensation Fund
(appendix F) •
83
Cumulative Effects: The oilspill risks to the coastal habitats that are sum-
marized above are smaller than those existing because of OCS sale CI and oil
tankering through lower Cook Inlet. According to U.S. Geological Survey
oilspill statistics, when the proposed sale, sale Cl, and existing tankering
in lower Cook Inlet are considered, there is a 94-percent probability that one
or more oilspills of 1,000 barrels or more would occur and contact a portion
of the coastal habitat surrounding the proposed lease area. The most likely
number of 1,000-barrel or greater spills projected to occur as a result of the
proposed sale and existing oil-related activities in lower Cook Inlet is
eleven compared to four for the proposal itself. This projected number of
spills means that the coastal habitats could be subjected to continuous oilspill
impacts. Thus, while the impacts on coastal habitats would be similar to
those described in the conclusion (above), they could be more severe.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Oilspills are due to accidents, so oilspill
impacts are not entirely avoidable. Oilspill response capabilities (sec.
IV.A.1.f.) have been only partially successful with the reduction of impacts
due to oilspills. Historically, a· much lower percentage of transported oil
has been spilled from pipelines than from tankers; .0017 percent of the oil
transported by pipelines bas been spilled as opposed to .016 percent from
tankers (Council on Environmental Quality, 1974). Thus, much additional
environmental protection to vulnerable coastal habitats in lower Cook Inlet
and Sbelikof Strait could probably be gained by using pipelines or a method of
transportation that poses no greater oilspill risk (see sec. II.B.1.c., poten-
tial mitigating measure 2).
b. Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish: This topic has been
identified during scoping as a major issue.
Impact of OCS Drilling Muds and Formation Water Disturbances: This subsection
identifies the acute and chronic effects of OCS drilling fluids and formation
water discharges upon important fisheries and benthic communities. The chronic
effects discussion encompasses marine biota generally. Refer to section
IV.A.2.o. for an evaluation of impacts of OCS discharges on water quality.
Acute Effects of Drilling Muds: In spite of the variability among experi-
mental techniques, the majority of data indicate that both whole muds and mud
components, with the exception of bacteriocides, are relatively nontoxic.
LD50's for the whole muds fall in range of 3,000 to greater than 100,000 ppm
(Ray, 1978; McAuliffe and Palmer, 1976). Available toxicity data indicate
that adult cold water organisms are generally not more sensitive than temperate
water ones.
Important Alaskan commercial species which have been subject to toxicity
bioassays include coho, pink, and chum salmon (B.C. Research, 1976) and pink,
hump, and coon striped shrimp (Dames and Moore, 1978). The salmonids showed
an LD50 ranging from 4,000 to 190,000 ppm depending upon the drilling mud
components tested. The shrimp species showed an LDSO in the range of 14,000
ppm. Other cold water species tested for LD50 in the lower Cook Inlet COST
well study include amphipods (500+ ppm), mysids (1,600 ppm), isopods (2,000
ppm), and brine shrimp larvae (500 ppm) (Dames and Moore, 1978).
Larval stages of commercially important crustacea indigenous to Alaskan shelf
waters have been subject to drilling mud toxicity studies. These include
84
tanner, king and Dungeness crab, razor clams, scallops, and mussels (U.S.
Depar~nt of Commerce, 1979). The acute toxicity level~1 of larval stages of
crustacea can be at least an order of magnitude less (10 ), if not lower, than
adult stages of the same species.
Preliminary conclusions of Rice concerning some drilling mud toxicity tests
conducted with crustacean larvae (king, tanner, and dungeness crab and coonstripe,
dock, and kelp shrimp) are:
1. Crustacean larvae in our tests are more sensitive than reported LCSO's
for adult shrimp and fish.
2. Suspended auds were about 5 to 10 times more toxic than water soluble
fractions of mud (WSF).
3. The length of time required for a toxic solution suspended mud or WSF to
show adverse effects was noticeably longer than WSF's of oil.
4. Mud WSF are more stable (persist longer) in seawater than petroleum
hydrocarbon WSF's.
5. Adverse effects to larvae appear to be caused primarily by physical
aspects of the exposure rather than chemical toxicity.
6. The toxicity of drilling muds tested appears to be correlated with ligno-
sulfonate content.
Bacteriocides within drilling fluids can be acutely toxic to tested biota.
Specifically, halogenated phenols, quatenary amines, and diomine salts have
LDSO values of less than 1.0 ppm. The aldehydes, for example formaldehyde,
are generally less toxic with an LDSO between 50 and 400 ppm (Robichaux,
1975). The U.S. Geological Survey has issued a rule prohibiting use of halo-
genated phenols as a drilling fluid constituent (30 CFR 250.11, 250.43;
44 FR 39031). Abundant evidence indicates that lethal concentrations (greater
than LD50) of the dissolved fraction of drilling fluid contaminants are only
present within a few meters of the discharge pipe, and that the apparent
effects of aud discharges are minor. The acute effects of the sedimentary
fraction of drilling muds and cuttings upon benthic communities is restricted
to a smothering pheonomena where the rate of deposition exceeds approximately
5 centimeters on the sea floor (Dames and Moore, 1978).
Acute Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Acute toxicity tests have been
performed on a variety of salmonoids, shrimp, crab, bottomfish, mollusks, and
finfish (Trasky, 1978; Malins, 1977; Caldwell, Caldarone, and Mallon in Wolfe
1977; Katz, 1973; Me Auliffe, 1966; Anderson et. al. 1974). The tests have
been performed on both warm and cold water environments with some tests having
been performed on indigenous cold water species of Alaska. Standard 96-hour
bioassay results on pink scallops were 0.8 ppm, on pink salmon fry 2.9 ppm,
and on adult king crabs 4 ppm (Rice et. al. 1976). The most sensitive bioassay
results were reported on Dungeness crab larvae at 0.04 ppm, with threshhold
toxicity ~ffects measured at 49 ppb (Caldwell, Calderone, and Mallon, 1977).
The bioassay& used water soluable fractions or crude oil mechanical solutions
as the test substance (Cook Inlet crude oil).
85
Comparison of the above toxic concentrations of the water soluable fractions
(WSF) of crude oil with known concentrations of dissolved petroleum hydrocar-
bons in produced water discharges is difficult. The difficulty turns on the
definition of the WSF and the analytical testing procedure employed. The sum
of the aromatic hydrocarbons tested in the Granite Point and Trading Bay
production facilities constitutes most of the WSF set of toxic hydrocarbons
identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation, 1978). The Marathon NPDEFS Permit Application
for the Trading Bay facility tested for aromatic hydrocarbons according to the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the NMFS analytical proce-
dures which permit an estimation of total WSF and a comparison with toxicity
study results. The total WSF conc2ntr~tions from these facility discharges
(2.6-6.7 ppm) are approximately 10 -10 greater than the most sensitive toxi-
city test results (0.04 ppm for Dungeness crab larvae).
It can be conservatively estimated that lethal effects of treated produced
waters discharged from platforms on finfish and benthic species would not
extend beyond 100 meters from the discharge source based upon the dilution
rates reported in the lower Cook Inlet rig monitoring studies.
Chronic Effects: At least three levels of effects upon marine biota can be
postulated for suspected contaminants: 1) short term lethal effects, 2)
sublethal physiological effects, and 3) behaviorial effects (Percy and Mullin,
1975; Trasky, 1977). There is a substantial dispute among investigators as to
whether wastewater discharges from OCS operations pose chronic adverse effects
through the stages of sublethal, physiological, and behaviorial effects.
Representatives of the oil and gas industry argue that sufficient research has
been done to demonstrate f~ndings of no chronic adverse effects from drilling
fluid discharges upon pelagic communities (Ray, 1978; American Petroleum
Institute, 1979). Various scientists and resource agency officials disagree
and argue that the available evidence is inadequate to demonstrate the finding
of no chronic effects (Wennekens, 1975; Wright, 1975; NOAA, 1979; Richards,
1979; Reisch and Carr, 1978).
A symposium on the environmental fate and effects of drilling fluids and
cutting was recently held to report new research and synthesize knowledge
(American Petroleum Institute, in press). The symposium did not unequivocably
demonstrate chronic effects of drilling effluents and cutting discharges. The
symposium did not provide any demonstration of long-term effects (e.g., 15-20
years) of muds and cuttings on the marine environment. Due to the multiplicity
and complexity of variables in the marine environment, of which only a few can
be incorporated into a single experimental design, the determination of chronic
effects from muds and cuttings discharges will probably remain a question for
some time.
Table IV.A.2.b.-l gives a summary of finfish and shellfish species, habitat,
season of occurrence, and the potential interaction of oil with these items.
For more detailed information regarding these interactions, refer to ADF&G
(1978), Malins (1977), and USDI (1976).
Salmon, herring, steelhead trout, and other pelagic (free swimming) finfish
species and demersal (bottom dwelling) finfish species, such as halibut and
walleye pollock, are found throughout the Shelikof Strait and lower Cook Inlet
areas. These finfish have been divided into groups for describing impacts.
86
Species of
Biota Group
ADULTS
Sockeye
Pink
Coho
Chinook
Steel head
l:'riocipaJ
Habitat
Concrecate io
Estuaries
Cooareaate io
Estuaries
Cooareaate iu
Estuaries
Cooareaate io
Eatuaries
Pelaaic, Surface
Coocreaate io
Estuaries
Pehcic
Coucreaate io
Estuariea
£sluacies
Table IV.A.2.b.-1
Fish Species, Habitat Use, and l:'oteutial Oil Ioteractious
Areas of P~ak Occurrence Seasou of Peak Occurrence
----------------· ---·------
Nearshore; Aoadra.ous Stre ...
with Lakes; Karluk, led, aud
Fra~er Rivers (westside Kodiak)
Nearshore; Aaadro.ous Stre ... ;
lotertidal; ~at stre ... around
lodbk
Nearshore; Aaadro.oua Stre ... ;
lutertidal; West and Suutbeast
sides of Kodiak
Nearahore; Aaadro.oua Slre ... ;
lortbesdl sod Southwest coroers
of lodiak l•land
ThrouabouL tbe Gulf of Alaska
Nearshore; Aaadro.ous Strea .. ;
West-aide kodiak Island
Surface; J.arae Baya and open
oceau
llearstaore; Aoadra.ou• Stre ... ;
Nearshore
nid-Kay to Early July
July to ntd-Auauat
eveo yeara
Late July to Late October
July to Late love.ber
Wioter, Sprioa
llid-Juoe to Late Auaust
Wioter, Sprioa
Sprioa aod fall
Fall and Early Wioter
------------··--------------
Area Use by
Biotic Group
Spawn ina
•i&ratioo
Spawoiaa;
spawoioa
•iaratioo
Spawoioa;
spawoioa
.taratioa
Spswoio&
•iaratioa
Feedioa
Spawaioa
•iaratioa
feedioa
Spawaioa
•iaratioo
i'"eedioa;
overwio-
teriaa
Poteotial Oil
Biota Interaction
Bebavioral; Block access
to apawoioa atre ...
Behavioral; Block access
to spawoiaa areas;
Tollic to apawa
Behavioral; Block access
to apawaiaa areaa;
Toxic to spawo
Behavioral; Block access
to spawoio& areas
Deplete food source;
lebMvioral; laaestioa
Behavioral; Block access
to spawaioa stre ...
Deplete food source;
Behavioral; lnaestioo
Behavioral; Block access
to spawaina stre ..
Additiooal stress Oil
apeot spawoera;
laaestioa
Paae I of 9
---------
Species of Principal
Biota Group Habitat
------·
Dolly Varden Conareaate in
Estuaries
JUVENIU:S
sockeye Enter Estuary
after 1-3
years in
freab water
lakes
Seaward Hiara-
tion
Pink Enter Kstuary
Seaward Hiara-
lion
Chllll Enter Estuary
Seaward Hiara-
aration
Coho Eater Estuary
Seaward !tiara-
tioa
•
!able IV.A.2.b.-1
Fish Species, Habitat Uae, and Potential Oil lnteracliuou,;--.:ontinued
Areaa uf ~cdk Occurrence
Nearshore; All Anadru.ous
StreaiDII
Near11bore; Surface;
South and wcat alona tbe Conti-
nental Sbclf; Sudace
Nearshore; Surface
South and west alona the Conti-
nental Sbelf; Surface
Nearshore; Surface
South and w~at alona the Conti-
nental Sbd f; Surface
Nearshore; Surface
South and weat alona the Con tin-
ental Sbe lf; Surface
Season of Peak Occurrence
Late June to October
and Early Winter
Hay to Auaust
Auaust to October
October to Nove.bec
October to Nove.ber
ltarcb to June
Hid-Auauat to Late Fall
ltarch to July
Late Su..er to Early Wiater
.. -----·-·----
A•·ea Use by
Biotic Group
Spawning
aigration
s-ltina;
Feed ina
Out.iaratioo;
Feeding
Saoltin&;
Feed ina
Out.iaratioo;
Feed in&
S.oltiaa;
Feed ina
Out.iaratioo;
Feed ina
S.Oltioa;
Feedioa
Outaiaratioa;
feedioa
Potential Oil
Biota Interaction
Behavioral; Block access
to apawnioa streaaa
Toxicity; Reduced food
supply; Behavioral;
Ioaeatioo
Toxicity, Behavioral;
111aestioo
Toxicity, Reduced Food
supply; Behavioral;
Inaestioo
Toxicity; Behavioral;
Inaeatioo
Toxicity; Reduced food
supply; Behavioral;
Ioaeatioo
Toxicity; Behavioral;
Ioaestioo
Reduced food supply;
Behavioral; Inaestioo
Behavioral; Ioaeatioo
Paae 2 of 9
Table IV.A.2.b.-l
!o"iah Speciea, lbbitat Use, and Potential Oil lnteracliuuo;--continued
Species of
Biota G1·oup
Principal
Habitat
·--------·-----
Chinook
Steel head
Dolly Varden
EGGS AND
HATCHING
Piiik--
ADUJ.TS
Enter [atuary
Seaw•rd Hian-
lion
EnleJr Eatuary
Suward Hian-
tion
Euter Estllllry
lutectidal
lulerlidal
Are•• of ~e•k Occurreoce
Ne•rshore; Surface
South and weal alona the Coutin-
ental Sbelf; Surface
Mearabure; Surface
South and weal alona tbe Contin-
ental Sbelf; Surface
Hearsbore; Surface
East and Wed Sidea of Shelikof
Stnit """' lower Cook Inlet
Herring Rocky Beach Intertidal; Shallow Subtidal
Season of Peak Occurreoce
JLLDe to Lllte Auaust
.l!'all to Early Wiater
Early June to Hid-July
Uaknown
Early April to Late Juae;
Septe.ber to October
Late July to May
Late July to Hay
Hid-May to Hid-.Juoe
---··-···--_i__ -·-·---------Su.e !! fl::..:Do;:k~S::..:a::..:l::..:IIO=n=------------------------
Area Use by
Biotic Group
SIIOltina;
reed ina
Out•iantion;
feed ina
s-lLina;
feed ina
Outaiaratioo;
reedioa
S.Oltioa; Seek-
ius overwin-
terio& atre ... ;
Feedioa
Jucubalioo;
Hatch in&;
E.eraence
lucubat.i.on;
Hatcbioa;
E.eraeoce
Spawoina
Potential Oil
Biota Interaction
Reduced food aupply;
Behavioral; Inaestion
Behavioral; lnaeatioo
Reduced food supply;
Beh•vioral; loaestioo
Behavioral; loaestioo
Toxicity, Reduced food
supply; Behavioral;
Block access to over-
wioterioa stre ... ;
luaestioo
S.Otherioa; Toxicity
S.Otberioa; Toxicity
Inhibit apawoioa; Toxic
to spawo
Paae 3 of 9
•
Table 1V.A.2.b.-J
Fish Species, Kabilat Use, and Potential Oil Interactiuus--coutinued
-------·----
Species of
Biota Group
Principal
llabilat _____________ __:___.
Areas of ~cak Occurrence
Benthic Overwin-Near Bottow; approx. SO fathoaa
EGGS AHD
LARVAE
Herein&
JUVENIU:S
Heccina
ADULTS
Sablefish
EGGS THROUGH LARVAE __ _
Sablefisb
EGGS
Paci fie
Sand lance
terina Weataidc of Kodiak Island
Rocky Beach
Nearshore
N"arshore
Pelaaic
Nursery Jut.,rtidal; Shallow Sub-
tidal; Bay Areaa
Nursery Julcrtidal; Shallow Sub-
tidal
Surfac"; tiays and loleta
OCS d"epu· than 200 -ten
Surface ot Shelikof Strait and
low.,t· Coull. Iolet possibly
Sandy Botto.; Nearahore; 25-100 •
water depths
Season of Peak Occurrence
Area Use by
BioLic Group
Potential Oil
Biota Interaction
-------------------=-----------
Late Fall throuah Winter
ltay to June
Kay to Late Fall
Late Fall, Winter, Sprina,
Year-round
Early Sprina to Late Kay
Wioter
uverwinterina;
11o feedina
Incubation;
Hatcbioa
t"eedina
t"eedina
Jucubation;
Hatchioa;
Feed ina
Sp•wnina;
Incubation
Behavionl
Toxicity; S.Otherioa
Reduced hatch
Reduced food supply;
Toxicity; Inaeation
Reduced food supply;
Behavior; Toxicity;
Ioaeation
Reduced food supply;
Behavior; Toxicity;
Inaeation
Toxicity; Reduced food
supply; Inaeation
Toxicity; Behavioral
Paae 4 of 9
Speci~s of
Biola G1·oup
Principal
Habitat . .
1'abl" 1V.A.2.b.-l
)'ish Sp.,cies, Habitat Use, aud Poteutial Oil luleractio.ub--coulinued
--------------..
Areas of l'e"k Occurrence Seaaon ot Peak Occurrence
Area Use by
Biotic Group
---------=-----------·------------------------------------
JUVI!:NIU:
Pacific
Sandlauce
Adult Walleye
Pollock
EKKS &
Juvenile
Walleye
Pollock
Alka Mackerel
ADULTS
Pacific Cod
LARVAE
Pacific Cod
l'ac 1 fi L Ocl!an
Perch
Other
rockfish
Pelagic
Pelagic
Demersal
Dl!aenal
Sandy 8otluw; Offshore
OCS bl!twet!n 100 and 200 8eters
lnshort!, h .. ys, southeast Trinity
lsle., kiliuda Borough
10-20 • d~pLbs u~arshore; Kocky
swift cuEreut areas
!nshocl! e .. h.mlulents to;
Jut .. ,·tido~l
Rocky; Sh .. llow Subtidal;
Intertiddl
Shelf hre .. k and slope;
200-.el~• Jeptbs
Shelf hce .. k and slope;
Su..er to iarly Fall
March to June
Dece.ber to March
January to Late June
Year-round
Year-round
tlatunt ion
Spawning
Spawning
Spawning;
Hatunlion;
Feeding
Spawning;
ltio tun tion;
Feed ins
Potential Oil
Biota Interaction
Toxicity; Behavioral;
Reduced food supply;
Inaeation
Ingestion
Toxicity, reduced food
Toxicity; aJDOthering
spawn
Toxic to spawn; luhibit
I pawning
Toxicity; Reduced food
1upply; Ingestion
Possible ingestion
Poa1ible ingestion
Page 5 of 9
----------------
Spec:iea of
Biota Group
ADULTS
loalhla Sole
l!GGS AND
LARV,.,_-
Ioaliah SuJe
ADULTS
Petraie Sole
ADULTS
Starry
flouuder
EGGS Aim I.ARV.u-
Starry
Flouuder
Prioc:ipal
Habitat
De.eraal
Pelaaic
De.eraal
Pelaaic:
----------------
Table IV.A.2.b.-l
fiab Spec:iea, Habitat U.e, aod Poteotial Oil Joterac:tiuu.--coutiuued
Areaa of Yc•k Oc:c:urreace
llearahore
Surface; Mc•rahore
Deep wale•· •reaa
Deep wate• .reaa
llearabure
Ileac aurf .. ce
Seaaoo of Peak Occ:urreac:e
Wioter; Sprioa
Wioter, Sprioa
s-r
Area Uae by
Biotic Group
loc:ubatioa;
Feedioa
feedioa
t'eedioa
Spawoioa
Feedioa
1ocubatioo;
reedioa
Poteatial Oil
Biota Iot.ecactioe
Toxic to •P-i
Behavioral
Toxicity; &educed food
aupply; loaeatioo
loaeatioo
lqeatioe
Toxic to apawo;
Behavioral, reduced food
aupplJ
Toxicity; reduced food
aupply; Ioaeatioa
Paae 6 of 9
Specie,; ut
Biota Group
ADUL'I'S
Pacific
Halibut
EGGS &
LARVAE
Pac!fic
Halibut
ADULTS
Cape lin
AllUL'l'S
King Crab
JUVj,;NJU:S
Kii,JCrab
LARVAa,:
King Cub
Principal
Habitat
O.....nal
Pelagic
Pelagic
lleep Wdterj Cu.e
into shallow
water tu spawu
Shallow water
to 100 •
Se•ipelagi c
to benthic in
11hallow water
Table JV.A.2.b.-l
Fi11h Speciea, Habitat Uae, dlld Potential Oil lnleracUoull--contiuued
Areaa uf ~e~k Occurreace
Near bottu•; Near 200 •
iaubath; lower Couk lalet
Surface tu LOO-.etera
lower Cuvk Inlet
Nearshore; Near Surface;
Pebbly be.ocbea.
Kache.ak b.oy, Bays, east
11ide ot Shelikof Strait.
Lower Cuuk lulet, Shelikof
Strait. Bays and loleta.
Bays, Julcl~, eapecially
lache ... k Bay
Seaaou of Peak Occurrence
Wiater
ltay lo Juoe
June lo August
Year-ruund
Se•ipelagic
ltarcb-July
Area Use by
Biotic Group
Spawniug
lucubatioa;
Feeding
Spawning
Feeding;
Spawniug
depth
•·eeding;
Rearing
•·eeding;
Reuing
Poteatial Oil
Biota Interaction
Toxic to spawa;
Behavioral
Toxicity reduced
Toxicity; Toxic to
apawa; Behavioral
Low probability
because of water
High potential
for adverse effects
Toxicity to larvae
bigb
·---------------------------.P~a-ge~7~o'f~9--
T<~b!e IV.A.2.b.-1
Fish Species, H<~bitat Use, and Poteutial Oil lnlenctiun:;--continued
-------------------------
Specie,; ot
Biota Group
ADULTS
Tanner Crab
LARVAE
Tanil« Crab
AUULTS
DungeneSII
Crab
lARVAE
Dungeoesa
Crab
AUULTS
Shri.Bj)
Pdncipal
Habitat
Deep water to
50 • when
spawning
Seaipelagic
to benthic
in aballow water
To tide line;
during upawning;
Seaipelagic
to benthic in
shallow water
Deep water (days)
To surface
(nightll)
Spawn in bays
and around
islands
Seaipelagic to
benthic in
shallow water
Areas of l'c•k Occurrence
Bays and luieta, especially
kacheaak B<ty.
Bays ;~ud luleU, especially
lache..,k Bay.
Bays .. uo.J tuleta; easL-west
side» of Sbelikof Strait
and Kadu.:...,k Bay.
B11ys and Inlets; east-west
aide,; ot Shelikof Strait
and bclu::1118k Bay.
Bays 1111d Inlets east and west
of Slad i kof Strait and ICacheaak
Bay.
Bays and Inlet& east and west
of Slu:l ikuf Strait 11nd ICaclaeulr.
Bay.
Season of Peak Occurrence
January-Hay in
shallow water
Seai-pelagic
Harch
Spawn October-Deceaber
Seai-pelllgic Juue-Deceaber
Year round spawa;
Spawn Auguat-Septeaber
l!"ebruary-July
Area Use by
Biotic Group
~·eediug;
Spawning
~'eediog;
Rearing
feeding;
Spawning
t'eediug;
Rearing
•'eedin&;
Spawning
~·eediog;
Reuin&
Potentilll Oil
Biota Interaction
Low probability
because of water
depth
Toxicity to larvae
high
Mediua probability
auaaer; Low in winter
Toxicity to larvae
high
Can affect eggs
(carried on feaales)
and food
Toxicity to larvae
larvae high
Page 8 of 9
Table IV.A.2.b.-1
fiah Species, Habitat Use, aud Potential Oil lnteractiuuM--continued
-----·----------------·
Species ot
Biota Croup
LARVA£
Scallop
Principal
Habitat
60-180 -ter
depths;
Benthic
Planktonic near
surface
Areas uf l'e,olt Occurrence
Not in proposed sale area
Not iu propuaed sale area.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Co..erce, 1978; Stale of Alaska (ADF&G, 1978).
Season of Peak Occurrence
Year-round
June to July
Area Uae by
Biotic Croup
Feedina;
lSpawnin&
1-·t:cdina;
Rea cia&
Potential Oil
Biota Interaction
Low probabiliLy
because of depth
Toxicity to
larvae hip
Paae 9 of 9
Impact on Demersal Species
Pacific halibut and other flatfish are ocean bottom dwellers that have free-
floating eggs and larvae. A few months (1-3) after fertilization, the eggs
become buoyant and generally float at or near the surface for 1 to 3 months.
After the eggs hatch, the larval fish remain at the surface of the water until
metamorphosis when the young fish return to the ocean bottom to feed and grow
to maturity. It is during this free-floating period that these types of fish
are most vulnerable to pollution events on and in the water. In addition to
eggs from the Kodiak offshore areas, eggs from the western and northern Gulf
of Alaska drift to the west and settle out near Kodiak. It would, therefore,
be reasonable to assume that, should a chronic or massive hydrocarbon spill
occur during these critical life stages, the population of eggs and/or larvae
would be reduced. There is presently no way to quantify the extent of such an
impact.
Information contained in the oilspill risk analysis (sec. IV.A.1.d. and app-
endix D) indicates that the areas containing high populations of halibut along
the northeast shore of Kodiak Island have a high probability of being contacted
by a pollutant event because of this proposal. The areas from Uganik Bay to
Malina Bay are especially vulnerable to pollutant events. This is about
one-fifth of the area with high halibut population within the proposal. It is
more likely that an oilspill would affect larval or young forms of halibut
than adult forms because these subadult forms inhabit shallow water. While it
has been reported by some fishermen that halibut seem to follow the salmon
into bays (Blackburn, 1980), most of the commercial catch occurs in water from
60 to 140 meters (197 to 495 ft). It is not likely that deep water would be
contacted by lethal amounts of oil from a spill. The many natural variables
and the effect of commercial fishing on this species could mask any population
change caused by the proposal.
Groundfish species such as walleye pollock, Pacific cod, black cod, Pacific
Ocean perch, and flatfish are all demersal forms that live in deep water. The
eggs and/or larval stages of these fish are free floating and are vulnerable
to oil contamination for a period after the adults spawn. Should the juvenile
portion of the population be killed by a massive event, which is not likely,
the entire population would be affected. Decline or elimination of a year
class could have major economic effects in ·subsequent years, as well as probable
significant biological effects on the population.
Walleye pollock and Pacific cod are known to be present in large numbers in
Shelikof Strait. If an oilspill were to occur during the time the larvae are
present in the upper part of the water column, populations of these species
could be reduced. The effect may not be apparent for several years (when the
adults enter the fishery) and may not be directly attributable to a pollutant
event. These effects cannot be quantified, but because of the high number of
probable events (four probable spills are associated with this proposal), it
can be hypothesized that some reduction of the bottomfish species for 1-or
2-year classes could occur.
In Shelikof Strait and Cook Inlet, herring move inshore to spawn generally
from May through mid-June; however, the peak of spawning varies greatly from
year to year. Herring generally spawn on or near living plants such as eelgrass,
kelp, or other algae, and rocky substrates. Herring spawning has been documented
87
or reported in nearly every bay on the weat side of Kodiak Island (Blackburn,
1980; also see graphic 2 of this EIS). On the west of Shelikof Strait, herring
spawning has been documented only in Kukak Bay (Blackburn, 1980). In Cook
Inlet, spawning has been documented in the Kaaishak Bay area, Kacheaak Bay,
and near the Forelands.
Hatching tiae varies with temperature, but averages 15 days from spawning to
hatching. The larvae are very delicate and subject to environmental influences
(Smith, 1976). Young herring collect in small schools and gradually aove
seaward toward the mouths of bays or inlets where they grow rapidly and conso-
lidate into large schools. These schools move into deep water by late fall.
It is possible that these fish move into the proposed sale area. While off-
shore, they spend much of their time at or near the water surface.
A massive hydrocarbon spill or chronic pollution that contacted herring spawning
areas during the 3-to 4-week reproductive period could have a significant
impact on adult, egg, and larval mortality. Natural prehatching mortality
varies froa about 60 to 90 percent, and larval mortality is thought to be as
much as 99 percent (Smith, 1976). Any additional stress on this life stage
could adversely affect whole year classes with subsequent decline of coa.ercial
stocks in the adult year periods.
The only documented herring spawning areas facing high oilspill risk from this
proposal are the Kamishak Bay area and Kukuk Bay (fig. IV.A.1.d.-10.). If an
oilspill occurred and contacted these areas during the period when larvae or
young are present, there would likely be some reduction in the population
of herring. Based on information contained in the oilspill risk analysis
(sec. IV.A.l.d.), most probable impacts on populations of herring in the
Shelikof Strait area would be low to moderate because areas of high use by
herring are not at high risk from oilspills.
In most finfish populations, the adults would be less affected than larval and
juvenile forms. Those fish species (groundfish, halibut, etc.) whose larvae
and juvenile life stages live in the upper surface of the water column and
within 10 days of a possible spill point (sec. IV.A.l.d.) would be most vulnerable.
The oilspill trajectory model indicates that virtually all of the salt water
fish habitats in or adjacent to the proposed lease area would be at some
degree of risk (sec. IV.A.l.d. and appendix D) from the spills associated with
this proposal.
The extent of the impact resulting from an oilspill would depend upon the
magnitude of the spill, the trajectory a spill would take, and the length of
time it is in a particular habitat.
Conclusion: There is a possibility that some groundfish, halibut, and herring
populations in Shelikof Strait and Cook Inlet may be reduced by some unquanti-
fiable amount during the life of this proposal. Oilspills exceeding 1,000 barrels
are projected to occur four times during the life of this proposal (appendix D).
If they occurred when the eggs or larvae of these species were not present
(about 6 months of the year), no effects would likely be attributable to oil
and/or gas production. If eggs or larvae were present during an oilspill
event, only those that actually came in contact with an oil slick or the water
soluble fractions of oil around or below the slick would be adversely affected.
88
Based on the oilspill risk analysis presented in section IV.A.l.d. and appendix D,
the probability of an oilspill affecting some of the species described above is
high. Bottomfish species, except halibut, may be more adversely affected by
this proposal than the other species discussed above because of their wide-
spread distribution in Shelikof Strait and their presence in the high proba-
bility of risk area.
Cumulative Effects: When existing and assumed oil and gas activities in lower
Cook Inlet (sale CI and oil tankering) are considered, oilspill risks are
increased, significantly in some areas, compared to those associated with the
proposal alone. Oilspill risk is high at Anchor Point in lower Cook Inlet,
the Barren Islands, Kukak and Kuliak Bays on the west side of Shelikof Strait,
the northwestern side of Afognak Island, and along the west coast of Kodiak
Island from Kupreanof Strait to Uganik Bay. Herring spawning has been docu-
mented in all of these areas (Blackburn, 1980).
In general there would be an increased probability that the demersal species
mentioned in preceding pages would be affected by an oilspill. For those
species that are commercially fished, quantification of impacts may be impos-
sible at any time because of the masking effect of the fishery and the natural
variability of populations caused by mortality of juveniles due to natural causes.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: There would probably be unavoidable fish popula-
tion reductions. Chronic pollution and/or habitat alteration could also
affect populations, probably for the life of the project and the recovery
period afterwards.
Impact on Salmon Species
Because of their dependence on inshore areas for migration routes, spawning,
larval survival, and juvenile feeding, salmon may be the most vulnerable
commercial finfish species to be affected by this proposal. Adult salmon, and
salmon larvae and fry inhabit nearshore waters and rivers near the proposed
sale area from at least May to September. Due to the relatively short period
of time oilspills would take to reach coastal locations near the proposed sale
area (1-10 days), and the biologically critical nature of the spawning and
rearing areas that would be reached, it appears likely that oil development
and production activities could result in adverse effects on some populations
of salmon that live all or any part of their lives in nearshore areas. A
major oilspill, which could result from a tanker collision, a major pipeline
rupture, or a well blowout, could cause salmon to avoid inshore waters that
are contaminated with oil and could result in depletion of some local salmon
populations for one to several years. Salmon populations that use the area
from Uganik Bay to Malina Bay, Kukak and Kuliak Bays, and those that spawn in
Kamishak Bay may be more adversely affected than the populations using other
locations near the proposed sale area (see oilspill risk analysis, sec. IV.A.l.d.).
The severity of adverse impact would depend on the time of year the event
occurred, the amount and type of oil spilled, and the length of time the oil
would be on the water before reaching shore, the weather conditions at the
time of the spill, the physiography of the area in which the oil is spilled,
and the amount of time between damaging oilspills.
Juvenile and larval salmon appear to be the most sensitive to the toxic effects
of oil (Rice, 1973). If an oilspill occurred and contacted nearshore areas
where salmon larvae were present, some mortality could result. In addition,
89
larvae would be vulnerable to death from starvation if their food supply of
phytoplankton and zooplankton were killed by a massive spill (Hunter, 1972).
Salmon fry, especially pink salmon, remain in estuarine locations near the
proposed sale area for several months, and would be especially vulnerable to
oilspills that reached shore during that time.
Pink salmon are the most vulnerable of the salmon species to oilspills. They
reside in intertidal areas nearly year-round. In addition, pink salmon have
alternate-year high spawning populations, so that if a spill occurred and
contacted them during that year, especially during periods of high concen-
trations of larvae or fry, mortality could result, adversely affecting
local populations far into the future.
The sublethal effects from oil pollution, especially from the chronic low-level
discharge of oil into the marine environment, are potentially dangerous to
fish. Feeding, reproduction, and social behavior in fish have been disrupted
by soluble aromatic derivatives as low as 10 to 100 parts per billion (Todd et
al., 1972; Sondheimer and Simeone, 1970). Interference with predator detection
of prey is also possible (Whittle and Blumer, 1970). Migratory and homing
detection could also be disrupted (Nelson-Smith, 1973). If chronic oil pollution
were to occur near major salmon migration paths, certain runs could be eliminated.
Because of pink salmon inhabit shallow salt water for long periods of time,
they would be particularly vulnerable to this type of oilspill.
A significant impact on a salmon population could occur if closely spaced,
multiple pollution events detered or destroyed a breeding population, larvae
or. fry, or breeding areas of larvae or fry. A setback of 10 to 20 percent, or
2 to 4 spawing seasons could result. Recovery would be slow and difficult if
coupled with exposure to chronic pollution events.
Conclusion: A pollutant event caused by this proposal could adversely affect
a year class or more of fry as well as a year class or aore of adults. Pink
salmon populations would be more susceptible to adverse effects from this
proposal than the other species. Juvenile salmon and salmon larvae appear to
be more vulnerable to the toxic effects of oil than other life stages of
salmon. Salmon populations that use the area from Uganik Bay to Malina Bay,
Kukak and Kuliak Bays, and those that spawn in Kamishak Bay may be more adversely
affected than the populations using other locations near the proposed sale
area because the risk of an oilspill contacting these areas is high (see fig.
IV.A.1.d.-6.).
Some population reduction could be expected near the pipeline landfall and the
tanker loading area. It is estimated that this reduction would be short
lived, possibly only through the construction stage and the population recov-
ery time (2-4 years).
Cumulative Effects: The risk of an oilspill contacting the coastline near the
proposed sale area is increased when existing and assumed oil and gas activities
in lower Cook Inlet (sale CI and oil tankering) are considered in addition to
those assumed for the proposal. The probability of oilspills adversely affecting
salmon populations is also increased. Impacts would be similar to those
described for the proposal, but could be more severe.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: There may be a lowering of some local salmon
populations because of this proposal.
90
Crab Species
The three major species of crab (king, tanner, and Dungeness) have similar
life histories in that the adults spend the winter months in deep (150-450 m
(492-1,476 ft)) oceanic waters, and migrate to shallow (6-20 m (20-66 ft))
water in the spring or early summer. The eggs, which have been carried by the
female for about a year from the previous year's spawning activities hatch and
the young spend from 1 to 4 months (March-June) as free swimming planktonic
larvae. After the larval stage, the juveniles assume the adult form, settle
to the bottom, and spend from 1 to 5 years in shallow bays and estuarine areas
before joining the adults on their migrations.
The larval forms are more susceptible to floating hydrocarbons; the juveniles
are somewhat susceptible to hydrocarbons on and beneath the surface of the
water. The adults would be affected by the oil that sinks to the bottom. All
age groups would be affected by the reduction of food species. In the event
of a large pollutant event, the young could be killed and thus reduce the
potential adult population. If these hydrocarbons settle to the bottom, the
adults may also be killed, further reducing the population. Population reduc-
tions would affect the fishery. Crabs could be flavor tainted by contact with
hydrocarbons and other pollutants, thus reducing their value.
Exposure to chronic pollution associated with oil/gas development and produc-
~ion could affect the larval and juvenile life stages of crab and other shell-
fish species. King and Dungeness crabs spend lengthy periods in shallow
water; tanner crabs spend soae tiae in shallow water. Effects of chronic
exposure are as yet unknown, but could range from impairment of development
through direct reaction on the animal or because food sp~cies are killed.
Studies by Rice and others (1976) tested Cook Inlet and other oils on a number
of oceanic organisms, including larval tanner and Dungeness crab and juvenile
king crab. They found that juvenile king crab quickly accumulated methylnap-
thalene and other aromatic compounds of oil in their body tissue and were able
to quickly cleanse themselves after they were transferred from the contaminated
water to clean water. They also found that at concentrations of oil equal to
or just below the 96-hour TLm (medium tolerance limit) juvenile king crab
respiration rates were depressed, indicating stress. Measurement of metabolism,
however, does not appear to be a sensitive indicator of oil toxicity to crabs.
In these studies, larval forms of tanner and Dungeness crab exhibited relatively
high (10.8 and 7.1 ppm of oil, respectively) TLm to Cook Inlet oil. The
median effective concentration (ECm), or the amount of oil it takes to induce
moribundity in larvae, however, was approximately 2 ppm for both species.
Larvae can exist in the moribund stage several days before dying. Larvae do
not recover from this stage. Of the life stages tested in this study, larvae
appeared to be the most vulnerable to oil. From a quantitative standpoint,
larvae were most sensitive to oil toxicity, especially during molting. Crusta-
cean larvae may be particularly susceptible to oil toxicity compared with
adults because they molt frequently.
Individual organisms subjected to sublethal exposures may undergo "ecological
death" if they are incapable of adjusting to natural stresses in their envi-
ronments because of this exposure. For example, during bioassay testing,
postmolt tanner crab lost as many as seven legs, including both chelae, during
91
short exposures to crude oil (Karinen and Rice, 1974). Even though the crabs
lived through the exposure, they would not have survived in the natural envi-
ronment.
Chronic exposure may adversely affect a portion of the population if the
adults' ability to reproduce is seriously impaired. Physiological changes,
such as reduced fecundity and delayed ovary development, or impaired behavioral
mechanisms preventing location and identification of mate or timing of spawning
can impair reproduction. Thus, although chronic exposure might not directly
kill the adult, it could adversely affect its ability to reproduce successfully
so that, eventually, a portion of the population using the polluted habitat
could be eliminated.
Some fractions of oil may sink to the bottom (Friede, et al., 1972), where
they remain for some time and could taint shellfish. Instances have been
cited where shellfish were tainted and their marketability was reduced by
exposure to even slight amounts of oil (Blumer et al. 1970; Wilber, 1969).
Conclusion: There is a possibility that populations of king, tanner, and
Dungeness crab could be reduced by activities associated with oil and gas
production in the proposed lease area. Egg and larval forms are most suscep-
tible to adverse impacts from pollutant events associated with the project.
Extent of impact would vary by time of year, amount and kind of event, and the
area in which the event takes place.
Chronic pollution events covering egg release and larval rearing areas could
reduce the populations of these areas substantially. However, because there
is commercial harvest of these species, assessment of cause of population
reduction would be difficult.
Additional impacts caused by oil and/or gas development in Cook Inlet and
Shelikof Strait could have moderate local effects on the crab populations. A
major spill in an area of high crab larvae populations is also a possibility.
If such an event were to occur, larvae crab populations in the area could be
severely reduced.
The relatively confined area of the proposed lease area and the possibility of
four major pollutant events over the life of the project (appendix D) indicates
that there would probably be a reduction of some crab populations caused by
.l
the events associated with the proposal. The reduction may be local (individual
bay/nursery areas) or widespread (larval drift areas). Those crab populations
using the area between Uganik and Malina Bays, Kamishak Bay, and near Augustine
Island have a higher probability of being adversely affected by oilspills than
populations using other areas because the area between these areas face high
risk from oilspills (see sec. IV.A.1.d.).
Dredging during pipeline laying in crab rearing areas, could result in some
crab mortality.
Cumulative Effects: In addition to the areas of high risk from potential
oilspills mentioned above, most of the northern half of Shelikof Strait would
face moderate to high risk. All three species of crab (king, tanner, dungeness)
use this area. The Anchor Point area, but not Kachemak Bay, would be at high
risk also.
92
Crab eggs and larval crabs would probably receive the brunt of the impacts;
however, should food sources beco•e contaainated or reduced, the adult population
could be directly affected. There is no way to quantify these effects. Even
determination of the cause of population decrease would be difficult because
of the commercial fishery and natural variability of these resources.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: A portion of one or more year class of any of
the three crab species discussed could be eliminated because of one or more
major spills. Chronic low-level pollution and dredging for offshore pipelines
could alter a portion of the habitat to aake it unsuitable for these species
for a period of time.
Impact on Shrimp Species
The shrimp fishery is composed of five species of Pandalid shrimp: the pink,
humpy, coonstripe, sidestripe, and spot. Approximately 97 percent of the
catch is pinks. Mating occurs in September in coastal shallows with the eggs
carried offshore by the females until they hatch the following March and April
(McLean et al., 1976). Young shrimp are found primarily in shallow water in
bays and move into deeper water as they grow. Shrimp inhabiting shallow water
are the most susceptible to oil pollution. Natural sex transformation occurs
over several adult molt stages in March o~ April. It is during these molt
periods adult shrimp are most susceptible to pollution effects (Rice, et al.,
1976). Adults undergo daily vertical migrations and are in the upper waters
at night where they would be most vulnerable to contact with hydrocarbons.
Of the four species of shrimp considered in a past study (USDI, 1976), pink
shrimp was the least resistant to water soluble fractions of crude oil.
Shrimp larvae are apparently more sensitive to hydrocarbon toxicity at the
time of molting, and later larval stages suffer a higher mortality ratE than
early larval stages. Larvae of spot shrimp appear to be much .are sensitive
to naphthalenes, an oil component, than previously demonstrated. Concentrations
as low as 8 ppb (parts per billion) cause narcosis (sleep or inactivity)
followed by death in 1 or 2 days. In addition, shrimp larvae concentrate
naphthalene and a naphthalene-protein complex 25 to 100 times the exposure
levels, leading to the conclusion that " .•• ara.atic hydrocarbons acquired
in food may be metabolized quite differently from such compounds acquired from
other routes ... " (Sanborn and Malina, 1~76).
Ba~ed on information in the oilspill risk analysis (appendix D and sec. IV.A.l.d.)
and catch statistics for the proposed sale area (sec. III.B.2.d.), local
shrimp populations, especially between Malina and Uganik Bays, Kukak Bay, and
the widespread larval drift area off Kachemak Bay, could be affected adversely.
Conclusion: Reduction of some local shrimp populations could result from
chronic or massive pollution events. The population decline would depend on
life stage affected, areal extent of the event, and length of time of occur-
rence. At maximum pollutant levels, a marked decrease would be possible so
that the local shrimp stocks a~d fishery would decline for a relatively short
period. Based on information contained in the oilspill risk analysis (appendix
D) and catch statistics for the proposed sale area (sec. III.B.2.d.), local
populations, especially between Uganik and Kalina Bays, on the west side of
Kodiak Island, or the widespread larval drift area off Kachemak Bay could be
adversely affected.
93
Cumulative Effects: As time passes, a cumulative long-term sublethal and chronic
contamination of shrimp may occur as a result of this proposal, primarily in
the Shelikof Strait area. However, the amount of population reduction cannot
be measured.
The cumulative effects would be similar to the general effects described
above, but the probability of them happening would be greater.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Chronic, low-level discharges of petroleum could
result in a local long-term reduction of shrimp populations in the area where
product treatment and shipping take place. Severity of impact would depend on
location of the treatment plant in relation to the shrimp and the ability of the
area to dissipate toxic substances.
Impact on Other Shellfish
The razor clam is the principal clam species harvested, and is presently
distributed along 21 major beaches within the Shelikof Strait area (graphic 4).
Of these, 14 beaches have supported commercial harvests at some time. Presently,
Swikshak Beach is the only beach in the Kodiak area which has clams certified
safe for human consumption (ADF&G, 1976). Recently, razor clams have been
co~ercially harvested from beaches near Polly Creek on the western side of
Cook Inlet. Most other clam beaches have not been checked or certified by the
State.
Egg development commences in May and June. Ovulation and fertilization occur
in July and August with larvae settling out of the water column in September.
The duration of the mating period is approximately two tidal cycles and is
highly dependent upon temperature.
Clam larvae are the most vulnerable to pollutant events ~n the summer and
fall. Clams, by straining the surrounding water for food particles, can
concentrate hydrocarbons in their tissues (Stainken, 1975). Even a slight
amount of oil can taint clams (Blumer, et al. 1970, Wilber, 1969).
Chronic exposure to low concentrations of oil may be detrimental. Seawater
extracts of oil have been found to have toxic effects on three survival func-
tions in molluscs: 1) inability to attach to substrate, 2) depressed rate of
shell closure resulting in greater exposure to predators, and 3) inhibition of
oxygen uptake (Dunning and Major, 1974).
When clams (Macoma sp.) were oiled by Prudhoe Bay crude, they showed a range
of effects. Some moved from the sediments to the surface and died from·the
oil-contaminated sediments. Those which did not die may not have survived in
nature where they would have been vulnerable to predation or adverse environ-
mental conditions.
If a major hydrocarbon spill were to reach nearshore areas in less than a day,
severe damage could result from smothering. Repeated pollution of clam beds
could occur from hydrocarbons that become mixed in the sediments.
Scallops are found in Cook Inlet, with the greatest numbers found between
Augustine Island and the Barren Islands. They are also present on the west
94
side of Shelikof Strait near the proposed lease area and along the east side
of Shelikof Strait south of the proposed lease area. They are generally found
in water depths of 30 to 70 fathoms (180-420 ft).
Scallops mature sexually in their third year. Spawnins probably begins in
early June and may continue until early July. Spawning males and females
release sperm and eggs into the water where fertilization occurs. The eggs
settle to the bottom and adhere to the substrate. After two or three days the
eggs hatch and the larvae begin a two and one-half week planktonic phase. At
the end of this time the individual settles to the bottom as a juvenile.
Because they inhabit deep water during most of their life, scallops would not
likely be affected by any oilspills that might occur with this proposal.
Conclusion: Razor clam beaches in Shelikof Strait have a greater probability
of being affected by the proposal than those along Cook Inlet. Because of the
high number of probable spills, the liklihood of their contacting nearshore
areas where razor clams are present and the relatively long period of time oil
can remain in a toxic state in sediments, it is likely that some local clam
populations could be reduced during the life of the project. Depending on how
soon oil gets to the beaches and how much is incorporated into the beach sand
and mud, recovery rates may be very long (10+ years) (see sec. IV.A.1.e.).
Little is known about the effects of hydrocarbons on scallops, but because
they inhabit deep water during most of their life, it seems unlikely that they
would be adversely affected by an oilspill resulting from this proposal.
Cumulative Effects: There is a greater chance that razor clams could be
affected by pollutant events because there is a greater probability that oil
would reach nearshore areas under the cumulative case. Little is known about
the effects of hydrocarbons on scallops, but because they inhabit deep water
during most of their life it appears unlikely tha~ spilled oil would contact
and adversely affect them.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Depending on location of shoreside facilities,
unavoidable impacts could be short-lived (construction away from the clam
beaches) or permanent (clam beaches covered by facilities). ExtPnt of the
impact cannot be estimated.
c. Impacts on Commercial Fishing: This topic has been iden-
tified as a major scoping issue. Analysis of impacts of this proposal on fish
populations in section IV.A.2.b. estimated that pink salmon would be the fin
fish species most adversely affected by a pollutant event. Impacts on crab
and other shellfish would be expected to be local. Therefore, local reductions
of fish populations could affect the commercial fishermen using the fish
resources of those areas.
There is estimated to be from one to four exploratory vessels in use at any
time. Exploratory activities in the United States have been extremely nonpol-
luting and if maritime support and supply activities are based at Nikiski, it
is estimated that little, if any, effect will be felt by commercial fishermen
during the exploratory phase of this proposal.
Should maritime support and supply activities come out of Homer, there could
be some impacts from conflicts for maritime materials and possibly some gear
95
loss (crab pots) unless travel routes are defined. These impacts are esti-
mated to be minor, mitigatable, and short term.
Should production occur, there could be several adverse impacts attributed to
the proposed lease sale. These impacts would be similar in all fisheries,
although different in magnitude. These impacts are loss of fishing gear, loss
of fishing area, competition for labor and materials, inability to market fish
because of flavor tainting, and loss of fishing time because of proposed
activities. In the past, vessels associated with the oil industry have pro-
vided aid to fishing vessels in distress, and weather information provided by
personnel on drill rigs bas been an aid to fishermen.
Fishing gear has been lost during the exploratory and production phases of
offshore oil and gas development. Seismic, and support and supply boats, if
unregulated, have and probably would run through fishing grounds and damage
fishing gear. Crab pot fishermen would probably suffer the most. Running
gear can destroy the floats or move pots into water so deep the floats cannot
be seen. In communities such as Homer, Seldovia, or Kodiak, replacement pots
(costing $500 or more) may not be available after the season starts. Shipment
of pots from Seattle can take several months, at which time the crab quota may
be taken or the season ended and the fishing over. The Fishermen's Contingency
Fund (appendix G of the DEIS) provides for payment for loss of or damage to
fishing gear due to OCS-related activities. It also provides for payment for
loss of profits due to such gear loss. See section I.C. for further discussion
of this fund.
All the fishermen would probably not suffer gear loss at the same time, but
more than one fisherman could be affected in any year. The severity of impact
would depend upon when this happens during the season, how many pots are lost,
and bow soon replacements are made.
Salmon or herring gill nets that are fouled during a pollutant event is another
type of gear that could be lost because of the proposal. The chance of loss
is less because of the smaller chance of spills coming to shore, the shorter
timeframe that gear is in the water, the presence of the owners while they are
fishing, and the areas fished. Impacts would not be as severe as with lost
pots, and replacement of gear would be faster and cheaper.
Production areas including anchoring and an avoidance area would equal about
800 hectares (2,000 acres) per production rig. Four production rigs are
assumed for the mean case of this proposal. Therefore, approximately 3,200
hectares (8,000 acres) of ocean bottom would be required for the production
platforms needed to produce the estimated oil and gas reserves within this
proposal. Ground fish and halibut fishermen would probably be most affected
by this loss of fishing habitat, but in this case the effects would be minimal.
Site restriction for protection of biological and, therefore, commercial
species are already in force to further reduce impacts from this source.
There would be some competition for labor force and materials. Oil and related
companies generally offer higher wages than fish processors and municipalities.
They have also exhibited willingness to pay a higher price to get materials
exactly when and where they need them. This is a luxury small businesses and
small towns do not have.
96
It is conceivable that there could be some short-term shortages of supplies
and a less skilled working force because people and transport are totally
committed to the oil companies' activities. But, considering the experience
gained through OCS sale 39, which used Yakutat and Seward as a support and
supply base, and the upper Cook Inlet experience, it is a relatively minor
one.
The impact of the unmarketabililty of flavor-tainted fish is another open
question. It does happen, but must not be a notable happening because there
is seldom a report about it. In all the years of oil activity in Cook Inlet,
there has only been one report of one fisherman not being able to sell one
load of crab because of flavor tainting. The source of the tainting material
is unknown.
Crab and salmon would be the most susceptible to flavor tainting should a
hydrocarbon spill occur during the fishing season for these species covering
an area where they are fished. Crab pots could be left on the ocean floor
until the pollutants drifted away, and could then be pulled through clear
water. Some additional expense for either cleaning old buoys and lines, or
buying new ones, would be required and would be part of the impact.
Salmon gear (gill nets) would probably need to be replaced should a pollutant
event cover them, and whatever salmon were in them would be lost to the market.
The chance of impact is thought to be slight, but if it occurs, impact is
probable. Damages due to oilspills are covered by the Offshore Oil Pollution
Compensation Fund (appendix F). See section I.C. for a discussion of this
fund.
The loss of fishing time because of the proposal activities covers a wide
range of possibilities. These include but are not limited to time lost because
of oil in the water over fishing grounds, gear replacement is slow, boats and
gear must be cleaned, and help may not be available.
The labor requirements for the onshore construction projects related to this
proposal are expected to have a minor effect on the fishing industry. The
construction work force is assumed to primarily consist of transient workers
who would be housed at onsite construction camps. The projects would be
sufficiently large to attract enough labor to an area so that the fishing
industry employees that would be lost could be replaced with new arrivals.
The OCS labor requirements in Homer and Seldovia resulting from this proposed
lease sale 60 are not expected to have a significant impact on the commercial
fishing industry. OCS labor requirements are not substantial and/or they are
matched by projected increases in population. The total supply of labor is
expected to increase to meet the OCS labor requirements with margin to spare.
The OCS labor requirements in Kodiak are minimal and are not expected to
affect the Kodiak commercial fishing industry. There may be some local labor
conflicts, mostly in Port Lions, but they should be short lived.
The extent to which OCS uses of ocean space would increase fishing costs in a
particular fishery would depend on the extent to which the fishing grounds
would be used for OCS operations and on the nature of the fishing and OCS
operations in areas of joint use. The potential for conflict for these fish-
eries is discussed by gear type since gear type is a major determinant of
potential conflicts.
97
The long line halibut fleet operates in lower Cook Inlet. The long line gear
is particularly susceptible to losses to OCS survey vessels and other OCS
vessels that tow underwater gear or are of great draft. Gear losses are
expected to occur and fishing costs are expected to increase.
The crab fisheries use pot gear which is left unattended. The high concentra-
tion of the gear in some areas would result in a very high probability that
gear losses could occur if other vessels enter the areas. OCS ocean space use
would occur in the Kodiak king, tanner, and Dungeness crab grounds. Gear
losses, therefore, would be expected to occur in these areas except that the
majority of the fishing areas in Shelikof Strait are mostly away from the pro-
posed lease area and, therefore, away from direct conflict areas.
The bottomfish grounds in the proposed area are developing. Since these
fishing areas are not clearly defined, impact assessment for these areas is
not possible at this time. However, with the possible exception of gear loss
due to OCS operations, losses would likely be minimal. By the time the domestic
fishery has fully developed, OCS ocean space use would consist primarily of
tanker traffic in well established lanes.
Gear loss is expected to be a major part of the increase in fishing costs in
areas in which the two industries will compete for ocean space. Although the
magnitude of the gear loss resulting from OCS operations cannot be determined,
current gear loss in absolute terms or in terms of total fishing costs are of
interest. CFEC data indicate that in the mid-1970's, the average gear loss of
vessels participating in Alaska shellfish fisheries was approximately $8,400.
This was about 13 percent of the total value of the gear used by these vessels,
or about 17 percent of the fishing costs excluding labor costs. These gear
loss estimates include the cost of gear itself and do not include the cost
associated with lost fishing time. The gear losses due to OCS operations
could exceed the current losses. Lost fishing time because of gear loss could
cost far more than loss of crab gear.
Another aspect of the increased fishing cost is the cost associated with
collisions between fishing vessels and OCS vessels or structures. Fishing
vessel accident data indicate, for the United States as a whole, collisions
account for approximately 18 percent of fishing boat accidents, and 45 percent
of the collisions result from neglecting the boating rules. The implication
is that additional vessel traffic would not substantially increase the cost of
vessel accidents, particularly if more attention is paid to the boating rules.
Conclusion: The proposed sale would have little effect on the Homer, Seldovia,
and Kenai commercial fisheries. The exploratory phase may adversely impact
the Kodiak and Port Lions commercial fisheries because of competition for
labor, and ocean space (seismic boats in crab pot and other fishing areas).
These impacts could be severe but would be short-lived.
During production there would be reduced fishing areas (by 8,000± acres) and a
possible conflict over travel areas. Experience from other areas (Yakutat and
Cook Inlet) has shown that over time (2-5 years) these conflicts can be resolved.
Adverse impacts are estimated to be local, short lived, and minor to the
commercial fishery as a whole.
Oilspills could adversely affect local populations of commercial fish species
and, thus, the commercial fishery.
98
Cumulative Effects: Should the activities associated with future sales add to
the conflicts identified above, adverse impacts could become serious for a
time. Deep-water trawling and long-lining also occur. There may also be
conflicts with shipping, especially from tanker traffic assumed for sale CI.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The commercial fishing industry would probably
experience some adverse impacts from this proposal. There would be increased
competition for ocean space, labor (short term), and perhaps supplies (again,
short term). Some fishing areas could be lost for the life of the project.
Some fishing gear and fishing time could be lost as well. Overall, impacts on
the commercial fishing industry are estimated to be moderate in the Shelikof
Strait area and minor to nonexistent in the Cook Inlet area.
d. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds: More than 100 species
of marine and coastal birds numbering several million compose a major portion
of the marine fauna in the proposed sale area. This avian fauna, especially
pelagic birds (alcids) and marine waterfowl, are the most sensitive marine
species to hydrocarbon development. Since the turn of the century, acute and
chronic hydrocarbon pollution of marine environments has been the major factor
contributing to large population reductions along heavily traveled oil tanker
routes. Duck populations (old squaw, eiders, and scaup) in the Baltic Sea
have decreased by 90 percent in the past forty years, while scoter populations
which migrate through the Baltic and North Seas have also been noticeably
reduced (Bourne, 1968). Auk and guillemot colonies have been reduced greatly
in the vicinity of shipping routes throughout their southern distribution,
with localized extermination in enclosed waters, such as the inner English
Channel (Bourne, 1968).
An oilspill vulnerability index for marine birds of the northeast Pacific
developed by King and Sanger (1979), is based on such characteristics as
species range, population, habits, productivity, mortality, and potential
exposure to oil pollution. Comparative analysis of species listed in the
index supports the conclusion that pelagic species, such as murres, puffins,
storm petrels, and marine waterfowl, such as scoters and eiders, are the avian
specles most vulnerable to oil pollution.
Three of the five major colonial nesting species (common murres, tufted puffins,
and fork-tailed storm petrels) and the greater majority of the marine wintering
species in the proposed sale area are among the most vulnerable to oil pollution.
The direct effects of oil pollution contact on marine birds are well documented.
The initial and most critical effect of oil pollution is the loss of feather
water repellency. Oiling causes feather filaments to clump together, leaving
gaps in the outer feathers which then permit down feathers to absorb water.
In turn, the oiled bird loses its thermo-insulation and buoyancy. Such loss
is very likely to result in death from hypothermia, shock, or drowning.
Approximately 50 to 90 percent of the birds oiled by a spill never reach the
beaches; they sink to the ocean bottom (Nelson-Smith, 1973, Ohlendorf, et al.,
1978). Thus, oiled birds on the beach probably represent less than half the
number of birds killed by an oilspill.
Birds which are only slightly oiled and survive direct oil contact suffer
varying degrees of hypothermia, impaired mobility, and other physiological
99
effects which, in addition to indirect effects, may contribute to increased
population mortality (Nelson-Smith, 1973).
The most likely indirect effect of oiling on birds is the ingestion of oil
while the birds are preening. Oiled birds will instinctively preen their
feathers in an attempt to clean them. Oil ingestion is shown to cause various
pathological conditions of the kidneys, pancreas, gastrointestinal tract,
lungs, and other internal organs (Hartung and Hunt, 1966; Ohlendorf, et al.,
1978). Although oil ingestion alone is apparently sublethal, the physiological
stress from intoxication and dehydration are significant contributing factors
in the deaths of oiled birds, especially those whose feathers have been affected
(Ohlendorf, et al., 1978).
An important indirect effect of oil pollution on marine birds and other water-
fowl is the probable decrease in reproduction due to oil ingestion, and perhaps
more important, the contamination of eggs with oil from the feathers of the
parent birds. Reduction of egg laying because of oil ingestion has been
reported by Hartung (1965); Ainley, et al. (1979); and Stickel and Dieter
(1979). Separate studies indicate oil contamination of eggs significantly
increases chick embryo mortality, and decreases nesting success. Stickel and
Dieter (1979) showed that very minute quantities of oil (5 microliters) applied
to the surface of marine bird eggs caused significant chick embryo mortality
under laboratory conditions. Similar chick embryo mortality in gull colonies
was demonstrated by Patten and Patten (1978 and 1979), and indicated by Manuwal
and Boersma (1977) in field experiments with storm petrels. It is apparent
that embryo mortality is caused by toxicity of oil rather than blockage of gas
exchange. Both Patten and Patten (1978) and Stickel and Dieter (1979) showed
that even small amounts (20 microliters) of weathered oil reduce egg hatching
by 50 percent. Oil contamination of nesting birds during the egg incubation
period could substantially reduce hatching success for one nesting season.
Thus, chronic low level oil pollution near important nesting colonies could
effectively reduce productivity and consequently contribute to a possible long
term decline in colonial populations.
In addition to the effects of direct contact with oil pollution, marine birds
could be adversely affected by reduction and contamination of food sources. A
sudden, oilspill-related, local reduction in capelin, euphaussiid crustaceans,
or another major food source that occurs during a migration stopover period or
during the nesting period could lower reproduction and survival of bird popu-
lations that depend on that food source. It is likely that marine birds
living in oil-polluted environments may accumulate residues of the relatively
persistent aromatic components (Ohlendorf, et al., 1978). These accumulated
residues could lead to chronic toxicity in birds and adversely affect their
physiology, reproduction, and behavior.
Another major potential cause of adverse effects on marine and coastal birds
due to OCS activities is man-made disturbance. The most serious interrelated
disturbance problems specifically identifiable in the proposed sale area are
increased air and boat traffic near important nesting areas. The effects of
aircraft, especially helicopter noise and presence, over nesting colonial
birds and nesting waterfowl have been documented. Low flying aircraft passing
near bird colonies frighten most or all adult birds off their nest, leaving
the egga and young vulnerable to exposure, predation, and accidental displace-
100
ment from the nest during hurried departures by adult birds (Jones and Petersen,
1979; Hunt, 1976; and Sowl and Bartonek, 1974). Preliminary evidence has
indicated that repeated disturbance could significantly reduce hatching success,
fledgling success, and perhaps cause adult abandonment of eggs and young
(Gollop, et al., 1972; and Scott, 1976).
Other potential disturbance problems associated with OCS development include
possible displacement of birds from important feeding and staging areas due to
increased air and boat traffic, and disturbance due to locating onshore faci-
lities near coastal nesting areas.
Gull populations have increased substantially in response to coastal develop-
ment in the Gulf of Alaska (Patten and Patten, 1979). Such species as glaucous
and glaucous-winged gulls have adapted to utilizing human refuse from canneries,
processing ships, garbage dumps, and sewer outfalls. Development related
wastes have apparently increased the carrying capacity of the environment for
these gulls to the apparent detriment of other species. Gulls prey readily on
other marine bird eggs and young. The availability of human refuse has pro-
bably enabled gulls to increase their numbers and sustain themselves when
preferred food sources are absent, thereby increasing the pressure on their
preferred prey when available during the nesting season. Unless disposal of
human refuse associated with coastal development, including OCS development,
is strictly controlled, changes in competition and predation between gulls and
other marine birds are likely to occur. Several species of marine birds, such
as murres and kittiwakes, may decline markedly while gull populations accele-
rate. Because of their association with garbage dumps, sewer outfalls, and
municipal water supplies along the coast of Alaska, gull species are potential
carriers of human bacterial and parasitic diseases, and could be a serious
health problem (Patten and Patten 1978 and 1979).
The major adverse impacts from OCS activities in the proposed sale area could
come from oil pollution of the marine environment and man-made disturbance.
The reader is advised to review preceding discussion regarding the qualitative
nature of potential effects of the proposal or the alternatives on birds.
Analysis of the Geological Survey oilspill trajectory model (sec. IV.A.1.d.
and appendix D) results indicate four oilspills are likely to occur in the
Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait area during the life of the project. However, the
analysis is based on the assumption that commercial resources will be found
throughout the sale area. This probability is only 5 percent (see section
II.A). Assuming that the mean case commercial deposits are found, the prob-
ability that one or more oilspills will occur and contact land within 3 days
is 77 percent, and within 30 days is 96 percent (appendix D, table 8). (Note:
Unless otherwise specified, spill contact probabilities refer to contact made
within 10 days of simulated launch.) Coastal habitat areas on both sides of
Shelikof Strait have ~~e highest probability of being contacted by an oilspill
within 3 days as shown on table 14, appendix D, table nos. 15 and 45. The
Barren Islands and Kamishak Bay-Augustine Island coastal areas are of moderate
risk from oilspills contacting land (appendix D, table 14, nos. 53 and 54).
The large birds colonies of the Barren Islands could sustain high mortality if
an oilspill reached or came near the islands during the nesting season. High
density offshore foraging areas (appendix D, fig. D-1) are the most likely
targets to be contacted by an oilspill within 3, 10, or 30 days. For example,
during the fall-winter season, Shelikof Strait offshore foraging areas have a
101
57 percent chance of being contacted in 3 days, and a 63 percent probability
by oilspills associated with the proposal during the winter (appendix D, table
8). The northern Kachemak Bay foraging area has a slightly greater chance
(38~) of being contacted by oil during the spring-summer season within 10 days
than during the fall-winter, 36 percent probability (appendix D, table 8). On
the other hand, Shelikof Strait foraging areas are more vulnerable during the
winter season (63\) than during the spring-summer (54\).
Bird surveys indicate that the western coastal areas of Kodiak-Afognak Islands
are important wintering areas for sea-ducks and alcids especially the Whale
Passage-Afognak Strait area (Forsell and Gould, 1980; Trapp, 1979). Oilspills
that occur in Shelikof Strait could have major impacts on these populations.
The inner bay wintering areas could not be analyzed in the trajectory model.
However, if an oilspill occurs along the proposed pipeline route in Kupreanof
Strait or if a tanker spill occurs near the proposed Talnik Point tanker
facility near Whale Passage, it is very likely that major impacts on marine
bird populations in this most important concentration area could occur. The
trajectory analysis does not include potential spill points within Marmot Bay
or Kupreanof Strait. Kachemak Bay nearshore areas and the inner bay have a
very low chance (1\) of being contacted by an oilspill within 30 days
(appendix D, table 14, nos. 76, 77, and 78, fig. 5). However, the Anchor
Point (land segment 75) area has a higher chance (8\) of being contacted by
an oilspill. This probability increases to 45 percent with the addition of
the present lease area and existing tanker terminal and transportanker activity
in that area (appendix D, table 21, no. 75).
Kamishak Bay-Augustine Island nearshore areas have a fairly high probability
of being contacted by an oilspill (appendix D, table 8, and fig. D-2, area H).
Migratory bird populations that stage in this area could be directly affected
during spring and fall migration periods.
Coastal habitat areas that show the highest probability of being hit by an
oilspill include the eastern side of Shelikof Strait from Kupreanof Strait
north to Malina Bay, including the western side of Raspberry Island (table 14,
appendix D, nos. 14 and 15), and on the western side of Shelikof Strait from
Kinak Bay north to Kukak Bay (appendix D, table 14, no. 45 and fig. 5).
Western Raspberry Island-Kupreanof Strait has a 23 percent probability of
being hit within 10 days while Kinak-Kukak Bay Area has a 31 percent probabi-
lity (appendix D, table 14, nos. 14 and 15). The highest probability among
shoreline segments in lower Cook Inlet is 12 percent for Kamishak Bay
(appendix D, table 54). These data indicate that coastal habitats within
Shelikof Straits show higher risk to oil spills than lower Cook Inlet tracts
because of the proposed action.
In summary, assuming that commerciable oil is found, sensitive marine bird
populations that occur in the proposed sale area would be at high risk (greater
than 20\ probability of large populations being contacted by an oilspill) from
oil and gas development throughout the proposed lease area.
Large nesting colonies of vulnerable species on the Barren Islands may be
severely affected by oilspills that reach the islands or occur within impor-
tant offshore concentration areas. Tens of thousands of shearwaters that
concentrate in the northern foraging area (fig. D-1) could also be adversely
affected directly and indirectly by an oilspill. Highly vulnerable sea ducks
102
and alcids that winter in the Shelikof Strait are likely to suffer major
impacts (25 to 75~ mortality of a species population) from an oilspill in the
Shelikof tract area, especially durins the winter and fall.
If a major oilspill occurs in the Kupreanof Strait or Whale Passage areas,
major impacts (25 to 75~ mortality of a species population) to marine birds
are very likely to occur, since this area is a very important year-round
concentration area in the Kodiak-lower Cook Inlet region.
Chronic small oilspills are the most likely spills and inevitable in occur-
rence to a certain degree. Such spills are most likely to be a problem near
shore facilities and along tanker routes. Even small quantities of chronic
oil discharges in addition to accidental discharges, if they occur in an
important marine bird concentration area, could have a detrimental effect on
marine birds that utilize the area.
Disturbance from air and boat traffic and human presence are potential threats
to colony nesting birds, other nesting birds, and apparently to a lesser
extent, staging and foraging birds. Numerous sea bird colonies along the
coast of the proposed sale area could be affected by increase air and boat
traffic during OCS development activities. Large colonies on the Barren
Islands, Gull Island near Chinita Bay, Flat Island south of Kachemak Bay,
Chisik Island colonies, and other bird colonies in the area could be subject
to additional air traffic from OCS support activites perhaps which may lead to
reduced productivity and population reductions from disturbance. The respon-
sive increase in gull populations to human development and to associated
increases in waste and garbage disposal sites could have a significant adverse
effect (greater than 20~ long term population reduction) on other marine bird
species.
The greatest risk to coastal bird habitats due to oilspills is within Shelikof
Strait. The overall probabilities for oilspills reaching coastal habitats
throughout the proposed sale area is 77 percent within 3 days increasing to 96
percent within 30 days (appendix D, table 8). Projected marine bird offshore
foraging areas in the Shelikof Strait show a greater risk from the proposal
than the projected lower Cook Inlet foraging area. The former foraging areas
are at a higher risk during the fall and winter while the latter foraging area
is at a slightly higher risk during the spring-summer. The Kupreanof Strait-
Raspberry Island western coast and the Kinak Bay-Kukak Bay area on the western
side of the Shelikof Strait are coastal habitats of greatest risk from an
oilspill within the proposed lease area.
Conclusion: If commercial finds of oil occur within the proposed lease area
and if a major spill occurs, marine and coastal birds could be severely affected.
Depending on the location, size, and season of the spill, thousands and perhaps
several hundred thousand birds could be directly killed by a large oilspill.
Chronic oilspills could reduce bird populations over the life of the project.
Noise and other human disturbances of nesting birds could have an additional
degradation effect on several species populations. The proposal could have a
major impact on marine bird populations within the lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof
Strait and Kodiak areas. Vulnerable species could take as long as 50 years to
recover from a single 50 percent mortality event depending on the status of
the population and potential recruitment from adjacent areas.
103
Cumulative Effects: The oilspill analysis projects the most likely number of
spills to be 7 from existing hydrocarbon development activities in the area,
increasing to 11 spills with the proposal provided that oil is found throughout
the sale area. The combined effect of the proposal with existing hydrocarbon
development already occurring within the Cook Inlet significantly increases
the risk of oilspills occurring within the lower Cook region. For example,
the Kachemak-Barren Island offshore foraging habitat probability of being
contacted by an oilspill increases from 38 percent during the nesting season
with proposal to 86 percent (the proposal and existing lower Cook Inlet OCS
lease sale, appendix D, table 8). The addition of existing tankering activi-
ties increases this probability to 95 percent, (appendix D, table 21). The
probability of the Barren Islands being hit by one or more oilspills increases
from 14 percent (the proposal) to 46 percent (the proposed plus the existing
lease area, appendix D, table 8), and would increase to 58 percent when including
existing tankering activities, (appendix D, table 21). Coastal areas such as
Kamishak Bay, Anchor Point, and Augustine Island are also at high risk from
the potential cumulative effects of the proposal, existing lease area, and
existing tankering in the area. For example, the probability of an oilspill
contacting Bruin Bay increases from 12 percent with the proposal to 55 percent
when combined with existing hydrocarbon activity projected risks, (appendix D,
fig. IV.A.d.-15, table 21, no. 54). Within Shelikof Strait, cumulative risks
to coastal habitats and to marine bird foraging areas, significantly increases.
For example, coastal habitats on the western side of Shuyak Island from Dark
Passage south to Black Cape on the northwestern coast of Afognak Island spill
contact probability would increase from 15 percent (the proposal) to 29 percent
when combined with existing hydrocarbon activity projected risks, (appendix D,
table 21, no. 17). In the Uganik Island area, from Kupreanof Straits south to
Uganik Bay oilspill contact probability increase from 9 percent (the proposal)
to 21 percent when combined with existing hydrocarbon activity projected risks
(appendix D, table 21, no. 14). Several bird colonies and important winter
concentration sites have been identified in the above coastal areas. For
projected seabird foraging areas in Shelikof Strait, oilspill contact proba-
bility would increase from 63 percent (the proposal) to 88 percent when com-
bined with existing hydrocarbon activity projected risks during the fall-winter
period. Risk from oilspills increases dramatically during spring and summer
for Shelikof Strait foraging areas. When comparing existing tankering, risks
increase 8 percent (appendix D, table 23); when comparing with the proposal,
risks increase 54 percent (appendix D, table 8).
Other planned development projects in the region (see sec. IV.A.1.h) could
increase the risk of adverse impacts on marine and coastal birds. Development
of the Beluga Coal field could increase marine traffic in Cook Inlet; thereby
increasing the risk of tanker accidents and perhaps increasing disturbance of
coastal habitats and marine bird populations. Development of the Pacific LNG
facility at Nikiski will inevitably increase tanker traffic in lower Cook
Inlet; thereby increasing the probability of tanker accidents and increasing
the risks of adverse impacts on bird populations. The proposed State lease
sale 35 could further increase the risks of major impacts on birds and their
coastal habitats in lower Cook Inlet especially for lease areas adjacent to
important shoreline habitat.
In conclusion, the cumulative effects of the proposed action, existing hydro-
carbon activity, and planned development projects could increase the risk of
adverse impacts on marine and coastal birds by 50 percent or more. The pro-
104
babilities of potential impacts increase significantly when comparing the
proposal with existing hydrocarbon activities. However, these probabilities
are partially based on the assumption that hydrocarbons will be found within
both the existing and proposed sale areas, and thus, the probabilities could
be an overestimate of the cumulative risks. Inevitably, the proposal when
combined with existing State hydrocarbon activities and other air and marine
traffic will increase the chances of significant impacts on marine and coastal
bird populations.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The proposed action would cause increased hydro-
carbon activities and related marine and air traffic within lower Cook Inlet
and Shelikof Strait. The frequency of permitted hydrocarbon discharges and
accidental spills would likely increase.
Encounters between marine birds and minor spills could contribute to some bird
mortality. Increases in marine and air traffic would unavoidably cause distur-
bance of some marine and coastal birds. Coastal habitats would be unavoidably
disturbed, perhaps reducing utilization of these areas by some species.
In conclusion, the proposed action could result in mortality of and disturbance
to some marine and coastal birds. Vulnerable species could be expected to
suffer population decreases for an indefinite period of time.
e. Impacts on Marine Mammals (Fur seal, sea lion, harbor
seal, sea otter): This section presents an overview of potential impacts on
fur seals, harbor seals, sea lions, and sea otters. Cetaceans and endangered
species are treated in section IV.A.2.f. Oil pollution and disturbance due to
increased human activi~y could affect marine mammal populations native to the
proposed sale 60 area. Other potential impact-producing agents which could be
associated with petroleum development and production include marine disposal
of drilling muds and cuttings, marine disposal of formation and cooling waters,
dredging and filling (such as that associated with pipeline constru~tion), and
secondary development. It is not possible to accurately predict on a long-term
basis how interaction of these major variables may affect each mammalian
species found in or near the proposed sale area. However, available informa-
tion can at least broadly define possible effects and help to identify those
species most sensitive to various perturbations, particularly those effects
observable on a short-term basis.
Short-Term Direct Oilspill Effects: Direct (and indirect) effects of spilled
oil would vary depending on the population density and physiological status of
the affected mammal species, season and meteorological conditions, chemical or
physical characteristics of the spill, duration of exposure, type of exposure
(e.g., ingestion versus external contact), and other factors. An effect which
is often thought to be associated with spilled petroleum products is direct
mortality to marine mammals due to acute contact, such as what may occur when
individual organisms are coated by spilled oil. Evaluations of observed
marine mammal contact with spilled oil or of potential contact, such as the
1969 Santa Barbara blowout, have been limited as to the extent of direct
mortality on affected species. Studies suggest that for certain species,
direct mortality as a result of contact with spilled oil may not be an imme-
diate result. LeBoeuf (1971), who evaluated effects of the Santa Barbara
spill, concluded, "the crude oil which coated many weaned elephant seals at
105
San Miguel Island in March and April had no significant immediate nor long-term
(1-15 months later) deleterious effect on their health. Had the rookery been
contaminated earlier in the season when females were nursing, pups might have
ingested the crude oil and more serious consequences might have ensued."
Brownell and LeBoeuf (1971) concluded that crude oil contamination of California
sea lion rookeries on San Miguel Island due to the same spill did not have a
significant effect on pup mortality. Davis and Anderson (1976), reported no
significant difference in the mortality of oiled and unoiled grey seal pups
found in surveys of polluted beaches in England. On the other hand, species
such as sea otters or fur seals may be particularly sensitive to oil contact.
These species rely on their fur for insulation as opposed to other species
which minimize heat loss with a layer of blubber. Kooyman and Costa (1978)
found that the metabolic rate of a sea otter increased 22 percent after oiling
of one-third of the dorsal surface with only 38 milliliters of crude oil.
Other experiments by the latter authors indicated that oiled sea otters de-
monstrated increased metabolic rates to 1.4 times the normal rate. These
effects were observed in some cases to last a few days to 2 weeks, but it was
concluded that after repeated oiling, return to normal metabolic rates may be
impossible. Thus, exposure of sea otters to crude oil in natural environments
"would probably cause significant thermal stress and could lead to hypothermy
and/or pneumonia resulting in death," (Kooyman and Costa, 1978). Kooyman, et
al., (1976) found that thermal conductance of oiled fur seal pelts increased
from 1.4 to 2.0 times that of unoiled pelts. They concluded, "Any contact
with oil at any time of year would have a profound influence on the health of
individual northern fur seals through increases in pelt conductance with
concommitant increases in metabolic rate. That death would inevitably follow
such contact cannot be verified from the present effort. However, considering
that 1) 011ed animals have greatly increased maintenance costs, and 2) they
are extremely reluctant to enter sea water (where their food is found), it is
clear that the health of oiled animals would be in serious jeopardy." (Kooyman,
et al., 1976.)
Therefore, direct mortality from oiling as a result of short-term effects on
animal heat dynamics would be most likely to occur for sea otters and fur
seals as compared to sea lions or seals. However, ultimate responses of local
populations to direct exposure to oil pollution will vary depending on such
factors as species productivity, population status at the time of a spill or
spills, other sources of mortality, changes in species distribution, and/or
unrelated changes in habitat quality.
Response to acute contact with oil by certain marine mammals may be manifested
by a variety of apparently non-lethal physiological effects. Geraci and Smith
(1976) found that ringed seals immersed in crude oil for 24 hours suffered
transient eye problems, and minor kidney and, possibly, liver lesions, but
could detect no permanent damage. The same workers found that harp seals fed
75 milliliters of crude oil suffered no significant effects. Geraci and St.
Aubin (1979), in review of the latter research, considered the dosage used as
"substantial," but that the pathological changes could have been induced by
administration at higher but "unrealistic" levels. Geraci and Smith (1977),
concluded that seals are not known to be carrion feeders and any oil that they
might consume from live prey would be negligible. Also, Geraci and St. Aubin
(1979), concluded that their experiment exposed ringed seals to gaseous vola-
tile hydrocarbons at concentrations higher than would be encountered as a
result of an oceanic spill, yet no associated lung pathology could be detected.
106
Davis and Anderson (1976), detected a lower mean weight of oiled grey seal
pups as compared to unoiled pups in their field analysis, but could not attri-
bute the difference to the effects of oil alone. Engelhardt, et al. (1977)
showed that petroleum hydrocarbons are absorbed by ringed seals exposed by
both immersion (absorption during immersion probably via skin or respiratory
surfaces) and ingestion. Apparently liver and renal functions of this species
serve to excrete and/or detoxify hydrocarbons absorbed during short-term
exposure. It is likely that other seals and marine mammals have similar
excretory and/or detoxifying mechanisms. However, the efficiency of detoxi-
fication and excretion under conditions of maintained, long-term exposure is
unknown.
It can be concluded, therefore, that short-term exposure of certain phocid
seals (such as ringed and, probably, harbor seals) may yield relatively minor
physiological effects such as eye irritation or non-permanent kidney and liver
1nJury. Behavioral effects are not well understood, but for the few species
studied such as fur seals and sea otters, increases in grooming behavior are
likely (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1979). As observed in ringed seals (Geraci and
Smith, 1976), increased aggression and irritability may also result. Since
field observations of sea lions suggest that scent is important in recognition
of pups by females, it is possible that coating of animals or other contact
with oil could inhibit such recognition and lead to pup abandonment and star-
vation (Schneider, 1980; Alaska Department of Fish and Ga•e, personal communi-
cation, 1980). For many species, baseline behavioral studies are lacking; and
for the species present in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait, little infor-
mation exists which may serve to predict behavioral response to oilspills or
how such response would ultimately impact population trends and/or structure.
Long-Term and Chronic Direct Effects: It is likely that longer exposure or
repeated exposure of marine mammals to spilled oil could result in more sig-
nificant physiological effects than those discussed above, particularly in
terms of irritation of eyes, liver tissue, or degradation of pelage (especially
for sea otters and fur seals).
The ultimate direct effects of low-level chronic oil contact on marine mammals
are not readily predictable. In fact, it has been suggested that long-term
effects can only be assessed under field conditions (Geraci and St. Aubin,
1979), primarily through monitoring efforts. One possible result of low-level
or chronic pollution would be to contribute to physiological stress on marine
mammal populations which may be at or near carrying capacity. Some writers,
such as Geraci and Smith (1977) have suggested that oil contact may trigger
death in stressed seals. Stress in wild mammal populations (characterized by
decreased reproduction, decreased resistance to disease, and increased mortality)
may be induced by a complex of factors related to population density, social
interaction, nutritional factors, genetic changes, climate, and a host of
other environmental influences. The relative importance of stress-related
factors suspected of causing changes in wild microtine rodent populations has
been studied and debated for years (Christian, et al., 1965; Christian, 1971;
Batzli, 1970; Keller and Krebs, 1970; Selye, 1973; and Terman, 1965). From
this and similar research with other mammalian species, it can be concluded
that responses of wildlife populations to individual stressors is extremely
varied, and the extent to which chronic oil pollution would contribute to
physiological stress and thereby affect marine mammal populations iS'also
variable. Populations or individual wild animals which appear to be under
107
stress associated with density, habitat deterioration, or reduced food avail-
ability, may respond to interactions of these factors with chronic, low level
oil contact.
There is little, if any, evidence that sea lions, sea otters, fur seals, or
harbor seals in the Cook Inlet area are currently or generally susceptible to
major stress-mediated responses to chronic or low-level oil spillage. Localized
sea otter populations at or near carrying capacity may demonstrate responses
of indeterminant nature and extent.
Indirect Effects of Oil Pollution: Indirect effects of oil pollution on
marine mammals would be those associated with destruction and contamination of
food sources, or essential habitat. Species most susceptible would be those
which rely on a restricted or sedentary food source (such as the sea otter),
or those with a behavioral sensitivity to habitats which have been contacted
by oil. Sea otter populations are limited to a significant extent by food
availability. Therefore, changes in food supply caused by oilspills could be
of major consequence to sea otters in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait.
Marine mammal species which feed on pelagic fish (such as sea lions, fur
seals, and harbor seals) are probably less sensitive to localized loss of food
sources.
Available information regarding potential behavioral-induced exclusion of
marine mammals from habitats which have been oiled is not extensive. Observa-
tions recorded in the literature reviewed under Short-Term Direct Oilspill
Effects suggest that certain species are not particularly sensitive or respon-
sive behaviorally to the presence of oil on rookeries.
Other indirect effects of oilspills on marine mammals include possible bioac-
cumulation of hydrocarbons and petroleum-derived compounds. According to
Risebrough (1978), little is known about pathways of possible accumulation and
virtually nothing is known of their persistence in marine mammals. Neff
(1979) in a review of literature on toxicity and ecological effects of marine
disposal of drilling muds, concluded that heavy metals associated with used
drilling muds are of relatively low acute toxicity, have a very limited bio-
availability, and therefore have little potential for accumulation in marine
mammals if disposed of at sea. Certain species of seals are suspected of
having abilities to detoxify methyl mercury obtained through ingestion, and
sea otters may have an inherent mechanism which protects them from the effects
of cadmium (Risebrough, 1978). Natural and background levels of heavy metals,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, and other toxic substance in the marine environment
(or marine mammal tissues) would make it extremely difficult to evaluate the
effects of bioaccumulation of petroleum-related hydrocarbons on marine mammals.
At present, accumulated chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., DDT) from industrial
or agricultural sources have been the most important factors affecting California
sea lions, ringed seals, and harbor seals (Risebrough, 1978).
Noise and Disturbance: Human disturbance related to oil and gas support
activities during both the exploratory and development stages, especially air
traffic near pupping grounds (such as Augustine Island) could have significant
adverse effects on harbor seals (Pitcher and Calkins, 1977, 1979). Noise-re-
lated disturbance from low flying aircraft, especially helicopters, could
cause mass and rapid exodus of adult seals from rookeries and hauling areas.
If this occurred during the pupping season (mid-May through mid-July), pup
108
mortality would occur from trampling or abandonment of pups. Pups deserted on
the beach during such a disturbance may not be recognized by the mother when
hauling out reoccurs. Harbor seals may also be sensitive to disturbance
during their molting period from mid-August to mid-October (Pitcher and Calkins,
1977; 1979). Effects of disturbance due to underwater noise (e.g., vessel
engines, seismic operations) on seals, sea lions, or sea otters are possible
but their extent is unknown.
Disturbance of thousands of sea lions during the pupping and breeding seasons
(May-July) at important hauling grounds on Sugarloaf or Marmot Island could
have an adverse effect on sea lion populations. Frequent aircraft or boat
traffic near the islands could cause disturbance of sea lions during the
pupping season and could cause increased pup mortality and abandonment of
important breeding and pupping grounds (Pitcher and Calkins, 1977, 1979).
Populations of other species endemic to the lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof
Strait area (e.g., fur seal and sea otters) are probably not as susceptible to
effects of noise and disturbance as are sea lions and harbor seals because the
former species are more widely dispersed and/or do not utilize rookeries in
the sale 60 area. Although localized response to disturbance is possible for
fur seals and sea otters, effects of noise and disturbance on reproductive
success or mortality rates of populations at large are probably of minor
importance.
Natural Gas and Gas Condensates: Currents, wave action, and wind would be
expected to disperse, dilute, and evaporate gas and gas condensate pollutants
rapidly. However, animals in the immediate vicinity of a gas leak may be
affected at the occurrence or shortly after a leak would occur. Inhalation of
toxic vapors may be fatal to marine mammals (depending on degree of exposure).
Such effects are relatively unlikely to occur to an extent significant enough
to affect the overall status of local marine mammal populations. Pipeline
burial, which may temporarily increase benthic fauna that attract marine
mammals (especially sea otters or harbor seals), would increase such risks to
individual animals.
Other Impacts: Hamilton, et al., (1979) reviewed other impact-producing
agents which may be associated with oil and gas exploration and development.
Factors which may affect marine mammals include marine disposal of formation
waters or cooling waters, shoreline alteration, facility siting, physical
presence of offshore structures, dredging and filling, and secondary develop-
ment. The extent of such impacts is most readily assessed in localized or
short-term analysis and projections. During exploratory phases of the pro-
posed sale, most of these impacts on marine mammals are not expected to be
significant unless noted otherwise below. Of major concern would be permanent
loss of habitats as the result of facility siting and secondary development
associated with development phases. Existing legislative constraints and
permitting procedures may serve to minimize localized impacts. Long-term and
aggregate effects of such factors are treated under "Cumulative Effects."
The Barren Islands, Marmot Island, and possibly the Puale Bay area would be
locations where direct effects of spilled oil on sea lions would be most
substantial if animals are contacted, assuming spilled oil induced behavioral
responses such as rookery abandonment, pup desertion, or caused direct mortality.
Oilspill risk analyses show that the Barren Islands area (including Sugarloaf
109
Island) (appendix D, table 8, Area C) bas a moderate (11~) chance of spill
contact over the life of the field due to spills associated with the proposal.
(Note: Unless otherwise specified, oilspill risk analyses made in this section
will refer to probabilities conditional on the development of a production
field and to spill contact rates within 10 days of simulated launch.) Of the
Barren Islands, Ushagat Island, an area noted for at least three sea lion
hauling areas (used by 1,000-2,000 animals), is at highest risk with a proba-
bility of spill contact of 6 percent due to the proposed sale (appendix D,
table 14, No. 81). Latax Rock just north of Shuyak Island is known to receive
use by at least 1,000-3,000 sea lions and would be subjected to a moderate
(15\) spill risk (appendix D, table 14, No. 17). However, Sugarloaf Island
(used by as many as 10,000 sea lions) has a low (less than 2 percent) probability
of spill ~ontact over the life of the field (appendix D, table 14, No. 82),
although areas surrounding the island have an 11 percent chance of spill
content. Marmot Island and Puale Bay shores also are shown (appendix D,
table 14, Nos. 22 and 41, respectively) as having low probability of spill
contact over the life of the field. Therefore, direct effects of spilled oil
on sea lion rookeries on Sugarloaf and Marmot Islands seem relatively unlikely
as a result of the proposal. Indirect effects on these rookeries are somewhat
more likely. Due to known mobility of sea lions, however, it is possible that
large concentrations could occur in areas of higher risk. Offshore areas in
Shelikof Strait also are known to receive heavy use by sea lions (e.g., the
feeding area near Puale Bay) and are probably at a higher risk than that
reflected by the above-mentioned land segments. Also, probabilities of spills
from the proposal affecting areas surrounding certain shorelines are high
(e.g., north-northwestern Kodiak Archipelago (area D), 48 percent chance of
contact, appendix D, table 8), suggesting that indirect effects on food sources
are likely. As discussed in section IV.A.2.f., results of Dames and Moore
(1980) indicated that movement of spills originating in lower Cook Inlet will
be confined primarily to lower Cook Inlet and/or Shelikof Strait. Therefore,
spills in lower Cook Inlet from the proposed sale will pose less threat of oil
contamination of important sea lion feeding areas in the Gulf of Alaska, such
as Portlock Bank, than they would to feeding areas in the confines of lower
Cook Inlet. However, chronic spills in the Marmot Bay area associated with a
tanker facility could affect the Marmot Island sea lion rookery, at least
indirectly.
Harbor seal concentration areas on land segments of Shuyak Island and north
Afognak Island show low to high probabilities of spill contact (appendix D,
table 14, nos. 15-22), but the overall nearshore area, including marine habi-
tats of the entire north and northwestern Kodiak Archipelago (appendix D,
table 8, area D) has a high probability of spill contact over the life of the
field as a result of the proposal. Tugidak Island, an area supporting at
least 13,000 harbor se•ls, is shown to have a very low probability of contact
by spills as the result of the proposed sale. Other concentration areas in
Shelikof Strait, Alinchak Bay, Puale Bay, and Wide Bay show low probability of
spill contact (appendix D, table 14, Nos. 38 and 41). Shorelines in the
vicinity of Seal Island and Perenosa Bay, an area identified as a harbor seal
pupping area, were found to be at low risk (0-1~) of spill contact (appendix
D, table 14, nos. 19 and 20). Augustine Island, another pupping area, is
shown as having low probability of spill cont~ct (9% chance, appendix D, table
14, no. 56), but the general Kamisbak Bay area was shown to be under high risk
(appendix D, table 8, area H) suggesting that direct effects of oilspills on
Augustine Island rookeries may be of low probability, but indirect effects
110
such as reduced habitat quality associated with chronic spills in surrounding
areas are of high probability. The most probable zone of impact on fur seal
concentrations would be the Portlock Bank area, on a seasonal basis. Therefore,
impacts of oilspills on northern fur seals as a result of the proposal would
have low probability due to the likely general confinement of spills to lower
Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait.
Of the four mar1ne mammal species discussed in this section, the sea otter is
probably the species most likely to sustain measurable negative direct effects
in the event of spill occurrence. This conclusion is based on the relative
abundance of sea otters in the area in conjunction with their known sensitivity
to oil contact. Oilspill risk analyses show the north and northwest Kodiak
Archipelago and Kamishak Bay sea otter habitats as having high probabilities
of spill contact (appendix D, table 8, areas D and H). Spills in Kamishak Bay
probably would result in at least partial mortality of resident populations,
which total at least 500 to 1,000 animals. Mortality of adults and pups could
be expected to be particularly high in the northern Kodiak Archipelago area, a
population totaling at least 3,000 and possibly as high as 6,000 animals.
Population recovery time for spill-related kills would vary depending on the
extent benthic food sources would be destroyed. High mortality would also
affect patterns of range expansion (see graphic 11). Occupied sea otter
habitats which will be subjected to moderate probability of spills as the
result of the proposal include the Barren Islands, western Shelikof Strait,
and Anchor Point (appendix D, table 8, area C, E, and G, respectively).
Approximately 200 to 400 sea otters could be affected in the Barren Islands.
The southwestern tip of the Kenai Peninsula, eastern Kenai Peninsula, and
Trinity Island-Chirikof Island sea otter habitats are under low or virtually
no spill risk (appendix D, table 8, areas A, B, and F, respectively).
The proposal may subject harbor seals and sea lions to the effects of surface
or underwater disturbance, particularly that which may be associated with
aircraft overflights or vessel traffic in the vicinity of rookeries or hauling
areas (see previous discussion). Also, industrial use of existing marine
technologies, such as surface effects craft, could cause future disturbance-
associated effects in marine mammals. The extent to which such technologies
or deleterious aircraft flight patterns would develop in the proposed sale 60
area is uncertain at this time. Localized disturbance or habitat loss of
harbor seals could occur if facilities such as tanker terminals are built near
concentration areas illustrated on graphic 11. Therefore, it is possible, if
not likely, that noise and disturbance associated with exploration, development,
and production phases will directly impact sea lions and/or harbor seals in
the proposed sale area.
Indirect effects of the proposed sale would most likely be associated with
quantitative or qualitative changes in food sources of marine mammals. Ulti-
mate population response to such effects are unknown, but populations would be
expected to be lower. Probably the greatest effect would be demonstrated by
localized sea otter populations, and in direct proportion to the above dis-
cussed oilspill risk analyses. Those areas inhabited by sea otters with
highest risk of spill contact will be most likely to show indirect effects.
Local reduction of fish populations (e.g., pollock) could impact sea lions or
harbor seals also.
Ill
Conclusion: Sea otter populations, particularly those of the northern Kodiak
Archipelago, are likely to sustain direct mortality and indirect effects due
to oilspills resulting from the proposed sale, assuming the field goes into
the production phase. Harbor seals, particularly those of Kamishak Bay and
the Shuyak-Afognak Islands, also are likely to be subjected to direct and
indirect effects of spills. Major sea lion concentration areas are at low to
moderate risk of spill contact over the life of a production field, but sur-
rounding areas are under higher risk and, therefore, it is likely that sea
lions will be affected, at least indirectly. Probable sea lion feeding areas
in Shelikof Strait, such as offshore sites near Puale Bay, would be located
where direct or indirect effects could be acute. Cumulative spill probabil-
ities (see below) for known habitats of sea otters, harbor seals, and sea
lions are high in both lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait habitats. This
further indicates the likelihood that marine mammals will be affected directly
or indirectly in this area if the field goes into production. Siting of
tanker facilities on eastern Kodiak Island will increase the risk of localized
effects on marine mammals of the Marmot Bay area and marine mammal habitats of
Portlock Bank. It is possible that the noise and disturbance associated with
exploration, development, and production phases of the proposed sale, will
directly impact sea lions and/or harbor seals.
Cumulative Effects: Different projects together could have a summation of
effects on marine mammals due to aggregate oilspills, noise, or habitat de-
struction which would exceed that expected of any individual project. For the
purpose of this discussion, "cumulative effects" refer to the sum of direct
and indirect oilspill effects (e.g., direct mortality, reduction of food
sources), disturbance effects, and other types of environmental degradation
which may reduce marine mammal habitat quantity or quality. Such effects are
assumed to be similar qualitatively to those discussed previously in section
IV.A.2.e. Appendix D, table 8, shows that cumulative (proposed sale 60 plus
existing lease area) oilspill contact with the marine mammal habitats of
eastern Kenai Peninsula, the Barren Islands, and the north-northwestern Kodiak
Archipelago has very high probability (areas B, C, and D, respectively) as
well as high probable contact.with marine mammal habitats in the vicinity of
Anchor Point, the southwestern Kenai Peninsula, Kamishak Bay-Augustine Island,
and western Shelikof Strait (areas G, A, H, and E, respectively). Sugarloaf
Island shorelines show a medium (11~) cumulative spill contact probability
(appendix D, table 14, no. 82). Appendix D, table 14 shows shorelines in the
vicinity of Uyak Bay north to Uganik Bay (appendix D, table 14, nos. 12, 13,
14) as having low to high cumulative probability of spill contact as compared
to low to moderate probabilities for the proposed sale alone. Probable spill
contact is high (23%) in the vicinity of Capes Ugat and Uganik. In western
Shelikof Strait, Cape Gull has high probability of cumulative spill contact,
and Takli Island Rock has medium probability of cumulative spill contact
(appendix D, table 14, nos. 45 and 44, respectively). Puale Bay (appendix D,
table 14, no. 41) is shown as being subjected to low cumulative probability of
spill contact. Tables 23 and 25 show that existing tankering is presently
subjecting certain marine mammal habitats in the sale area to substantial risk
of spill contact. Tables 20 and 21 show that the cumulative probabilities of
the existing lease sale, proposed sale, and existing tankering could be very
high for the eastern Kenai Peninsula, the Barren Islands, the northern Kodiak
Archipelago, the Kalgin Island area and the shores of Kennedy Entrance. The
areas mentioned immediately above are known habitat of sea otter (eastern
Kenai Peninsula, Barren Islands, north-northwestern Kodiak Archipelago, Anchor
112
Point, southwestern Kenai Peninsula, and Kamishak Bay-Augustine Island),
locales of sea lion concentrations (Barren Islands, northern Kodiak Archipelago,
Cape Ugat, Cape Gull, Takli Island Rock, and Puale Bay), and harbor seal
hauling areas (many areas mentioned above, especially the Kamishak Bay-Augustine
Island vicinity and Afognak-Shuyak Island areas).
It can be concluded that direct mortality of sea otters associated with cumu-
lative spills resulting from the proposed sale and existing lease sale are
highly likely, and that oilspill-induced indirect effects through reduced
habitat quality and/or population productivity may also occur. Cumulative
spill rates are high enough in the northern Kodiak Archipelago to reasonably
conclude that long-term reduction of inter-tidal benthic invertebrate standing
crops are likely, and therefore may lead to reduced carrying capacity of the
area for sea otters. Similar effects on harbor seals as the result of cumula-
tive spills may occur, as well as for sea lions. Of particular concern is the
apparent moderate cumulative vulnerability of Sugarloaf Island to spill contact
indicating that a major sea lion concentration in the area could be affected,
at least indirectly, by chronic oil contamination. An example of a possible
effect would be lowered reproductive success due to long-term or population-
wide changes in animal behavior or physiological conditions induced by chronic
spills. Whether such a response would occur in sea lions of the area is
speculative at this time. Exposure of the Marmot Island sea lion rookery to
chronic cumulative hydrocarbon pollution which might be associated with future
development of a tanker facility at Talnik Point and of proposed sale 61 (east
of Kodiak Island) could compound undesirable sea lion population responses.
Also, movement of tankers over the Portlock Banks to Marmot Bay probably would
increase risks to the banks, an important feeding area for sea lions. It is
uncertain how the proposed sale would contribute to cumulative effects of
hydrocarbon pollution from non-petroleum industry sources (e.g., urban runoff,
general marine shipping), but such sources may be relatively minor compared to
spills projected for the proposed and existing sales.
Due to the relatively low importance of lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait
to northern fur seals, cumulative oilspill effects as a result of the proposed
sale, plus the existing sale, are not expected to be great in the sale 60 area
proper; nor are effects of the proposed sale expected to contrihute signi-
ficantly to whatever cumulative oilspill effects or disturbance may result
from other lease sales (e.g., sale 55) in the range of this species. However,
this alternative does pose oilspill risks to fur seals utilizing the Portlock
Banks which probably would not be incurred over Alternatives IV or V. Sea
lions, which also range far from the proposed sale area, may be impacted by
other OCS lease sales. Since the proposed sale is relatively close to major
sea lion production areas, its impacts are probably of greatest potential
influence on this species. Other lease sales may also affect harbor seals and
sea otters. However, it is unknown whether the population-wide response of
these species would ever be attributable to cumulative outer continental shelf
exploration and development.
Levels and effects of cumulative disturbance associated with the proposal and
other potential projects (sec. IV.A.1.g.) on fur seals, sea lions, sea otters,
or harbor seals are unknown. Harbor seal and sea lion sensitivity to noise
and disturbance suggest that cumulative pup mortality or rookery abandonment
could be higher as a result of proposed sale 60 plus the existing CI sale than
would be expected from either project alone. Effects of noise and disturbance
113
(including chronic noise) from non-petroleum industry sources (e.g., expansion
of recreational boating/aircraft use) may contribute to overall disturbance,
but tne future extent of such perturbations is unknown. Cumulative effects of
expansion of harbor facilities at Homer and increased marine shipping due to
the Beluga Coal Field project, may be more significantly disturbing influences
than activity associated with petroleum exploration and development. Siting
of tanker facilities near harbor seal hauling areas, particularly on the
eastern side of Kodiak Island, may add or lead to future disturbance associated
with development of proposed sale 61. Also, potential cumulative disturbance
of the major sea lion rookery on Marmot Island or contamination of feeding
areas of the Portlock Banks may occur if tanker facilities are sited as pro-
posed.
Indirect cumulative food source-related changes in habitat quality resulting
from the proposed sale, other sales, and other listed projects (sec. IV.A.1.g.)
may impact marine mammals. The ultimate effect of these or non-oilspill
indirect impacts (e.g., cumulative loss of habitat to industrial sites) are
unknown, but could possibly lead to lower standing crops and productivity of
mammalian populations.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: It is very likely that sea otter populations
will sustain some mortality as a direct result of spills associated with the
proposed lease sale. Due to the high probability of spills in certain areas,
it is likely that habitat deterioration and/or food source loss will occur, at
least on a localized basis for sea otters and harbor seals in lower Cook
Inlet, Shelikof Strait, and possibly east of Kodiak Island (as may be asso-
ciated with tankering over Portlock Bank to Marmot Bay). It is possible, if
not likely, that unavoidable disturbances of sea lion or harbor seal concen-
trations will occur as a result of long-term changes in transportation systems,
localized impacts of facility construction, or localized short-term effects of
aircraft/boat noise. The Information to Lessee recommending that the lessee
operate aircraft and vessels no closer than 1 mile from observed wildlife or
known wildlife concentration areas would help to minimize behavioral disturbance
of a short-term, localized nature, especially at hauling areas and breeding
rookeries.
f. Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered Cetaceans:
Major impact-producing agents affecting endangered and non-endangered ceta-
ceans could be oil and gas pollution, noise or other disturbance, and/or
habitat losses.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Oil and Gas Pollution: There is no evidence
that cetaceans are able to detect hydrocarbon pollution. Accounts from past
oilspills show that marine mammals such as seals and sea lions may not avoid
oil; however, there has yet to be found a confirmed case of a whale, dolphin,
or porpoise found coated or fouled with oil (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1979) as a
result of contact made while alive. Although oiled cetaceans have not been
observed, the nature of their skin suggests that they may be vulnerable to
effects of surface contact with hydrocarbons (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1979).
The epidermis is not keratizized, but composed of live cells (Geraci and St.
Aubin, 1979). Geraci and St. Aubin (1979) reported that cetacean epidermis is
virtually unshielded from the environment, and may react to substances such as
crude oil or gas condensates in a manner similar to sensitive mucous membranes.
114
Field observation of at least one instance of possible contact of gray whales
with spilled oil did not show evidence of extreme effects. In 1969, the
entire northward migration of gray whales passed through or near the area
contaminated by the Santa Barbara Channel spill, yet the number of gray whales
stranding• was not significantly different from previous years (Brownell,
1971). Gas chromatograph analysis of tissues of a gray whale stranded in the
vicinity of the spill did not indicate the presence of crude oil.
In addition to potential cutaneous contact with oil (or gas), inhalation of
toxic substances or plugging of blowholes by oil have been cited as possible
threats to cetaceana. Certainly the former is a possibility to the extent
that whales may be in the vicinity of a spill prior to the evaporation of
toxic compounds. The latter event has never been documented in the scientific
literature. The typical breathing cycle of cetaceans involves an "explosive"
exhalation followed by an immediate inspiration and an abrupt closure of the
blowhole (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1979). This mechanism prevents inhalation of
water and should be discriminatory of gas condensates and oil; however, toxic
hydrocarbon gas could be inhaled. The effects of gas condensate or gas vapor
inhalation on cetaceans are unknown.
Cetacean vulnerability to hydrocarbon ingestion would vary with species, type
of hydrocarbon, and nature of the spill. Tomilin (1955) reports that cetaceans,
especially benthic feeders, have a poorly developed sense of taste, and the
presence of foreign bodies in cetaceans stomachs attests to this. Thus,
whales may not be able to differentiate between hydrocarbon contaminated and
uncontaminated food. Gray, fin, humpback, and possibly sei whales, which have
been observed near the proposed sale area (graphic 12), are the endangered
whales most likely to be affected by direct contact with or ingestion of
pollutants as a result of the proposed sale. Of the non-endangered cetaceans,
it is most likely that Dall and harbor porpoise, and beluga whales could also
be affected. Another potential direct effect of spilled oil on certain whales
is that of fouling of baleen with subsequent decrease in feeding efficiency.
The probability of auch fouling and effects on feeding efficiency is directly
linked to probabilities of spills and whale contact with such spills (see
later discussion). lt.is not practical to predict eventual population response
on endangered whales as a result of baleen fouling at this time. Effects of
bioaccumulation of toxic substance in cetaceans are not well understood.
The greatest potential indirect impacts from oil and gas activities on ceta-
ceans would be reduction of food sources from acute or chronic hydrocarbon
pollution, especially in nearshore areas such as near oil loading terminals,
or in important offshore feeding areas such as the Portlock Bank.
As discussed previously, most of the baleen whales are seasonal feeders rely-
ing almost entirely on the abundant food sources of the Gulf of Alaska, Bering
Sea, and Arctic Ocean for nourishment and living off stored blubber reserves
while migrating and in their winter range. The destruction or contamination
of large numbers of euphausiid and copepod crustaceans (food of fin, blue,
sei, humpback, and right whales), and the destruction of benthic amphipods
(food of gray whales) may adversely affect associated whale species, pos-
sibly forcing them to enter their wintering areas with insufficient or lowered
energy reserves. A major oilspill event impacting widespread areas would have
to be sustained to significantly impact such mobile and far-ranging cetaceans
in this manner. Catastrophic events affecting primary productivity of the
115
Portlock or Albatross Bank could possibly approach such proportions. Although
such an event is very unlikely, any local or temporary contamination or chronic
pollution resulting in destruction of plankton or other important food items
may be an additional stress to an endangered whale population. The extent
to which physiological stress resulting from oil pollution may affect endan-
gered whales or interact with other stressors is highly debatable and any
prediction of stress-related impacts of oil pollution on endangered whales
would be premature.
Effects of Noise and Disturbance: Geraci and St. Aubin (1979) reported that
high frequency sounds cause permanent ear damage in laboratory animals and
could adversely affect marine mammals. However, low frequency sounds, such as
those likely to emanate from drilling and platform operation, are much less
destructive. Physical adverse effects from low frequency sounds on cetaceans
are unknown; however, noise does have behavioral and physiological effects on
birds and other mammals (Fletcher, 1971). Response of animals to acoustic
stimuli have generally shown variance in behavioral and physiological effects
dependent on species studied, characteristics of the stimuli (e.g., amplitude,
frequency, pulsed or non-pulsed), season, ambient noise, previous exposure of
the animal, physiological or reproductive state of the animal, and other
factors.
Research on effects of noise, particularly that associated with oil operations
on cetaceans has been limited. Field observations of responses of cetaceans
to disturbance which presently exist provide some index of sensitivity of
whales to noise and disturbance. For example, in respect to the gray whale in
southern California, Dohl, et al. (1978) concluded "the reasons for this
apparent increase in utilization of offshore waters are unknown, but might be
the result of increased human activity in the Bight, increased gray whale
numbers, or some combination of both factors." There are no confirmed reports
or documented evidence of the latter species actively and consistently avoiding
exploratory or production platforms, helicopters, seismic operations, or other
OCS activity; in fact, numbers of gray whales nearshore along the California
coast have remained relatively stable in spite of human activities (including
oil exploration) (personal communication with T. P. Dohl, University of
California at Santa Cruz, 1980). Geraci and Smith (1979) concluded that
species such as the gray whale seem to co-exist well with human activities and
most animals become accustomed to low level background noise such as that
associated with most ship traffic and petroleum activities.
On the other hand, cetaceans may respond to and avoid sources which produce
sudden, variable pulsed, and/or high amplitude noise. Gregarious toothed
whales typically respond to sudden disturbance by sounding, dispersion, and
regrouping (Geraci and. St. Aubin, 1979 in reference to Leatherwood, 1977).
Fraker (1978) observed both aircraft and boat disturbance of beluga whales, a
species which may be sensitive to certain types of human activity. Leitzell
(1979) concluded that "uncontrolled increase of vessel traffic, particularly
of erratically travelling charter-use/pleasure craft, probably has altered the
behavior of humpback whales in Glacier Bay, and thus may be implicated in
their departure from the bay the past two years." Other evidence of humpback
sensitivity to disturbance has been reported in it.s wintering grounds (Norris
and Reeves, 1978). However, Payne (1978) listed numerous instances of apparent
insensitivity of humpback whales to noise. Probably of major significance is
116
interaction of noise with other visible phenomena or previous experience in
terms of ultimate behavioral and physiological responses of large cetaceans.
Prediction of behavioral or physiological responses of large cetaceans to
disturbance and noise will remain difficult, even for those types of distur-
bance which are consistently associated with oil and gas development.
As for other impact-producing agents, some speculation exists as to the possi-
ble induction or contribution to physiological stress on cetaceans which may
result from sustained noise or disturbance. Such an impact could affect
reproductive rates, resistance to disease, or endocrine balances of indivi-
duals. The extent to which disturbance due to oil and gas exploration and
development in the proposed sale area would act as stressor is, of course,
uncertain, but in consideration of relative importance of the proposed sale
area to the various endangered species (sec. 111.8.5.), such an impact would
be relatively minor in the immediate vicinity of proposed sale 60.
Other potential influences on cetaceans include marine disposal of drilling
muds, formation waters, and cooling waters; shoreline alterations; facility
siting; dredging and filling; and secondary development. The extent of these
activities during exploration should not be a major influence on endangered or
other cetaceans. Decreased whale productivity could be sustained as a result
of loss of habitat or habitat deterioration occurring during development and
production phases. These effects would primarily be local, although incremental
losses could be significant to the extent that the overall summation of regional
effects would deteriorate available or important habitat (see "Cumulative
Effects").
Site-Specific Impact Risks: Endangered whales most likely to occur in or near
the proposed sale area include the gray, humpback, fin, and possibly sei
whales (sec. 111.8.5.). Oilspill risk analyses for the eastern Kenai Peninsula,
Barren Islands, and northern Kodiak Archipelago (appendix D, fig. D.2, areas
8, C, D) roughly approximate areas which receive seasonal use by gray whales.
Results of the spill analysis (appendix D, table 8) shows these areas to be of
low (8 percent chance, eastern Kenai Peninsula) to high (48 percent chance,
northern Kodiak Archipelago) probability of being hit by spills over the life
of the proposed field. (Note: Unless otherwise specified oilspill risk
analyses made in this section will refer to probabilities conditional on the
development of a production field and to spill contact within 10 days of
simulated launch.) The eastern Kenai Peninsula is representative of nearshore
habitats in the sale 60 area receiving most use by gray whales since it is in
the migration corridor. Ultimate direct effects (see above discussion) on
gray whales of spills is, however, unclear but likely to be minimal as most
occurrence of the species is transitory, and the population probably does not
make major use of lower Cook Inlet or Shelikof Strait for feeding. Lanfear,
et al. (1980, appendix D), concluded that the proposed sale 60 poses little
risk of spill contact to the eastern side of Kodiak Island. Thus, it can be
concluded that direct effects as a result of oilspills orginating in lower
Cook Inlet or Shelikof Strait on endangered cetaceans which frequent nearshore
areas east of Kodiak Island are relatively unlikely. However, localized spill
effects in the vicinity of a Talnik Point-Marmot Bay tanker terminal could be
sustained, particularly for the gray, fin, sei, and humpback whales which may
frequent the area. Movement of tankers across Portlock Bank could increase
risks of important whale feeding areas to oilspills. It is uncertain as to
the probability of spills of lower Cook Inlet region moving t.hrough Kennedy or
117
Stevenson Entrances into the open sea of the Gulf of Alaska. A limited number
of trajectories illustrated by Dames and Moore (1980, figs. 15-30) show that
most movement of spills originating in lower Cook Inlet would tend to move
into Kamishak Bay or Shelikof Strait (approximately 70-80 percent of trajec-
tories simulated). These figures, extrapolated from Dames and Moore (1980),
represent conditional probabilities, i.e., that if a spill would occur, the
relative probabilities of the various trajectories would be as discussed.
Thus, it appears less likely that Portlock and Albatross Banks would be affected
by spills than areas within lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. Within
lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait, it is difficult to assess impacts of
spills on endangered whales, since for the various species, occurrence is
dispersed or localized concentrations areas are generally unknown, if existent.
Land segments (appendix D, table 14, nos. 12, 13, 14) extending from Viekoda
Bay to Uyak Bay show low (6\) to medium (14%) probabilities of spill contact
over the life of the proposed field. These areas receive some use by gray and
fin whales, as well as by non-endangered species, such as minke whale, killer
whale, harbor porpoise, and Dall porpoise.
Of the non-endangered cetaceans known or suspected of occurring in the pro-
posed sale area, some analysis of site specific, _oilspill impacts is possible
for beluga whales. Marine environments nearshore in Kamishak Bay shows a
relatively high probability of spill occurrence (33% chance, appendix D, table
8, area H) over the life of the proposed field. Probability of spill contact
with land segments perimetering lower Cook Inlet from Kamishak Bay northward,
and from Kachemak Bay northward are generally low even for a 30 day spill
simulation (appendix D, table 14, nos. 58-77). Thus it can be concluded that
at least one beluga wintering area may be vulnerable to effects of spills from
the proposal. However, the extent of ultimate effects of spills on beluga
whales are unclear but most likely would be related to temporary or long-term
reduction of food supplies or decreased productivity of fish which may be
present in the area, or possible avoidance by whales of affected areas.
Of all the alternatives, the proposal poses the most potential for disturbance
of cetaceans in the form of noise-related or human activity related effects.
Levels of activity associated with exploration are not expected to create
major disturbance of cetaceans. However, activites associated with development
and production phases could result in altered cetacean behavior, such as
avoidance of locales which may have consistent high noise or human activity
levels (e.g. proposed Talnik Point-Marmot Bay tanker terminal). Effects of
technological change (e.g. extensive use of surface effects craft) could be a
source of future disturbance-related impacts on cetaceans.
Indirect effects of exploration, development, and production phases of the
proposed sale would be a major concern if it were known that a large or critical
portion of an endangered population frequented the proposed sale 60 area.
Based on present information, such use is not known to occur in lower Cook
Inlet for any of the endangered whale species. Lack of information for Shelikof
Strait, leaves the possibility that indirect effects such as localized reduc-
tion of food supplies could impact endangered cetaceans frequenting the area.
However, compared to other habitats known to be utilized or which have been
utilized (as indicated by Berzin and Rovnin, 1966), lower Cook Inlet and
Shelikof Strait are of less importance and, therefore, the probability is low
that oil and gas exploration will have substantial, measureable, indirect
(e.g., contaminant accumulation, food chain effects, and/or habitat loss)
118
impacts on endangered cetaceans. As mentioned above, loss of habitat or
exclusion of cetaceans from existing habitats as a result of facility siting,
transportation corridors, shoreline alteration, dredging and filling, and
other secondary development could occur. Significance of such impacts would
vary by species, locale, and the extent of incremental losses elsewhere.
Potential development near Talnik Point and Marmot Bay and pipeline construc-
tion in Kupreanof Strait may be of significance in terms of temporary or
permanent, localized, indirect impacts on cetaceans.
Conclusion: If the field is developed, it is possible that endangered and
non-endangered cetaceans could sustain direct and indirect effects due to
oilspill occurrence in areas of high risk of spill contact such as the northern
Kodiak Archipelago, Kamishak Bay, and eastern Shelikof Strait. Localized
effects of oilspills may be sustained in the vicinity of a tanker terminal
located on the eastern side of Kodiak Island. Of all the alternatives, the
proposal poses the most potential for disturbance of cetaceans from noise or
other human activity. Therefore, it is possible that cetaceans would sustain
negative, unquantifiable effects as a result of disturbance.
Cumulative Effects: For the purpose of this discussion, "cumulative effects"
refers to the sum of direct and indirect oilspill effects (e.g. direct mortal-
ity, reduction of food sources), disturbance effects, and other types of
degradation which may reduce habitat quantity or quality. Such effects are
assumed to be similar qualitatively to those discussed previously in section
IV.A.2. Factors which may produce overall cumulative effects on endangered
and non-endangered cetaceans include petroleum-related development such as the
previous lower Cook Inlet oil and gas lease sale, other proposed and existing
oil and gas lease sales, and existing tankering. Also the Beluga coalfield
project, construction of the Pacific LNG plant, Homer harbor and fisheries
industry expansion, other small boat harbor expansions (sec. IV.A.l.h.), and
other changes in marine transportation systems could produce cumulative effects.
Oilspill risks analyses (appendix D, table 8, areas B, C, D) show high proba-
bility of spills contacting nearshore areas on the eastern Kenai Peninsula,
Barren Islands, and northern Kodiak Archipelago (25%, 39~, 68%; respectively)
as a result of simulated proposed (if production phases are reali?.ed) plus
existing production activity. Cumulative spill probability is particularly
high in Kamishak Bay (Augustine Island-Cape Douglas), shown at 77 percent
chance of contact over the life of the field (appendix D, table 8, area H).
Land segments on eastern Shelikof Strait shorelines identified as locales
frequented by fin and gray whales show moderate to high (appendix D, table 14,
no. 12) probabilities of spill contact over the life of the field as a result
of simulations of the proposed sale plus the existing lease area. Appendix D,
table 23, shows that the eastern Kenai Peninula, Barren Island, and northern
Kodiak Archipelago areas have 21 percent, 18 percent, and 20 percent probabil-
ity of contact by oilspills, respectively, from existing tankering of oil
which is not production from Federal lease sales. Kalgin Island (noted for
beluga whale occurrence) is presently subject to a high (24%) chance (appendix
D, table 25, no. 64) of spill contact due to existing tankering. Land segments
bordering Kennedy Entrance and those adjacent to the Barren Islands show a low
to moderate probability of contact from spills due to existing tankering
(appendix D, table 25, nos. 79-82). It can be concluded that spill probability
as a result of existing tankering is already relatively high for certain areas
frequented by cetaceans, particularly the eastern Kenai Peninsula, and nor-
119
thern Kodiak Archipelago. As would be expected, and as shown in appendix D,
table 20, cumulative probabilities of the existing lease sale, proposed sale,
and existing tankering together would be very high for the eastern Kenai
Peninsula, Barren islands, northern Kodiak Archipelago areas, Kalgin Island
land segments (appendix D, table 21, no. 64), and shores of Kennedy Entrance
(appendix D, table 21, nos. 79-82). Oilspill risk analyses utilized herein do
not lend themselves to evaluation of cumulative effects on areas such as the
Portlock Banks. However, it is possible that cumulative oilspills on the
Portlock and Albatross Banks whale feeding areas could be sustained and result
in decreased planktonic productivity (e.g. have indirect impact on cetaceans),
particularly if proposed sale 61 or Bering Sea sales would be developed to
production phases. Ultimate effects (e.g. food source losses) of cumulative
spills due to the proposed and existing sales are probably minor in regard to
overall endangered whale population response, assuming major negative impacts
are not sustained elsewhere in the ranges of various species. Since it is
unknown how extensive oil and gas development would be in other proposed sale
areas, it is impossible to predict at this time the future cumulative oilspill
related effects on endangered or non-endangered cetaceans associated with such
proposed sales. If several proposed sales were to yield large discoveries of
oil and gas, intensive production activities and resultant increases in human
activity, increased localized or shipping corridor disturbance, increased
pollution, or other negative effects; cumulative oilspills or disturbance
could be significant for coastal species such as humpback or gray whales.
Similarly, less intensive but more widespread oil production-related effects
distributed throughout a species range may be significant, particularly to
various sensitive species. Such species may include severely depleted and
slow to recover stocks such as humpback or right whales.
Although a major portion of local hydrocarbon input into marine environments
could result from the proposed sale 60 and other lease sales, localized and
regional hydrocarbon inputs from other sources (e.g., urban run-off, and other
non-industrial sources, marine shipping) throughout their range may also
impact cetaceans. The potential effects of other pollution sources on ceta-
ceans are unknown.
Certainly of some concern regarding disturbance of cetaceans are the long-range
effects of small boat and small harbor expansion which may be independent of
OCS exploration and development. It is likely that increased small boat
traffic associated with improved facilities and increased recreational traffic
in lower Cook Inlet and the Kodiak area could have as much if not more poten-
tial for disturbance of cetaceans as industrial activity associated with oil
and gas exploration. The extent to which future discovery of petroleum in the
proposed sale area or Alaska in general would lead to increased recreational
boat traffic is uncertain, but lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait may show
more use due to proximity to Anchorage. Beluga populations in Cook Inlet may
be vulnerable to cumulative disturbance since they would be exposed to boating
activity in the lower Cook Inlet as well as future expansion of marine trans-
portation near Anchorage (e.g. possible trans-inlet ferry service).
Other sources of disturbance of cetaceans which may be as much or more influ-
ence than petroleum industry impacts, either directly or indirectly, on endan-
gered cetaceans include disturbance associated with fishing vessels. The
International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Statistical Yearbook for 1976
reported nearly 2,500 fishing vessels operating in 1975 in the northeast
120
Pacific alone, an area representing only a portion of the range of most endan-
gered cetaceans. Although probably not feasible to perform with any accuracy,
the prediction of behavioral responses of cetaceans to acoustic perturbation
of their environment ideally would also include an analysis of effects of such
fisheries industry sources throughout their range. Due to present limitations,
it is not possible to conclusively evaluate either long or short term cumula-
tive effects of acoustic disturbance on cetaceans.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The degree of unavoidable impacts on endangered
whales is unknown. Relatively high probabilities of spill contact with cer-
tain areas indicate that cetaceans or their habitats may be affected. Noise
and other forms of disturbance could cause at least temporary behavioral
responses of cetaceans. The Information to Lessee which recommends that the
lessee operate aircraft and vessels no closer than 1 mile from observed wildlife
or known wildlife concentration areas (sec. II.B.1.b.) would help to minimize
behavioral disturbance of a short-term, localized nature. Present knowledge
of petroleum-related activity and its relationship to cetaceans is insuf-
ficient to predict with high confidence the unavoidable adverse effects on
endangered and non-endangered cetaceans. However, it can be concluded that
unavoidable adverse effects of exploration on endangered and non-endangered
cetaceans are probably minor, and less than might be incurred during later
phases of outer continental shelf development in the proposed sale area.
Endangered Species Consultation: Pursuant to requirements under the Endan-
gered Species Act of 1973 as amended, Section 7 endangered species consulta-
tion of the Bureau of Land Management with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service has been conducted, and will
continue to be conducted as required. In the biological opinion rendered by
NOAA/NMFS (appendix H) it was concluded, "Based upon our knowledge of the
biology of these whales, the broad distribution of most of these endangered
whales, the relatively small area involved in the lease sales, the very low
probability of a major oilspill during exploration ... and the anticipated level
of exploration activities ... , NMFS concludes that the lease sale and explora-
tion activities associated with lease sales 46, 55, and 60 are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any of the endangered whales or their
habitats."
Impacts on Endangered Birds
The Aleutian Canada goose could be affected in modes similar to those described
for marine and terrestrial birds (sec. IV.A.2.d).
However, the possible occurrence of the Aleutian Canada goose on the Semidi
Islands does not appear to be sufficient indication of this species being
within any reasonable zone of influence of the proposed lease sale. The
oilspill risk analysis (sec. IV.A.1.d., and appendix D) indicates that the
probability of a spill contacting the Semidi Islands is less than 0.5 percent
assuming as much as a 30-day trajectory period. It is not expected that
aircraft associated with the proposed sale will have any possible disturbing
influence on these islands.
Conclusion: There is no evidence at this time to suggest any significant
impact of the proposed sale or associated exploratory activity on this species.
121
As discussed previously (sec. III.B.6), there are no other endangered avian
species known to occur in the proposed sale area, and thus no impacts are
expected on other endangered species.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative oilspill effects of the proposed sale with
other scheduled lease sales were considered. Potential oilspills resulting
from proposed sale 60 plus the existing lower Cook Inlet lease sale, show
little, if any, chance of hitting the Semidi Islands. There seems little
possibility that this sale would contribute in a significant way to any other
potential impacts on Aleutian Canada geese (e.g., disturbance) which may be
associated with other proposed sales or projects.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: There would be no unavoidable effect on the
Aleutian Canada goose.
Endangered Species Consultation: As a result of the above summarized analysis
and informal consultation with appropriate personnel of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, it has been concluded that formal consultation under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not necessary at this time in
regard to impacts of the proposed sale 60 on endangered birds.
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals: Of the approximate 38
species of terrestrial mammals that occur in the lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof
Strait, the following species could be affected to some degree by oil and gas
development activities in the proposed sale area: river otter, brown and
black bear, red and arctic fox, wolf, coyote, mink, wolverine, moose, and
black-tailed deer.
In general, the effects of oil pollution on most terrestrial mammals would
result from oil contamination of coastal habitat, and contamination or reduc-
tion of food sources. Sitka black-tailed deer and moose rely on coastal areas
for winter foraging. The deer depend primarily on sedges and kelp along the
coastal beaches during severe winters. An oilspill along the beaches could
destroy this food source or render it unpalatable. Oil contaminated vegeta-
tion may take several years to reestablish. Black bear and especially brown
bear depend on coastal streams, beaches, and river mouths for salmon and other
food. Oilspills that reduce salmon populations would have a negative effect
on brown bears in the area, especially the Kodiak National Wildlife refuge
population which relies primarily on the abundant salmon for its existence.
Other furbearers such as mink, wolverine, fox, coyote, wolf, and river otter
utilize coastal beaches for feeding and movement. Oil contamination of the
beaches could destroy important food sources and expose these furbearers to
direct oiling and oil ingestion through contaminated food. River otters are
probably the most vulnerable of the above species to direct oiling. They are
probably as sensitive to oiling as are sea otters (sec. IV.A.2.e.). They swim
and forage in coastal waters and are more likely than other terrestrial mammals
to be heavily coated by an oil slick. Death due to oiling could result.
The oilspill analysis indicates (sec. IV.A.l.d. and appendix D) that some
coastal habitat areas along Shelikof Strait on the Alaskan Peninsula; Afognak,
Raspberry, and Kodiak Islands; and Kamishak Bay are at comparatively high risk
of being contacted by an oilspill in the proposed lease area. For example,
the Alaskan Peninsula area from Kukak Bay south to Kinak Bay (land segment 45
122
table 14) has a high probability (31~) of being contacted by an oilspill
within 10 days (appendix D, table 14, no. 45). The southwestern Afognak coast
from Malina Bay south to Kupreanof Strait bas a 23 percent probability of
being hit by an oilspill. Bruin Bay (contact point in Kamishak Bay, appendix
D, table 14, no. 54) has a 12 percent chance of being hit by an oilspill
within 10 days. Brown bear spring coastal beach concentration and streaa use
areas in Bruin Bay, and Kukak Bay (graphic 9) are at moderate to high risk
from potential oilspill contacts (appendix D, table 14, no. 45). Sitka black-
tailed deer winter foraging areas (graphic 9) on Raspberry Island, Kupreanof
Peninsula, and Uganik Island southwest to Cape Kuliuk have a moderate (11-20
percent) to high (72~) probability of being contacted by an oilspill (appendix
D, table 14, nos. 14 and 25).
The proposed development scenario involves the construction of an underwater
pipeline from the Shelikof Strait tracts and a 10 mile onshore pipeline from
Chernof Point to Talnik Point and a 70-mile onshore gas pipeline from Anchor
Point to Nikiski (sec II.B.1.a.). The pipelines and proposed tanker facilities
at 3 Chernof Point would utilize 120 acres f~r a terminal facility, and 5750
yd /10 miles for an oil pipeline and 2377m /km for gas pipeline. This amounts
to alteration of terrestrial mammal habitat within the Whale Passage-Talnik
Point area and on the Kenai Peninsula. Alterations to the terrestrial habitat
can have a negative (disturbance-bears) or positive effect (create edge-plant
diversity) on deer, moose, and other species. In any case, these habitat
changes would probably have minimal long-term effects on deer and other
terrestrial mammals.
Conclusion: Possible oil contamination of coastal beaches from large and
chronic oilspills could have negative effects on terrestrial mammals, notably
brown bear, moose, black-tailed deer, and river otter. Onshore pipeline
construction and the establishment of tanker facilities would temporarily
displace some terrestrial mammals, such as bears, and could positively affect
others, such as deer and moose. The proposed actions would have minimal to
moderate impacts on some terrestrial mammal populations of the above species
in the Shelikof Strait and lower Cook Inlet regions.
Cumulative Effects: The combined effects of the proposed actions, the existing
lower Cook Inlet lease area, existing hydrocarbon tankering, and other planned
development projects (sec. IV.A.1.h.) may increase the risk of adverse impacts
on terrestrial mammals and their coastal habitats within the lower Cook Inlet
and Shelikof Strait regions. The cumulative increase in human populations due
to OCS activities, and other development projects may increase recreational
use of terrestrial mammal populations. Hunting pressures would likely increase,
as well as other recreational-related disturbances and harassments of terrestrial
mammals and their habitats. Some species, such as brown bear and wolf popula-
tions, may be displaced, and some populations could decline for an indefinite
period of time. What that means in final populations numbers cannot be assessed
at this time.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: A certain number of animals, such as brown bear,
may be displaced by onshore pipeline construction and shore facilities devel-
opment. This displacement would likely be temporary along the pipeline route.
Oilspill contact at beaches and estuaries could result in contamination of
some terrestrial mammal food, such as kelp consumed by deer, and oiling of
some mammals, such as river otter, mink, and fox, that forage along the beach
123
or swim in nearshore waters. However, these occurences would be infrequent
and the number of terrestrial mammals involved would be few. Overall, un-
avoidable impacts would likely be minor.
h. Impacts on Social Factors:
(1) Impacts on Population: The following discussion
focuses first on the communities of Kodiak and Port Lions, then turns atten-
tion to the communities of Kenai, Soldotna, and Homer. First, population
forecasts are presented, then in section IV.A.2.h.(2) sociocultural system
impacts are predicated on these forecasts.
Population forecasts for alternative I are presented in tables IV.A.2.h.(1)-1,
-2, -3, and -4. For a more detailed discussion, the reader is referred to
Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979 and 1980.
Kodiak: Under the base case, population in Kodiak is forecast to increase
from 4,818 in 1980, to 10,229 in the year 2000, at an average annual rate of
increase of 5.6 percent. With this alternative the population increases at an
average annual 6.1 percent to a total of 10,674 by 2000. Assuming that a
construction workforce to construct facilities in the Kodiak and Port Lions
areas would be separate from the downtown Kodiak area, OCS-related resident
~mployment in the table IV.A.2.h.(1)-1 excludes this construction workforce.
OCS-related resident employment is thus assumed to begin in 1982 with slightly
under 100 residents in 1986 and fluctuating between 300 and 400 OCS-related
residents during the 1986-1989 period. From 1990 through 2000, OCS production
employment and population would increase to a predicted 420 to 445 new resi-
dents for the Kodiak area, associated with terminal facilities located at or
near Port Lions and service base facilities provided somewhere in the Kodiak
road-connected area.
Port Lions: The current population of Port Lions is projected under base case
(without OCS) assumptions to grow at an average annual rate of 4 percent per
year to a total of 481 by the year 2000. With OCS development and a potential
terminal in the vicinity, this growth rate accelerates to 7.2 percent over the
1980-2000 period yielding a population of 648 by the end of this century.
Construction work force prior to 1986 is assumed to be enclaved in the Kodiak-
Port Lions area to construct the Port Lions terminal facility, any service
base needed for Kodiak offshore support and for pipeline construction.
Kenai-Soldotna Area: Under the base case, population in the Kenai/Cook Inlet
Census Division is forecast to increase from 24,012 in 1980 to 41,382 in the
year 2000. For the Kenai and Soldotna areas, population is projected to
increase from 4,714 in Kenai, 2,538 in Soldotna, and 7,252 in the remaining
Kenai/Soldotna area in 1980, to 6,932 in Kenai, 4,622 in Soldotna, and 11,554
in the remaining unincorporated area by the year 2000. See table IV.A.2.h.(1)-3.
Under the mean find scenario, the population allocated to both Kenai and
Soldotna during the 1982-86 period ranges from a low of 17 in 1982, to a high
of 84 in 1968, an insignificant impact for either community. With completion
of facilities, presumed to be located in the Homer area, the population allo-
cated to both Kenai and Soldotna rises to 151 in 1987, to 184 in 1990, and
then stabilizes at about 170 from 1990 to 2000. Assuming 3.2 persons per
124
Table IV.A.2.h.(1)-1
Forecast of Non-OCS Employment and Population:
Kodiak Area and Remainder of Kodiak Census Division
1980-2000
1980 1985 1990 1995
Total Employment 6,349 8,100 9,163 10,094
Ratio of Population
to Employment 1.71 1.71 1.71 1. 78
Total Population
Kodiak Census
Division 10,856 13,851 15,558 17 '967
City of Kodiak
Coast Guard
Remaining Road-
Connected Areas 2,409 3,349 3,390 4,626
Remainder in Census
Division 1,129 1,305 1,377 1,588
2000
10,628
1.83
19,556
5' 115
1, 712
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., (1979); Technical Report No. 40, Table 14
Table IV.A.2.h.(1)-2
Kodiak Census Division Mean Find
Scenario Impacts: Population Allocated to Kodiak
City and Port Lions
Total Total
Year Emplo~nt Population Kodiak Port Lions
1980
1981
1982 96* 179 179
1983 58 108 108
1984 70 130 130
1985 41* 76 76
1986 261* 485 318 167
1987 303* 564 397 167
1988 290 539 372 167
1989 284 528 361 167
1990 316 587 420 167
1995 320 595 428 167
2000 329 612 445 167
Source: Table IV.A.2.i-2, Employment: Kodiak Census Division, Mean
Find Scenario. Dependency ratio used is 1.86 allocated to Kodiak
and Port Lions as with employment.
* Excludes construction employment.
Table IV.A.2.h.(1)-3
Forecast of Non-OCS Population
Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division and
Cities of Kenai, Soldotna, and Homer
1980-2000
Non-OCS Po~ulation
City City Remaining City Remaining Total
of of Kenai-Soldotna of Homer Non-OCS
Year Kenai Soldotna Area Homer Area Population
1980 4, 714 2,538 7,252 2,087 3,004 24,012
1985 5,114 3,003 8,117 2,909 3,415 27,582
1990 5,467 3,644 9' Ill 3,932 3,931 31 '179
1995 6,145 4,098 10,245 4,614 4,614 36,225
2000 6,932 4,622 11,554 5,429 5,428 41,382
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., (1980); Technical Report 46, Volume 2, Tables
2, 3, and 4.
Table IV.A.2.h.(1)-4
Kenai/Cook Inlet Mean Find Scenario
Impacts: Population Allocated to Kenai-Soldotna Area
and Homer Area
Total Kenai-Soldotna Homer
Year Po~ulation Kenai Soldotna Area Homer Area
1980
1981
1982 134 17 17 33 34 33
1983 216 27 27 54 54 54
1984 221 28 28 56 56 56
1985 166 21 21 41 41 42
1986 671 84 84 168 168 168
1987 1207 151 151 301 301 302
1988 1401 175 175 350 350 350
1989 1412 176 176 352 352 352
1990 1475 184 184 368 368 368
1995 1362 170 170 340 340 340
2000 1389 174 174 348 348 348
Source: Table IV.A.2.i-3, Employment Kenai/Cook Inlet Mean Find Scenario.
Dependent ratio used is 1.86 population is allocated as follows: 50 percent to upper
Cook Inlet, 50 percent to lower Cook Inlet; within the Kenai-Soldotna area,
25 percent to Kenai, 25 percent to Soldotna,
and 50 percent to the surrounding unincorporated area. In the lower Peninsula,
50 percent of population is allocated to Homer and 50 percent to the Homer-
Anchor Point area.
household for this area (Anchorage Urban Observatory, 1977) on the average,
this ~ould mean between 45 and 60 new families would need to be accommodated
in the communities of Kenai and Soldotna.
Homer Area: Homer area population in the base case rises from 2,087 in 1980,
to 5,429 in 2000, for an average annual rate of 8.4 percent. This relatively
rapid rate of growth is largely the result of Homer's expanding fishing and
tourism-recreation sectors, and assumed expansion of bottomfishing activity
there. Another factor included in the base case for Homer is Homer's role as
an OCS service base for lower Cook Inlet OCS exploratory activity.
With this alternative, Homer area population is forecast to increase by 67 new
residents in 1983, rising to slightly over 100 residents in 1982-84. Froa
1987 through the year 2000, resident population associated with operation of
both an oil storage and tanker loading terminal and a gas compressor station
would increase to over 600, with one-half assumed to reside in the Homer city
limits, and another half assumed to reside in the area surrounding Homer. See
table IV.A.2.h.(1)-4.
Conclusion: Base case population in Kodiak increases at an average annual
increase of 5.6 percent between 1980-2000, compared with 6.1 percent under the
proposal. In Port Lions the average annual rate of growth nearly doubles,
from 4 percent in the base case to 7.2 percent under the proposal. In Kenai
and Soldotna the change in average annual rate of growth with the proposal is
neglibible. In Homer, average annual growth from 1980-2000 is 7.6 percent
under the base case and rises to 8.48 percent under the proposal.
If population increases allocated to Kodiak by modal projections are in fact
absorbed by Port Lions, population impacts on Port Lions would more than
double, which is a major impact. Even with the smaller projected population,
the community of Port Lions can anticipate increased pressure on fish and
wildlife resources, short-term environmental degradation, increased noise, and
other disturbances related to increased population. Secondary population
accompanying oil workers may also increase competition in Port Lions, Kodiak,
Homer, Kenai, and Soldotna for other local jobs, while at the same time stiau-
lating expansion of the economy of these towns. Oilspill effects on local
resources are discussed in section IV.A.2.h.(3) and sociocultural impacts of
population increases are discussed in section IV.A.2.h.(2).
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative population case has already been discussed
in comparing the proposal with base case projections per community,
Unavoida~le Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse effects would include increased
pressure on fish and wildlife resources, particularly in the Kodiak, Port
Lions, and Homer areas, increased competition for local jobs, particularly in
Port Lions and perhaps in Homer, and some environmental degradation and deter-
ioration of the present quality of life during the construction period, particu-
larly in the Port Lions and Homer areas.
(2) Impacts on Sociocultural Systems:
Kodiak City: While the incremental increase in OCS-related population over
the period is less than 1 percent per year of Kodiak's foreca~ted base popula-
tion, the perceived competition between OCS activities and the fishing industry
125
for housing, support personnel, wholesale and retail trade, community and
governmental services, transportation and communications suggests that even
these relatively small population changes would be perceived in Kodiak as
major impacts. Because of these potential conflicts, any expansion of OCS
support for exploration and/or development would require certain understanding
of the Kodiak community and its dynamic maritime adaptation to be successful.
Careful planning and coordination with the OCS Advisory Council, the Kodiak
Island Borough, and other local Kodiak institutions would be critical to
establishing a successful relationship between the petroleum industry and
Kodiak residents.
Since Kodiak fishermen fish the entire island, an oilspill along Shelikof
Strait could have a major impact on Kodiak city and its maritime adaptation.
Direct damage to the fishing environment could directly effect the fishing
industry which, in turn, would directly disrupt Kodiak's economy and socio-
cultural system. Oil on crab gear, set gillnets, purse seines, and trawls
would have economic impacts, requiring expenditures by fishermen for cleanup,
repair, and/or replacement. Compensation for oil-related damage to fishing
gear and loss of profits from such damage is provided for through the Fishermen's
Contingency Fund (appendix G) or the Offshore Oil Pollution Compensation Fund
(appendix F). Reduced catch levels, fish and shellfish contamination, and
its effect on marketability of these products, potential disruption of fishing
activities during oilspill cleanup, diversion of commercial air service, and
Coast Guard support in the event of an oilspill could each independently
effect the sociocultural system of Kodiak. The degree of impact on the envi-
ronment, and hence, to the Kodiak fishing industry of a major oilspill, if one
were to occur, is difficult to project.
Another perceived negative impact of OCS development on the city's sociocul-
tural system involves the possible shift of workers from cannery employment to
OCS-related work. Given the relatively low wages within the fishing industry
for cannery workers, it is likely that some permanent residents of Kodiak
would seek employment in the construction phase of any service base constructed
on Kodiak Island, and with training, might be encouraged to seek permanent
employment associated with OCS activities. It is extremely doubtful, however,
that a significant fraction of the cannery work force would be diverted,
particularly given the specialized character of OCS-related work and the
continued reliance on west coast labor pools for additional cannery support.
Conflict between Kodiak's Native residents, village residents, and newer
ethnic minorities within Kodiak such as the Filipinos, Vietnamese, and the
Koreans, could be heightened if significant additional work related to OCS
were to become available, and if ethnic and Native organizations were encour-
aged by these opportunities to actively champion the interests of their
members. Again, the specialization of the permanent OCS work force argues
against a significant permanent dislocation of the sociocultural system.
During construction of permanent facilities, however, it is likely that compe-
tition for construction jobs could cause conflicts both within the fishing
industry and between minority populations dependent upon the fishing industry.
Competition between OCS activities and the fishing industry for government
support, restaurants, bars, and other recreational opportunities, temporary
housing, wholesale and retail trade, and commercial air support are all poten-
tial sources of conflict if communication channels between the oil industry
and the predominant fishing community are not maintained and if shortages
126
occur in any of these services. The expanding fishing industry has already
contributed to strain on or shortages of some services. Given the normal
economic forces, however, it is likely that shortages in any of these services
would be accompanied by expansion to meet demand, with only temporary disloca-
tions likely. Given the oil industry's long experience in frontier areas and
the tendency of the industry to supply its own needs, these dislocations would
likely be minor.
Payne (1980) suggests that an infusion of job seekers into Kodiak in anticipa-
tion of OCS construction can be expected to accompany any lease sale decision
in the area. Given the low probability of recoverable oil and present support
services already in place in Seward and Kenai-Nikiski, it is unlikely that
this potential problem would occur until and unless a major oilfield were
successfully tapped. If significant recoverable oil were discovered during
exploratory drilling and if a decision to move toward production of this oil
were made which included facilities on Kodiak Island, then this could be a
significant sociocultural impact. Even with this eventuality, however, the
community of Kodiak can anticipate at least five years lead time in which to
prepare media campaigns or other methods of discouraging such an influx.
Crime rates of alcohol abuse, and other measures of conflict could occur
depending on several conditions. First, the number of immigrant job seekers
would affect rates of conflict. Second, the degree of isolation of construc-
tion personnel during the peak construction period, could influence these
rates. If rules of conduct were established prior to a construction phase and
enforced through industry-community agreement, and if other anticipatory
industry-community planning were to occur, many of these potential conflicts
could be mitigated.
Port Lions: For a community the size of Port Lions, the impacts and changes
resulting from the proposal could be substantial. Not only would the community
grow at close to twice its average annual rate of growth, but the structural
changes introduced by location of a terminal facility in the city or nearby
Native-owned lands would add a permanent work force and families tied to the
oil industry or a new subpopulation to the town's melding of Aleut and inde-
pendent fishing lifestyles. Noise and other environmental disturbances asso-
ciated with construction of new housing and expanded utilities, increased
social and personal stress associated with this construction activity, and
temporary disruption of normal activities, including temporary delays and
shortages of services and goods, could all be expected. While this change
would involve a fundamental alteration in many of the characteristics of the
present village of Port Lions, there are social characteristics of the town's
recent past which suggest it could respond favorably to these changes. The
Good Friday earthquake of 1964 resulted in the relocation and renaming of Port
Lions. The community· has successfully adapted to these changes. Second, the
legacy of the Port Wakefield cannery as an innovator in the crab processing
industry and the relocation of the original village of Afognak which had
prospered on Afognak Island from the earliest Russian contact period, appears
to have created an energetic social system well adapted to the demands of
another fundamental change. Like the community of Old Harbor across the
island, Port Lion's successful adaptation after the earthquake disaster appears
to have added a resiliance to its population which encourages positive response
to other changes (Davis, 1980).
127
On the other hand, community attitudes toward OCS development in particular
are not highly favorable. A recent survey conducted by KANA indicates Port
Lions residents are more in favor of OCS development than other villagers
along the Shelikof Strait, but still only 28 percent of the surveyed Port
Lions residents clearly preferred oil and gas development, while another
17 percent were unsure. The majority view favors controlled and moderate
growth up to an optimum 500 total population consistent with addition of
fisheries-related industrial opportunities and the maintenance of current
lifestyles.
Sbelikof Strait Villages: Given the nature of the villages of Karluk and
Larsen Bay and their distance from potential activity associated with this
propos~l, it is unlikely that major disruption of their sociocultural systems
would occur unless a major oilspill affected their resource base. Like fisher-
men in Kodiak, residents of Larsen Bay and Ouzinkie, in particular, would be
directly affected by an oilspill which reduced catch levels, contaminated
local fish and shellfish stocks or the food on which these stocks depend,
disrupted fishing activities during oil cleanup operations, or diverted com-
mercial air service or Coast Guard support. These direct effects would be in
addition to the effects on subsistence resources and lifestyles analyzed in
section IV.A.2.b.(4). Clearly, the effects of an oilspill on both commercial
and subsistence resources would be a significant impact on all of these villages.
During the construction phase of this proposal, it is likely ~hat some local
residents of these villages would seek construction employment, temporarily
leaving their village during the construction season. Given the highly spe-
cialized nature of the oil industry and normal family-oriented preferences of
village residents, it is unlikely that the number of residents per village and
their length of stay outside the village would be great over the life of the
project. During construction, villages might be forced to reallocate responsi-
bilities temporarily if key resident individuals seek employment elsewhere.
On the other band, if training programs were instituted which encourage Native
hire, there could be a depletion of key village residents from other Sbelikof
Strait villages to operate the hypothesized terminal near Port Lions. While
this was expressed as a concern in these villages, the history of permanent
long-term job shifting on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline project suggests that most
Native employment on this project was relatively short-term employment or
occurred under minority subcontracts during construction of the pipeline
facilities (Baring-Gould and Bennett, 1975;·Record, 1978; Strong, 1977).
Kenai-Soldotna Area: From the standpoint of the sociocultural systems of
Kenai and Soldotna, an additional 45 to 60 families per community is not a
significant impact, particularly since these additional residents would be
engaged in work already prevalent in the area. The additional population
resulting from the proposal would not form a distinct subgroup within either
community, but would enter communities already accustomed to the oil and gas
industry. The pattern of settlement in both of these communities has encour-
aged dispersion of families along major highways; this pattern in itself
suggests the ready absorption of this new population.
One effect of additional population in these communities might be increased
pressure on local fish and game. This impact should be minor under this
alternative.
128
Homer Area: This alternative implies a minor impact on the Homer area's
sociocultural systems. The political and social conflicts already inherent in
Homer's present response to current OCS exploration under sale CI leases would
most likely become even more intense. Conflict over use of Homer Spit, over
environmental degradation, and oilspill contingencies would likely intensify,
as would conflicts between environmentally oriented Homer residents and newer
oil industry associated residents. As long as the number of oil-related
workers remained small, as has been the case with exploratory drilling with
sale CI, these internal conflicts concerning the direction of the community
and its predominant lifestyles would remain relatively minor. Yet even with
relatively inobstrusive exploratory drilling in effect with sale CI activity
(7 exploratory wells in 3 years) Northern Resource Management reports 96
separate news items, editorials, or letters to the editor in Homer concerning
OCS during the year 1977 alone. This compares with only 6 comparable newspaper
items in the local Kenai paper for that same year (Northern Resource Management,
1980, pp. 14Q-160). This newspaper analysis is indicative of the highly charged
climate of public opinion in Homer concerning oil-environment interactions,
benefits, and costs.
While the Northern Resource Management study_suggests that shipping lanes
initiated during 1978 alleviated many of the earlier conflicts between fisher-
men and OCS support traffic, one could expect other issues and conflicts to
arise with this proposal. Of critical importance, however, is the extent of
recoverable oil found. If economically recoverable oil or gas is found, and
expanded facilities are constructed in the Homer area, these conflicts would
intensify.
Conclusion: This proposal could result in the following impacts on Kodiak's
sociocultural systems: 1) short-term loss of cannery workers to OCS employment,
2) possible conflict between island residents over OCS-related jobs, 3) short-
term competition between the petroleum and fishing industries over available
goods and services, 4) influx of population, particularly industries in Port
Lions, leading to strains on community infrastructure (see sec. IV.A.2.h.(3)),
and 5) increased crime and other social conflict, and alcohol abuse.
The Shelikof Strait villages of Karluk, Larsen Bay, and Ouzinkie can be expected
to experience minor loss of resident workers during the construction phase of
the proposal. If a major oilspil! were to occur along Shelikof Strait, both
commercial and subsistence resources and fisheries would be adversely affected.
Temporary relocation of air service during expansion of OCS activities, or in
the event of a major spill might also create hardships for these villages.
Impacts on the sociocultural system of Kenai, Soldotna, and the Kenai/Soldotna
area would likely be minor.
In Homer, conflicts over the direction of the community, the use of the spit,
and industrial versus self-reliant, non-industrial lifestyles could intensify,
particularly if development occurs and two new major facilities are constructed
in the Homer area (see sec. IV.A.l.h.). An oilspill in the Homer or Kenai
areas could also have widespread effect on fisheries and fishermen (see sees.
IV.A.2.b. and c.), and could therefore indirectly affect the sociocultural
systems of these communities. If an oilspill were to occur close to areas of
heavy subsistence use in the Homer area, residents dependent on these resources
could be adversely affected.
129
Impacts on English Bay and Port Graham are discussed in section IV.A.2.h.(4)
(Impacts on Subsistence). Sociocultural impacts on these villages and on the
communities of Seldovia, Ninilchick, and other smaller communities of Cook
Inlet would probably be minor.
Cumulative Effects: The most important sociocultural cumulative impacts are
those which may occur as a result of lease sale CI. The effects of this sale
and exploratory drilling already occurring on tracts leased for sale CI are
discussed above. Small boat harbor and fisheries expansion are assumed in
base case population projections for Homer and Kodiak, and Pacific LNG plant
expansion is included in base case population projections for Kenai/Soldotna.
The Beluga Coalfield development on the west side of Cook Inlet could intensify
subsistence-recreational hunting and fishing conflicts, particularly for the
village of Tyonek (see Braund and Behnke, 1980), as could State lease sale 35.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse effects would occur in the
city of Kodiak in the form of increased crime and intensified competition for
OCS-related construction jobs. Workers may be drawn to OCS activities from
Kodiak Island villages. Such an emigration would disrupt the sociocultural
systems of these villages. Given the probability of oilspills occurring as a
result of the proposal (sec. IV.A.1.d.), it is likely that at some time during
the life of the proposed action, the sociocultural systems would be adversely
affected. The degree of impact on sociocultural systems would depend on the
extent of damage to commercial and subsistence resources upon which most
village residents depend.
(3) Impacts on Community Infrastructure: This has been
identified as a major scoping issue (sec. I.F.). The local areas likely to
be affected by the proposed sale are the Kenai, Homer, Kodiak, and Port Lions
areas. Tables IV.A.2.h.(1)-1 through -4 show the population growth expected
to result from the proposed lease sale for these areas. In general, infra-
structure requirements are directly related to population growth. The reader
is referred to section IV.A.2.h.(1) for a detailed discussion of population
projections for the proposal.
Kenai Area: Population growth resulting from the proposed lease sale in the
Kenai area is considered insignificant. The average annual growth rate in
Kenai is forecast to increase by .0018, and in Soldotna by .0034. This in-
crease would cause no additional strain on community infrastructure require-
ments over and above those experienced in the base case. The reader is re-
ferred to section III.H.2. for a complete discussion of the base case forecast
for infrastructure requirements.
Homer Area: Population growth expected to result from the proposed lease sale
in the Homer area is considered insignificant. The average annual growth rate
in Homer is forecast to increase by .0034. This increase would cause no addi-
tional strain on community infrastructure requirements over and above those
experienced in the base case. The reader is referred to section III.H.2. for
a complete discussion of the base case forecast for infrastructure require-
ments.
Kodiak Area: Population growth expected to result from the proposed lease
sale in the city of Kodiak area is considered insignificant. The average
130
annual growth rate in the city of Kodiak is forecast to increase by .0045.
This increase would cause no additional strain on community infrastructure
requirements over and above those experienced in the base case. The reader is
referred to section III.H.2. for a complete discussion of the base case fore-
cast for infrastructure requirements.
Port Lions: Population growth expected to result from the proposed lease sale
in the Port Lions area is considered substantial. The average annual growth
rate in Port Lions is forecast to increase by .0314. This increase would
cause considerable strain on community infrastructure requirements over and
above those experienced in the base case. This is of particular concern given
that a significant increase in population would occur in 1986 (see table
IV.A.2.h.(1)-4).
The most significant concern is the shortage of available housing. Under the
base case, the community is forecast to experience a housing shortage by the
mid-1990's. Under the proposed lease sale, this shortage would occur much
sooner, in the mid-1980's. There is virtually no housing available to immi-
grants to the community. The housing stock could be expanded to accomodate
the forecasted expanded population. However, such an expansion concurrently
demands expansion of other services such as water, sewer, electrical power,
police, and fire protection. If oil terminal facilities were annexed to Port
Lions, the community's tax base would likely expand so that the community
could cope with this rapid expansion of services. Of significance, however,
is the time lag between demand for the expanded services and the revenues
generated from the new tax base.
The community has expressed a desire to attract industry, primarily fishing-
oriented industry. Furthermore, the community has demonstrated an ability to
attract financial resources for expansion when required. Given this combina-
tion, it can be assumed that Port Lions could effectively deal with the
forecasted growth.
Conclusion: Insignificant impacts would occur to the Kenai area, Homer area,
and Kodiak area under the proposed lease sale. The Port Lions area would
experience substantial growth under the proposed lease sale; however, the
community's desire to attract industry, its demonstrated ability to attract
financial resources, and its stated ability to plan for and control growth,
indicate that impacts could be accommodated if OCS development was desired by
the community.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects resulting from the proposed lease sale
and other projects (described in sec. IV.A.1.h.) would occur only in the Kenai
and Homer areas. Minor impacts could be expected in Kodiak and Port Lions.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: It seems likely that no unavoidable adverse
impacts on community infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed
lease sale. The reason for this is that additional growth requirements in the
Kenai, Homer, and Kodiak areas resulting from the proposed sale are considered
insignificant and the growth in Port Lions is considered manageable.
(4) Impacts on Subsistence: According to Alaska statutes,
"subsistence uses" are those customary and traditional uses in Alaska of wild
renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption (AS, sec. 16.05.940).
131
Graphic 14 indicates the primary subsistence use area for the villages of
Karluk, Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie, Port Lions, English Bay, and Port Graham.
Subsistence areas for the first three villages were defined by village residents
of the Sbelikof Strait villages themselves in consultation with Alaska OCS
Office and Kodiak Area Native Association staff. For English Bay and Port
Graham, approval to use information collected by North Pacific Rim, Inc. was
obtained froa the councils of the two villages. In each case, village council
approval and support was obtained before the information was mapped.
Tables III.C.1.d.-1 and III.C.1.d.-2 on the back of graphic 14 indicate the
primary subsistence species used by residents of each of the four villages
along Sbelikof Strait, as well as by English Bay and Port Graham residents in
Cook Inlet. Halibut, at least three species of salmon, flounder, trout, cod,
crab, clams, seal, sea lion, ducks, deer, ptarmigan, and rabbit are primary
species on which these villages depend.
Primary subsistence species are those resources that contribute substantially
to family diet, are important cultural elements both as foods for important
community events, and as activities around which family and community life are
centered and organized. Primary subsistence resources are not only essential
to the daily life and diet of resident villagers, but they provide the economic
security normally associated with money in a cash economy.
While considered "secondary" resources, or less central diet elements from the
point of view of either weight, amount harvested or yearly catch, most secon-
dary resources of these villages back up primary resources used and provide
nutritional variety and balance to local families. The small "bidarky" or sea
urchins, clams, and octopus, for example, are all delicacies which are highly
prized and shared widely throughout the community through informal visiting
and at feasts. While perhaps not essential nutritionally, these foods are
important elements of cultural tradition and are frequently referred to by
their Aleut-Russian names, even by residents who speak English.
Another characteristic of secondary resources is their availability during
periods of scarcity of primary resources. During these times, secondary
resources may be utilized more heavily, in fact, supplant scarcer primary
resources. In English Bay, for example, residents now utilize a wider range
of fish from the area as game bas become more scarce. Similarly, sport fishing
pressure on silver salmon in the Kodiak area bas reduced this species' use as
a primary subsistence resource in both Port Lions and Ouzinkie, forcing greater
utilization of pink salmon by these villagers.
Secondary resources for the villages along the Shelikof Strait include less
plentiful salmon species, herring, fish eggs, octopus, "beach food," tanner
crab, bird eggs, and locally available wild vegetables and berries. Secondary
resources in English Bay and Port Graham include less plentiful fish species,
fish eggs, less plentiful crab species, sea lion (in English Bay only), bird
eggs, berries and wild vegetables.
Subsistence use (take) of both primary and secondary resources could be affected
by human population increases and environmental disturbances in the proposed
lease sale area. It could also be affected by potential oilspills. Section
IV.A.2.h.(l) discusses direct impacts associated with increased population in
the proposed lease sale area. Sections IV.A.2.a. through g. discuss impacts
on specific biological resources in the proposed lease sale area. For a general
discussion of the Oilspill Risk Analysis, see section IV.A.l.d.
132
For the proposal, the Oilspill Risk Analysis indicates four major oilspills
are likely over the life of the field and a 98-percent probability of at least
one spill. A major spill event which contacted shore within 10 days could
significantly reduce subsistence take of marine birds, seals, and sea lion,
crab, clams, sea urchins, and other shellfish for varying periods of time. If
the spill were to occur in winter, beach foraging deer, ducks, and clams might
all suffer increased mortality, thereby reducing subsistence take of these
species. Fish in their developmental stages could be reduced by a major
spill, perhaps significantly reducing the following year's fish catch for that
area.
Villages dependent upon seals and sea lions, in particular, might be affected
both directly and indirectly by the oiling of sea mammals, as well as by
reduced fish populations. See sections IV.A.2.a. through g. for further
discussion of biological impacts.
For this alternative, land segment 15 at Kupreonof Strait has a high risk of
oilspill contact (see sec. IV.A.l.d.). Land segments 13 and 17 at Ugak Bay
and Black Cape have medium risk of oilspill contact within 10 days. Land
segment 15 contains prime nearshore crabbing and fishing grounds of three
Kodiak west-side villages (Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions). Land segment
13 contains prime fishing, clamming, crabbing, and hunting grounds for the
villages of Karluk and Larsen Bay. An oilspill at any of these locations or
one which spread to the subsistence use areas of these four villages could
significantly effect the local economies of these villages by affecting both
subsistence take of residents and money income of commercial fishermen in
these villages. All of these villages obtain well over 50 percent of their
diet from local subsistence resources. A survey conducted by KANA in Port
Lions in February 1979, for example, estimated that 72 percent of local meals
include subsistence resources (KANA, 1979, OEDP Report). Without denying the
cultural significance of subsistence resources, only one village along Shelikof
Strait (Ouzinkie) has a store of sufficient size to provide minimum protein
needs in the event of a major disaster which affected subsistence take. All
other villages depend on small aircraft or local fishing boats to obtain food
from Kodiak grocers. Particularly in winter, residents of Karluk, without a
local store, and Larsen Bay and Port Lions, with small, expensive stores,
could suffer considerable stress from both the inability to obtain subsistence
foods during oilspill cleanup operations and diversion of or weathering in of
small aircraft to supply food needs. The reader should consult section
III.C.1.d. and Davis (1980) for a more complete discussion of the cultural
significance of subsistence foods and practices.
The effects on subsistence take of different species would vary by season and
magnitude of the spill, its duration in intertidal areas, current and bottom
sediment conditions of the area, as well as species response to oil contamina-
tion and other disturbances associated with the spill itself and with cleanup
operations.
A range of probable effects can be presented, however. In winter, reduction
of subsistence take of ducks and deer might seriously stress village residents
whose food stocks were low. If subsistence hunting were restricted during
oilspill cleanup or if populations of these resources were depleted by oilspill
contact, village residents could be disrupted. In summer, a spill which
seriously reduced or tainted salmon stocks and juvenile salmon, crab, and
133
other fish for an extended period of time (months) could severely stress these
village economies from 1 to 2 years. If major clam beaches were oiled, vil-
lagers might be unable to harvest clams and other "beach food" for several
years. Village residents forced to hunt and fish at greater distance from
their local areas because of oilspill contamination and its effects could be
hard-pressed financially to afford increased transportation costs.
Another way of viewing oilspill risks associated with this alternative is to
compare the overall risk of a major oilspill event contacting a village's
subsistence use area. Refer to table IV.A.2.h.(4)-1.
According to this table, the average risk is highest for the village of Larsen
Bay and lowest for the village of English. Bay. These risks shift in the
cumulative case. They also do not take into account the effects of chronic
small-scale oilspills from oil rigs or tankers, which would be more probable
and would likely affect the Port Lions and Anchor Point-Homer areas.
Conclusion: With this alternative, subsistence take of both primary and
secondary subsistence resources could be significantly disrupted. This dis-
ruption could result from direct and indirect consequences of an oilspill as
well as from human population pressure on subsistence resources caused by
establishment of OCS facilities in a local area. The disruptions to the local
economies of subsistence villages would vary with the season, the size of the
spill, and many other factors. A minimum of a few weeks of restricted hunting,
fishing, and gathering; greater effort in obtaining sufficient food supplies;
and stress associated with food shortages could be expected. If oilspill
contamination of major fishing, crabbing, and clamming areas were extensive,
village subsistence take could be reduced for several years.
Cumulative Effects: The combined effect of the proposal with present offshore
development from sale CI tracts and proposed and existing tankering of oil
from Cook Inlet oil discoveries substantially increases the risk of oilspills
to English Bay and Port Graham and adds an additional risk of close to 20
percent for each of the Shelikof Strait villages. Table IV.A.2.h.(4)-2 shows
both the risk for the proposal and the comparable percentage once cumulative
effects of sale CI and proposed and existing tankering are taken into account.
Refer to the above discussion for the implications of these increased risks.
These oilspill model predictions show that the added risk to village subsis-
tence use areas is substantially greater fo~ the Cook Inlet villages of English
Bay and Port Graham under the cumulative case, because of increased risk due
primarily to potential tankering accidents. Additional risk to Shelikof
Strait villages is about 18-19 percent for each of the villages. Combined
with the already high risk these village subsistence use areas facewith the
proposal, the potential risk for the cumulative case is well over 50 percent
for all of these villages. It approaches 70 percent for Larsen Bay, largely
because its subsistence use area encompasses high risk land segments 13, 14,
and 15.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The proposed action would increase the risk of
oilspill disruption of subsistence village economies. This risk would vary
according to a number of factors, but would be greatest for the village of
Larsen Bay and would also be high for Port Lions and Ouzinkie. If development
occurs, increased population pressure on subsistence resources would also be
unavoidable, although the extent of this pressure can be regulated by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
134
Table IV.A.2.h.(4)-l
Composite Risk of an Oilspill Event by Village
Shelikof Strait and Cook Inlet Villages
Karluk 24 percent
Larsen Bay 51 percent
Ouzinkie 45 percent
Port Lions 41 percent
English Bay 8 percent
Port Graham 10 percent
NOTE: This risk is calculated from the oilspill risk analysis (sec. IV.A.l.d.).
The estimated oil resources used for oilspill risk calculations are "unrisked
mean estimates"--the amount of oil expected to result from the proposed sale
assuming that oil is discovered in economically recoverable quantities.
Table IV.A.2.h.(4)-2
Composite Oilspill Risk Analysis
Percentage Risk for the Proposal and Cumulative Tankering Risk for
Shelikof Strait Villages, English Bay and Port Graham
Cumulative +
d!l = Proposal Tanke ring
Karluk 24 ~ 42 ~ 18 ~
Larsen Bay 51 ~ 69 ~ 18 ~
Ouzinkie 45 ~ 64 ~ 19 ~
Port Lions 41 ~ 60 ~ 19 ~
English Bay 8 ~ 46 ~ 38 ~
Port Graham 10 ~ 55 ~ 45 ~
!/ d represents the difference between the second column and the first column.
i. Impacts on State, Regional, and Local Economies:
(1) State and Regional Impact: The economic impact of
the proposal on the State, regional, and Anchorage economies is mild and,
therefore, not discussed in this text. Those interested in exploring these
impacts should see: USDI/BLM/Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program documents,
Technical Memorandums 1 and 2, Lower Cook Inlet EIS, ISER, "The Growth of the
Alaskan Economy: Future Conditions Without the Proposal and Lower Cook Inlet
Petroleum Development Scenarios: Economic and Deomgraphic Impacts and Supple-
mentary Memorandum.
(2) Impact on Local Economies: The economic impact of
the proposed lease sale on local areas has been identified as a major scoping
issue. The areas likely to be significantly affected by the sale are Kenai,
Homer, Kodiak, and Port Lions. Tables IV.A.2.i.-1, -2, and -3 below show the
estimated base case employment for the four areas. They also show the estimated
primary and secondary employment impact of the proposed lease sale assuming a
mean development and resource case. These impacts have been calculated by the
ISER map and Census Division economic models assuming the proposal and a mean
development case. Moreover, this material is summarized in table IV.A.2.i.-4
where impacts and base case employment foreca~ts are compared for the four
areas. Impacts are described below.
Kenai Area: The stimulative employment impact of the proposal on the Kenai
area would be mild. As table IV.A.2.i.-4 shows, employment in the Kenai or
central Cook Inlet area is forecasted in the base case to increase at a mod-
erate 2.5 percent per year during the 1980's. The table also shows a similarly
moderate 3 percent per year growth with the proposed development. An additional
hiring of 397 people in 1990 would not disrupt local labor markets because
they can easily draw on the large Anchorage labor pool. Besides employment,
local hire, and local purchase, a small increase in lo~al tax revenue and
expenditures could be expected in the central area because most new facilities
and new tax base would be located elsewhere, and borough tax revenues could be
channeled toward services in areas where facilities were located.
Homer Area: As table IV.A.2.i.-3 shows, prospective increases in Homer area
employment without a sale 60 ·development are a rapid 5.2 percent per annum
during the 1980's. With the sale, the increase in Homer area employment by
the end of the 1980's amounts to nearly 400 people which accelerates the
growth rate of employment in Homer to a rather high 6.5 percent per year.
This increase in employment implies rapid growth, but not boom conditions.
This would constitute a moderate economic impact. Disruptive impacts from
local hire would likely be mild because of the availability of the large
Anchorage labor pool. In addition, impacts from local industry purchases
would likely be mild as most purchases would likely center in the Kenai area
where most existing subcontractors are located. Finally, the increase in tax
revenues and government spending impacts for Homer may be moderated because,
under the proposal, a large oil terminal would be located in the area, and the
State or borough tax revenues could be used to offset the impact of the facility.
At a 30 mil rate State and borough revenues would amount to $9 million per
year in 1979 dollars. This large sum compares to a less than $1.3 million
surplus forecast to be availab~e for capital improvements in the city of Homer
in the 1990's (Alaska Consultant;, 1980).
135
Table IV.A.2.i.-1
Base Case Employments
Lower Cook and Kenai
Kenai
Soldotna Homer
Area Construction Area
Total Non-Camp Camp Total Non-Camp Camp Kodiak
Year Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Employment Areas
1980 5,386 5,240 146 1,742 1,742 6,349
1981 5,269 5,425 844 1,814 1,814 6,694
1982 6,916 5,593 1,323 1,897 1,897 7,028
1983 6,048 5,628 420 1,976 1,976 7,377
1984 5,829 5,829 2,068 2,068 9,765
1985 6,100 6,017 83 2,295 2,211 84 8,100
1986 6,431 6,309 122 2,526 2,442 84 8,373
1987 6,560 6,507 53 2,602 2,602 8,609
1988 6,751 6,751 2,799 2,799 8,840
1989 6,750 6,750 2,763 2,763 8,982
1990 6,906 6,906 2,892 2,892 9,163
1995 7,692 7,672 3,313 3,313 10,094
2000 8,336 8,336 3,619 3,619 10,628
Source: Alaska Consultants Lower Cook Inlet Petroleum Development Scenario, Local Socioeconomic Systems
Impact Analysis BLM/Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Study Program, pp. 77-78.
Table IV.A.2.i.-2
Kodiak Census Division
Mean Find Scenario Impacts
Total !I Total!/
Kodiak Port
Direct Secondary Total City Lions
Year Employment Employment Employment (resident) (resident)
1980
1981
1982 155 22 177 177
1983 39 19 58 58
1984 39 31 70 70
1985. 38 24 62 62
1986 276 132 408 318 90
1987 254 118 372 282 90
1988 194 96 290 200 90
1989 194 90 284 194 90
1990 198 118 316 226 90
1995 198 122 320 230 90
2000 198 131 329 239 90
!/ Port Lions employment equals by assumption one-half of operating personnel
for the terminal (60) plus 50 percent for secondary employment (30). The
remaining employees are assumed resident in near by Kodiak City even though
some of them (as during construction) may barrack in Port Lions.
Source: Porter, E. D., 1980, p. 65
Table IV.A.2.i.-3
Kenai/Cook Inlet
Kean Find Scenario Impacts
Kenai
Direct Secondary Total soldotn Homef/
Year Employment Employment Employment Area-Area-
1980
1981
1982 85 32 117 59 59
1983 87 31 116 58 58
1984 97 22 119 60 60
1985 121 33 154 77 77
1986 508 122 630 315 315
1987 657 169 826 .413 413
1988 585 168 753 376 376
1989 585 174 759 379 379
1990 610 183 793 397 397
1995 544 188 732 366 366
2000 544 203 747 374 374
ll The census division employment impact is split 50/50 between the southern
and central areas.
Source: Porter, E. D., 1980, p. 64
Table IV.A.2.i.-4
Employment Impact
Kean Find Scenario
Port
Kenai Homer
Kodiak!/
Kodiak P~rt 21 Lions
Kenai Area Homer Area Area L1ons-Area
Area Employ-Area Employ-Area Employ-Area Employ-
Employ-ment Employ-ment Employ-ment Employ-ment
Year ment Impact ment 1!!!;2aCt ment I!!!;2act ment Impact
1980 5,386 1,742 6,349 166
1981 6,269 1,814 6,694 171
1982 6,916 59 1,897 59 7,028 117 176
1983 6,048 58 1,976 58 7,377 58 181
1984 5,829 60 2,068 60 7,765 70 186
1985 6,160 77 2,295 77 8,100 62 192
1986 6,431 315 2,526 315 8,573 318 198 90
1987 6,560 413 2,602 413 8,609 282 204 90
1988 6,756 376 2,799 376 8,840 200 210 90
1989 6,750 379 2,763 379 8,982 194 217 90
1990 6,906 397 2,892 397 9,163 226 223 90
1995 7,692 366 3,313 366 10,094 230 258 90
2000 82336 376 3 1 619 374 10 1 628 239 299 90
Annual
Change
1980-1990
TOTAL 2.5% 3.0% 5.2% 6.5% 3.7% 3.9% 3.0% 6.6%
1/ Includes Port Lions ~I Port Lions employment is assumed to increase at a moderate 3-percent rate over
the period. The 1980 employment is from Kodiak Census Division Health Plan material
cited in sections III.H.3. and III.C.2.b.
Source: Alaska Consultants Lower Cook Inlet Petroleum Development Scenarios, Local
Socioeconomic Systems Impact Analysis BLK Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Study Program,
pp. 77-78.
Kodiak Area: As table IV.A.2.i.-4 shows, the Kodiak area employment and
economy are expected to increase at a moderate 3.7 percent per year during the
1980's. When the employment impact of proposal is added, employment rises by
only 200-300, and the employment growth remains a moderate 3.9 percent per
year. Thus, the employment impact of the proposal on Kodiak would likely be
mild. The employment is small relative to total Kodiak employment, and local
hiring should not be disruptive as the development can draw from the Anchorage
and stateside labor pool. Industry purchases in Kodiak from subcontractors
would also be relatively small because of the lack of oil industry subcontracting
services in Kodiak. Only some mild increases in trade and transport type
services would likely occur. Similarly, a government spending boom due to
increased tax revenues would be unlikely if Port Lions annexed the area where
the hypothesized oil terminal would be located. However, this •ay not be the
situation and a $300 million dollar terminal would then generate a large
revenue ($9 million) for the borough. In this case, considerable borough
government spending might occur through various transfer arrangements.
Port Lions Area: As table IV.A.2.i.-4 shows, the Port Lions area is forecast
to have moderate growth of 3 percent over the proposal's development period.
With development of an oil terminal in the Port Lions area, the employment in
1990-95 would increase from 223 to 258. Over the decade, annual growth more
than doubles to a high 6.6 percent. The number of construction workers living
in the Port Lions area barracks has been, for impact purposes, assigned to
Kodiak employment as has one-half the terminal operating personnel. These
employees may cause mild secondary impacts on the Port Lions area.
In summary, the proposal could cause major economic and employment impacts in
Port Lions. These impacts are mainly in the form of permanent employment and
could be considered to be favorable. The development is so large relative to
the town that potentially disruptive local hiring may occur if not dealt with
through industry and community planning. Pote~tial for disruptive impacts
from local purchases would be large and limited only by the lack of needed
facilities and subcontractors in Port Lions. Finally, the potential for
government spending by the municipality of Port Lions would be likely if the
town annexed the terminal area.
Kodiak Island Villages: It appears likely that direct employment and income
impacts would be virtually non-existent (not greater than the projected 2
percent per annum rate) for Karluk, Larsen Bay, Akhiok, Ouzinkie, and Old
Harbor. It is likely there will be little new employment created in these
five villages. Some small indirect employment opportunities would perhaps be
created in all villages due to some increase in recreation and tourism travel
in Southcentral Alaska. These increases, however, would depend on whether new
opportunities and services are provided by local residents. Local residents
may or may not choose to encourage or discourage this type of economic activity.
Conclusion: Mild employment and economic impacts would be likely in the Kenai
and the Kodiak areas because of their large sizes. Moderate impacts would
likely occur in the Homer area because of its smaller size and location near
the hypothesized oil terminal. Finally, major impacts would likely occur in
the Port Lions area due to the town's relatively small size and the hypothe-
sized oil terminal located there.
136
Cumulative Effects: If sale CI moves into a development stage, and sale 60
exploratory activities are successful, economic boom conditions could occur in
Kodiak.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: It seems likely that no unavoidable adverse
economic impacts will occur because of the proposal. The reason for this is
that the moderate impact on the Homer area and the major impact on the Port
Lions areas are largely due to permanent employment increases which many would
consider economic benefits rather than losses.
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources: Impacts from offshore
activities could indirectly and directly affect archeologic and/or historic
resources. Direct sources include oilspills (appendix E) and construction
~ctivities (sees. IV.A.l.b. and c.). Indirect sources include induced indus-
trialization (sees. IV.A.l.b. and c.), changes in population (sees. III.C.l.a.
and IV.A.2.h.(l)) and changes in land use status (sec. III.C.S.a).
The lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait shorelines have numerous prehistoric
and historic cultural resources listed by the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Parks (Heritage Resources Survey, 1980) (sec. III.C.3.).
Many areas formerly above water and now beneath the inlet and strait show
evidence of man. Small bays with shallow access may contain undisturbed
archeological sites.
Procedures are being established by the Advisory Council on Historic Resources,
the State Historic Preservation Officer (keeper of the Alaska Heritage Resource
Survey File), the National Park Service, the Geological Survey, and the Bureau
of Land Management to ensure protection of submerged cultural resources.
If the proposal is implemented, some cultural resources may be subjected to
change. The probability of these impacts occurring ranges from very likely to
very unlikely. However, impacts on cultural resources in the lower Cook Inlet
are expected to be minimal.
Direct effects are those such as construction activity, which would directly
damage or destroy a cultural resource. Other direct effects would result from
activities, such as pipeline construction or an oilspill. Archeological sites
could be damaged by oil and could be further damaged by oil removal.
The sites most suited for pipeline landings and construction are also those
with the highest probability of containing cultural resources. Offshore con-
struction activities, such as platform installation and pipeline burial, could
damage or destroy archeological sites. Pre-construction surveys would probably
result in the discovery of most cultural sites in the area. These surveys may
be conducted after consultation with the Geological Survey District Conservation
Manager, the Council on Historic Resources, and the State Historic Preservation
Office.
Onshore, an increase in population could result in a rise in "pot-hunting" at
accessible historic and prehistoric sites. With increased population, the
risk and incidence of wild fires could rise, and sites, such as Tanaina house
remains or pioneer cabins, may be damaged or destroyed. Fire control activities,
such as trail building, could also damage cultural resources. The Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) has proposed a program for occupancy
and maintenance of historic cabins and houses, which may alleviate some impact.
137
National Register Sites: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) have agreed that the sites shown on graphic
13 are on, or have been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places.
Although the list is complete for National Register sites, the State Historic
Preservation Office points out, and the Bureau of Land Management concurs,
that many additional known and undiscovered sites exist within the area. The
BLM and SHPO staffs further agree that the following five sites are the National
Register listings that appear most vulnerable if this proposal is implemented.
Selenie Lagoon Archeological Site: This site, AHRS-SEL-064, is comprised of a
midden which is considered to hold very significant information. Adverse
impacts could occur from oilspills reaching the site, by pothunters in the
region, and by potential OCS development at the site.
Yukon Island: This site, SEL-001, is exposed to wave action and could be
contaminated by an oilspill. Pothunters also pose a potential problem.
Because the island is open to the public, with the exception of a small pri-
vately-owned area, it would not be subject to land use changes unless selected
under the Alaska Native Claims Act.
Chugachik Island Site: This island, SEL-033, is comprised of many middens and
other sites. Some middens are exposed to storm tides and would have a small
chance of oilspill contamination. Pothunting is currently a problem and would
likely increase unless controls are imposed. Chugachik Island is part of
Kachemak Bay State Park.
Cottonwood Creek Site: The large midden at this site, SEL-030, is exposed to
storm tides, and may be exposed to oilspill contamination or to pothunting.
The site is on public land.
Coal Village Site: This site, SEL-021, is a former Russian coal m1n1ng opera-
tion. Remains include some narrow gauge railroad tracks, building foundations
and mine pits. The lower part of the site could be affected by an oilspill,
but the effect would be visual and temporary.
The SHPO and BLM staffs have concurred that two National Register listings,
Ninilchik and Hope, could be indirectly and potentially adversely affected.
Ninilchik: Ninilchik, KEN-032, still retains a 19th century Alaskan village
atmosphere. Industry-related population increases or industrial construction
could result in an influx of new residents and changes in land use. New
population and construction could radically alter the character of the village.
Hope: Hope, SEW-018, is much the same now as it was 70-80 years ago. Some
minor increase in permanent residents and commerce would be beneficial in
maintaining the town's viability, but excessive growth could damage its his-
toric character. If development on the Kenai Peninsula occurs, the town's
cultural resources may be stressed because of increased visitors to the site.
The BLM and SHPO staffs have concurred that development resulting from the
proposal may potentially impact archeologic or historic sites and structures
around Kenai and Seward. Many known sites and buildings exist in both areas
that are considered possibly significant for inclusion on the National Register.
138
Other cultural resources not along the shore that have high potential risk
(see se~. IV.A.l.d. for a discussion of oilspill risk), are the Kamishak Bay
area, Anchor Point, Ushaget Island, the Barren Islands, the Karluk area, and
the areas across the Shelikof Strait from Karluk on the Alaska Peninsula.
Marine Archeology: Federal agencies are required by Executive Order 11593 to
locate, identify, and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places
qualifying cultural resources within their jurisdiction. Presently, BLM/OCS
studies are being conducted by the University of Alaska, and procedures have
been established involving the HCRS, in its role as technical advisor for such
resources, the Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Land Management, whereby a
satisfactory cultural resource reconnaissance survey may be implemented to
discover these resources prior to construction. The actual mechanics and
required procedures for conducting this survey are found in the "Notice to
Lessees and Operators." This procedure sets forth the precise specification
and equipment requirements which shall be used. (See cultural resources
stipulation in sec. II.B.l.b.)
The BLM, upon identification of areas of high probability for submerged cultural
resources, would make specific recommendations to the Geological Survey District
Conservation Manager with which leased tracts stipulation should be enforced.
BLM would also recommend a specific set of criteria for conducting these sur-
veys and would submit these recommended operating procedures to the District
Conservation Manager. After receipt of these recommendations, th~ Geological
Survey would then decide whether to follow the recommendations of the BLM or
to take another course of action. Only the Geological Survey, not the BLM,
has the authority to enforce cultural resource stipulations, and this primarily
depends on the decision of the District Conservation Manager. Although the
District Conservation Manager is obligated to consider the recommendations of
the BLM, he is not required to follow these recommended courses of action.
Based on an evaluation of the geological characteristics of the proposed lease
area, there is little potential for the occurrence of submerged cultural
resources. There are, however, a number of proposed lease blocks (see the red
blocks on graphic 13) in the lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait which have
some potential for containing prehistoric or historic cultural resources. It
has been suggested that these areas be surveyed (Alaska OCS Office Staff,
1980).
If cultural resource surveys are not performed adquately, or if cultural
resources exist and are not detected, then they could be damaged by pipeline
construction or by anchors dragging from drillships.
Conclusion: The onshore cultural resources in the area of the proposed sale
may be directly, adversely affected if a major oilspill reaches the shoreline.
Oilspill risk for shore sites is generally moderate. Onshore sites could be
adversely affected by construction activities, industrialization, increased
population in the area, and changes in land use status.
Cumulative Effects: Cultural resources in the lower Cook Inlet could be addi-
tionally impacted by several other proposed actions (refer to sec. IV.A.l.h.).
Impacts on historic and prehistoric archeologic sites would be in danger of
oilspill contamination, damage by construction, and damage resulting from
139
increased population and land status changes. The cumulative effect would be
an increased probability that cultural resources in the lower Cook Inlet and
Shelikof Strait would be adversely affected.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Although surveying and core sample ex .. ination
should reduce unavoidable adverse effects, sa.e artifacts would probably be
lost as a result of OCS activities.
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness, and Recreation Resources:
The proposed lease sale would result in insignificant impacts on the surround-
ing area in the form of the few platforms whicb might be visible froa the air,
from boats, and from points along the Sterling Highway. An oilspill would
cause temporary visual impact, especially along the coast, where the greatest
number of people would have opportunity to view it.
Impact to wilderness resources would result from pipeline construction along
the 16 kilometer (10 mi) stretch of land from Chernof Point to Talnik Point on
Kodiak Island. A service road would probably be constructed from Chernof
Point to Port Lions. It would parallel the pipeline and would be maintained
at least as long as needed for petroleum-related activity. The wilderness
character of the area would be temporarily disrupted by construction activity
and would be altered by the presence of the road.
If OCS development occurs causing increased population, it would be likely
that some wilderness areas (Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Kenai Peninsula,
and the western side of Cook Inlet) would be more heavily used for recreation.
There would probably.be no measurable adverse impact oa the wilderness charac-
ter of these areas, given the low population increase projected for this
alternative.
OCS-related population increases would result in an unquantifiable increase in
competition for recreation resources, principally clams, halibut, and salmon.
These impacts would aost likely be felt by those who seek recreation in already
heavily used areas of the Kenai Peninsula, such as the Sterling Highway, Cl ..
Gulch, the Russian River, and Ha.er (see sec. III.C.4.) and by those who use
Cook Inlet for recreational fishing. Increased pressure on recreation resources
near the City of Kodiak and near Port Lions could be expected, especially if
the pipeline service road near Port Lion~ would be opened to public use. The
road would provide more access to a now much less accessible area.
An oil terminal at Anchor Point would result in displacement of 120 acres (49
hectares) from recreation use.
Petroleum-related vessel traffic in Shelikof Strait near Kodiak and Port
Lions, and in Cook Inlet would probably not interfere with recreational boat
traffic.
Oilspills would pose a risk to recreation resources such as clams, fish, and
beaches. Refer to sections IV.A.2.a. and b. for a more detailed discussion of
impacts on these resources.
Conclusion: Adverse impacts on visual, wilderness, and recreation resources
would be minor and, in most cases, temporary. Platforms and oilspills would
140
result in visual impacts. Construction activities in wilderness areas would
temporarily disrupt the character of these areas. The presence of a service
road would alter the wilderness character of the area between Port Lions and
Chernof Point. Population increases resulting from OCS activities would
result in slightly greater recreational use of wilderness areas and other
already heavily_used recreation areas, especially on the Kenai Peninsula.
Oilspills could adversely affect recreation resources as described in sections
IV.A.2.a. and b.
Cumulative Effects: Existing oil and gas activity in Cook Inlet adds risk to
visual, wilderness, and recreation resources from oilspills most notably in
the Anchor Point and Kamishak Bay areas. Oilspill risk increases there from
medium and low, respectively, in the proposal, to high when sale CI and exist-
ing tankering activities are also considered (see sec. IV.A.l.d.).
Population increases resulting from the proposal plus other projects (described
in sec. IV.A.l.h.) would likely result in increased use of already heavily
used recreation areas as well as greater use of wilderness areas and would
very likely contribute more to increased recreation pressure than the proposal
alone.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable visual impacts would result from
platforms and oilspills. Displacement of wilderness acreage for construction
of pipelines, a service road, and OCS-related facilities would be unavoidable .
• ncreased use of recreation resources in wilderness and already heavily used
recreation areas, and oilspill impact on recreation resources such as beaches
and fish, could occur.
1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use:
Impacts on Land Status: Technically, land status impacts refer to ownership
and interests in land, and configuration of land parcels, etc., rather than
the use of land. For the Cook Inlet portion of the proposed sale area, land
status impacts would not be significantly affected during the exploratory
phase of operation. OCS use of onshore support bases, public docks, etc.,
would all involve existing facilities and land suitable for this purpose. The
construction of port of Homer improvements and the possibility of acreage
being made available for an OCS staging area and supply base is more of a land
use rather than a land status impact. Refer to section III.C.S.c. regarding
the port of Homer Development Plan.
The proposed scenario presumes onshore facilities in the Cape Starichkof/
Anchor Point area, with a gas pipeline running along the Kenai Peninsula to
Kenai. The Cape Starichkof/Anchor Point coastal area is already in predo-
minate private land ownership. Assuming that land purchase or lease agree-
ments can be established between the property owners and OCS operators, the
only land status impact in this area would be a division of legal parcels.
Further land division activity may occur around the onshore terminal, proces-
sing facilities (if any), and gas compressor stations.
The siting of a gas pipeline from the marine terminal-pipeline landfall to the
Nikiski liquefaction facility could result in a significant land status impact.
The land ownership pattern is mixed among the State of Alaska, the Kenai
Peninsula Borough, individual cities, Native village corporations, the Cook
141
Inlet Region, Inc., and private land owners contiguous to the Sterling Highway
corridor. Successful siting of the gas pipeline may involve land exchanges,
land divisions, and right-of-way easements. This land status impact would be
mitigated to the extent that an existing utility transmission line corridor,
which parallels the Sterling Highway, could be used for siting of a buried gas
transmission line.
For the Shelikof Strait portion of the proposed sale area, the siting of a
marine oil terminal at Talnik Point and an oil pipeline from Chernof Point to
the oil terminal could cause significant land status impacts on Kodiak Island.
No land status impacts on Afognak Island or its adjacent smaller islands are
anticipated from this proposal. The possibility of a significant adverse
impact on Kodiak Island turns on the willingness of the land owners, the
Afognak Native Corporation and/or the city of Port Lions, to either sell,
lease, or otherwise grant a right-of-way easement to their land. Neither land
owner has made an official statement regarding the availability of its land
for an OCS onshore support facility, marine terminal, and/or an oil pipeline.
Refer to section III.C.5.c. regarding the Port of Lions Comprehensive Development
Plan.
Impacts on Approved Land Use/Master Plans: The land use impacts ensuing from
the proposal can be defined in two different respects: a) the estimated
acreage requirements of the postulated onshore OCS-related facilities; and b)
the conflict or inconsistency of the postulated onshore facilities with ap-
proved land use/master plan(s). This latter definition of land use impact
derives from CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.16(c), 1506.2(d);
43 FR 55978).
The following impact assessment compares a schematic location of postulated
onshore facilities against applicable plan requirements. No specific site
review is performed in this EIS because no site· specific development actions
are included in the OCS leasing proposal.
The environmental assessment on the proposal includes a petroleum development
scenario. The purpose of this scenario is to hypothesize plausible events
ensuing from the sale based upon industry experience and behavior. The scenario
specifically includes assumptions on onsho;·e facility requirements. However,
only a schematic location of the postulated facilities is provided in a candi-
date area given the uncertainity on eventual exploration and production plan
submittals. Refer to section II.B.1.a. for further discussion of the purpose
and contents of the petroleum development scenario.
Impacts of the Hypothesized Oil Terminal and Gas Compressor Station at Cape
Starichkof-Anchor Point: The acreage requirements for the oil terminal and
related facilities is estimated at 120 acres (49 hectares), while the require-
ment for the gas compressor station facilities is 40 acres (16 hectares).
Refer to table II.B.1.a.-1 regarding the petroleum development scenario. The
aggregate acreage requirement for both of these facilities, 160 acres (64
hectares), would be accommodated by vacant lands specifically reserved for
industrial use in the Cape Starichkof area. The Draft Final Ports and Harbors
Plan of the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) recommends setting aside roughly 900
plus acres of land in the Cape Starichkof area (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1980). Thus, the postulated OCS onshore facilities will moderately impact the
inventory of land recommended to be zoned for industrial use.
142
On the basis of plan policies alone, the siting of energy production facili-
ties,.i.e., oil terminal and gas compressor station, outside of the North
Kenai-Nikiski area would be incompatible with the approved KPB Plan. However,
the approved plan also states that if new energy development facility needs
emerge from OCS operations in Cook Inlet, then the borough and community plans
should be revised. Refer to section III.C.5.c. regarding the KPB "Comprehen-
sive Planning Program: Recommendations" (Alaska State Housing Authority,
1970). The proposed oil terminal and gas compressor station would nominally
pose an adverse land use impact on the KPB 1970 Plan. However, this impact
will apparently be mitigated or eliminated by future KPB Plan changes.
The Borough is in the process of finalizing a Ports and Harbors Master Plan
which, however, has yet to be officially adopted (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1980). The Draft Final Plan calls for a deep water port at Cape Starichkof to
accommodate the OCS energy transportation needs, among other uses. In context
of this Draft Final Plan, the scenario assumption of a marine oil terminal at
Cape Starichkof would appear to be compatible with it and pose no adverse land
use impacts.
If the gas pipeline landfall and onshore gas compressor station were sited
within the Borough's plan area for Anchor Point, then this location would be
inconsistent with the land use policies for Anchor Point. However, these
facilities could be located north of the Anchor Point Plan area. Also, the
KPB Plan for the unincorporated area could be revised as indicated above.
Impacts of the Hypothesized Gas Pipeline from Cape Starichkof/Anchor Point to
Nikiski: The scenario includes a gas pipeline which is schematically located
in a corridor paralleling the Sterling Highway from the pipeline's southern
terminus north to the city of Kenai. From Kenai, the pipeline corridor would
parallel the Kenai Spur Road to the existing liquefaction facilities in the
north Kenai/Nikiski area. Figures IV.A.2.1.-1 and -2 offer a possible corridor
delineation for the gas pipeline. The figures are derived from a proposal of
the Pacific-Alaska LNG Associates (U.S. FERC, 1978) to construct a collection
system of gas pipelines to serve its proposed liquefaction plant and marine
terminal at Nikiski. It should be emphasized that the pipeline corridors
shown on figures IV.A.2.1.-l and -2 are schematic only and do not fix a spe-
cific route. Acreage estimates for the gas pipeline include the following:
The right-of-way (ROW) requirement could be in the range of 30 feet (low) to
100 feet (high). Given a pipeline distance of 7 miles (113 kilometers),
estimated in the development scenario, the pipeline acreage requirements would
range from 254.5 acres (103 hectares) to 848.5 acres (343.4 hectares). These
acreage estimates can be readily accomodated by vacant lands contiguous to the
Sterling Highway corridor on the Kenai Peninsula and along the Kenai Spur
Road. Hence, no significant impact upon vacant land inventory on the Kenai
Peninsula is expected from the postulated pipeline.
The Pacific-Alaska LNG facility and gas pipeline application assumed a 50-foot
ROW requirement for the pipeline. The application also indicated that addi-
tional land clearance would be required along the ROW for construction and
maintenance purposes. However, no estimate of additional ROW beyond 50 feet
was offered in the FEIS on the proposal (U.S. FERC, 1978).
The impacts of the postulated gas line upon the land use policies and plan of
the KPB are unclear: The Borough's policies on petro-chemical facilities
being sited in Nikiski refer to heavy industrial facilities for processing of
143
FIGURE IV. A. 2. 1.-1
HYPOTHETICAL GAS PIPELINE CORRIDOR
-------:: ____ ........ ,-c;.,
ON KENAI PENINSULA
LEGEND
HIGHWAYS
HYPOTHETICAL
CORRIDOR
HYPOTHETICAL
ALTERNATE
CORRIDOR
Note: Hypothetlc:<tl Pipeline Route b.,ed on
Pacific -Al.,ka LNG Proposal
5 Q
Scale in Miles
ANCHOR POINT Fl
Source: U.S. FERC, 1978
'
• o~::-----+---l--------+---+-1
FIGURE IV. A. 2. 1.-2
HYPOTHETICAL GAS PIPELINE CORRIDOR ON KENAI PENINSULA
-----;-.:-.... ,~-
7 sa
LEGEND
HIGtfWAYS
HYPOTHETICAL CORRIDOR
HYPOTHETICAL ALTERNATE CORRIDOR
COLLECTOR GAS PIPELINES
IDENTIFIED IN PACIFIC-
ALASKA LNG PROPOSAL
Note: HypOtlletlul Pipeline Route baled on
Paclfl::-Alaska LNG ProPGKI.
!? 9 t
Scale in Miles
Source: U.S. FERC, 1978
BIRCH HILL
FIELD
, __ _
hydrocarbons and manufacturing of hydrocarbon products. The policies do not
address transmission lines which pose a negligible permanent impact in terms
of labor force, infrastructure, emissions, etc., especially when the trans-
mission lines are buried. Finally, the Borough's 1970 plan offers no land use
policy on the siting and compatibility of pipelines which pre-existed the
plan. Given the ambiguity of the Borough's plan on pipeline siting, it is
difficult to identify the adverse affects of the postulated pipeline corridor
upon the KPB plan. Moreover, the Borough's intention to modify its plan,
pending new commercial finds of hydrocarbons, could mitigate or eliminate any
possible adverse land use impacts from ~iting of the postulated gas pipeline.
The routing of a gas pipeline through the Kenai Flats area under the jurisdic-
tion of either the city of Kenai's Comprehensive Plan (R.W. Thorpe and Asso-
ciates, 1979) or the Corps of Engineers (COE, 1978), could adversely impact
restrictive land use designations in the area. Both the Kenai and COE plans
would protect critical wetlands habitat. Additionally, the Kenai Plan iden-
tifies lowland areas which, for various reasons, pose constraints on develop-
ment. Refer to section III.C.S.c. regarding these plans.
The land use policies of the Kenai Plan regarding publically owned wetlands in
its "Conservancy Zone" are unclear with regard to the siting of the gas trans-
mission line: If the gas pipeline can be construed in the land use category
of "Transportation" or "Utilities" and is found to be coastally dependent in
its siting, then it would be allowed in the wetland areas. However, if the
pipeline is found to be not coastally dependent in its siting, or the city
commits its publically owned wetlands to preservation through a rezoning act,
then the gas pipeline would be a disallowed use of the municipality-owned
wetlands. This latter situation poses a clear conflict in land uses and the
postulated pipe~ine corridor would constitute a significant adverse impact.
This impact could, however, be eliminated by routing the pipeline to the east
of the publically owned Kenai River Flats-wetlands area.
With regard to the COE Kenai River Review, a gas pipeline sited across the
wetlands area and the navigable portion of the Kenai River would require COE
permits. Under the COE's "Permit Activities Classification" for the area, the
proposed pipeline could be a compatible land and water use. This finding of
land use compatibility turns on specific construction and pipeline design
practices. These practices cannot be identified with this EIS on an OCS
leasing proposal only. Presumption of a pipeline applicant's willingness to
comply with COE permit conditions, which would reflect in part U.S. FWS con-
cerns, would result in no adverse land or water use impacts upon the COE Plan.
Refer to section III.D.3.b. and III.A.2. regarding a U.S. FWS proposal for
"Area Meriting Special Attention" designation of the Kenai River Flats area
under the ACMP.
As the postulated gas pipeline corridor moves northward to the Kenai city
limits and enters the unincorporated area of north Kenai/Nikiski, it would be
regulated by a Borough Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area. The
Borough's plan for the north Kenai/Nikiski area specifically allows and en-
courages industrial and energy facilities to be sited in the coastal zone.
Hence, the postulated gas transmission line is presumed to be a compatible
land use with this KPB Plan area. Refer to figure III.C.S.b.-1 for a sche-
matic diagram of the Borough Plan.
144
Impacts on Liquefaction Facilities at Nikiski: No land use impacts of the
liquefaction facilities or the marine terminals at Nikiaki are expected because
a) there are existing facilities of this type, and b) proposed facilities have
been approved by Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies (U.S. FERC,
1978), and c) the KPB Plan for the north Kenai/Nikiski area specifically
allows heavy industrial and petrochemical industry land uses.
Impacts of Postulated OCS Support and Supply Base Operations at Nikiski
and Homer: The petroleum development scenario assumes that all marine support
and supply operations will be handled through either Nikiski or Homer. The
existing support and supply bases at Nikiski, including storage yards, heli-
copters pads, marshalling areas, should suffice for both exploration and
production phases of sale 60. The existing Rig Tenders Dock at Nikiski should
also suffice for goods movement and forwarding operations to berth rig tendors
and supply boats. Hence, no land use impacts for support and supply base ac-
tivity at Nikiski are anticipated.
The support and supply operations at Homer would impact existing facilities if
no improvements in existing facilities were made. The existing city dock of
Homer can handle OCS support and supply functions. However, the berthing
capacity is limited, interference with other maritime commerce can occur, and
insufficient storage yards and marshalling areas could pose problems for goods
movement.
Land use policies of the city of Homer appear to tentatively accomodate OCS
onshore support and supply functions (City of Homer, 1978). The city's "Com-
prehensive Development Plan" does not specifically disallow these land uses
and considers their presence in this city's future. However, the plan also
indicates that adverse effects from OCS spillover land use impacts would be
dealt with effectively.
Better guidance on the city's land use policy towards OCS support and supply
base activity is available in its Draft Port of Homer Development Plan (TAMS
Engineers, 1980). Based upon this draft plan, the proposed improvements to
the port of Homer would clearly accomodate and would anticipate OCS support
and supply operations. If the plan is adopted by the city and the KPB, no
adverse land use impacts from expanded OCS support and supply operations at
the Port of Homer are anticipated.
Impacts of Postulated Oil Pipeline and Marine Terminal Development in the
Kizhuyak Bay Area: The petroleum development scenario includes an oil pipe-
line on portions of Kodiak Island. If a commercial find of oil is made in the
Shelikof Strait portion of the sale area, the postulated pipeline would be
routed in the unincorporated territory of the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB).
The land use impacts ~f this postulated pipeline on KIB land use policy are
difficult to determine: The adopted KIB Comprehensive Plan assesses the
Chiniak Bay area only (Tryck, Nyman, and Hayes, 1972). Hence, there is no
land use/master plan established for the area of the postulated pipeline
corridor. More recent plans and studies sponsored by the Borough have not
been officially adopted but are expected to be incorporated into the Borough's
Coastal Management Program (CMP). Refer to sections III.D. and IV.A.2.n.
regarding the Borough's CMP and the impacts of the proposal on this program.
The Borough has an adopted "OCS Development Goal" which discourages the devel-
opment of OCS-related facilities in or around population centers on Kodiak
Island. Additionally, the goal requires such facilities to be self-sustained
145
and to be remotely sited. Expressing this goal as a land use policy, the
postulated pipeline routing could be considered compatible in that it would
not be near a population center. The southern terminus of the pipeline at
Talnik Point would be at least 3 miles from the community of Port Lions. The
postulated pipeline corridor could also be considered remote: It would be
sited in de facto wilderness. Finally, the pipeline would be self-sustained
through operator maintenance of pumping stations and service facility sited
with the postulated marine terminal (see below).
The petroleum development scenario assumes a ten-mile (16 kilometer) pipeline
distance from Cape Chernof to Talnik Point. The acreage requirements estimated
for the oil pipeline would be 36.4 acres (14.7 hectares) assuming a 30-foot
ROW, or 121.2 acres (49.1 hectares) assuming a 100-foot ROW. The range of
acreage requirements for siting of the pipeline are expected to pose an negli-
gible impact on vacant lands inventory in the de facto wilderness area.
However, the terminal and related facilities may not be considered sufficiently
remote and distant from the population center of Port Lions. The Talnik Point
area is beyond the city limits of Port Lions; the postulated terminal would
pose no land use impacts upon the Port Lions Comprehensive Development Plan.
The acreage requirements for a marine terminal and related facilities at
Talnik Point are estimated to be 160 acres (164 hectares). Siting of these
facilities should pose an insignificant impact upon vacant land inventory for
the area as it is presently de facto wilderness.
Impacts of Spillover Land Uses from OCS Development: Spillover land use
impacts from OCS development are defined as indirect development activity
which ensues from a commercial find of OCS hydrocarbons and a decision to
produce the hydrocarbons. These impacts are difficult to project with any
confidence because of the uncertainities involved.
Spillover land use impacts on the central Kenai Peninsula area of Kenai-Soldotna-
Nikiski, as well as the Homer area, are detailed in the BLM OCS sponsored
Local Socioeconomic System Study for OCS Sale 60 (Alaska Consultants, 1980).
Summary findings of this study are the following:
a. For the city of Kenai, the demand for residential land use could be
135 acres, or less than 2 percent of land available for residential land
use under the plan (73,110 acres).
b. For the city of Soldotna, the demand for residential land use could
be 125-130 acres, or approximately 35 percent of the available land zoned
for residential land use (330 acres). However, it should be noted that
an additional 2,860 acres of unclassified city lands are undeveloped;
some of this acreage could be suitable for residential use and could be
available for eventual development.
c. For the city of Homer, the demand for residential land use could be
210 acres. The city of Homer Comprehensive Development Plan provides no
projection of planned residential land use in acres. Additionally, the
plan provides no inventory of existing residential land uses in acres.
In the absence of discrete land use information, there is a possibility
of a significant residential land use impact upon the city of Homer.
146
Spillover land use impacts upon the community of Port Lions from the siting of
a marine oil terminal and related facilities, as well as the onshore pipeline
terminus, are difficult to estimate. The extent of the spillover effect
depends upon whether the terminal-pipeline operator provides on-site housing
and support services, whether this arrangement is imposed by land owners
and/or the KIB through lease instruments or land use regulations, or whether
the community of Port Lions encourages additional residential development.
There is ample vacant land within the city limits of Port Lions. ~1 inventory
of legal parcels in residentially-zoned areas exists in the community, and
there are recorded land patents from which new residential subdivisions could
be devised. Given the uncertainity of the spillover land use activity, and
the small size of the community of Port Lions, there is a possibility of a
significant adverse impact upon local land use from the siting of the postu-
lated OCS facility.
Spillover land use impacts upon local communities can be mitigated to the
extent that the communities pursue aggressive planning programs. If the com-
munities do not wish to experience spillover residential growth, then recourse
is available through participation in the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(ACMP), reviewing and commenting upon the OCS development and production plan
submittals, and negotiating with OCS operators to provide enclave housing
facilities.
Conclusion: The summary findings of land use impact assessment are:
No significant impact of facilities postulated in the scenario in terms
of acreage requirements are anticipated because of the size of vacant
lands inventory.
The marine oil terminal and related facilities along with the gas com-
pressor station postulated for the Cape Starichkof/Anchor Point area will
be consistent with the Draft Final Ports and Harbors Plan of the Kenai
Peninsula Borough (KPB). The facilities are inconsistent with the 1970
plan for the unincorporated peninsula. However, this plan anticipates
revisions if new OCS finds are made.
The gas pipeline postulated from Cape Starichkof to Nikiski would have
indeterminate land use impacts upon the KPB 1970 Plan. The gas pipeline
could pose significant adverse impacts on the Kenai River Flats area in
terms of the city of Kenai Comprehensive Plan and the U.S. COE River
Wetlands Review Requirements.
The scenario's postulated usage of existing (Phillips Petroleum) and/or
proposed (Pacific-Alaska) gas liquefaction facilities and marine terminals
at Nikiski is consistent with existing, as well as proposed, land use for
the area.
The support and supply facilities operations posulated for the communi-
ties of Nikiski and Homer should not pose any significant adverse impacts
if the Draft Final Borough Ports and Harbors Plan and Port of Homer
Development Plan are adopted. If no improvements are made to the Homer
Spit and the Port of Homer's existing facilities, then significant adverse
impacts on land use from support and supply bases could occur.
147
The postulated oil pipeline from Cape Chernof/Talnik Point and the oil
terminal at Talnik Point would have indeterminate land use impacts because
of the absence of any Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) plan for the area. The
postulated facility locations could be considered consistent with an
official KIB "OCS Development Goal". Resolution of land use impacts, if
any, from these postulated facilities could occur through the KIB Coastal
Management Program.
Spillover land use impacts upon local communities, such as Kenai, Soldotna,
Homer, and Port Lions, from OCS development are difficult to determine.
Recognizing the uncertainities, there is a possibility of significant
adverse effects upon land use plans of Soldotna, Homer, and Port Lions.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative land use effects of the proposal are discussed
for each element of the scenario summarized above:
The only cumulative land use impact upon the Cape Starichkof area would
be if a deep water port were established there along with the marine oil
terminal. This is a possibility, however, no proposals have been forwarded,
and it more likely that such a port would be located near or at existing
ports in the Kenai Peninsula.
The siting of the postulated gas pipeline may be cumulatively impacted by
other utility lines or an additional oil or gas pipeline sited in the
same right-of-way (ROW) corridor. It is expected after the first pipeline
ROW has been established, that a subsequent pipeline would be sited
within the same ROW. Under this arrangement, cumulative land use impacts
would be avoided or minimized. A possibility of cumulative land use
impact could occur in the Kenai River Flats area where separate gas
transmission lines corridors could be established for collecting gas from
new producing gas fields. The unitization of'the gas transmission lines
or a requirement of a common ROW corridor by landowners and pipeline
regulators could minimize this possible cumulative effect.
No cumulative adverse land use impacts from the proposal are anticipated
upon the industrial land uses of the Nikiski area.
The postulated oil pipeline from Cape Chernof to Talnik Point and the
marine terminal postulated at Talnik Point are unlikely to be accompanied
by additional land development. The facilities would be located in a
remote area. If commercial quantities of hydrocarbons were discovered in
the Shelikof Strait from some hypothetical lease sale. If the find is
made within an economic pipeline distance of the Talnik Point terminal,
then the pipeline would be routed in the same ROW onshore and it would
use the postulated terminal at Talnik Point. Other land use development
at the Talnik Point area and along the pipeline ROW is not foreseeable.
The one possibility of cumulative adverse impacts upon land use in the
Cape Chernof to Talnik Point area would be commercial timber harvesting
operations which would be undertaken by the Afognak Native Cooperation.
However, the land use impacts of the submerged pipeline with minor land
clearance are likely to be less than those associated with commercial
timber harvesting operations.
Spillover land use impacts in the communities of Soldotna, Homer and Port
Lions could be accompanied by additional land development which would
cumulatively and adversely impact local land use. Local and State public
148
policies and planning provide a statisfactory means for controlling land
use development and potential adverse impacts. Hence, the possibility of
cumulative adverse "spillover" land use impacts could be effectively
mitigated through application of public policies and planning programs.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: No unavoidable land use impacts are anticipated
from the postulated petroleum development scenario. The land use impacts
associated with the scenario and discussed above are amenable to site planning,
land use regulations, etc., which renders the impacts avoidable rather than
unavoidable.
m. Impacts on Transportation Systems: The following section
will contain an analysis of the impacts, resulting from the proposal and other
actions interrelating with the proposal, on the transportation systems of the
affected areas. The analysis will be organized so as to describe perceived
impacts on each of the affected geographical areas according to the stage of
industry activity, i.e., exploration, development, and production.
In order to extrapolate likely transport impacts it will be necessary to
organize the logistics flow of industry activity along some reasonable modal
linkage. Industry activity during the previous sale CI has provided some
indication as to how the transfer of workers and material will be accomplished
in relation to sale 60.
In sale CI (which has not progressed beyond the exploratory period) the majority
of workers and material were brought through Anchorage and then, respectively,
flown or trucked to bases on the Kenai Peninsula. This scenario will be
followed in the analyses contained in this section. However, it should be
kept in mind that timely and significant improvements in the harbor capacity
of the city of Homer would render it, from an economic point, a much more
viable entry port.
In this analysis Port Lions will be viewed as an ancilliary to the Kenai
support bases and will function primarily as an air support base. The Port
Lions base will throughput mainly workers and foodstuffs and an overall quan-
tity of material small in relation to the total effort.
Kodiak Island Exploratory Period
Impacts accruing to Kodiak Island transportation systems as a result of sale
60 exploratory activity whould be minimal, except in the Port Lions where
moderate impacts from the expansion of the airport could be expected. Initial
air and sea support operations for the entire sale area will issue from bases
located on the Kenai Peninsula. In the event that a commercially recoverable
hydrocarbon reservoir is located within the Shelikof Straits a forward air
support base may be constructed at Port Lions. Miller Airfield, and to a
lesser degree Kodiak Airport, may also be used for industry activities.
Impacts on the Air Mode: Utilization of the airfield at Port Lions would only
be possible after the lengthening of the runway surface, the installation of
navigational aids, the construction of hanger and warehouse facilities, and
the construction of a helioport. The physical nature of the terrain surround-
ing the Port Lions airfield would allow the airfield to be expanded some 305
meters (1,000 ft) on land. The remaining 457 meters (1,500 ft), or more
necessary to expand the field to allow its use by larger aircraft, could only
149
be acquired by extending the runway into Kizhuyak Bay. There is suffi~ient
flat land around the field to allow construction of a small complex of storage
facilities, hangars, helioport, and living quarters.
Miller airfield and Kodiak Airport are two facilities which could provide air
support bases for Shelikof operations. Miller Airfield, located on Cape
Chiniak, is a former U.S. Air Force Base. It has been closed to the general
public since 1971; however, it is now in private ownership. Use of Miller
Airfield would require the extension and resurfacing of its runway facilities,
as well as the refurbishing of its hangar and storage facilities. Kodiak
Airport, if used at all, would function primarily as a personnel and freight
transfer point. It is not envisioned that any facilities would have to be
built at Kodiak Airport during the exploratory period.
Freight and personnel traffic arriving by air, to Kodiak support bases, would
average, during the exploratory period, some 150 people and 8.07 metric tons
(8.9 tons) of freight per month. The tonnage would represent foodstuffs,
medicines, and other perishable items to be used by support base personnel.
The amount of flights which would be caused by this traffic would be dependent
entirely on the type of aircraft employed. Assuming that passengers are
transferred at Kodiak Airport from jets to smaller aircraft (i.e., twin otters
or large helicopters) and freight is brought directly to the support base some
12-15 flights per month could be expected to arrive at the Port Lions airfield.
Helicopter flights from Port Lions to the exploration platforms are expected
to number 60-90 per month.
Impacts on the Land Mode: Impacts occurring to the land transport systems of
the Kodiak Archipelago, during this period, are expected to be insignificant.
No continuous heavy truck traffic or overland passenger movement should occur.
Impacts on the Marine Mode: Marine transport impacts are expected to be only
minor in nature. Some barge traffic would be required to transport equipment
and construction materials necessary to upgrade the facilities at the air
support bases. The barges would be no more than two or three in number. The
unloading of these barges at either the Wakefield Cannery dock or a dock in
Chiniak Bay would cau•e very short-term space use conflicts with the local
fishing industry. As a result of the need to extend the Port Lions Airfield,
somewhat more extensive impacts may be expected in that township. Barges
carrying rock fill and armour rock will cause an approximate three or four
month disturbance to fishing activities which occur in the vicinity of Port
Lions.
Kodiak Island Developmental Period
In this period the probable focus of induced transportation system impacts
would be the area in and around the city of Port Lions.
Impacts on the Land Mode: Due to the need to transport workers and material
to construction sites, a road may be built from the terminus of the present
road at the Port Lions airport to the oil terminal site at Talnik Point, and
then along the pipeline corridors. This construction road would total 21 km
(13 mi) and would have to be constructed before other onshore activities could
commence.
150
Impacts on the Air Mode: By the beginning of the developmental period con-
struction activities involving the Port Lions airfield would be completed.
Incoming freight and passenger volume for the peak development year 1986 would
total some 700-750 workers and approximately 41-45 metric tons (45 tons) of
perishable commodities per month. The aforementioned traffic would involve
60-70 flights per month into the Port Lions airstrip. Heliocopter flights to
the Shelikof Platforms from the Port Lions field should total some 90-120
flights per month.
Impacts to the Marine Mode: In the developmental period, at least 5 barges
(2,000 short ton class) are expected to off load at the Port Lions Dock.
These barges will contain such items as living quarters modules, onshore
pipeline, construction machinery and materials. Additional marine traffic
would be generated by barges carrying armour rock (the source of the armour
rock could be Kizhuyak Point) for the construction of a breakwater for the
Talnik Point facility and by petroleum barges carrying helicopter fuel. The
barges transporting the armour rock would dump their freight directly on site.
Due to the barge traffic space use conflicts between the fishing and oil
industry could occur at the Wakefield Cannery dock. Such conflicts would
intensify during periods of peak fishing activity, but would terminate upon
the completion of the Talnik Point oil terminal dock. Additional conflicts
could occur due to the reduction of fishing opportunities in those areas which
lay in the barges' traffic path.
Impacts Resulting from Production Activities
During the production phase, passenger numbers and freight tonnage should
decline markedly from that of the development period. As a result of this
reduced volume of incoming traffic impacts on the land, air, and water trans-
port systems would also be reduced.
Vehicle traffic levels within the Port Lions area should fall to levels only
slightly higher than those experienced during the pre-exploratory period.
Vehicle levels above that which would be generated by local inhabitants would
derive from freight traffic passing to and from the airport, pipeline service
vehicles, and local trips by terminal personnel. Air traffic levels would be
similarly diminished. Some 400-450 passengers and 21-24 metric tons (23-26
tons) of perishables could be expected to be deplaned at Port Lions during the
average year of the production phase. This could translate itself to 24-39
flights per month into the Port Lions airport. Helicopter flights from the
support base to the rigs could occur at a rate of 60 per month.
Marine impacts in the Port Lions area, during the production phase, are ex-
pected primarily in the form of tanker traffic passing to and from the Talnik
Point facility. According to table II.B.l.a.-1 some 96.8 mmbbls of oil would
be transported during the peak year from the sale 60 area. Half of this
amount could be expected to be from the Talnik facility, using a carrier of
the 100,000 dwt capacity, as a yardstick, it may be assumed one tanker would
leave from Talnik Point every 6 days. The tankers would enter Kizhuyak Bay
from the Gulf of Alaska via Marmot Bay. Fishing activities (especially crab-
bing) occurring in the path of the tankers could be disturbed; however, many
of the conflicts could be avoided by observing a standard shipping schedule
and a voluntary shipping lane.
151
Port Lions and/or Talnik Point is not viewed as having a role in providing
marine support and supply activities in any of the three phases. Marine
support vessels which might issue from Talnik Point would be infrequent, and
probably due to emergency causes. The reason for this assumption is the
treacherous nature of the climate and oceanography of Whale Passage (see
section III.C.6.a). The navigational uncertainties are such that a timely and
rigorous supply schedule, especially during the fall and winter months, could
not be maintained without the acceptance of some risk.
Anchorage
Impacts which may occur to the transportation systems of Anchorage and the
Kenai Peninsula would be entirely within the developmental phase of oil and
gas activity.
As a result of sale CI, the corporations, involved in exploratory activities,
have stockpiled significant amounts of mud, cement, and tubular goods on their
Kenai staging yards. Due to this material surplus, the oil industry expects
to be able to effect all sale 60 exploration without the importation of auxil-
liary supplies. Additional material would only be brought in as a result of
the location of commercial quantities of hydrocarbons (Northern Resources
Management, Monitoring Exploration Activities in the lower Cook Inlet, 1980).
In the light of this fact, it is perceived that impacts on either the Anchorage
or Kenai Peninsula transport links, derived from exploratory activities, would
be entirely due to the transfer of workers and perishable commodities. Worker/
passenger figures and tonnage devoted to foodstuffs would be similar to those
entering Port Lions d~ring this same period. Whereas, such a volume of traffic
would cause a measureable impact on the Port Lions systems; it is believed
that the forecast level of exploratory activity could be absorbed by the
transport systems of the subject areas without significant affect. For this
reason, the discussion of impacts accruing to the transport systems of Anchorage
and the Kenai Peninsula will commence with the developmental period.
Impacts Resulting from Development Activities
A review of table IV.A.2.m.-1 reveals that 1986 is the year in which the
maximum tonnage of mud, cement, and tubular goods would be brought into the
State. A review of table B-4 also indicates that this same year would be also
the one which may experience maximum sale 60 related employment.
Impacts to the Land Mode: Truck traffic generated by sale 60 related freight
arriving at the Port of Anchorage would equal some 15 trips per day (30 round
trips). In view of 1979 AADT (see table III.C.6.c.-1) and the recent improve-
ments rendered to the Seward highway, south of Anchorage, truck traffic issuing
from the Port of Anchorage would register no more than a minor impact to the
road system.
Impacts to the Air Mode: Peak passenger/worker numbers would, during 1986,
average some 900-950 individuals per month. This assumes that all labor is
exogenous in origin. Such a labor force would generate as many as 50 flights
per month from the Anchorage terminal. Given the carrying capacity of Anchorag~
International Airport, as outlined in section III.C.6.b., it is unlikely that
proposed action would create any significant impacts on airport operations.
Impacts to the Marine Mode: In 1986 the total tonnage engendered by the
proposed action and passing through the Anchorage Port would equal some 98,000
152
Tonnage
Table IV.A.2.m.-1
Bulk Tonnage Transportation Requirements
for the Proposed Action
in Short Tons 21 Drill Casing-Mudl/ TransEortation -Eer ~ear-
PiEeline.!l
and and
Freighter9 Barge~/ Tr~ck 61 Year Drill String Cement Tn.Es-
1985 57,420 5 29 3222
1986 75,240 10,511 13,584 9 50 5555
1987 25,740 17,287 19,355 6 32 3479
1988 17,037 18,681 3 17 1889
1989 17,037 18,681 3 17 1889
1990 17,037 18,681 3 17 1889
1991 406 445 47
!/ Assume 184 lbs per foot for oil. Assume 116 lbs per foot for gas.
(U~yS/BLM-OCS, 1980.)
3/ Northern Resources Management, 1980.
41 See Appendix A.
-Based on Sealand's standard containerized freighter class, the C-4 x 3
ses;es.
6! 2,000 ST Barges.
-36,000 lb tandem rigs. One way trips.
tons. This tonnage is equivalent to 6 percent of the total cargo and 10
percent of the dry cargo handled by the Port of Anchorage. Total ship arrivals
at the Port of Anchorage, at the peak of development, would vary according to
mix of vessels used. A review of table IV.A.2.m.-1 reveals that use of con-
tainerized freighters would reduce the sale 60 traffic to some 4 percent of
the freighter traffic experienced by the port in 1979.
Impacts Resulting from Production Activities
During the production phase of OCS activities total tonnage handled, vehicle
traffic generated, and passengers transferred are expected to be an insignifi-
cant level when measured against the total Anchorage transport system.
Cook Inlet
Impacts Resulting from Development Activities
Impacts on the Land Mode: As a result of the proposed action, some 15 round
trips per day by fully loaded tandem rig trucks could be expected on the Kenai
Peninsula road system. A review of table III.C.~.c.-1 indicates that these
additional trips would not significantly impact the total AADT for any affected
road link. The truck traffic, if properly scheduled not to compete with peak
hours of commuter or recreational traffic, would have little impact on the
carrying capacity of the Kenai road system except to increase the long-term
deterioration factor to which the Sterling Highway is exposed. However,
should the material be transportated in surges rather than a steady flow,
localized traffic congestion could be expected to occur around the Anchor
Point construction site and near areas of prime recreational interest. It is
assumed that any potential for traffic congestion would be limited to the
summer months.
By 1986, significant vehicular traffic could be generated by the extensive
hire of local citizens. A vigorous policy aimed at employing residents of
Homer and Kenai would reduce impacts on the air transport systems by reducing
the need to transport and exogenous work force. At the same time such a
policy would result in further increase of the Sterling Highway AADT levels.
Impacts to the Air Mode: Assuming that either the airport at Homer or Kenai
received the full brunt of an exgenously derived workforce (some 50 flights
and 950 individuals per month), the ability of these airports to function
properly would not be impaired. Although parking space, terminal facilities,
and storage facilities for both airports are limited, it is expected that any
OCS-related traffic would be promptly transhipped to its destination. In any
event a review of section III.C.6.c. will evidence the fact that both Homer
and Kenai have drafted airport expansion plans which should accommodate any
proposed OCS development activity.
Helicopter support flights from logistics bases at Nikiski and Homer could
total 120 flights or more per month.
Impacts to the Marine Mode: All mud, cement, and· tubular would be shipped
from bases located either in Kenai or Homer. Support boats transiting between
the supply bases and offshore platforms are expected to average between 90 and
120 round trips per month during the peak of developmental activities.
153
No additional docks are expected to be built at Nikiski as a result of this
proposed action; however, a one or two dock complex would be built at the
Anchor Point terminal. Additional dock facilities would have to be constructed
at Homer in order to facilitate any hypothesized logistics traffic. In regard
to Homer, a port development plan has already been discussed and outlined in
section III.C.S.
Impacts Resulting from Production Activities
During the production period logistics vessels would make some round trips per
month. Oil tankers of the 100,000 DWT class will be expected to complete one
trip every 6 days. This volume of tanker traffic would be expected during the
maximum production period (1991-1993) and would be equal to 8 percent of all
tanker/freighter trips registered in the Cook Inlet in 1977. Vessel trips
required for carriage of LNG are expected to be part of the volume generated
by the proposed Pacific LNG facility. Additional traffic from the proposed
plant could be triggered by gas extracted as a result of the proposed action.
The traffic flow from the proposed LNG plant, as well as its interrelationship
with the proposal will be treated in this section under the heading of cumula-
tive effects.
Impacts from the proposed action to the land and air modes would sharply
decline during this phase and would reach insignificant levels when measured
against the total traffic volumes of the Kenai Peninsula transport systems.
Conclusion: Impacts resulting from the proposal to all transport modes serving
the town of Port Lions would be significant. Because of its undeveloped
status, Port Lions would receive the greatest relative impact from the proposed
action. The rate of traffic which Port Lions could receive during the least
active of the OCS phases, that of production, wou~d be substantially above
levels currently experienced by the city.
Maximum conflict between OCS and Port Lions fishing activities are expected to
occur during the developmental period. The potential conflicts will entail
the temporary loss of fishing grounds in Kizhuyak Bay due to large traffic and
construction activity. Space use conflicts should subside. However, loss of
fishing grounds in the vicinity of Talnik Point, over the life of the proposal
may result from this action.
Impacts to the transport system of Anchorage are seen as minor to insignifi-
cant for all phases of sale 60 activity except for the Port of Anchorage.
Moderate impacts could be assumed for the Port of Anchorage during the devel-
opment period due to a 6 percent increase in total cargo (over 1979 figures)
handled and a possible substantial increase in barge traffic.
Impacts accruing to the Kenai transport systems would be minor to moderate in
nature throughout the life of the proposal. The existing capacity of the
Kenai and Homer airports would be adequate to manage all air traffic occurring
in any phase of activity. Highways would suffer peak impacts during the
developmental period. Localized congestion may occur from the poor timing of
truck convoys and from commuter traffic. However, any congestion which would
happen should be limited to summer months. Marine transport impacts are
expected to be moderate in nature. Tanker traffic in the inlet would be
increased by some 8 percent over 1977 levels.
154
Cumulative Effects: The expansion of the Port Lions small boat harbor should
be complete by the developmental period of the proposal. In the event that
both the boat harbor and the construction projects associated with sale 60
occur within the same timeframe, significant short term impacts could arise.
Fishing vessels would have to compete with barges carrying armour rock, sup-
plies, construction material, and rock fill. Congestion would probably occur
and fishing activities within the vicinity of the construction projects would
be sharply curtailed.
Spacing the projects so as to allow one to be completed before the commence-
ment of another would do much to alleviate a potentially hectic and congeste~
construction period.
The transportation systems of the city of Anchorage are such that each one of
the proposed projects outlined in section IV.A.l.h. would individually at most
create a minor to moderate impact. To significantly impact Anchorage, all of
these projects would have to have their peak construction activities occur
within or near the same year.
In regard to the Kenai Peninsula, the proposed action may be just one of a
series of projects which will affect the peninsula throughout the 1980s.
Successful drilling operations would ensure the continuing increase in use of
Kenai Peninsula transport systems. This increase is ongoing and is expected
to continue throughout the 1980's with or without the proposal.
A significant aspect of the proposed action may be an expansion of the envi-
sioned Pacific Alaska LNG plant. The location of large reserves of natural
gas may cause the emplacement of a third liquefaction train to the Pacific
Plant. The third train would raise the liquefaction potential of the plant to
some 600 mmcf per day and concommitantly increase the yearly number of LNG
vessels issuing from the facility from 60 to 90 per year.
If recoverable hydrocarbons are found as a result of the State of Alaska lease
sale 35, tanker traffic within Cook Inlet will increase by an unknown
amount. Resource amounts have not yet been estimated by the State for the
proposed sale 35 area.
Total tanker traffic caused by the proposed action may equal some 90 oil and
LNG vessel trips per year. Tanker traffic generated from all other projects
(see section IV.A.l.h.), with the exception of the lower Cook Inlet sale,
could equal 120 trips per year.
Projected tanker traffic produced by sale CI is difficult to estimate. The
volume and range of tanker traffic which may result from sale Cl extends from
0 to more than twice that generated by the proposed action. Original resource
estimates for sale LCI ranged from 900 MMbbls of oil to 2.8 Bbbls of oil.
However, the continuing lack of success registered by exploratory drilling
within the inlet has called the Qriginal resource estimates into doubt. As it
stands, the inlet is due one more drilling effort and then oil industry action
is expected to cease. Previous experience in regard to industry drilling
operations in Alaska indicates that lack of success in the initial exploratory
phase effectively stymies sustained drilling activities.
155
In short, with the exception of possible traffic from sale LCI, the proposal
would be responsible for 30 to 40 percent of all tanker traffic generated
during the next decade by presently proposed projects.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse impacts which may derive
from sale 60 related activities are: 1) a substantial and permanent increase
in the traffic volume experienced by all modes serving Port Lions; 2) short-term
space use conflicts between fishing and OCS vessels; 3) loss of some fishing
grounds in the vicinity of Port Lions over the life of the proposal; 4) localized
traffic congestion on the Sterling Highway near construction areas; and 5)
increase of tanker traffic in the Cook Inlet, Marmot Bay, and the Gulf of
Alaska.
n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management Program: Impacts
of the proposal on the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) can be effec-
tively identified and evaluated through the consistency provisions of the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act as amended (CZMA)(16 USC 1456, et. seq.).
Refer to section I.D of this EIS for an explanation of the CZMA consistency
provisions as they apply to the OCS leasing program.
Timing of OCS Sale 60 with Local CZM Plans: Both the Kenai Peninsula Borough
(KPB) Coastal Management Plan (CMP), and the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) CMP,
are expected to be approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council by the end of
1981 or early 1982. This projection reflects scheduling and coastal manage-
ment planning grants administered by the State Department of Community and
Regional Affairs as well as a requirement in the Alaska Coastal Management Act
that a district Coastal Zone Management program be adopted by December of
1981. Delays in this scheduling could occur.
Concern has been expressed that the local CMPs would not be in place before
OCS sale 60 occurs, and that irretrievable decisions would be made to allow
oil and gas development before local coastal management programs would be
authorized to review such development. However, given the long lead times
required for oil and gas development in frontier areas, coupled with the
segmented nature of decisionmaking required in the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act, the district CMPs should be authorized before significant oil and
gas development decisions are made. The following calendar of prospective
events and decisions is helpful in examining the above concern:
September 1981
Fall 1981
December 1981-
January 1982
December 1981-
February 1982
Scheduled occurrence of OCS sale 60 (OCS 5-year
schedule)
Kodiak Island Borough and Kenai Peninsula Borough
Draft CMPs completed and reviewed (Alaska Department
of Community and Regional Affairs)
OCS exploration plans submitted and approved for
operation in sale 60 tracts; CZMA consistency review
(BLM/OCS estimates)
District CMPs adopted by State of Alaska and authorized
for consistency review (Alaska Department of Community
and Regional Affairs)
156
1984
1984
1985-1987
Development and production plan EIS submitted and
approved (if commercial fields are found)
(BLH/OCS Petroleum Development scenario)
Development and production plans submitted, CZMA
consistency review and approval by USGS, BLH-IPP
transportation management plan completed.
(BLM/OCS estimates)
Construction and installation of OCS field development
infrastructure, platforms, pipelines. (BLM/OCS
Petroleum Development Scenario)
A review of this schedule shows the district CMPs would be authorized concur-
rently with the sale 60 OCS exploration plan approvals. If the CMPs were
approved by the State before 1982, OCS sale 60 exploration plans would have to
be consistent with the CMPs. The CMPs would clearly be authorized (1982)
prior to the submittal of the development and production plan EIS (1984), the
USGS development and production plan submittal (1984), and the BLM-IPP trans-
portation management plan (1984).
The KIB and the KPB may not have their CMPs authorized by the time of the
sale 60 exploration plan consistency review. According to the estimated
schedule, the review of sale 60 exploration plans for consistency with the
approved State Coastal Management Plan (as well as local CMPs) should occur in
the winter of 1981-1982 (perhaps December through February depending upon the
time of submittal). Both of the Borough plans should be completed at this
time to provide a basis for any local consistency findings with the OCS explora-
tion plans under review. The Boroughs' consistency concerns, if any, could be
forwarded through the approved ACMP so the OCS exploration plans could be
subject to local CMP policy concerns.
It should be emphasized that the occurrence of any OCS lease sale itself is
not the final governmental decision regarding oil and gas development.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLAA) provides for OCS lessees to
submit and gain approval on exploration plans and later on development and
production plans. Moreover, the OCSLAA provides authority for BLM to regulate
pipeline locations for OCS hydrocarbons; OCS lessees must obtain a right-of-way
permit from BLM if pipelines are to be laid on the continental shelf. Other
Federal agencies, as well as State agencies, would be involved in regulating
OCS operations subsequent to OCS lease sales.
Thus, the local CMPs would have significant opportunities to comment on,
participate in, and'review governmental decisionmaking regarding OCS operations
subsequent to a lease sale. The OCS exploration plans are the very first
step; the application of other regulations and plan requirements would occur
subsequent to exploration plan approvals. The KIB and KPB CMPs are expected
to be authorized before the subsequent decision points.
Kenai Peninsula Borough-District Coastal Management Program: The proposal is
not expected to adversely effect the integrity of the District Coastal Manage-
ment Program (CMP). The borough's program is being developed and is expected
157
to be approved by the State Coastal Policy Council in fall of 1981. If the
proposed lease sale occurs in September, 1981 as scheduled, then it will have
occurred before the borough's CKP is approved by State.
In the absence of an approved district CKP for the Kenai Peninsula Borough
(KPB), some assumptions can be made in this EIS to provide for an impact
assessment of borough energy facility siting policies. It should be recog-
nized the following analysis does not constitute a) a consistency determi-
nation under provisions of the ACKP or, b) an impact assessment of proposed
OCS related onshore facilities in the borough's coastal zone. Instead, the
assessment is of petroleum development scenario assumptions accompanying this
leasing proposal against hypothetical energy facility siting policies of a
KPB-CKP.
Assume that a) the energy facility siting policies of KPB sponsored studies
mentioned in section III.D.2.d. above are officially incorporated into the
borough's CMP and that, b) the district CKP is adopted by the State legis-
lature. The proposal's onshore facility siting scenario for an exploration
case and a development case for commercial finds of hydrocarbons is identified
in section II.B.1.a. A comparison of this section and section II.B.l.a. shows
that the siting scenarios of the proposal and the assumed policies of the
borough CKP are compatible. Specifically:
The proposal assumes exploration support activity will occur out of
Nikiski and Homer on the Kenai Peninsula. These facility locations have
been identified in borough sponsored studies as suitable for serving
energy development needs.
The proposal assumes an oil terminal and processing facilities at Anchor
Point-Cape Starichkof. This is consistent with borough sponsored studies
which have identified this area as suitable for a deep water port and OCS
related industrial development.
The proposal assumes a gas pipeline extending from an offshore pipeline
landfall (between Cape Starichkof and Anchor Point) to the present lique-
faction facilities at Nikiski. This aspect of the proposal is not re-
flected in the borough sponsored studies. Hence, the gas pipeline part
of the scenario could be considered inconsistent with the findings of the
borough studies. However, these studies did not address the issue of
pipeline transportation, generally, as witnessed by the lack of discus-
sion of existing oil and gas pipelines in the upper Cook Inlet and on
Kenai Peninsula.
Kodiak Island Coastal Management Program: The Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) CKP
is in the same situation as the Kenai Peninsula Borough program; it is in
progress, has yet to be completed, and the proposed lease sale is expected to
occur before the program would be officially adopted by the State Coastal
Policy Council.
The petroleum development scenario accompanying the proposal includes a sub-
merged pipeline through the Kupreanof Strait with the pipeline landfall at
Cape Chernof, an onshore pipeline from Cape Chernof to Talnik Point on Kodiak·
Island, and an oil terminal at Talnik Point. Port Lions could function as a
158
logistical support center and provide infrastructure for the terminal and/or
processing facility operations at Talnik Point. See section II.B.1.a of this
EIS regarding scenario assumptions and descriptions.
The consistency of the proposal's petroleum development scenario with energy
facility siting policies of a KIB district CMP could be hypothetically evalu-
ated, similar to the evaluation above for the Kenai Peninsula Borough. How-
ever, deriving energy facility siting policies from KIB's sponsored studies is
more difficult for the Shelikof Strait portion of the proposed sale area: The
borough's one study on oil terminal and marine service base sites (Woodward/
Clyde Consultants, 1977) was predicated on a western Gulf of Alaska rather
than a Shelikof Strait lease sale. The borough acknowledges that its siting
must be updated to include the Shelikof Strait and Chiniak Bay areas for
proposed OCS sale 60: It has submitted applications for funding assistance
under the Coastal Energy Impact Program for new facility siting studies in the
Shelikof Strait and Chiniak Bay areas.
For the KIB, some goals and objectives statements have been adopted as official
policy. The KIB policy statements call for OCS-related facilities to be sited
away from the "population centers of Kodiak I.sland" and "be self-sustained at
their remote sites." Refer to section III.D.4.b. above. Based upon these
policy statements, the Shelikof Strait petroleum development scenario could
possibly be considered inconsistent with KIB hypothetical energy facility
siting policies, as it hypothesizes the location of facilities near populated
areas.
The marine terminal is proposed at Talnik Point, which is only 3 miles from
Port Lions, and approximately 1 mile from the Port Lions airfield. The Port
Lions community and its infrastructure could be used to support the oil ter-
minal operations. ·However, this interaction and poss~ble adverse impact on
Port Lions could not be determined until an OCS lessee submits a petroleum
development plan after a commercial find of hydrocarbons (oil) in Shelikof
Strait. Moreover, it is unclear whether the borough policies identified in
section III.D.4.b. refer to outer lying settlements such as Port Lions.
Proposed Area Meriting Special Attention: Section III.D.3.b. and c. iden-
tifies a proposal for Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) designation under
the ACMP in the Kenai River Plats AMSA proposed by the USFWS and ADF&G. The
AMSA has not been officially acted upon by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council.
There is no specific coastal management policy authorized for the proposed
AMSA area beyond the general policies and standards of the ACMP.
Assuming the proposed AMSA's were adapted by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council,
the siting of a gas pipeline through the Kenai River Flats area could pose a
moderate impact. If the pipeline were sited through the AMSA "Natural Area
Zone," this would have to be designed and constructed in a manner compatible
with USFWS recommendations (U.S. FWS, 1979). The FWS AMSA proposal would
allow "oil and gas operations" in this zone. Refer to figure III.C.S.c.-2 for
a delineation of this zone. This EIS presumes that a buried gas transmission
line would qualify as "oil and gas operations" under the U.S. FWS AMSA proposal.
Alternatively, the gas pipeline could be sited in a corridor to the east of
the proposed AMSA "Natural Area Zone;" such a corridor would obviate any
impacts upon an adapted AMSA which was incorporated into the approved ACMP.
159
Both the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) and the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB)
CMP's, will likely be incorporated into the State ACMP before significant
post-lease sale activities requiring Federal consistency review.
Conclusion: The proposed lease sale would have no adverse impacts on the
approved ACMP. The proposal's development scenario would not adversely affect
the draft KPB CMP. In the case of the KIB CMP, the proposal's development
scenario for an oil terminal at Talnik Point could conflict with and adversely
affect adopted KIB goals and objectives on OCS facility siting. KIB policies
and coastal management planning have not advanced sufficiently to determine
whether other aspects of OCS exploration, development, and production would
otherwise adversely affect the Borough's coastal zone. The scheduling of the
KIB CMP indicates that it should be authorized before significant post-sale
production and development decisions.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects on the State ACMP are difficult to
identify because of the procedural, rather than the site-specific, orientation
of the state program. If tangible and discrete development proposals for a
particular region or location of the coastal zone are known and subject to the
governmental permit reviews, then some comparisons against the guidelines and
standards of the State ACMP can be performed to identify possible cumulative
effects in the absense of an approved local CMP.
The major projects identified in IV.A.l.h. will, for the most part, affect the
KPB rather than the KIB. These projects may be considered to not cumulatively
and adversely affect the KPB district CMP because the Coastal Management
Program is designed, among other purposes, to provide for suitable development
uses of the coastal zone. On the other hand, these projects may impose cumu-
lative adverse effects because certain manifestations may not be compatible
with the district CMP policies and site-specific uses which are presently not
specified. Thus, the determination of cumulative adverse effects of these
other major actions turns on their suitability for land and water uses of the
KPB coastal zone. Since this determination is beyond the scope and authority
of this proposed leasing action, no cumulative effects can be definitely
identified or reasonably anticipated at this time.
One possibility of cumulative adverse effects on a KPB district CMP is various
development activities proposed for, or impacting on, the Homer spit and
land/water uses in Kachemak Bay. The utilization of the Port of Homer for an
OCS exploration and development support center, in conjunction with other
developmental uses (e.g., bottom fisheries development, general goods movement,
recreational and commercial fishing vessels moorage and transit, and the
Bradley Lake hydroelectric project), could cumulatively and adversely affect
the Homer spit portion of the local zone. However, the "Area Meriting Special
Attention" designation under the ACMP could provide satisfactory mitigation
through management practices to the several developmental proposals for the
Homer spit.
The possibility of cumulative adverse effects upon the KPB district CMP for
the Homer spit area derives from concerns raised specifically by the KPB CMP.
Moreover, the concerns refer to known development proposals in specific loca-
tions. In contrast, most of the major projects mentioned in section IV.A.2.n.
are in the planning stage, but lack specificity for purposes of cumulative
effects assessment on coastal zone management.
160
Unavpidable Adverse Effects: The leasing proposal would not likely result in
any unavoidable adverse impacts upon either the Alaska Coastal Management
Program, the Kenai Peninsula Borough District CMP, or the Kodiak Island Borough
CMP.
o. Impacts on Water Quality: Environmental impact assess.ent
of drilling fluid disposal upon marine receiving waters has been described in
the appendices to three separate EISa: FEIS on OCS sale 65 (BLM, 1978), Final
Supplement on the EISon OCS sale 42 (BLM, 1979), and the FEIS on the proposed
Five Year OCS Oil and Gas Lease Schedule (BLM, 1979). These appendices are
incorporated by reference to this section on water quality impacts pursuant to
CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.21; 43 FR 55978).
TyPes of Wastewater Discharges
Drilling Muds: Offshore exploratory and development well drilling involves
use of drilling muds which are discharged periodically from the platforms.
Quantities of discharged mud depend upon well depth, hole size, geologic
formations encountered, mud dispersability, and solids control capability
(API, 1979).
Because these parameters affect the discharge characteristics, it is difficult
to define a "typical" mud system and discharge profile; however, available
literature has been generated which describes different types of mud operations
(EPA, 1976; EPA, 1977; Otteman, 1976; Dames and Moore, 1978; Eca.ar, 1978).
Two major categories of contaminants in drilling auds
bacteriocides (NOAA, 1979a; Adaas, 1978; BLM, 1979).
category would be oil and grease, if an oil based mud
1976a).
are trace metals and
A third major pollutant
system is used (EPA,
Bacteriocides vary in terms of composition in drilling auds. These may include
aldehydes, chlorinated phenols, quaternary aaines, diamine salts, and other
substances (Adams, 1978; EPA, 1977). The discharge concentrations of these
compounds individually could range from 300 to 30,000 parts per million (ppm)
depending upon the mix of bacteriocides in drilling fluids (EPA, 1977).
Produced Waters: If commercial finds of hydrocarbons are aade in OCS sale 60,
oil production from individual platforms will require separation of any for.a-
tion waters or brines found in the petroleum bearing reservoir. The for.ation
waters contain several toxic substances, both trace metals and aromatic hydro-
carbons. The constituent toxic eleaents and their concentrations in formation
waters vary with the geologic province encountered. A review of available
data on typical formation water toxic constituents reveals that the Ni, Cu,
Zn, and Ag metals exceed established Federal water quality criteria (Clark,
1979; Rittenhouse, et. al., 1969; EPA, 1975). The Offshore Operators Committee,
upon reviewing available literature, found that only the metals Cu, Cr, Mn,
and Sr appear to have concentrations in produced waters greater than that
normally found in sea water (Sheen Technical Subcommittee, 1975).
Information on aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in produced waters is
difficult to identify. The Offshore Operators' Committee estimates that dis-
solved hydrocarbons may vary up to 50 ppm. The U.S. EPA Development Document
for the New Source Performance Standards for the Offshore and Gas Extraction
161
Category did not estimate dissolved hydrocarbons as a waste constituent in
produced waters (U.S. EPA, 1975). Instead, the EPA estimated non-dissolved
oil and grease concentrations. These vary from 7-1300 ppm in Lousiana off-
shore platforms and from 56-359 ppm in offshore California platforms.
Other Discharges: Offshore exploratory vessels and platforms routinely dis-
charge treated sanitary wastes, ballast water, blowout preventor fluids, water
distillation blowdown fluids, and deckdrain wastes. The rates of discharge
vary with the size of the vessel or platform and the extent of drilling pro-
duction and operations. The movement of OCS petroleum by tankers also results
in ballast water releases which includes dissolved aromatic hydrocarbons.
These ballast water releases were uncontrolled until recent years when require-
ments of the Clean Water Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, and the Port
and Tankers Safety Act imposed restrictions (see below).
Dilution and Transport Characteristics in Receiving Waters
Drilling Muds: Of the literature available on the fate and effects of dril-
ling fluids in the marine environment, the topic of dilution, dispersion, and
transport of mud contaminants in the water column has generally received
greatest attention. Table IV.A.2.o.-1 summarizes data from representative
field studies regarding dilution of drilling fluids in marine receiving waters.
As summarized in table IV.A.2.o.-1, the continuous low level discharges of 5
drilling fluids (10-20 bbl/hr) will dilute by factors of 10 (10,000:1) or 10
(100,000:1) within 200-300 meters of the discharge source. These dilution
rates refer to total suspended solids or rhodamyne dye as a tracer. Back-
ground concentrations for suspended solids were reached within 100-280 meters.
Few studies have actually monitored the trace metal contaminants in receiving
waters of OCS platforms discharges (Ecomar, 1978; Endeco, 1976; Zingula,
1975). Of these studies, the trace metal dilution rates appear to be on the
same order of magnitude of those for whole mud as measured by suspended solid
concentrations.
Produced Waters: There is scarce information on the dilution and transport
characteristics of the constituents of produced waters. Monitoring studies
have been done to identify general water column chemistry around OCS waters,
but inferences must be drawn as to the source of discharge. Comparison of the
treated produced water constituent concentrations with applicable water quality
criteria and background concentrations, where available, produces some estimate
of the necessary dilution ratio. These dilution ratios can then be compared
with the measured dilution properties in the two Cook Inlet rig monitoring
studies.
Table IV.A.2.o.-2 displays the concentrations of various toxic substances,
both trace metals and petroleum hydrocarbons, contained in treated produced
water discharges. The discharges are from onshore production facilities
serving several offshore production platforms in upper Cook Inlet. The level
of produced water treatment provided at these facilities is comparable to that
expected for treatment of produced waters from OCS sale 60. Discharge levels
of most of the toxic trace metals are already close to the applicable receiving
watyr criteria. However, some trace metals would need an order of magnitude
(10 ) dilution. The aromatic hydrocarbon cympound~ sampled required at least
one or two orders of magnitude dilution (10 or 10 ) in order to meet hypothe-
tical water quality criteria for the individual hydrocarbon compounds.
162
Table IV.A.2.o.-1 11
Dilutiuu Rates of Drilling Discharges fro. Offshore Oil and Gas Plattoc•~ -
-------------Dfscbarge ---1 Dilution Hydrograi>~fc------------------
Specificatious _-/_ Characteristics ~I Data -
Total Sus---~---~==~~:D~l~.s~t~a~n~c~e~:~~D~i-s~ta_n_c_e~t-o~:~---~~Pr~vaiiing Study
Location :peoded Solids Dilution fro. Background Depth of Cu.-cent.
Georges Bank,
off New England:
•all Rate bbllhr Rate Source Level S&~~pling (kuotli)
280,980 5.5
16.5
:a. 7.'• X 104
:b. 9.3 X 10
10 •
280 •
10 •
280 •
0-150 ft
0-150 ft
i.3s
0.8 N
Ocean
Depth
:157 ft
:157 ft
Study
Author
lndeco, 1976
-____ .:.__ ____ _
S. "l"i•balier,
Block 54, Gulf
of 11exico
350,000
----------------=---
Tauuer Bank,
off 11outhero
California
Redoubt Bay, #1:
Coolr. Inlet
250,000
60,000
ppb 41
dye -
iower-coo~---2o~ooo
lolet 5
I. 1 X 1041
ppb dye -
NA
NA
NA
10
10
10
60
60
60
60
20
20
20
20
:a. 1.26 X 10 3
:b. 8.75 X 103
:c. 3.18 X 105
2 :a. 5.1 X 104
:b. 4.8 X'105
:c. 1.2 X 10
:a. 1 X 10~
:b. 6.2 X 104
:c. 8.2 X 105
:d. 1 X 10
3 :a. 1.5 X 103
:b. 2.5 X 104
:a. 3.8 X 105
:b. 1 X 10
0
92 •
202 •
2.3 •
100.
200.
38 •
45.
600.
500 •
100 •
200 •
100 •
200 •
200.
200.
200 •
100-200 •
100-200 •
100-200 •
NA '!./
IIA '.!1
NA '.!1
IIA !J
100-200 •
IIA 41
IIA 4/ IIA-
surface
surface
9.2 •
5-15 •
5-15 •
5-15 •
1 •
1 •
1 •
12.3 •
7 •
15 •
1 •
1 •
NA
NA
NA
:18.4.
:18.4.
:18.4.
Zinaula, 1975
-------------~------------
0.4 NW
0.4 NW
0.4 NW
6.8 (t:bb)
2.4(flood)
HA(IIlad.)
variety
63 •
63.
63.
122 •
122 •
122 •
122 •
: o. 6-f. 9 i-if£------.rA
:0.6-1.91 NE NA
:0.6-1.91 liE NA
:0.6-1.91 NE IIA
lco.ar, 1978
IIALCO, 1976
Da.es and Moore,
1978
1/ Di»charae specifications refer to whole .ud concentrations with the exceptions of the Da8es sud Kuore study which shows total sus-
pended solid (TSS) concentrations after dilution by flushina water.
~I Dilution characteristics describe the relative concentration of the suspended solids or dye at specified points in the receivina
water colU80. The dilution rate represents the reported receiviaa water concentration divided into the concentratioa of TSS or dye in
whole •ud. Distance to baclr.arouud levels iadicate the distance necessary for the effluent plu.e to •ix with receiviaa waters to yield
the natural or pre-existina concentratious of TSS.
11 Hydrographic data provides sa.e .eana of C08parin& the results of the plu.e dilutioa rates iu ditferent locatiooa. Depth of
aa•pliua indicates the extent of the water colU80 sa.pled as the basis for reporting TSS concentraLioua in receiviaa waters.
'.!1 The two Coolr. Inlet studies used rhoda•yoe dye, aa a tracer for drilliag •ud plu.e disperaioa. BeLauae there ia ao natural
background level for tbis substance iu •eceivioa waters, no distance to background level eati88te is prepared.
Table IV.A.2.o.-2
Discharge Concentrations of Treated Production Waters
in Upper Cook Inlet and Necessary Dilution to Water Quality Criteria
ARCO Granite Point Faciliti~/ 41 Marathon Tradins Bai Faciliti~~/
Toxic!/
Dilution to-Dilution to-
Discharge Concen-Water Quality Discharge Concen-Water Quality
Substance trations msll Criterion trationa •sll Criterion
Trace Metals
Silver 0.05 10-1 0.03 • 10-1
Arsenic 0.05 0 0.02 0
Cadmium 0.04 10-1 0.28 10-2
Chromium 0.14 0 0.57 10-1
Copper 0.05 0 0.18 10-1
Mercury 0.002 10-1 0.0001 0
Nickel 0.05 0 1.1 10-1
Lead 0.20 10-1 0.2 10-1
Antinomy 0.14 0 0.026 0
Selenium 0.01 0 0.017 0
Zinc 0.05 0 0.11 0
Petroleum Hidrocarbons~/
Benzene 1.3 10-2 1.2 10-2
Toluene 0.05 10-1 0.48 10-2
Ethyl benzene 0.05 0 NA NA
Xylenes 0.10 10-1 0.48 10-1
Trimethybenzenes 0.50 10-1 0.13 10-1
Naphthalene 0.10 10-1 0.16 10-1
Methylnapthalenes 0.20 10-1 0.15 0
Dimethylnapthalenes 0.50 10-2 NA NA
Trimethylnapthalenes 0.50 NA NA NA
Oil and Grease 4.2 0 2.0 0
!/ Toxic substances identified are those listed by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, as amended. Other metals
exist in petroleum formation waters, however, these are not included in the list of
toxic substances.
~/ The ARCO separation and treatment facility at Granite Point treats unprocessed
petroleum liquids from platforms Spark and Texaco-Superior. Platform A and receives
separate produced waters from Amoco and Mobile offshore production platforms. As of
December 1979, the facility discharged an average 314,000 gallons (7476 bbl/day) of
treated wastewaters.
~/ The Marathon separation and treatment facility at Trading Bay receives unprocessed
petroleum liquids from Dolly Varden, Grayling, King Salmon, and the monopod platfonas.
As of December 1979, the facility discharged an average of 2,878,000 gallons (68.524 bbl)
of treated wastewater a day.
~/ Dilution to water quality criterion refers to orders of magnitude reduction in
the reported discharge concentration before it is less than or equal to the applicable
U.S. EPA water quality criterion (U.S. EPA, 1976).
~/ There are no water quality criteria for individual aromatic hydrocarbon compounds
Refer to section III.E. regarding water quality criteria for petroleum hydrocarbons.
Hypothetical criteria have been derived from 96-hour LDSO bioassay work on first
Instar zoeae (larval stage) of dungeness crab. A 0.01 decimal fraction of the reported
LDSO value was used in accordance with U.S. EPA and Alaska DEC water quality criteria
for petroleum hydrocarbons. Data source: Caldwell, Calderone, and Mallon in Wolfe, 1977.
Sources: Arco Oil and Gas Company, "NPDES Permit Application: Granite Point Production
Facility," 1980. Marathon Oil Company, "NPDES Permit Application: Trading Bay Production
Facility," 1980.
Other Discharges
There is paucity of data on dilution and transport in marine rece1v1ng waters
from routine low level releases of sanitary wastes, dissolved solids, and
other pollutants discharged from offshore platforms. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, suspended solids and sanitary wastes are presumed to
be diluted and transported in marine receiving waters similarily to whole
drilling mud discharges discussed above. There is a paucity of data on dilu-
tion rates expected from routine low level releases of petroleum hydrocarbons
from offshore platforms, aside from the discharges discussed above with regard
to formation waters (Malins, 1977; EPA, 1976a).
Sedimentation: Several studies have been conducted of the trace metal ac-
cumulations in bottom sediments from drilling mud discharges associated with
offshore platforms and exploratory vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico and
offshore southern California (Marine Technical Consulting Services, 1976;
Continental Shelf Associates, 1975; Continental Shelf Associates, 1976;
University of Texas, 1977; Dames and Moore, 1978; Mearns and Moore, 1978;
Ecomar, 1978; and NOAA, 1977). Summary results of these studies are presented
in table IV.A.2.o.-3.
The studies clearly show a rise in sediment concentration of the trace metals
listed. General patterns of increases in trace metals concentrations are not
evident given the variables of particle size and composition, depth, circulation,
velocity, and direction. However, the data in table IV.A.2.o.-3 does show an
affected reach of particle deposition on the sea floor from the platform
sources. The affected reach can be as small as 200 meters and as large as
1,000 meters. Two key factors affecting the distance of particle deposition
on the sea floor are discharge depth from the sea surface and prevailing
current speeds (Adams, 1978; Dames and Moore, 1978; BLM, 1979).
The elevated levels of trace metals found in bottom sediments can be at least
three times the background concentrations if immediately below the drill rig
(Marine Technical Services, 1976; University of Texas, 1977; Ecomar, 1978).
Results from the second year (1977-78) of the four year EPA/NOAA environmental
study of the Buccaneer oil/gas field in the Gulf of Mexico indicate there are
trace metal gradients decreasing away from the platform structures in surfi-
cial sediments, and there are elevated concentrations of Ba, Pb, Sr, and Zn in
surficial sediments within 180 meters of the structures (Anderson & Shwarzer,
in press). The BLM New Orleans OCS Office sponsored investigations around
twenty production platforms in the Central Gulf of Mexico, revealed that trace
metal concentration gradients of Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn decreased with
distance from platform structures. Several species of shrimp, flounder, and
snapper, as well as other fish and benthos were analyzed for trace metals, but
no evidence of bioaccumulation was found (Tillery, 1979).
Drill cuttings are significantly cleaner than drilling muds since they are
larger in particle size, thus providing fewer sorption sites per unit volume.
Drill cuttings may accumulate on seafloors where bottom transport currents are
low enough. However, in the case of the Cook Inlet COST well monitoring
study, which occurred during swift current conditions, no cutting accumulations
were discernible. Bottom sediment cores contained only 0.5 percent cuttings
of the total core sample at 500 meters and only 0.2 percent cuttings at 100
meters from the discharge platform (Dames and Moore, 1978).
163
Location
Offshore
Texas
Flower Garden
Bank
Baker Bank
Stetson Bank
South Texas
ocs
Onshore Alaska:
Lower Cook
Inlet
Offshore
s.-c3fiiOrnia
Santa Ba3~ara
Channel -
Tanner Bank
Trace
Metal
Ba
Ba
Ba
Ba
Zn
Cd
Pd
Ba
Zn
Cu
Ba
Pb
Cu
Table IV.A.2.o.-3
Trace Metals in Bottom Sediments Subject to
Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling Operations
Predischaf,e
Levels -
(ppm)
50-1,300
344-419
609-658
100 max
65 max
0.07 max
7.6 max
560-660
68, 61
14, 12
45-156
0.60
0.70
Post-Disc~?rge Distance of21 :
Levels -:Area Affected - : Author
(ppm) (meters)
46-7,800 300 Marine Tech. Consulting, 1976
678 max 1,000 Continental Shelf Assoc., 1916
1,618 max 500
803-2,763 300 Continental Shelf Assoc., 1976
500 max NA University of Texas, 1977
200 max NA
0.61 max NA
20.5 max NA
640-760 400 Dames and Moore, 1978
61, 61 240 Hearns and Moore, 1978
9.8, 9.8 240
161-1,680 240 Ecomar, 1978
0.76-9.9 240
0.5-6.11 240
1/ Pre-and post-discharge levels of pollutants are derived from a secondary data source for the offshore Texas
studies (BLH,l979). Hence, the characteristics of data collection may vary. Sediment data collected from sediment
traps can be less than from grab samples (Ecomar, 1978). Also, some of the studies may have sampled "predischarge"
values for trace metals through control locations during or after drilling discharges rather than actually sampling
sediments before drilling operations commenced.
2/ Distance of area affected does not necessarily reveal the reach of sediment deposition from the offshore
platforms. The distance figures instead reflect the sampling area (i.e., transect distance from the source),
the distance to peak trace metal reported concentrations, or the distance to trace metal concentrations above the
reported background).
~/ The Santa Barbara Channel study evaluated sedimentation rates from two different platforms. Trace metal
concentrations shown by pollutant and by monitoring period represent the mean sample value of observations rather
than the range.
Petroleum hydrocarbons in bottom sediments have been subject to few investiga-
tions. An analysis of two producing platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel
reveals elevated levels of total hydrocarbons in the bottom sediments around
the platforms. However, the authors infer that the major source of petroleum
hydrocarbons sediments are from natural oil seeps in the channel rather than
from platform discharges (Mearnes and Moore, 1976).
OCSEAP sponsored reasearch has reported on suspended and surficial sediment
concentrations of hydrocarbons in the Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait areas
(Cline, Bates, and Katz, 1980). The sampling stations were not located in
upper Cook Inlet near production platforms. The sampling results typically
showed odd carbon numbered alphatic hydrocarbons indicative of terrigenous
sources, with exceptional stations showing hydrocarbon of marine planktonic
sources. None of the hydrocarbon sediment sampling indicated anthropogenic or
petrogenic hydrocarbons sources. Total saturated hydrocarbon concentrations
sampled were in the low ppm (0.7 to 8.4 ug/g) across all sampling stations.
Conclusion: OCS exploratory vessels and platforms would be discharging drilling
fluids in bulk quantities, along with low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons,
sanitary wastes, and suspended solids from their wastewater discharge sources.
Additionally, OCS production platforms would be discharging bulk quantities of
formation waters. Releases of drilling fluids and petroleum hydrocarbons
could kill and/or contaminate some species of fish and other aquatic life
within 1-100 meters of the discharge source. The exact distance of the affected
receiving waters cannot be quantified without specific data on the discharge
rate and oceanographic conditions in receiving waters around the discharge
source.
Cumulative Effects: The discharged wastewaters from OCS operations on the
Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait could result in the eventual accumulation of
trace metals and petroleum hydrocarbons in the water column and bottom sedi-
ments of the in localized areas around the source of discharge. Refer to the
discussion in section IV.A.2.b. regarding chronic effects of OCS discharges on
marine biota. The cumulative loading of these contaminants from various
sources besides OCS operations could deteriorate existing ~ater quality.
However, there is no evidence to date that drilling operations and production
in upper Cook Inlet have deteriorated ambient marine water quality in Cook
Inlet.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The short te~m and cumulative effects of conta-
minant releases associated with OCS operations are avoidable. Control strate-
gies can be devised to minimize the releases of contaminants, or to prohibit
the release of contaminants, either by process removal, or in the case of
drilling fluids, by the selection of less toxic or nontoxic drilling fluid
components. Unavoidable adverse effects would include the possibility of
chronic effects to marine biota from contaminant releases from offshore dril-
ling and production operations. However, there is no evidence to date to
indicate that this chronic adverse effect is probable due to OCS operations.
p. Impacts on Air Quality:
Offshore Emissions Sources: Air emissions from OCS exploration, development,
and production could be anticipated. Precise quantities of emissions by
criteria pollutants, the location of emissions sources on the OCS, and the
164
estimated onshore t.pacts on air quality are presented in this EIS. However,
this.air quality t.pact analysis proceeds from a set of assumption• which may
not occur with the actual post sale exploration and production operations.
Representative air emissions have been compiled from an OCS exploratory vessel
operating in the sale CI tracts and a production platform operating in State
waters of the upper Cook Inlet. Emissions from Odeco's Ocean Bounty drilling
vessel constitute the representative OCS emissions profile froa an individual
exploratory drilling operation (Phillips Petroleum, 1978). Emissions froa
platform Baker constitute the representative emissions profile froa an offshore
production phase operation (Dames and Moore, 1979). Emissions data from these
two representative sources are shown in table IV.A.2.p.-1.
Simulated air quality concentrations have been calculated and are ditplayed in
Table IV.A.2.p.-2 from these representative OCS emission sources. Several
assumptions, which are explained in the footnotes, have been used in estimating
the onshore air quality conditions displayed in table IV.A.2.p.-2. Key con-
siderations in these assumptions are distance of the offshore source from the
onshore receptor point and prevailing meteorological conditions. The assump-
tions collectively represent a worst case of a) the emissions source being
located in an OCS tract nearest to the coastline, b) prevailing wind direc-
tions blowing towards the shoreline, and c) annual average wind speeds match-
ing the worst case wind direction.
Other offshore emissions sources associated with OCS exploration and pro-
duction are geophysical survey vessels, supply vessels, pipelaying barges, and
other types of marine vessels servicing OCS exploration and development. Air
emissions from these sources consist of exhaust combustion from engines and
are considered insignificant (EPA, 1977; Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
1979).
Onshore Emission Sources: Possible onshore emission sources ensuing froa OCS
development would include a marine oil terminal, a liquefied natural gas (LNG)
plant, loading operation of oil tankers and LNG vessels, processing facilities,
and onshore facilities construction. The exact types of facilities, their
location, and magnitude of operation cannot be predicted at this tiae. Refer
to section II.B.1.a. for description of the petroleum developaent scenario.
Emissions and air quality estimates for a LNG plant proposed at Nikiski were
prepared by Pacific-Alaska LNG Associates (Dames and Moore, 1979). Data on
estimated maximum ambient concentrations from the Pacific-Alaska LNG facility
are presented in table IV.A.2.p.-3. Unfortunately, no air quality simulations
for a marine oil terminal operation of comparable scale to the proposal are
available. There is an existing marine oil terminal at Drift River on the
west side of the Cook Inlet. The emissions inventory for the Drift River
terminal operation is comparable to that of platform Baker shown in table
IV.A.2.p.-1. However, no ambient air quality monitoring has been performed at
the terminal, nor is any simulated air quality analysis for the terminal
available (personal communication, 1980).
A third category of onshore emissions sources ensuing from OCS development in
Cook Inlet would be pumping stations for a gas pipeline extending from the
coastal landfall to the liquefaction facilities at Nikiski. This category of
onshore emissions would be insignificant.
165
Table IV.A.2.p.-1
Representative Air Emissions Inventory 11
From an OCS Exploratory Vessel and Production Platform -
Criteria 2
4/ .
Produc§fon 5/ Explora§7ry Vessel -31 : Platform -31 Pollutant gr/sec -tons/yr - : gr/sec - : tons/yr -
Carbon Monoxide 2. 71 94.33 3. 77 131.10
Reactive
Hydrocarbons 0.99 34.36 2.57 89.37
Nitrous Oxides 12.48 433.94 15.81 549.79
Sulfur Dioxides 1.07 37.05 3.27 113.65
Particulates 1.67 58.23 0.32 31.99
!I The emission data are taken from specific facilities operating in OCS
area& off Alaska. The emission rates are summed across all sources on
the exploratory vessel or production platform. Emissions from only
one exploratory vessel source (the Ocean Bounty) operating in Alaskan
waters were permitted before USGS promulgated its OCS air quality rules.
Regarding emission estimates from production platforms, the selected
instantaneous emission rates in this table can be compared against
the following range of values for existing platforms operating in upper
Cook Inlet. For sulfur oxides, the low emission rate was 1.24 gr/sec,
while the high rate was 6.27 gr/sec at the time of reporting. For
nitrous oxides, the low emission rate reported was .. 073 gr/sec, while
the high rate reported was 0.42 gr/sec. Data source is Dames and Moore,
1979.
2/ The "criteria pollutants" included here are those which are regulated
by-USGS authority on OCS emissions sources.
3/ Emission rates are expressed in either grams per second (gr/sec) or tons
pe~ year (tons/yr). The original data for both sources were expressed
in instantaneous rate of gr/sec. These have been converted to ton/yr
emissions for comparison against exemption provisions in the regulatory
programs. A conversion factor of 34.775 was used which assumes constant
daily operations of emission sources over a year.
~/ Source of emissions data is Odeco, Inc. Ocean Bounty exploratory
vessel operating in Gulf of Alaska and lower Cook Inlet. (Phillips Petro-
leum, 1978).
~/ Source of emissions data is production platform Baker in upper Cook Inlet
offshore reservoir near Kenai. (Dames and Moore, 1979.) Hydrocarbon emissions
data were not available for platform Baker. Reactive hydrocarbon emissions
estimated for a typical OCS production platform by U.S. EPA were substituted
instead (U.S. EPA, 1977).
Sources: Phillips Petroleum, 1978; Dames and Moore, 1979; U.S. EPA, 1977.
Table IV.A.2.p.-2
Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations
in Lower Cook Inlet Attributable to a 11
Typical OCS Exploratory Vessel and Production Platform -
Emission Source
and Avera~fng
Period -
Exploratory Vessel
1-hour
3-hour
24-hour
Production Platform
1-hour
3-hour
24-hour
CRITERIA POLLUTANT: CONCENTRATIONS (ug/m3 )
Carbon Nitrous Sulfur
Monoxide Hydrocarbons Oxides Particulates Dioxides
Exempt Exempt
Exempt Exempt
2.0
1.8
0.8
2.53
2.28
1.01
Exempt
Exempt
0.19
0.17
0.08
0.56
0.50
0.22
!/ Ambient concentrations for the criteria air pollutants have been estimated for
a minimum distance between OCS tracts in the proposed lease sale area and the shore-
lines of lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait; this distance is approximately 5 miles.
Ambient concentrations have been simulated through usage of a Gaussian plume model
following guidelines of U.S. EPA air quality models (EPA, 1977 and EPA, 1978). Speci-
fic parameter values include the following:
Parameter
Effective Stack height
Stack Diameter
Average Wind Speed
Radiation
Stability Class
Exploratory Vessel
13.7 meters (45ft)
0.32 meters (1 ft)
7.6 meters/second (17 mph)
moderate to slight
c
Production Platform
11.35 meters (37.22 ft)
0.53 meters (1.73 ft)
7.6 meters/second (17 mph)
moderate to slight
c
Meteorological information was compiled in lower Cook Inlet by OCSEAP-sponsored
research (Reynolds, 1979). The stack height and diameter information was obtained
from permit application for the exploration vessel and production platform respec-
tively (Phillips Petroleum, 1978; Dames and Moore,1979).
Estimated ambient concentrations from either the exploratory vessel or production
platform do not include background concentrations; baseline ambient air monitoring
data for much of coastal Alaska is unavailable (EPA, 1978). Ambient concentrations
attributable to the sources are estimated at the center line of the plume and at
ground surface.
2/ The Gaussian model was calibrated to estimate 1 hour concentrations for the
criteria pollutants emanating from the sources. Pollutant concentrations for
3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour averaging times were derived by conversion factors
set forth in EPA air quality modelling guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1977).
Pollutant and Averaging Period
Sulfur Dioxide 3-hour
24-hour
Annual
Total Suspended Particulates
24-hour
Annual
Carbon Monoxide !-hour
8-hour
Nitrogen D. ·d 4 l.OXl. e Annual
Table IV.A.2.p.-3
Simulated Air Quality Impacts of Pacific-Alaska
LNG Facility at Nikiski
LNG Plant
Maximum Concentrations (ug/m3 )1 5
Industrial Background Natural Background
80 (0.4,360) 558 (0.8,360) 20
37 (0.4,360) 223 (1.2, 10) 20
3 (0.4,360) 17 (0.6,360) 20
6 (0.6,30) 88 (0.4,30) 40
0.4(0.6,30) 6 (0.6,360) 40
197 (0.8,60) NC 3 1140
60 (0.8,30) NC 1140
11 (0.4,190) 11 (0.8,340) 20
Total 2
578 (0.8,360)
248 (I. 2 ,360)
39 (0.6,360)
130 (0.4,30)
47 (0.6,360)
NC
NC
38 (0.4,190)
1 Locations of maximum concentrations relative to northeast corner of the LNG site are given in parentheses.
The first number is distance in kilometers. The second number is direction in degrees measured clockwise
fr2m true north.
Not equal to total of the natural background plus the maximum from the LNG plant and the maximum from
industrial background sources because those maximums did not necessarily occur in the same location or
at3the same time.
4 NC = Not calculated.
S Total NOx as N0 2 .
Source: USEPA, 1978.
Source: Dames and Moore, 1979.
Air quality impacts associated with the proposal, both offshore and onshore,
should be evaluated in context of regulatory authorities and air quality
standards: The applicable State and Federal air quality standards provide a
basis for measuring air quality impacts, while the regulatory authorities
provide mitigation measures for possibly significant air quality impacts.
Offshore emissions sources from OCS exploratory vessels and production plat-
forms are subject of USGS regulations promulgated under the OCSLAA (43 USC
1334(a)(8); 30 CFR 250.2, 250.34-3, 250.57-1; 45 FR 15128). DOl's responsi-
bility for regulating OCS emissions are discussed in section I.C. of this EIS.
Under the USGS program for regulating OCS air emissions, significant air
quality impacts are defined in terms of a series of reviews:
An initial determination is performed as to whether the OCS emission
source generates a threshold level of emissions which warrants further
investigation.
If the OCS emissions source is greater than the exemption threshold
identified in (a) above, then an air quality assessment of onshore recep-
tors must be performed. If estimated ambient concentrations onshore
exceed specified "significant levels," then air emission controls are
imposed under terms of the USGS rules.
A review of the representative OCS emission sources in table IV.A.2.p.-1
indicates that total hydrocarbons (THC), CO, and TSP can be considered in-
significant and subject to exemptions pursuant to USGS rules. However, NOX
and SO would be subject of air quality analysis to determine if air quality
"significance levels" were exceeded. The so 2 emissions from hypothetical OCS
production platforms (platform Baker) are marginally above the USGS exemption
(100 tons/year).
The representative OCS emissions sources for so 2 and NOX show that the sig-
nificance levels for these pollutants would not be exceeded for averaging
periods other than possibly an annual average value. The air quality simula-
tions performed in table IV.A.2.p.-2, do not include annual average values,
hence, a comparison with USGS significance levels for this exposure interval
is not possible. The possibility of significant air quality effects for SO
and NOX from the representative offshore emission sources would be subject lo
USGS determined BACT emission controls. This requirement should mitigate any
marginally significant so 2 and NOX emissions from OCS exploratory vessels and
production platforms.
Onshore air quality impacts from LNG operations, including loading of LNG
vessels, would be insignificant if the gas liquefaction and loading of LNG
occurs at either the Pacific-Alaska or Phillips LNG plant at Nikiski. The New
Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) application of
Pacific-Alaska LNG associates demonstrated that neither the State of Alaska
air quality standards, the Federal NAAQS, nor the Federal PSD Class II increment
maxima would be violated (Dames and Moore, 1979). An inspection of the standards
in table III.F.-1 versus the incremental air quality effects attributed to the
Pacific-Alaska LNG facility in table IV.A.2.p.-3 yields this finding. The air
quality impacts of the existing Phillips LNG facilities at Nikiski are in-
corporated under the table IV.A.2.p.-3 as part of the "Industrial Background"
emission sources.
166
Onshore air quality impacts from a marine oil terminal, includina vessel
emissions durina the loadina period, are not available. If a co .. ercial find
of hydrocarbons is made from OCS sale 60, the lessee(s) would submit an OCS
development and production plan in which air quality effects of proposed
facilities will be identified. In the absence of an air quality assessment of
marine terminal operations ensuina from OCS sale 60, the current air quality
conditions surroundina the Drift River marine oil terminal on the west side of
Cook Inlet can be referenced. The State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion (DEC) does not consider the Kenai Peninsula Borouah portion of the Cook
Inlet AQCR to be in violation of any State air quality standards; in particular,
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation does not consider the
Drift River marine terminal facility to be a major air emissions source under
its State air quality stationary source reaulations (18 AAC 50.300).
The onshore air quality impacts from aas pipeline pumpina stations are expected
to be insianificant assumina the imposition of any EPA desianated BACT as air
quality mitiaation measures.
There is a PSD Class I area located on the west side of Cook Inlet; the Tuxedni
National Wildlife Refuse. The nearest OCS tract proposed in sale 60 is approxi-
mately 12 miles from the nearest land seament of this EPA desianated Class I
PSD area. The air quality assessment in table IV.A.2.p.-2 from representative
OCS exploration and production emission sources shows that the PSD Class I
area allowable increments in table III.F.-1 are not likely to be violated.
The air quality simulations in table IV.A.2.p.-2 do not include SO and TSP
estimates for annual averaaina periods. On a statistical basis, h~wever, the
annual averaae value for so 2 and TSP ambient concentrations would be less than
the simulated 24-hour value shown in table IV.A.2.p.-2.
The above findinas are based upon sampled emissions data, simplified air
quality simulations (with the exception of the LNG facility assessment), and
incomplete meteoroloaic data. More riaorous modelina, toaether with better
data sources or conservative assumptions, could yield hiaher or lower air
quality simulations. Given these circumstances, some conservative assumptions
have been made in estimatina OCS air quality impacts. Definitive air quality
assessments would be performed on individual facility/source applications, and
on USGS required exploration plan submittals. The preamble to the USGS rules
on air quality state that an EIS on a proposed lease sale is an inappropriate
forum for a final assessment of the onshore air quality effects of OCS opera-
tions (45 FR 15136).
Conclusion: Air quality impacts from both offshore and onshore exploration
and production operations would be insianifcant. No State and Federal air
quality standards would be expected to be violated, and no EPA Prevention of
Significant Deterior~tion allowable maxima for Class I and Class II areas
would be expected to be exceeded. USGS BACT emission controls would be re-
quired for some major emission sources; these function as satisfactory mitiga-
tion measures to any potentially significant air quality impacts.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative air quality effects from other major develop-
ment actions, would likely be associated with marine vessel emissions and
extractive minerals and coal industry operations. Other major developments
would generate air quality impacts locally and would not contribute to regional
air quality effects.
167
The only possible regional air quality effects would be photochemical oxidant
and acid rain. There has been no documentation of the oxidant effect occurring
significantly in southcentral Alaska. Oxidant forms occasionally in the
Anchorage urban area in the summer months. However, the Anchorage area is in
attainment status with a State ozone standard and the NAAQS oxidant standard.
A PSD increment maximum for oxidant has not been established yet, and the
State DEC has devised no control strategy for oxidant precursor emissions
in the Cook Inlet southcentral AQCR.
At present, there has been no measurement of the acid rain effect occurring
in southcentral Alaska. Some concern of possible acid rain effect upon national
interest lands has been expressed, specifically in the Kenai National Moose
Range on the Kenai Peninsula. The State DEC is proposing a monitoring study
of the acid rain issue on the Kenai Peninsula to see if future developments
warrant control strategies on so2 emissions.
Total suspended particulate (TSP) levels on the west coast of upper Cook Inlet
are likely to be significant once major coalfield development occurs. However,
stationary source OCS contribution to regional TSP levels will be insignificant
in terms of cumulative effects. SO and NOX emissions from increased tanker
traffic in Cook Inlet will contribute to the emissions inventory for these two
pollutants. It is difficult to anticipate the level of cumulative air quality
effects for TSP, so 2, and NOX because of the uncertainty of future development
scenarios. There is the possibility, after 10-15 years of major development
actions in the Cook Inlet, that TSP, so 2, and NOX levels will approach the PSD
Class II increment ceilings.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Post-lease activities would cause various types
of air emissions. Most of these emissions would be minor and short-term, and
would not impact the onshore areas.
In case of a gas leak or a gas well blowout, methane pollutants would volatize
quickly and drift away; or if a fire resulted, pollutants would consist mainly
of carbon dioxide and water vapor.
If any oilspill resulted in fire, large amounts of particulate carbon and
oxides of carbon, together with unknown amounts of sulphur oxides, nitrogen
oxides, evaporated crude oil liquids, and partially oxidized.compounds, would
enter the air. Local air quality would be degraded during the period of the
fire by the addition of the particulate matter. Mitigating measures would not
totally prevent the above occurrences. The unavoidable result would be a
localized temporary decrease in air quality which would vary with the magni-
tude of the incident.
3. Alternative II -No Sale: With this alternative, there would
be no additional Federal leasing at this time in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof
Strait. Federal leases already have been issued in lower Cook Inlet (sale CI,
fig. II.B.l.a.-1), and oil from State leases in upper Cook Inlet passes through
lower Cook Inlet. Refer to the FEIS for the proposed 5-year OCS lease schedule
and the FEIS for OCS sale 55 (DOl, 1980) for a general discussion of potential
impacts associated with the development of alternative energy sources.
a. Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats: Adverse impacts
and unavoidable adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities
168
in Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale Cl FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section
IV.A.2.a. for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from
other projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
b. Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish: Adverse impacts and
unavoidable adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities in
Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section IV.A.2.b.
for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from other
projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
c. Impacts on Commercial Fishing: Adverse impacts and unavoid-
able adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities in Cook
Inlet. Refer to the sale Cl FEIS (USDI, 1977). It is estimated that the
traditional commercial fisheries would not change greatly from what they are
at present; catches would probably not increase much beyond what they are now.
Prices paid for catches would likely increase, however. A major new bottom-
fishery may develop which would increase numbers of fishermen, numbers and
size of boats, and, perhaps, numbers of processors. Refer to section III.H.2.
(Future Without the Proposal -Economy) for further discussion of the no sale
alternative as it relates to commercial fishing. Refer to section IV.A.2.c.
for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from other
projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
d. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds: Adverse impacts and
unavoidable adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities in
Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section IV.A.2.d.
for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from other
projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
e. Impacts on Marine Mammals: Adverse impacts and unavoidable
adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities in Cook Inlet.
Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to sectio~ IV.A.2.e. for a
discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from other projects
(as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
f. Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered Cetaceans:
Adverse impacts and unavoidable adverse effects could result from existing
petroleum activities in Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977).
Refer to section IV.A.2.f. for a discussion of the cumulative effects which
could result from other projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals: Adverse impacts and
unavoidable adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities in
Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section IV.A.2.g.
for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from other
projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
h. Impacts on Social Factors:
(1) Impacts on Population: Adverse impacts and unavoid-
able adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities in Cook
Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Cumulative impacts would be
the same as base case population, shown in tables IV.A.2.h.(1)-1 and -3.
169
(2) Impacts on Sociocultural Systems: Adverse impacts
and unavoidable adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities
in Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section
IV.A.2.h.(2) for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result
from other projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
(3) Impacts on Community Infrastructure: Adverse impacts
and unavoidable adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities
in Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section
IV.A.2.h.(3) for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result
from other projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
(4) Impacts on Subsistence: There would be no adverse
impacts from oilspill contamination of subsistence resources, population
pressure on resources, habitat destruction and associated noise, and other
disturbances associated with construction of oil facilities and pipelines and
oil and gas exploration other than those associated with existing petroleua
activities in Cook Inlet. There would be no unavoidable adverse effects as a
result of this alternative. Refer to section IV.A.2.h.(4) for a discussion of
the cumulative effects which could result from other projects (as described in
sec. IV.A.l.h.).
i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local Economies: The
economic situation under this no sale case is described in section III.H.3.
Significant impacts, cumulative effects, and unavoidable adverse effects would
occur only on the national economy as described in section II.B.2.
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources: This alternative would
eliminate all significant adverse impacts on the terrestrial and offshore
archeological and historic sites. The lack of impetus to survey and systema-
tically collect cultural materials, due to the lack of a proposal, could
result in less knowledge of historic and prehistoric cultures of the region.
This is not viewed as a significant impact due primarily to the undesirable
risks of salvage archeology. There would be no unavoidable adverse effects
with this alternative. Refer to section IV.A.2.j. for a discussion of the
cumulative effects which could result from other projects (as described in
sec. IV.A.l.h.).
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness, and Recreation Resources:
Adverse impacts and unavoidable adverse effects could result from existing
petroleum activities in Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977).
Refer to section IV.A.2.k. for more details with respect to cumulative effects.
1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use: Under the alterna-
tive of no action, there would be no impacts or unavoidable adverse effects on
land status and land use in the Shelikof Strait area. Adverse impacts and un-
avoidable adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities in
Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section IV.A.2.1.
for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from other
projects (as described in sec. IV.A.l.h.).
m. Impacts on Transportation Systems: Adverse impacts and
unavoidable adverse effects could result from existing petrole~ activities in
170
Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section
IV.A.2.m. for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from
other projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.).
n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management Program: With
the no sale alternative, there would be no impacts or unavoidable adverse
effects on the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) for the State of
Alaska, or the district Coastal Management Programs (CMP) in progress for the
Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Kodiak Island Borough. Refer to section
IV.A.2.n. for a discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from
other projects (as described in sec. IV.A.1.h.). Refer to the CI FEIS (USDI,
1977) for discussion of potential impacts from ongoing petroleum activities in
Cook Inlet.
o. Imeacts on Water Quality: With the alternative of no
sale, there would be no impacts or unavoidable adverse effects on water quality
in Shelikof Strait. Adverse impacts and unavoidable adverse effects could
result from existing petroleum activities in Cook Inlet. Refer to the sale CI
FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section IV.A.2.o. for a discussion of the cumula-
tive effects which could result from other projects (as described in sec.
IV.A.1.h.).
p. Impacts on Air Quality: Adverse impacts and unavoidable
adverse effects could result from existing petroleum activities in Cook Inlet.
Refer to the sale CI FEIS (USDI, 1977). Refer to section IV.A.2.p. for a
discussion of the cumulative effects which could result from other projects
(as described in sec. IV.A.l.h.).
q. Impacts on Marine Santuaries: This alternative would
retain the proposed sale area in its present form for consideration as a marine
sanctuary (see sec. IV.A.d.q.).
4. Alternative III -Delay the Sale (153 blocks):
a. Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats: The delay the
sale alternative allows more time for accumulation of site-specific environ-
mental data for areas such as Shelikof Strait. The accumulation of specific
data would influence primarily post-lease decisions (e.g., specific develop-
ment plans such as platform placement, pipeline routing, and facility siting).
The present amount of information has allowed adequate assessment of the
impacts of exploration and possible major oilspills on coastal habitats in
both lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. The impacts with this alternative
would not be significantly different from those with the proposal (sec.
IV.A.2.a.).
Conclusion: The impacts with this alternative would not be significantly
different from those with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.a.).
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative impacts with this alternative would be
similar to those with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.a.).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable impacts would be similar to
those described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.a.).
171
b. Impacts on Co..ercial and Sportfish: Delaying the sale
could provide time to fill data gaps in the occurrence and distribution of
commercial and sportfish species especially for Shelikof Strait. While habi-
tats needs and the areas of fish species occurrence are generally known,
determination of the iaportance of different habitat types and their rela-
tionship to fish population well-being could help in determining alternatives.
This would be of more help in the Shelikof Strait area than lower Cook Inlet.
Although delaying the sale would likely result in the same potential impacts
as the proposal, these impacts could be better understood and perhaps avoided
if the sale were delayed to allow for studies to better determine the habitat
needs of fin and shell fish. Oilspill contingency plana could then include
more specific information regarding fish habitats and populations.
Conclusion: This alternative would likely result in the same impacts as
described in section IV.A.2.b. {proposal). Delay of the sale would permit
ongoing and future studies to fill data gaps in the occurrence and distri-
bution of fish species in the Shelikof Strait area. Therefore, potential
impacts could be better understood and oilspill contingency plans could in-
clude specific information on fish habitats and populations.
Cumulative Effects: Delay of sale would likely have the same cumulative
effects as described in the proposal.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Delay of sale would likely result in the same
unavoidable adverse effects as described in section IV.A.2.
c. Impacts on Commercial Fishing: The impacts, cumulative
effects, and unavoidable adverse effects on commercial fishing would not
significantly differ from those of the proposal. Impacts are delayed, not
avoided. Refer to section IV.A.2.c.
Conclusion: The impacts of this alternative would be the same as those of the
proposal (sec. IV.A.2.c.).
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of this alternative would be the
same as those of the proposed action (sec. IV.A.2.c.).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse effects of this alter-
native would be the same as those of the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.c.).
d. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds: Delaying the sale
could provide time to fill data gaps in the occurrence, distribution, and
relative importance of the Shelikof Strait area for marine and coastal birds.
Coastal areas along the Alaska Peninsula side of Shelikof Strait have never
been studied to determine the abundance and distribution of marine and coastal
birds. Only sketchy air survey information exists. On the east side of
Shelikof Strait, a census of marine bird colonies has never been performed on
a portion of the coast on Afognak Island and Raspberry Island. Little information
exists on bird distribution and utilization of the bays, coastline, and other
nearshore habitat along Shelikof Strait. The oilspill trajectory analysis
indicates that the coastline along either side of Shelikof Strait is at high
risk to oilspills in the proposed sale area. The area on the western side of
172
Afognak and Raspberry Islands that has not been surveyed for bird colonies is
one of two land segments that show the highest probability of being hit by an
oilspill in the sale area.
Although delay of the sale should have the same potential adverse impacts as
the proposal, these impacts could be better understood and perhaps mitigated
if the sale were delayed. Delay could allow time for studies to determine the
relative importance of Shelikof Strait to marine and coastal birds, and identify
vulnerable bird populations and habitats. This more complete and detailed
information could then be included in an oilspill contingency plan.
Conclusion: Delay of the sale would permit ongoing and future studies to fill
data gaps in the occurrence and distribution of marine and coastal birds in
the Shelikof Strait area. Thus, if potential impacts could be better understood
and oilspill contingency plans could include more specific information on
vulnerable bird habitats and populations, the effects of oilspills on these
resources would be mitigated.
Cumulative Effects: Delaying the sale would allow time to identify sensitive
populations and habitats in Shelikof Strait that would be exposed to the
cumulative effects of hydrocarbon activities in lower Cook Inlet. Such infor-
mation would be useful to mitigate cumulative effects of oilspills on these
resources.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Delay of this sale has the potential to reduce
unavoidable adverse effects on marine and coastal birds in Shelikof Strait by
providing time to allow ongoing and future studies to determine the occurrence,
distribution, and relative importance of high oilspill risk coastal habitat to
marine and coastal birds. This information could then be incorporated into
oilspill contingency plans so that the effects of an oilspill on marine and
coastal birds could be more effectively mitigated.
e. Impacts on Marine Mammals: Effects associated with this
alternative would be essentially the same, at least qualitatively, as those
discussed under the proposal (alternative 1). The magnitude of effects could
vary depending on the population status of affected species at the time when
such a delay would terminate or when undesirable perturbations would occur.
Delay of sale could provide an opportunity for needed surveys of marine mammal
habitats (especially identification of such habitats in western Shelikof
Strait) and further study of effects of pollution and disturbance on marine
mammals native to the proposed sale area.
Conclusion: Effects associated with this alternative would be essentially the
same qualitatively as those discussed under this proposal. Additional time
for needed studies would be provided.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects may vary depending on the status of
other projects and of the affected species at the termination of a delay, or
when undesirable perturbations would occur.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse effects would be essentially
the same qualitatively as described for the proposal, except that improved
knowledge from additional studies may help to reduce such effects.
173
f. Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered Cetaceans:
Effects associated with this alternative would be essentially the same, at
least qualitatively, as those discussed for the proposal (sec. IV.a.2.f.).
Magnitude of effects could vary depending on population status of affected
species at the time such a delay would terminate, or when undesirable pertur-
bations would occur. Delay of sale would provide additional tiae for the
performance of systematic surveys of cetacean utilization of the proposed sale
area, especially that of Shelikof Strait.
Conclusion: Effects associated with the alternative would be essentially the
same qualitatively as those discussed under the proposal. Additional time for
systematic surveys in Shelikof Strait would be provided.
Cumulative Effects: Magnitude of cumulative effects may vary depending on the
status of other projects and of the affected species at the termination of a
delay. Qualitatively they would be essentially the same as under the proposal.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse effects would be essentially
the same qualitatively as described for the proposal. Improved knowledge froa
additional surveys may help to reduce such effects.
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals: With this alternative,
potential impacts would be the same as those previously described under the
proposal (sec. IV.A.2.g.). This alternative would only postpone potential
impact on terrestrial mammals to some future time.
Conclusion: With this alternative, the same impacts as described for the
proposal would likely o~cur, but would be postponed.
Cumulative Effects: The additive effect of the proposal and other activities
in the proposed lease area, would be the same with this alternative.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse effects on terrestrial
mammals with this alternative would be the same as those described for the
proposal, but would occur at some time in the future.
h. Impacts on Social Factors:
(1) Impacts on Population: This alternative would provide
2 additional years of lead time for preparation for an eventual sale and its
associated population increases. On the other hand, the uncertainty surround-
ing a delay could inhibit successful attempts at obtaining financing for
expansion of community infrastructure in the event of a major oil discovery.
Given these uncertainties and the recent planning work already completed by
Kodiak Island Borough, the community of Port Lions, the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
and the community of Homer.
Conclusion: Population impacts would be delayed approximately 2 years.
Cumulative Effects: This alternative would only delay by 2 years the onset of
population increases associated with this sale. Base case projections, which
assume cumulative population, would not be changed (see tables IV.A.2.h.(1)-1
and -3).
174
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: There would be no unavoidable adverse effects
for Kodiak and Port Lions. Homer and Kenai-Soldotna effects would be the same
as for the proposal. See section IV.A.2.h.(l).
(2) Impacts on Sociocultural Systems: Delaying the sale
would merely delay for 2 years the onset of impacts likely to occur, as dis-
cussed in section IV.A.h.(l), alternative I. See sections IV.A.3.h.(l) and
IV.A.3.h.(4) for further discussion of potential impacts of this alternative
on population and subsistence.
Conclusion: This alternative would result in impacts on the sociocultural
systems of lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait communities similar to those
described in section IV.A.2.h.(l).
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects would be essentially the same as for
the proposal, only delayed 2 years. See section IV.A.2.h.(2).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse effects would be the same as
for the proposal, only delayed 2 years. See section IV.A.2.h.(2).
(3) Impacts on Community Infrastructure: Delaying the
proposed sale 2 years would merely delay the impacts cited in section
IV.A.2.h.(2) (proposal) 2 years. In the case of Port Lions, a 2-year delay
•would provide additional time to plan and prepare for the community infra-
structure impacts described in section IV.A.2.h.(3). This presumably might
lessen some impact on readiness to meet increased police needs, etc.
Conclusion: A 2-year delay of the proposed sale would provide Port Lions an
additional 2 years to plan and prepare for potential community infrastructure
impacts associated with the proposed lease sale. There would be no impacts to
the Kenai, Homer, and Kodiak areas with this alternative.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts would remain as described in section
IV.A.2.h.(3).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse impacts remain as described
in section IV.A.2.h.(3).
(4) Impacts on Subsistence: The impacts which occur with
this alternative would be essentially the same as those described for the
proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(4)).
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of a 2-year delay in the proposed
sale would be the same as those discussed under the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(4)).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: This alternative could postpone the unavoidable
adverse effect of a statistically likely major oilspill event in Shelikof
Strait and its likely disruption of subsistence activities and village eco-
nomies. See the discussion for section IV.A.2.h.(4) (proposal) for the impli-
cations of these effects.
i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local Economies:
Delaying the sale 2 years would merely delay the impacts cited in the proposal
2 years. From a local economic point of view there is no obvious advantage to
delaying the sale 2 years.
175
Conclusion: See proposal, section IV.A.2.i.
Cumulative Effects: See proposal, section IV.A.2.i.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: See proposal, section IV.A.2.i.
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources: A delay in the proposed
lease sale would postpone impacts on terrestrial archeological and historic
sites (identified in section IV.A.2.j.).
Conclusion: See proposal (sec. IV.A.2.j.).
Cumulative Effects: See proposal (sec. IV.A.2.j.).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: See proposal (sec .. IV.A.2.j.).
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness, and Recreation Resources:
Impacts would be the same as those described in section IV.A.2.k. (proposal).
Conclusion: Refer to section IV.A.2.k. (proposal).
Cumulative Effects: Impacts of visual, wilderness, and recreation resources
would be the same as those described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.k.).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Refer to the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.k.).
1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use:
Conclusion: With this alternative, impacts on land status and land use would
be the same as as those described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.1).
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same ~s above.
m. Impacts on Transportation Systems: Impacts on the trans-
portation system of Port Lions would be the same with this alternative as with
the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.m.). Impacts on the transportation systems of
Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula could actually be reduced due to probable
improvements of their transport systems.
Conclusion: This alternative would not change many impacts on Port Lions but
might reduce effects felt by other areas affected by the sale.
Cumulative Effects: Unknown, as a delay of sale would place it in a time
frame for which we have little knowledge in regard to proposed projects.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as section IV.A.2.m.
n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management Program:
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act: The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, as amended, contains significant provisions affecting the development
of OCS oil and gas resources. Section 307 of the CZMA provides that Federal
176
agencies conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal
zone will do so consistent to the maximum extent practical with approved State
coastal·management programs. This section applies to Federal agency activities,
Federal licenses and permits, OCS plans, and to projects funded by Federal
agencies, and is discussed in Section I.e.
Alaska Coastal Management Program: The Alaska Coastal Management Program and
the progress of local program development by the Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak
Island Boroughs are outlined in Section III.D.
A prerequisite of approval of the ACMP by the Department of Commerce is that
the national interest has been recognized in Alaska's coastal zone by consid-
ering uses and facilities that are of national significance (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(8);
15 CFR 923.52). The ACMP requires that land and water uses of state concern
cannot be unreasonably or arbitrarily restricted or excluded from the coastal
zone by District CZM programs (AS 46.40.060). Included in this definition are
resources and facilities that contribute to meeting national energy needs,
including OCS exploration development activities and facilities.
Federal actions including OCS pre-lease activities, which would "directly
affect" the coastal zone, have to be consistent to the maximum extent practi·
cable with the approved ACMP. The Federal consistency regulations (15 CFR
Part 930) also require that exploration, development, and production activi-
ties associated with offshore energy production which require a Federal li-
cense or permit be consistent if they affect any land use or water use in the
coastal zone. Since the ACMP is broad, comprehensive, and process-oriented
with land use specifics not identified, and since the specific effects on the
coastal zone of subsequent lease activities are undetermined, the exact rela-
tionship or degree of impact or potential conflicts between the two processes
cannot be determined at this time.
Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program: The Kenai Peninsula
Borough Coastal Management Program is described in Section III.D.3. The
borough is presently involved in developing a district program and should have
a plan completed by the fall of 1982. The borough expects to have its plan
authorized by the State legislature in January 1982. This would occur after
the proposed sale date of September 1981.
The KPB has considerable experience with oil and gas development as a result
of several years of drilling on State waters in upper Cook Inlet and of lower
Cook Inlet lease sale CI. As a result of sale CI, the KPB did a study of the
implications of OCS development for the borough. It is assumed that the same
types of onshore sites and development activities will occur as a result of
sale 60. Much of the infrastructure is already in place and a considerable
amount of the KPB economy depends on oil and gas and supporting activities.
Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program: The Kodiak Island Borough
(KIB) Coastal Management Program is described in section III.D.4. The borough
is just beginning the development of its program. The KIB program will include
that portion of the Kodiak Archipelago facing Shelikof Strait.
The KIB has sponsored studies pertinent to coastal management. However, these
studies have focused on the east side of the Archipelago in response to pro-
posed OCS sale 46 in the western Gulf of Alaska (Kramer, Chin, and Mayo,
177
1978). A 1978 study for the borough stated, as an OCS development goal, that
development of OCS-related facilities would be discouraged in or around the
population centers on Kodiak Island, and that if OCS facilities are located on
the island that they be remote, self-sustained, and in limited number.
The KIB CZM program will include studies done in the past for the borough,
plus some updating to include the new scenarios for sales 60 and 61. The
program will probably not be legislatively authorized before the proposed sale
60 sale date.
Options for Decision: The ACMP, and the Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak Island
Boroughs' Coastal Management Programs represent a planning process and pro-
posed coastal land and water use plans, respectively, that designate uses and
activities that are considered proper and improper for various identified
portions of the lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait areas. The Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACHP) has been approved by the Department of Commerce
(DOC). The borough programs are currently being developed and remain to be
adopted by the State and be officially recognized under the Federal CZKA.
A prerequisite of approval of the ACMP by the DOC is that the national in-
terest be adequately considered in the development of the program. In Alaska's
coastal zone, uses and facilities that are of national significance are con-
sidered in the definition of "uses of State concern." Uses of State concern
cannot be unreasonably or arbitrarily restricted or excluded. Included in
this definition are resources and facilities that contributre to meeting
national energy needs.
The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and implementing regulations provide
that all Federal lease and permit activities described in detail in OCS plans
and which affect any land use or water use in the coastal zone must be con-
ducted in a manner consistent with approved CZM programs. Post-lease activi-
ties can be expected to affect Alaska's coastal zone, and may be influenced by
the two boroughs' district programs.
When the borough programs. (which may designate certain uses and activities)
are approved, they would become part of the ACMP and complement the basic ACHP
regulations, procedures, and philosophies. The State cannot approve a district
program which is not in basic conformance with the State program policies in
that program. One of the criteria for approval is that the district program
should not unreasonably or arbitrarily restrict or exclude uses of State
concern, which include the use of resources and the siting of facilities for
energy production in the coastal zone.
Since the specifics of the boroughs' program are not yet determined, it is not
possible to project the specific degree of impact or conflict between such
program and the activities which might result from this proposal. Post-leasing
activities that require Federal licenses or permits will have to be consistent
if they affect any land use or water use in Alaska's coastal zone.
At the present time, the Secretary of Interior has the following options
regarding the proposed coastal management program of the Kodiak Island and
Kenai Peninsula Boroughs:
178
Reschedule the sale after the boroughs' CMPs have been approved and
formally incorporated into the ACMP.
Cancel the sale: The orderly and efficient development of the area and
efficient use of existing infrastructure would be restrained. Adoption
of this option would also result in the same losses described in earlier
sections with regard to cancelling the sale.
Proceed with the sale as planned. The mitigating measures and restric-
tions placed on post-sale operation should adequately protect the envi-
ronment and should not adversely affect either the planning process or
implementation of the boroughs' CMPs.
There undoubtedly will be more impact on developing the lower Cook Inlet oil
and gas resources from the ACMP than vice versa, depending on the interpreta-
tion of how consistency will apply. This is because the ACMP is a comprehen-
sive coastal land and water use program that provides for consideration of and
decisionmaking about, among other things, energy production and development.
The ACHP recognizes that mineral extraction bas to occur where the resource is
found, but it will influence the exploration, development and production
activities, and facilities which might result from this proposal.
Proceed with the sale but delete tracts on which lessee activities might
conflict with provisions of the ACMP.
In summary, there could be substantial impact on development of lower Cook
Inlet oil and gas resources from the CHPs of the Kodiak Island and Kenai
Peninsula Boroughs, because these plans could influence the exploration,
development and production activities, and facilities. However, any onshore
facilities which support exploration resulting from this proposal would likely
be sited within the existing infrastructure. Given the long lead time involved,
it can be assumed that the boroughs' plans would be in effect long before the
activities, facilities, and locations it would influence were identified, let
alone developed. Delaying the lease sale until approval of the CMPs would
provide little marginal benefit since the award of leases poses no immediate
direct impact, and most post-lease activities are far enough in the future to
come under the boroughs' CMPs.
o. Impacts on Water Quality:
Conclusion: Under this alternative, the impacts on water quality would be
substantially the same as with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.o.).
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
p. Impacts on Air Quality: Under this alternative, impacts
on air quality would be the same as with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.p.).
Conclusion: Impacts on air quality would be similar to those described for
the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.p.).
179
Cumulative Effects: Future development actions would add to projected eais-
sions inventory in the Cook Inlet area, and thus add to potentially cumulative
air quality effects (see sec. IV.A.2.p.).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse effects which would
occur as a result of this alternative would be the same as 011tlined for the
proposal (sec. IV.A.2.p.).
q. Impacts on Marine Sanctuaries:
Proposals and Present Status: A 2-year delay of the proposed action would
provide an opportunity for formal nomination of portions of the sale area for
a marine sanctuary. Formal nomination for marine sanctuaries of various
sizes, including one for all of lower Cook Inlet, have been submitted to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The other specific
areas recommended are Kachemak Bay, Tuxedni Bay, the Barren Islands, and the
Gulf coast of the Alaska Peninsula, including Kodiak Islands (fig. IV.A.4.q.-1).
All of these areas are part of, or close to, the proposed lower Cook Inlet/
Shelikof Strait lease sale area. In response to these nominations, NOAA
included them on its List of Recommended Areas (LRA) published in the Federal
Register October 31, 1979. The nominations came in reponse to lease sales
scheduled in Cook Inlet and the western Gulf of Alaska, but it is not known if
the nominations were intended to preclude oil and gas leasing.
NOAA bas not developed a schedule for the consideration of any of these sanc-
tuary proposals, and it is unlikely that a formal public workshop will be
conducted before public~tion of this document. In commenting on this proposed
sale, NOAA recommended that the lease sale and any subsequent exploratory and
development activities be conducted in a manner that ensures maximum protec-
tion of living marine resources and habitats. NOAA did no further work on any
Alaskan sanctuary proposals during 1980.
The purposes of these nominations were for habitat preservation, species
preservation, and research. All these areas contain large and important
seabird colonies, and are extensiv~ly used by marine mammals. They are also
characterized by rich finfish and shellfish fisheries which are tremendously
important to both recreational and commercial fishermen. Kelp and eelgrass
are found in these areas extensively. Descriptions of and impacts to the
natural resources of the area are found in sections III.B. and IV.A.2., res-
pectively.
There are now 70 areas on NOAA's List of Recommended Areas, including lower
Cook Inlet, but only seven areas are on the List of Active Candidates. Lower
Cook Inlet is not one of these active candidates. In March 1980, a management
plan for the Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico was
established after 5 years in development. Presently, this is the only marine
sanctuary established to protect a living resource. In addition, in Volume 44
of the Federal Register, October 31, 1979, NOAA announced the removal of all
of the Georges Bank area, including the OCS oil and gas lease sale 42 area
from the List of Active Candidates, because safeguards had been jointly devel-
oped with Interior to address environmental risks to the Georges Bank.
The OCSLAA imposes on the Secretary of the Interior the duty to balance the
benefits of expedited development of oil and gas resources with the other
180
Fi gure IV .A .4 •• -1
AREA NOMINATED AS A LOWER COOK
INLET MARINE SANCTUARY
NOMINAT ED AREA
0 10 20 30
Scale in Miles
Source : Alaska OCS Offi ::e , 1980
goals of the Act, including the need to protect the human, coastal, and marine
environment. In many cases, the OCSLAA, as well as other legislation, provides
equity considerations when interference occurs with resources which are the
subject of other Federal programs. At the present time, the Secretary of
Interior retains a number of options for decision regarding the marine sanc-
tuary proposal. They are:
Delay the sale until a decision has been made regarding the marine sanc-
tuary issues. Adoption of this option would retain some of the area in
an oil-development free state for future marine sanctuary consideration,
but would not entirely remove the risk of potential impacts from oil and
gas activities, since oil and gas related development of OCS sale CI in
areas offshore the 3-mile limit will continue during the delay period.
Orderly and efficient development of oil and/or gas structures found near
the Federal/State boundaries may require future sales in Federal waters.
This could make the delay decision untenable.
Cancel the sale. Adoption of this option would have the same results as
described above. In addition, the orderly and efficient development of
the area and efficient use of the existing infrastructure would be re-
strained.
Proceed with the sale as planned, pending a decision regarding the marine
sanctuary proposal.
Under the OCSLAA, the Secretary of Interior must balance the benefits of oil
and gas development with the other goals of the act.
More specifically, the Secretary must address the probability and magnitude of
the potential impacts associated with oil and gas development and, to the
extent practical, reduce such impacts through mitigating ~easures. The OCSLAA
mirrors this in its goal of balancing the benefits of expedited oil and gas
development with protection of the marine, human, and coastal environment.
Through the Secretary's mandate of balancing orderly resource development with
environmental protection, as well as compliance with the Endangered Species
Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act and consistency provisions of the
Coastal Zone Management Act, the exploration, development, and production of
oil and gas should not preclude the possible future decision of creating a
marine sanctuary in lower Cook Inlet. The marine sanctuary value of resources
will not be unnecessarily jeopardized, because mitigating measures are adequate
to protect them.
It is not presently known what configuration or regulatory controls would
pertain to a DOC-proposed marine sanctuary. The actual areas involved could
be significantly different from those suggested above. The policy, objective,
and goals of such a sanctuary are also largely unknown because they have not
been formulated.
Mitigating measures developed specifically for this lease area are expected to
provide additional protection to the resources of the sale area. The OCSLAA
requires compliance with all other applicable laws such as the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. It is not expected, therefore,
that Marine Sanctuary restrictions would need to be more strict.
181
The result of this option is that adequate protection will be given to the
area through the many authorities of the Secretary of Interior and that the
orderly and efficient development of the area may also be pursued without
significant harm to the natural resources of the area and the environment.
In the short term, because of the adequacy of controls in place or proposed
for this action, little if anything should happen to affect Marine Sanctuary
management options. In the long-term, oil and gas development under this
proposed lease sale should not constrain future decisions concerning the
creation of a sanctuary adjacent to or in the sale area.
5. Alternative IV (68 blocks): Modify the proposal by deletion of
66 blocks in Shelikof Strait and 19 blocks in Cook Inlet. The following
sections assess the impacts of oil and gas leasing for alternative IV (see
fig. II.B.4.a.-1).
a. Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats: Impacts on coastal
habitats (sec. IV.A.2.a.) would be altered by deletion of tracts in Shelikof
Strait. The most likely number of major oilspills equals only one, as opposed
to four for the proposal (table 1, appendix D). The most likely number oil-
spills from other sources (existing leases in lower Cook Inlet and the existing
tanker routes from upper Cook Inlet) equals seven, so the overall risks of
major oilspills are reduced only about 25 percent by deletion of Shelikof
Strait (from 11 with the proposal to 8 with this alternative).
The coastal area of greatest risk from oilspills is changed greatly by alter-
native IV; Shelikof Strait would be impacted less frequently. For example,
the probability of impact on the razor clam beaches near Swikshak in north-
western Shelikof Strait is reduced about 85 percent by alternative IV. The
clams on these beaches are worth up to $100,000 per year, and are vulnerable
to oilspills. As discussed in section IV.A.2.a., clams on beaches which are
impacted by an oilspill would probably be killed or tainted for a period of
one year.
Similarly, the probability of oilspill impacts on the western Kodiak Island
bays, such as Kupreanof Strait, is reduced about 85 percent by alternative IV.
Kupreanof Strait and the adjacent bays are important for reproduction of very
valuable herring and salmon populations, as explained in section III.B.2.
The probability of oilspills impacting the coastal habitat in lower Cook Inlet
remains essentially the same in spite of the deletion of any blocks in Shelikof
Strait.
Aside from oilspills, the potential impacts of alternative IV on the coastal
habitats would not be severe (sec. IV.A.2.a.).
Conclusion: Alternative IV reduces by about 25 percent the probability of
oilspill occurence. The probability of an oilspill impacting vulnerable
coastal habitats in Shelikof Strait is reduced by about 85 percent with this
alternative.
Cumulative Effects: A large number of potential oilspills are associated with
existing State and Federal leases and tanker routes in Cook Inlet. Because of
these existing risks, deletion of Shelikof Strait blocks from the proposed
182
sale would reduce the projected cumulative impacts on the Shelikof Strait
coastal.habitats. The cumulative impacts on lower Cook Inlet coastal habitats
would remain unchanged from those associated with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.a.).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The oilspills that may impact the vulnerable
coastal habitat are not easily avoidable. They would be due to unpredictable
accidents, and could not be entirely cleaned up before impacting some coastal
habitats. Potential mitigating measure number 2 (sec. II.B.l.b.) could help
reduce the possibility of an oilspill occurring and reduce the potential for
damage to the surrounding coastal habitats. Further, the Offshore Oil Pollu-
tion Compensation Fund has been established to pay for the costs of OCS oil-
spill impacts (see appendix F).
b. Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish: Deletion of the
Shelikof Strait blocks from the proposal would significantly reduce the risks
of potential oil pollution impacts on pink salmon; king, tanner, and Dungeness
crab; and bottomfish species in Shelikof Strait. However, oilspill risk to
lower Cook Inlet fish habitats would remain about the same as with the proposal.
Oilspill probability risks to fish habitats along both sides of Shelikof
Strait would be reduced. In land segment 45, Kukak Bay-Kinak Bay (an important
shrimp area) oilspill probability risk decreases from 31 percent (the proposal)
to 8 percent with this alternative (appendix D, tables 14-15, no. 45). However,
oilspill risk to coastal spawning habitats in lower Cook Inlet remain about
the same.
Changes in the transportation scenario (eliminating a pipeline through Kupreanof
Strait, a tanker terminal near Whale Pass, and tankering out of Marmot Bay),
would greatly reduce oilspill risks to the Whale Pass area, near the important
habitats mentioned above.
Conclusion: Deletion of the Shelikof Strait blocks could significantly reduce
the potential impacts of oil pollution on some local fin and shellfish popula-
tions in the Shelikof Strait. However, impacts to fish populations in the
lower Cook Inlet region would be essentially the same as in the proposal.
Cumulative Effects: The risk of potential cumulative oilspill effects of this
alternative and of existing oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet on fin and
shellfish populations in the Shelikof Strait area would be greatly reduced by
this alternative.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse effects would be similar
to those described for Cook Inlet in section IV.A.2.b. (proposal). However,
unavoidable adverse impacts would be significantly reduced for the Shelikof
Strait.
c. Impacts on Commercial Fishing: Deletion of the Shelikof
Strait blocks and those at the extreme north end of the proposed sale area
would reduce impacts (discussed in section III.A.2.c.) primarily in the Shelikof
Strait area. This alternative would reduce the conflicts for dock space,
materials, and labor in the western Kodiak area. It would reduce the chance
of a pollutant event fouling fishing gear and commercial fish species. It
would also reduce the threat of fish population loss (sec. III.A.2.b.). Based
on the oilspill trajectory model, the area having the greatest chance of being
affected by a pollutant event (Uganik and Malina Bays) would be almost totally
protected. 183
Conclusion: This alternative would reduce potential impacts on commercial
fishing in the sale area.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts in the Shelikof Strait area would be
reduced by this alternative. There may be some residual ocean space use
conflicts because many of the fishermen range between Shelikof Strait and Cook
Inlet, but immediate impacts on commercial fishing in Shelikof Strait would be
reduced. Cumulative impacts in the Cook Inlet area would be the same as
discussed in section IV.A.2.c.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: There may be some ocean space conflicts between
fishing vessels and support and supply vessels in Shelikof Strait. In Cook
Inlet, these impacts would be the same as the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.c.).
d. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds: Deletion of the
Shelikof Strait blocks from the proposal would reduce significantly the risks
of potential oil pollution impacts on marine birds in offshore foraging areas
and coastal habitats in Shelikof Strait, Whale Pass, Kupreanof Strait, and
Marmot Bay. Oilspill probability contact for seabird foraging areas within 3
daybs (appendix D, table 8-9) decrease from 49 percent with the proposal to 5
percent during the spring-summer, and from 57 percent to 13 percent during the
fall-winter. However, oilspill risks to lower Cook Inlet foraging areas
remain about the same as the proposal. Oilspill probability risks to coastal
habitats along both sides of Shelikof Strait are drastically reduced. For
example the Raspberry Island-Kupreanof Strait area oilspill probability contact
decreases from 23 percent (the proposal) to 3 percent with this alternative
(appendix D, table 14-15, no. 15). Land segment 45, Kukak Bay-Kinak Bay
oilspill probability risk decreases from 31 percent to 8 percent (the proposal)
with this alternative (appendix D, table 14-15, no. 45). However, oilspill
risk to coastal habitats in lower Cook Inlet and the Barren Islands remain
about the same.
Changes in the transportation scenario (eliminating a pipeline through Kupreanof
Strait, a tanker terminal near Whale Pass, and tankering out of Marmot Bay)
would greatly reduce oilspill risks to the Whale Pass area, one of the most
important marine bird concentration areas in the Kodiak and lower Cook Inlet
region. The oilspill trajectory analysis does not include the oilspill proba-
bility risks to inner Marmot Bay and Whale Pass.
Conclusion: Deletion of the Shelikof Strait blocks could significantly reduce
the risk of potential impacts of oil pollution on marine bird populations in
the Kodiak and Shelikof Strait areas. However, bird populations in the lower
Cook Inlet region and the Barren Islands will be subject to the same potential
impacts as in the proposal. This alternative would be less likely to have
major impacts on birds than the proposal.
Cumulative Effects: The combined potential oilspill effects of this alterna-
tive and of existing petroleum activities in Cook Inlet on marine bird popula-
tions in the Shelikof Strait-Kodiak area could be significantly reduced as
indicated by comparing the oilspill trajectory analysis results (appendix D,
tables 8-16) between this alternative and the proposal. For example, the
cumulative oilspill probability on southern seabird foraging areas are reduced
from 66 percent to 34 percent during the spring-summer period (appendix D,
tables 8 and 4). However, cumulative oilspill probability risks for foraging
184
areas in the lower Cook Inlet and Barren Islands are about the same as the
proposal (high oilspill risk from existing tankering 63-68\ and existing lease
activities 76-77\, appendix D, tables 14 and 21). The cumulative effects
along the Shelikof Strait could be significantly reduced by this proposal.
For example, Raspberry Island-Kupreanof Strait (land segment 15) cumulative
oilspill probability of contact is reduced from 30 percent to 12 percent when
comparing the proposal with this alternative (for the 10 day spill trajectory).
However, lower Cook Inlet coastal areas such as Kamishak Bay and the Barren
Islands cumulative oilspill probabilities are about the same between this
alternative and the proposal; these areas are at high risk from existing
hydrocarbon activities (see appendix D, tables 14 and 15, nos. 53, 54, and
56).
In conclusion, the risk of cumulative impacts from oil pollution on marine
birds could be greatly reduced for the Shelikof-Kodiak area by this alternative.
However, lower Cook Inlet and the Barren Islands bird populations and habitats
would fare the same risk from oil impacts and other development projects as
with the proposal.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Deletion of the Shelikof Strait blocks would
significantly reduce the unavoidable impacts of hydrocarbon development des-
cribed in the proposal on bird populations within the Shelikof Strait area.
However, bird populations on the Barren Islands and Cook Inlet would probably
be exposed to the same unavoidable impacts described in the proposal.
e. Impacts on Marine Mammals: Refer to section IV.A.2.e. for
a discussion of the qualitative nature of direct and indirect effects on
marine mammals that may be associated with the proposal or its alternatives.
Appendix D, table 9, shows that with this alternative the Barren Islands (area
C, including Sugarloaf Island) would be subjected to slightly less oilspill
risk than would be expected under the proposal (10\ chance, alternative IV
versus 11% chance, alternative I), of spill contact over the life of the
field. (Note: Unless otherwise specified, oilspill risk analyses made in
this section refer to probabilities conditional on the development of a pro-
duction field and to spill contact rates within 10 days of simulated launch.)
As for the proposal, the Ushagat Island vicinity (with three sea lion hauling
areas, graphic 11), is under a 6 percent chance of spill contact (appendix D,
table 15, no. 81), Sugarloaf Island shorelines are under a 2 percent chance of
spill contact (appendix D, table 15, no. 82), and Marmot Island faces prac-
tically no risk (appendix D, table 15, no. 22). Thus, for the major sea lion
concentration areas, Alternative IV does little to afford additional protec-
tion from the direct effects of spills as compared to the proposal. However,
considerable protection of sea lion hauling areas receiving intermittent use
at Cape Gull and a consistently used area at Takli Island Rock, on the western
side of Shelikof Strait would be achieved. Under alternative IV, Cape Gull
would be subjected to an 8 percent chance of oilspill contact (appendix D,
table 15, no. 45) as compared to 31 percent under the proposal. ·rakli Island
Rock, which is used by 700-1,000 sea lions, would face a 2 percent chance of
spill contact (appendix D, table 15, no. 44) as compared to 8 percent with the
proposal. Probability of spills hitting the Puale Bay area would be reduced
from 5 percent (alternative I) to 1 percent (appendix D, table 15, no. 41).
Alternative IV would provide substantial reduction of risk of oilspill contact
to harbor seal habitats of the northern and northwestern Kodiak Archipelago.
185
The Malina Bay hauling area would face a 3 percent chance of contact (appendix
D, table 15, no. 15) with this alternative as compared to a 23 percent chance
with the proposal. The northern Afognak and western Shuyak Island hauling
areas (graphic 11) would be subjected to only a 6 percent chance of contact
(appendix D, table 15, no. 17) as compared to a 15 percent chance under the
proposal.
Overall, nearshore marine environments of the northern and northwestern Kodiak
Archipelago would also be exposed to less risks. (Appendix D, table 9, shows
area D having a 17\ chance of contact under Alternative IV as compared to 48\
under alternative I.) Such reduction could be important to long-term harbor
seal productivity in the area. The Tugidak Island harbor seal hauling and
pupping concentration area would remain under low risk of oilspills with this
alternative. Probability of spill contact with St. Augustine Island, a harbor
seal pupping area, would only be reduced 2 percent (from 9% with alternative
I, see appendix D, table 15, no. 56), and the nearshore areas of Kamishak Bay
in the immediate vicinity of Augustine Island would remain under high (29\)
risk (appendix D, table 9, area H).
This alternative would probably reduce risk to fur seals in Shelikof Strait.
However, no substantial reduction of risk to the bulk of the fur seal popula-
tion migrating east of Kodiak would be afforded as compared to the probable
low risks already described for the proposal.
Alternative IV would substantially reduce risks of oilspill contact to sea
otter habitats of the northern and northwestern Kodiak Archipelago and western
Shelikof Strait areas (appendix D, table 9, areas D and E). As discussed for
harbor seals, considerable reduction of risks would occur in the former regions
(17\ with alternative IV versus 48\ percent with alternative I; appendix D,
tables 9 and 8, respectively, area D). Other areas adjacent to lower Cook
Inlet, such as the southwestern Kenai Peninsula, Anchor Point, and Kamishak
Bay (appendix D, table 9, areas A, G, H), only show slight reduction of risk
of oilspill contact as a result of this alternative. In Kamishak Bay, sea
otters and their habitat would face the same high oilspill risk and with this
alternative as with the proposal (appendix D, table 9, area D).
Thus, when compared to the proposal, alternative IV would reduce localized
indirect effects on marine mammals inhabiting Shelikof Strait, especially sea
otters which rely on sedentary benthic food sources. Since sea lions, harbor
seals, and fur seals rely primarily on food sources which are not sedentary,
it is not possible to accurately predict how selection of alternative IV may
or may not indirectly affect such species. Nevertheless, since the areas
showing the greatest reduction of oilspill risk are noted for the greater
abundance of sea otters (e.g., Afognak-Shuyak Island habitats), this alterna-
tive (or alternative V, see section VI.A.6.e.) could be considered of major
importance in terms of minimizing risks to sea otter populations of the sale
60 area. Less oilspill-induced mortality and/or higher carrying capacity
(over the long-term) of the latter sea otter habitats would be expected under
this alternative than would be expected under the proposal.
Effects of noise and disturbance may be felt by sea lion or harbor seal popu-
lations in particular (sec. IV.A.2.e.). Alternative IV would probably reduce
the potential for disturbance of harbor seal and sea lion hauling areas of the
Shelikof Strait region. However, potential for disturbance of sea lions in
186
the Barren Islands would probably remain at levels which may exist for the
proposal. Since alternative IV would not involve the construction of a pipe-
line to, and tanker terminal on, eastern Kodiak Island, localized effects of
disturbance would probably be reduced in Kupreanof Strait and eastern Kodiak
Island (such as near Talnik Point) as compared to the proposal. Nevertheless,
it is possible, if not likely, that noise disturbance associated with explora-
tion, development, and production phases will directly impact sea lions and/or
harbor seals in the sale area as described for the proposal, although perhaps
to a reduced level in the Shelikof Strait region.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that alternative IV would afford substantial
reduction of risk of oilspills and related effects to major sea otter and
certain harbor seal habitats, particularly those in the northern Kodiak Archi-
pelago and Shelikof Strait as compared to the proposal. Protection of sea
lion hauling and feeding areas in Shelikof Strait would also be enhanced.
Oilspill-related effects in lower Cook Inlet would remain at relatively the
same level as under the proposal, although reduced somewhat in terms of spill
contact probabilities. An uncertain, but probably minimal reduction of risk
to fur seals would be accrued. Reduced localized impacts of spills on eastern
Kodiak Island marine habitats would be expected since no tanker facilities
would be constructed in the vicinity.
Cumulative Effects: Appendix D, table 9, shows that the cumulative probabil-
ity (alternative IV plus existing lease area) oilspill contact with marine
mammal habitats of the eastern Kenai Peninsula, the Barren Islands, and the
north-northwestern Kodiak Archipelago would be high (areas B, C, and D, re-
spectively). Cumulative contact on the north-northwestern Kodiak Archipelago·
would be reduced by this alternative from 68 percent (alternative I) to 48
percent chance (alternative IV). Cumulative oil contact probabilities of
marine mammal habitats in the vicinity of Anchor Point, the southwestern Kenai
Peninsula, Kamishak Bay, and western Shelikof Strait would be moderate to high
(appendix D, table 9, areas G, A, H, and E, respectively).· Cumulative oilspill
contact with Sugarloaf Island would be the same for this alternative as for
the proposal (11% chance, appendix D, table 15, No. 2). Anchor Point, Kachemak
Bay, and Kamishak Bay would not experience substantial reduction of cumulative
oilspill risk as a result of this alternative. Direct effects of cumulative
spills on sea otters in lower Cook Inlet would be likely, and oilspill-induced
indirect effects through reduced habitat quality and/or population productivity
would also be likely. Land segments in the vicinity of Cape Ugat and Cape
Uganik would have less probability of cumulative spills (14% with alternative IV
versus 23%, alternative I) than under the proposal (appendix D, table 15, no.
13). In western Shelikof Strait, substantial reduction of cumulative oilspill
contact would result for Cape Gull (24% chance with alternative IV vs. 32%
with alternative I), and limited reduction of risk for Takli Island Rock.
Risk would also reduce slightly for Puale Bay. Areas mentioned here are known
habitat of sea otters (eastern Kenai Peninsula, Barren Islands, northern
Kodiak Archipelago, Anchor Point, southwestern Kenai Peninsula, Kamishak Bay,
and western Shelikof Strait), sea lions (eastern Kenai Peninsula, Barren
Islands, northern Kodiak Archipelago, Cape Ugat and Cape Uganik, Cape Gull,
Takli Island Rock, and Puale Bay), and harbor seals (northern Kodiak Archi-
pelago, Kamishak Bay, and Shelikof Strait coastal areas). The magnitude of
direct or indirect effects on marine mammals could be less than that sustained
under the proposal since the cumulative probabilities for alternative IV were
generally less in certain important habitats (e.g., north and northwestern
Kodiak Archipelago) than those computed for the proposal.
187
Of concern for this alternative, as well as the proposal, is the high proba-
bility of cumulative spills in the Barren Island area. Alternative IV reduced
this probability by only 1 percent compared to the proposal (see appendix D,
tables 8 and 9, area C), and for Sugarloaf Island, no reduction of risk would
be afforded by this alternative (appendix D, table 15, no. 82). Insensitivity
of cumulative spill probability in the area to changes in the proposal may be
related to the moderate level of risk (18%) associated with existing tankering
(appendix D, table 32, area C). Sea lions occupying Sugarloaf Island and
surrounding waters may eventually show a response to chronic or cumulative
spill occurrence under alternative IV, and the degree of this response would
be on the same order as that sustained under alternative I (the proposal).
The Portlock Bank feeding areas of sea lions and fur seals would be subjected
to less oilspill risk associated with tanker traffic under this alternative.
Indirect effects of repeated spills may also be sustained by harbor seals, but
probably to a lesser extent in Shelikof Strait than would occur under the
proposal. Therefore, this alternative would probably contribute less to
cumulative effects of oilspills than would the proposal.
The extent of cumulative, disturbance-related mortality or behavioral change
due to alternative IV on marine mammals is unknown. This alternative would
reduce the potential for disturbance of sea lions and harbor seals in Shelikof
Strait, as well as on eastern Kodiak Island, as compared to the proposal.
Elimination of a tanker loading facility on eastern Kodiak Island and reduction
of activity in Shelikof Strait would probably reduce potential for such effects
on sea lions and harbor seals. The contribution of alternative IV to nonspill-
related cumulative effects on marine mammal populations (e.g., loss of habi~at
to facility sites) in the proposed sale area is unkno~.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: If the field goes into production, it is likely
that sea otters will sustain some mortality as a direct result of spills
associated with this alternative, although less than would be incurred by the
proposal. It is likely that localized habitat deterioration and/or food
source loss resulting from oilspills would occur at least temporarily, espe-
cially for sea otters or harbor seals in lower Cook Inlet. It is possible, if
not likely, that unavoidable disturbance of sea lion or harbor seal concentra-
tions would occur as a result of long-term changes in the transportation
systems, localized Lmpacts of facility construction, or localized aircraft,
boat, or other industrial noise and activity. The Information to Lessee on
Birds and Mammals (sec. II.B.l.b.), which recommends that the lessee operate
aircraft and vessels no closer than 1 mile from observed wildlife or known
wildlife concentration areas, would help to minimize behavioral disturbance of
a short-term, localized nature, especially at hauling areas and breeding
rookeries.
f. Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered Cetaceans:
See section IV.A.2.f. for a general discussion of petroleum-related impacts on
endangered species and non-endangered cetaceans. The oilspill risk analysis
for alternative IV shows substantial reduction in probability of spill contact
and potential spill effects for northern and northwest Kodiak Archipelago
nearshore areas (appendix D, table 9) as compared to the proposal. Thus,
a moderate (17%) chance of spills affecting areas used by endangered and
non-endangered cetaceans in this locale would be sustained, compared to higher
(48% chance) associated with the proposal. As for the proposal, nearshore
areas on the eastern side of Kodiak Island would be subjected to little spill
188
risk. This alternative provides little additional protection to the Barren
Island area or the latter area as compared to the proposal, and therefore
provid~s little additional protection to areas of high seasonal use by gray
whales. The extent of movement of spills from lower Cook Inlet into the open
water of the Gulf of Alaska and Portlock Bank areas would be about the same as
estimated for the proposal.
Of importance is the apparent reduction of spill contact probability for near-
shore environments of eastern Shelikof Strait (and other areas in Shelikof
Strait) which would be afforded by this alternative. Land segments from
Viekoda Bay to Uyak Bay (appendix D, table 15; nos. 12, 13, 14) show a sub-
stantial reduction on oilspill risk (1-4% chance) as a result of this alterna-
tive compared to higher (6-14%) risks for the proposal. Thus, for at least
one area used by endangered species (fin and gray whales) oilspill vulner-
ability would be reduced. Habitats and local populations of other cetaceans
which may occur in the strait would also be at less oilspill risk.
Alternative IV would do little to reduce oilspill risk to beluga whales (or
their habitats) which may winter in Kamishak Bay. This alternative shows a 29
percent chance of spill contact with area H (appendix D, table 9), as compared
to 33 percent chance for the proposal. Oilspill risk to nearshore environ-
ments north of Kamishak Bay and Kachemak Bay is low for this alternative (as
well as for the proposal).
Elimination of the need for a tanker terminal in the Talnik Point vicinity
with this alternative would also reduce probable localized impacts of spills,
disturbance, or cetacean habitat changes which may occur under the proposal.
No negative effects would be expected to be sustained by Aleutian Canada geese
as a result of this alternative.
Conclusion: It is possible that endangered and non-endangered cetaceans may
sustain direct and indirect effects due to oilspill occurrence in areas of
moderate to high risk of contact such as the northern Kodiak Archipelago and
Kamishak Bay. However, effects on whales would possibly be less than those of
the proposal. This alternative would pose less oilspill risk or disturbance
on cetaceans which may occur along the eastern side of Kodiak Island and
Shelikof Strait than the proposal. It is possible that cetaceans may sustain
negative effects as a result of disturbance, but probably to a lesser extent
than would be incurred under the proposal. There is no evidence at this time
to suggest any significant impacts of this alternative on endangered birds.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative oilspill risks as a result of alternative IV
plus the existing leases are relatively high for the northern and northwest.
Kodiak Archipelago, Barren Islands, and eastern Kenai Peninsula (appendix D,
table 9, areas B (25%), C (38%), and D (48%)), and of medium risk for ·land
segments in eastern Shelikof Strait (appendix D, table 15, nos. 12, 13, 14).
Of the former areas, area D would receive the most protection from these
cumulative direct oilspill impacts since the cumulative probability of spills
is 20 percent less than would be incurred under the proposal. Cumulative
spill probabilities for lower Cook Inlet (e.g. Kamishak Bay) are virtually
unchanged (as compared to the proposal) as a result of this alternative,
rema1n1ng very high (76% chance) in the Augustine Island-Cape Douglas vicinity
(Appendix D, table 9, area H). Alternative IV would do little to reduce
189
uncertain cumulative oilspill effects in terms of oilspill-related mortality
or reduction of food sources in areas which may be important to endangered
cetaceans. Alternative IV may reduce cumulative disturbance and/or indirect
effects, particularly for species frequenting the eastern nearshore areas of
Kodiak Island. Relatively little can be said about alternative IV in an
absolute sense except that certain localized reduction of cumulative effects
.ay occur, particularly in Shelikof Strait, Kupreanof Strait, and the Talnik
Point-Marmot Bay area.
Cumulative effects on Aleutian Canada geese would not be expected to be signi-
ficant as a result of this alternative.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Although similar qualitatively to those of the
proposal, the degree of unavoidable impacts on endangered and non-endangered
whales as a result of this alternative is unknown. The Information to Lessee
on Birds and Mammals (sec. 11.B.1.b.), which recommends that the lessee operate
aircraft and vessels no closer than 1 mile from observed wildlife or known
wildlife concentration areas, would help to minimize behavioral disturbance of
a short-term, localized nature. No unavoidable adverse impacts are expected
to be sustained by Aleutian Canada geese as a result of this alternative.
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals: Deletion of Shelikof
Strait blocks would reduce the risk of oil pollution impacts on terrestrial
aammals and their coastal habitats along the Kodiak Archipelago and the Alaska
Peninsula side of Shelikof Strait. The oilspill analysis (sec. IV.A.1.d.)
indicates significant reduction of spill risk for the southwest Afognak-Raspberry
Islands coastal habitat which contains brown bear intensive stream use areas
(see graphic 9 and fig. IV.A.1.d.-7, land segment 1S). The probability of an
oilspill contacting Afognak-Raspberry Islands is reduced from 23 percent with
the proposal to 3 percent with this alternative (appendix D, tables 14 and IS,
No. 15). The probability of an oilspill contacting brown bear high spring-use
and stream-use areas in Kukak Bay is reduced from 31 percent to 8 percent with
this alternative (appendix D, tables 14 and IS, no. 45). However, brown bear
spring-use areas and other terrestrial mammal coastal habitats in Kamishak Bay
would face the same risk to oilspills as the proposal.
This alternative would eliminate the need for an onshore pipeline and tanker
terminal facility at Talnik Point. Thus, there would be no onshore habitat
disturbance in the Kodiak area with this alternative. However, terrestrial
mammals and their habitat on the Kenai Peninsula betw~en Anchor Point and
Nikiski would still be affected.
Conclusion: Deletion of the Shelikof Strait blocks could reduce potential oil
pollution impacts on terrestrial mammals and their habitats along Shelikof
Strait and eliminate'onshore habitat disturbance in the Talnik Point-Whale
Passage area. However, effect on terrestrial mammals and their coastal habi-
tats in the lower Cook Inlet area would be the same as the proposal (sec.
IV.A.2.g.). The overall impacts on terrestrial mammals would likely be minor.
Cumulative Effects: This alternative could effectively reduce cumulative
effects on terrestrial mammals in the Shelikof Strait area. In the lower Cook
Inlet area, terrestrial mammals would be subject to the same degree of cumula-
tive impacts as the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.g.).
190
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Deletion of the Shelikof Strait blocks would
eliminate most unavoidable disturbances of terrestrial mammal habitat and
populations on Kodiak Island, but not in the lower Cook Inlet area where
terrestrial mammals would be exposed to the same unavoidable impacts as with
the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.g.).
h. Impacts on Social Factors:
(1) Impacts on Population: Deletion of the Shelikof
Strait blocks would eliminate population impacts on Port Lions and Kodiak by
eliminating the need for an oil terminal in the Kodiak-Port Lions area.
Impacts in the Kenai-Soldotna and Homer areas would be the same as those
described in section IV.A.2.h.(1) (see table IV.A.2.h.(1)-4).
Conclusion: Major population impacts on the Port Lions and Kodiak areas would
be eliminated with this alternative. Homer and Kenai-Soldotna population
impacts remain the same as for the proposal. See section IV.A.2.h.(l).
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative population increases with respect to this
alternative would be most serious in Homer and would be the same as those
outlined for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(1)). The cumulative effects for
Port Lions and Kodiak would be reduced substantially with elimination of
Shelikof Strait blocks and associated construction of terminal facilities in
the Port Lions area.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: These would be the same for Homer and Kenai-Sol-
dotna as for the proposal. See se~tion IV.A.2.h.(1). This alternative substan-
tially reduces the unavoidable adverse effects on Port Lions and Kodiak resources
and environment.
(2) Impacts on Sociocultural Systems: Sociocultural
impacts on the communities of Kodiak and Port Lions would be minimized under
this alternative. Easily absorbed impacts on Kenai and Soldotna would be
insignificant. Homer would experience equivalent impacts as described for
alternative I (sec. IV.A.2.h.(2)).
Conclusion: This alternative would significantly reduce potential major
impacts on the sociocultural systems of Kodiak and Port Lions by reducing
oilspill risk and potential disruption from construction of facilities in the
Kodiak-Port Lions area and pipelines in the Talnik Point-Port Lions area.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative sociocultural impacts on Kodiak and Port Lions
would be reduced significantly. Homer and Kenai-Soldotna impacts would be the
same as in the proposal.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: By deleting blocks in Shelikof Strait, unavoid-
able adverse effects of potential oilspills, including heightened social
conflict in Kodiak and Port Lions and temporary disruption to smaller sub-
sistence villages along Shelikof Strait, would be minimized.
(3) Impacts on Community Infrastructure: The deletion of
some lower Cook Inlet and all Shelikof Strait blocks confine potential impacts
to the Kenai Peninsula area. Growth in this area is described in section
III.H.2. Impacts on community infrastructure in the Kenai and Homer areas
resulting from this alternative would be as described in section IV.A.2.h.(3).
191
Conclusion: Impacts resulting from this alternative would be limited to the
Kenai and Homer areas and are described in section IV.A.2.h.(3).
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts resulting from this alternative would
be limited to the Kenai and Homer areas and are described in section IV.A.2.h.(3).
There would be no cumulative impacts on the Kodiak and Port Lions areas.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: See section IV.A.2.h.(3) for the Kenai and Homer
areas only.
(4) Impacts on Subsistence: Deletion of Shelikof Strait
blocks would substantially reduce the oilspill risk to all the primary subsis-
tence-oriented villages along Shelikof Strait. Alternative IV would also
reduce the risk to subsistence use areas near English Bay and Port Graham in
Cook Inlet.
Conclusion: A major oilspill event could seriously disrupt the local economies
of villages and cause hardship to residents dependent upon locally available
resources. The extent of disruption and hardship would vary with the size of
the spill and other factors. See the discussion under the proposal (sec.
IV.A.2.h.(4)). This alternative reduces the high oilspill risks to Shelikof
Strait villages and the resources on which they depend.
Cumulative Effects: The additional risk of continued exploration on sale CI
leases added to the risk of oilspills from alternative IV is depicted in
figure IV.A.1.d.-12. Three land segments in Kamishak Bay and one near Anchor
Point, as well as l~nd segment 81 on the Barren Islands, show high risk of
oilspill contact when current CI lease exploration risks are added to the
risks of this alternative. No additional risk to primary subsistence use
areas occurs under this cumulative case.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: With deletion of the Shelikof Strait blocks, the
unavoidable adverse effects of oilspills on subsistence use areas in Shelikof
Strait and Cook Inlet would be substantially moderated. See the discussion
under the proposal (sec.IV.A.2.h.(4)).
i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local Economies: This
alternative eliminates most impacts in the Kodiak, Port Lions areas. Impacts
on the Kenai and Homer areas remain much as in the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.),
Conclusion: Economic impacts would be insignificant in the Kodiak and Port
Lions areas with this alternative. Mild impacts would be likely in the Kenai
area, while moderate impacts would be likely in the Homer area (see sec.
IV.A.2.i.).
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts on Kodiak from future projects could,
with a very low likelihood, invite local short-run boom economic conditions.
Cumulative impacts in the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division would, as noted in
the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.1.), likely be mild. Petroleum development infra-
structure in the Kenai area is well prepared for additional petroleum discov-
eries; hence, any induced changes would likely be mild.
192
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: There would be no unavoidable adverse ~acts.
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources: This alternative would
result in reduced impacts due to oilspills especially in the shore area near
the deleted blocks at Anchor Point, Kamishak Bay, Karluk, and the Barren
Islands.
Conclusion: There would be some reduction in potential impacts as a result of
this alternative.
Cumulative Effects: There would be a reduction in potential ~acts due to
the proposed lease sale and other projects, as identified in section IV.A.l.h.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The potential unavoidable adverse effects which
would occur as a result of this alternative would be reduced from those of the
proposal.
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness, and Recreation Resources:
Because blocks in Shelikof Strait are deleted, impacts on visual, wilderness,
and recreation resources along the strait, on Kodiak Island near Port Lions,
and near Kodiak City would likely be insignificant. The probability of an
oilspill reaching the beaches hear Swikshak, a·recreational clammina area,
would be reduced by about 85 percent with this alternative (compared to the
proposal). Impacts on the Kenai Peninsula and Cook Inlet would be the same as
those described in section IV.A.2.k. (proposal).
Conclusion: Same as above.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects would be the same as for the proposal
(sec. IV.A.2.k.).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Except for the Shelikof Strait area, where no
impacts would occur, unavoidable adverse effects would be the same as for the
proposal (sec. IV.A.2.k.).
1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use:
Conclusion: With alternative IV, impacts on land status and land use on the
Kenai Peninsula would be much the same as with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.1.).
However, no land status or land use impacts on the Kodiak Archipelago would be
likely because ~he Shelikof Strait portion of the proposed lease sale would be
deleted.
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
m. Impacts on Transportation Systems: Since this alternative
would not involve oil facilities at Talnik Point, there would be no petroleum-
related impacts to the transportation systems of Port Lions or Kodiak Island.
Alternative IV would confine impacts to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula.
Impacts on the transportation systems of these two areas would be similar to,
but slightly reduced, from that of the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.m.). Fewer con-
193
struction materials and personnel would be needed with this alternative.
Total volume of traffic resulting from this alternative would be approximately
one-third less than that which would be caused by the proposal.
Conclusion: Alternative IV would reduce transportation impacts on Anchorage
and the Kenai Peninsula. There would be no impacts on the transportation
systems of Port Lions and Kodiak Island.
Cumulative Effects: With the exception of Port Lions, cumulative effects
would be similar to those outlined in section IV.A.2.m. (proposal).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse impacts which would
occur as a result of alternative IV would be: 1) localized traffic congestion
on the Sterling Highway; and 2) an increase of tanker traffic in the Cook
Inlet and Gulf of Alaska.
n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management Program:
Conclusion: With this alternative, the impacts on the State Coastal Zone
Management Program as well as the Kenai Peninsula Borough District Coastal
Management Program would likely be the same as with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.n.).
Alternative IV would not affect the Kodiak Island Borough because most of the
Shelikof Strait blocks would be deleted. Coastal development would not,
therefore, occur in Kodiak Island Borough. Refer to the discussion of the
petroleum development scenarios described in section II.B.1.a. (proposal) and
section II.B.4. (alternative IV).
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
o. Impacts on Water Quality:
Conclusion: With this alternative, the impacts on water quality would be
substantially the same as with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.o.). Most water
quality effects would be limited to the Cook Inlet area.
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
p. Impacts on Air.Quality: With this alternative, impacts on
air quality would be substantially the same as with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.p.).
Conclusion·: Impacts which would occur as a result of this alternative would
be the same as those described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.p.).
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects which would occur as a result of
this alternative would be the same as those described for the proposal (sec.
IV.A.2.p.).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse effects which would
occur as a result of this alternative would be the same as those described for
the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.p.).
194
6. Alternative V (53 blocks): Modify the proposal by deletion of
81 blocks in Shelikof Strait and 19 blocks in Cook Inlet. The following
sections assess the impacts of oil and gas leasing for alternative V (see fig.
II.B.S.a.-1.).
a. Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats: The chance of
oilspills and oilspill risks to coastal habitats are essentially the same as
those for alternative IV (sec. IV.A.S.a.).
Conclusion: The impacts on the coastal habitats of alternative V are the same
as for alternative IV (sec. IV.A.S.a.).
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative impacts on coastal habitats of alternative V
are the same as for alternative IV.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable impacts, and the benefits of
mitigating measures for alternative V are the same as for alternative IV.
b. Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish: Deletion of addi-
tional blocks off Cape Douglas and west of Stevenson Entrance could reduce
slightly the risk of potential oilspill contact on fin and shellfish species
in the Shelikof Strait and lower Cook Inlet areas.
An area of high risk of oilspill contact (Kukak Bay-Kinak Bay area) identified
in section IV.A.2.b. (proposal) has a slightly reduced chance (8% versus 5%)
of being contacted by an oilspill with this alternative (appendix D, tables 15
and 16, no. 45).
Conclusion: This alternative slightly reduces potential impacts to the Shelikof
Strait and Cook Inlet commercial and sport fish populations.
Cumulative Effects: Potential oilspill risks from this proposed lease sale
combined with existing hydrocarbon activity would be reduced very slightly
with this alternative compared to alternative IV.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: This alternative should have about the same
unavoidable impacts as the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.b.).
c. Impacts on Commercial Fishing:
Conclusion: The impacts, based on this alternative would remain essentially
the same as described for alternative IV. It may slightly, but not signifi-
cantly, reduce the chance of oil reaching the eastern side of Afognak Island.
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
d. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds: This alternative
could result in a slight reduction of oilspill risk to marine and coastal
birds in the Shelikof Strait compared to alternative IV. (sec. IV.A.S.d.) and
a significant reduction of impacts on marine and coastal birds of Shelikof
Strait compared to the proposal (appendix D, tables 14, 16, 8, and 10). Risk
195
of spill contact with the Barren Islands and lower Cook Inlet bird populations
would be about the same as those described for the proposal and for alterna-
tive IV.
An area of high risk of oilspill contact (Kukak Bay-Kinak Bay area) in the
proposal analysis has a slightly reduced chance (8% versus 5%) of being con-
tacted by an oilspill with this alternative (appendix D, tables 15 and 16,
no. 45).
Conclusion: This alternative results in about the same oilspill risks as
alternative IV. Potential impacts to the Shelikof Strait bird populations and
habitats should be reduced only slightly in comparison to alternative IV.
Potential impacts on the Barren Islands and lower Cook Inlet bird populations
would be about the same as those impacts described in the proposal. This
alternative would be less likely to have major impacts on birds than the
proposal.
Cumulative Effects: This alternative would have about the same cumulative
effects as alternative IV.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: This alternative would have about the same
unavoidable impacts as alternative IV.
e. Impacts on Marine Mammals: Comparison of tables 9 and 10
or of tables 15 and 16, appendix D, shows that alternative V generally would
result in a reduced probability of oilspills below that of the proposal. In
comparison to alternative IV, this alternative would result in a 6-percent
reduction of oilspill risk (from 17% to 11%) to the north-northwestern Kodiak
Archipelago.
It is likely that sea otters would sustain mortality and/or food source deter-
ioration as a result of this alternative, particularly in the Kamishak Bay-
Augustine Island area (Table 10, Area H, 26% chance). It is possible that
noise and disturbance could affect marine mammals as a result of this alternative,
especially sea lion or harbor seal populations located or concentrated on the
Barren Islands or along the coast of lower Cook Inlet.
Conclusion: Alternative V would afford substantial reduction of risk of
oilspills and related effects to major sea otter and certain harbor seal
habitats, particularly those in the northern Kodiak Archipelago and Shelikof
Strait as compared to the proposal. Greater protection of sea lion hauling
and feeding areas in Shelikof Strait would be achieved. An uncertain, but
probably minimal reduction of risk to fur seals would result. Oilspill-
related effects on marine mammals in lower Cook Inlet would be relatively the
same as those described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.e.), although reduced
somewhat in terms of spill contact probabilities. Reduced localized impacts
of spills and disturbance on eastern Kodiak Island marine mammal habitats
would be expected since no tanker facilities would be constructed in the
vicinity. This alternative would reduce the potential for disturbance of sea
lions and harbor seals of Shelikof Strait, as well as on eastern Kodiak Island,
as compared to the proposal.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative spill probabilities in the northern Kodiak
Archipelago, eastern Kenai peninsula, Barren Islands, Anchor Point vicinity,
and Kamishak Bay remain high under alternative V.
196
Kamishak Bay-Augustine Island sea otter and harbor seal populations would be
subjected to a 75 percent probability of spill contact as a result of this
alternative (appendix D, table 10, area H). Reduction of cumulative oil spill
probabilities would be achieved, primarily in Shelikof Strait and the northern
Kodiak Archipelago. Refer to the "Cumulative Effects" evaluation for alterna-
tive lV, which is essentially applicable to alternative V.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Refer to the "Unavoidable Adverse Effects"
evaluation for alternative IV (sec. IV.A.S.e.), which is essentially applic-
able to alternative V.
f. Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered Cetaceans:
See section IV.A.2.f. for a general discussion of impacts. Alternative V
would reduce risks of oilspills to certain areas as compared to the proposal
and would result in additional reduction of oilspill contact probability over
that afforded by alternative IV to the northwest and northern Kodiak Archipe-
lago, Barren Islands, and eastern Kenai Peninsula (appendix D, table 10, areas
B, C, D). This alternative would provide substantial reduction of oilspill
risk to the northwest and northern Kodiak Archipelago nearshore environments,
and to cetacean habitats in those areas as compared to the proposal (11%
chance versus 48%). (NOTE: Unless otherwise specified, oilspill risk analyses
made in this section refer to probabilities conditional on the development of
a production field and to spill contact rates within 10 days of simulated
launch.) As with alternative IV, this alternative would reduce risks to
certain areas used by cetaceans on the eastern side of Shelikof Strait (appen-
dix D, tables 16, nos. 12, 13, 14), but not significantly more than would
alternative IV. As with alternative IV, this alternative would do little to
reduce risk to a possible beluga wintering area in lower Cook Inlet (i.e.,
Kamishak Bay), but would reduce localized effects in the Talnik Point-Marmot
Bay area. Therefore, it is possible that endangered and non-endangered ceta-
ceans would sustain direct and indirect effects, particularly in areas of
highest risk of contact. Since risks are somewhat lower than those described
for the proposal, the impacts would occur less frequently. No negative effects
would likely be sustained by Aleutian Canada geese as a result of this alternative.
Conclusion: It is possible that endangered and non-endangered cetaceans would
sustain direct and indirect effects due to oilspill occurrence in areas of
moderate risk of contact such as the northern Kodiak Archipelago. Cumulative
probabilities of spills would be high in those areas. However, effects of
oilspills on whales may be less than those of the proposal. This alternative
poses less risk of localized effects of oilspills or disturbance than the
proposal on the eastern side of Kodiak Island and in Shelikof Strait. It is
possible that cetaceans may sustain negative effects as a result of disturbance,
but probably to a lesser extent than would be incurred under the proposal.
There is no evidence at this time to suggest significant impacts of this
alternative on endangered birds.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative oilspill risk as a result of alternative V
(conditional on realization of production phases) plus the existing sale is
relatively high for the northern and northwest Kodiak Archipelago, Barren
Islands, and eastern Kenai Peninsula (appendix D, table 10, areas B, C, D),
and of medium risks for land segments in eastern Shelikof Strait (appendix D,
table 16, nos. 12, 13, 14). Thus, alternative V would do little to reduce
cumulative oilspill effects in these areas which may be of importance to
197
endangered cetaceans. Alternative V may reduce cumulative disturbance and/or
indirect effects (sec. IV.A.2.f.), particularly for species frequenting the
eastern side of Kodiak Island. Localized reduction (as compared to the pro-
posal) of cumulative oil pollution or disturbance could occur, particularly in
Shelikof Strait, Kupreanof Strait, and the Talnik Point-Marmot Bay area.
Cumulative effects of oilspills or disturbance on the Aleutian Canada geese
would not likely occur as a result of this alternative.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Although similar qualitatively to those of the
proposal, the degree of unavoidable effects on endangered and non-endangered
whales as a result of this alternative is unknown. The Information to Lessee
on Birds and Mammals (sec. II.B.l.b.), which recommends that the lessee operate
aircraft and vessels no closer than 1 mile from observed wildlife or known
wildlife concentration areas would help to minimize behavioral disturbance of
a short-term localized nature. No unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to
be sustained by Aleutian Canada geese as a result of this alternative.
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals: This alternative would
allow the same degree of protection or reduction of potential impacts on
terrestrial mammals and their coastal habitats as alternative IV (sec. IV.A.S.g.).
Oilspill trajectory analyses for this alternative are very similar to alterna-
tive IV (sec. IV.A.1.d. and appendix D, tables 15 and 16). Oilspill probabili-
ties for coastal habitats in Shelikof Strait are significantly reduced from
those for the proposal {appendix D, tables 14 and 16). The probabilities of
an oilspill contacting Kamishak Bay and other coastal areas in lower Cook
Inlet are the same or nearly the same as those for the proposal {appendix D,
tables 14 and 16, nos. 53 and 54).
Conclusion: This alternative would have essentially the same impacts on ter-
restrial mammals as alternative IV (sec. IV.A.S.g.); therefore, this alter-
native would reduce potential impacts as described for the proposal (sec.
IV.A.2.g.). The overall impacts on terrestrial mammals would be minor.
Cumulative Effects: This alternative would have about the same cumulative
impacts as alternative IV. Cumulative effects on terrestrial mammals in
Shelikof Strait would be reduced, but the terrestrial mammals of the lower
Cook Inlet area would be subject to the same degree of cumulative impacts as
the proposal.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: This alternative would have the same unavoidable
impacts on terrestrial mammals as alternative IV. Unavoidable oil pollution
of terrestrial mammals and their coastal habitats would be reduced in the
Shelikof Strait area, but not in the lower Cook Inlet area where terrestrial
mammals would be exposed to the same unavoidable impacts as with the proposal.
h. Impacts on Social Factors:
(1) Impacts on Population: With this alternative, popu-
lation impacts on Port Lions and Kodiak would be removed and population impacts
on Homer and Kenai-Soldotna would be moderated somewhat. Homer would still be
the community in Cook Inlet with the most substantial population impacts. See
section IV.A.2.h.(1).
198
Conclusion: The population impacts associated with this alternative would be
similar to those described for alternative IV. Kodiak and Port Lions would
not experience population impacts and the population impacts on Kenai and
Soldotna would be moderated. Homer would sustain the most substantial popu-
lation growth of the Cook Inlet communities.
Cumulative Effects: With this alternative only Homer would be significantly
affected.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The effects on Homer would be the same as for
the proposal (see sec. IV.A.2.h.(l)). Kenai and Soldotna would experience no
adverse effects due to the small additions of population. Unavoidable adverse
effects on Port Lions and Kodiak would be significantly moderated.
(2) Impacts on Sociocultural Systems: This alternative
would result in a significant reduction in sociocultural impacts. Kodiak
would experience fewer conflicts concerning joint fisheries, and OCS utiliza-
tion of goods, services, and space. Local competition for jobs associated
with OCS facility construction, potentially leading to racial conflict would
be minimized. Impacts on the community of Homer would also be moderated by
the reduced likelihood of major construction projects in the Homer area resulting
from a smaller proposed lease sale.
Conclusion: This alternative would result in a reduction of impacts on the
sociocultural systems of Kodiak, Port Lions, and Homer. Kenai-Soldotna would
still experience largely beneficial, mild impacts.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects on the communities of Kodiak and Port
Lions would be minimized. Homer would likely experience moderate social
conflict induced by continued Cook Inlet lease area exploration and possible
development.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Moderate social conflict and controversy could
occur in Homer. No unavoidable adverse effects for the other communities
would likely occur.
(3) Impacts on Community Infrastructure: With this
alternative, impacts would be confined to the Kenai and Homer areas. These
impacts would be similar to those described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(3)),
but would be slightly reduced.
Conclusion: Community infrastructure impacts would be limited to the Kenai
and Homer areas and are described in section IV.A.2.h.(3). There would be no
impacts in the Kodiak and Port Lions areas.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts would be confined to the Kenai and
Homer areas and are described in section IV.A.2.h.(3). There would be no
impacts in the Kodiak and Port L{ons areas.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: See section IV.A.2.h.(3) for the Kenai and Homer
areas only.
(4) Impacts on Subsistence: With this alternative,
impacts on village subsistence use areas, both in Cook Inlet and Shelikof
199
Strait would be moderated. The reduction in exploratory drilling sites and
deletion of blocks in Shelikof Strait would contribute to this low impact.
See discussion for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(4)).
Cumulative Effects: With the addition of sale CI leased tracts, the statis-
tical risk of oilspill contact would be reduced for Shelikof Strait villages,
English Bay, and Port Graham. See discussion under the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(4)).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: This alternative would minimize the unavoidable
adverse effects on subsistence use areas both in Cook Inlet and along Shelikof
Strait.
i. Impacts on the State, Regional, and Local Economies: With
this alternative, impacts would be confined to the Kenai and Homer areas.
These impacts would be similar, but less severe, than those described for the
proposal (sec. IV.A.2.i.) and would consist of relatively rapid increases in
the economy and employment of each area.
Conclusion: Economic impacts on Kodiak and Port Lions would be insignificant.
Impacts on the Kenai area would be mild. Impacts on the Homer area would be
moderate, and would be characterized by relatively rapid increases in the
area's economy and employment.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects would be similar to those described
for alternative IV (sec. IV.A.5.1.).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: As in alternative IV, much the impact would be
mild to moderate, relatively non-disruptive, per~nent economic growth. As in
the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.i.), mild economic growth could result in Kenai,
moderate growth could occur in the Homer area.
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources: This alternative would
result in a considerable reduction in risk from oilspills or other disturbance
to cultural resources as compared to the proposal. The USGS oilspill risk
analysis (appendix D) shows that risk to cultural resources would drop· from
high to low with this alternative.
Conclusion: This alternative would result in a reduction in risk to cultural
resources. Impact would be low for this alternative.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects on cultural resources would be minimal
with this alternative.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse effects which would
occur as a result of this alternative would be reduced from those of the
proposal.
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness, and Recreation Resources:
Conclusion: With this alternative, impacts would be similar to those described
for alternative IV (sec. IV.A.S.k.).
Cumulative Effects: Refer to section IV.A.5.k.
200
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Refer to section IV.A.S.k.
1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use:
Conclusion: With this alternative, impacts on land status and land use would
be substantially the same as under the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.1.). However, no
land status or land use impacts on the Kodiak Archipelago would likely occur
because of deletion of the Shelikof Strait portion of the proposal.
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
m. Impacts on Transportation Systems:
Conclusion: Impacts resulting from alternative V would be substantially the
same as described in section IV.A.S.m.
Cumulative Effects: See section IV.A.S.m.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: See section IV.A.S.m.
n. Impacts on the Alaska Coastal Management Program:
Conclusion: With this alternative, impacts on coastal zone management would
be the same as those described for alternative IV. Refer to section IV.A.S.i.
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
o. Impacts on Water Quality:
Conclusion: Under alternative V, the impacts on water quality would be sub-
stantially the same as under the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.o.). Most water quality
effects would be limited to the Cook Inlet area.
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
p. Impacts on Air Quality:
Conclusion: Impacts which would occur as a result of this alternative would
be the same as those of the proposed action (sec. IV.A.2.p.).
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects which would occur as a result of
this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed action.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse impacts which would
occur as a result of this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed action (sec. IV.A.2.p.).
201
7. Alternative VI (68 blocks): Modify the proposal by deletion of
the 85 blocks in lower Cook Inlet: The following sections assess the impacts
of further oil and gas leasing in only Shelikof Strait (see fig. II.B.6.a.-l).
a. Impacts on Vulnerable Coastal Habitats: This alternative
poses risks to the lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait coastal habitat that
are similar to the impacts of the entire proposal. The most likely number of
spills in Shelikof Strait is three; however, another seven spills are most
likely to result from the past leasing and existing tanker routes in lower
Cook Inlet (appendix D). The distribution of the coastal impact of these is
similar to the impact of the proposal because the spills may originate in both
lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait.
Conclusion: The leasing in only Shelikof Strait, as proposed with alternative
VI, poses comparatively similar risks to the coastal habitats in Shelikof
Strait and comparatively great risks to Marmot Bay as discussed in the proposal
(sec. IV.A.2.a.).
Cumulative Effects: In comparison with the proposal, alternative VI poses
approximately equal cumulative risks to the coastal habitats in Shelikof
Strait and lower Cook Inlet.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable impacts of this alternative are
similar to those associated with the entire proposal (sec. IV.A.2.a.).
b. Impacts on Commercial and Sportfish: Deletion of the
lower Cook Inlet blocks with this alternative could result in reduced poten-
tial oil pollution impacts on fin and shell fish populations and habitats in
the lower Cook Inlet. Oilspill risk probabilities for pink salmon spawning
habitats and juvenile foraging areas are high already due to existing leasing
and tankering activities in Cook Inlet. This alternative would add no further
risk.
Conclusion: Deletion of the lower Cook Inlet blocks could result in reduced
potential impacts from oil pollution on pink salmon spawning and rearing
habitats. However, these areas are at comparatively high risk from existing
hydrocarbon activities. Fish populations and habitats in Shelikof Strait
could suffer the same potential impacts as described for the proposal (sec.
IV.A.2.b).
Cumulative Effects: Activities related to this alternative in addition to
existing oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet could result in somewhat reduced
impacts on fish populations and habitats in the lower Cook Inlet and Barren
Islands areas from those cumulative effects described in section IV.A.2.b.
(proposal). However, this alternative would probably have about the same
degree of cumulative effects as the proposal on fin and shellfish populations
occurring in the Shelikof Strait.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Those unavoidable impacts described for the pro-
posal (sec. IV.A.2.b.) could be reduced for lower Cook Inlet populations and
habitats with this alternative. However, the same unavoidable effects described
for the proposal would probably occur for Shelikof Strait fish populations.
202
•
c. Impacts on Commercial Fishina: With this alternative,
impacts on commercial fishing in Shelikof Strait would be the same as discussed
for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.c.). Fisheries located from Uganik to Malina
Bays face the greatest risk of being adversely affected by an oilspill.
Impacts could include fouled fishing gear and fish, and co~etition for ocean
space, dock space, labor, and materials. Refer to sections IV.A.2.b. and
IV.A.2.c. (proposal) for a more detailed discussion of these ~acts.
While the impacts assessed for lower Cook Inlet may be reduced with this
alternative, the level of oil and gas related activities presently occurring
in the area, and future activities envisioned for the area would probably
result in only slightly reduced impacts. There may be so.e reduction of
potential impacts in the Polly Creek area of Cook Inlet (clams) and Kamishak
Bay (crab fishing), but, overall, impacts would not be significantly reduced.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts would be essentially the same as those
discussed for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.c.).
Unavoidable Aaverse Effects: With the exception of lower Cook Inlet, where
impacts may be reduced, unavoidable and adverse impacts would be similar to
those identified for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.c.).
d. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Birds: This alternative
could reduce potential oil pollution impacts on marine and coastal bird popu-
lations and habitats within the lower Cook Inlet area and the Barren Islands.
O~lspill risk probabilities for coastal habitats and offshore foraging areas
are significantly reduced (appendix D, table 26). Coastal habitats in Kamishak
Bay, Augustine Island, Anchor Point, and the Barren Islands are less likely to
be contacted by oil if the lower Cook tracts are not leased. However, these
areas are at high risk from the existing leasing and existing tankering acti-
vities as well as being at risk from oil pollution or disturbance from other
projects such as the proposed State lease sale 35 activities.
Bird populations and habitats in Shelikof Strait area are at high risk from
oilspills with this alternative. If a large spill occurs, the bird popula-
tions that occur in the bays, nearshore areas, and offshore foraging areas of
Shelikof Strait could suffer high mortalities as indicated by the high oil-
spill probability risks, 46-49 percent for this alternative (appendix D,
tables 26 and 29, fig. D).
This alternative could reduce disturbance of nesting birds in the lower Cook
Inlet area by reducing marine and air traffic somewhat from what would occur
with the proposal. However, disturbance of bird colonies in the Shelikof
Strait could still occur.
Conclusion: Deletion of the lower Cook Inlet tracts could reduce the poten-
tial impacts from oil pollution and disturbance on marine and coastal birds
and their habitats in that area and the Barren Islands. However, these areas
are at comparatively high risk froa existing and proposed hydrocarbon activities.
Bird populations and habitats in Shelikof Strait could suffer the same potential
impacts as described in the proposal. This alternative would be as likely to
have major impacts as the proposal .
203
Cumulative Effects: This alternative could reduce somewhat the combined
effects of the proposal, plus the existing lease area and existing tankering
on bird populations and habitats in the lower Cook Inlet and Barren Islands
areas from those cumulative effects described in the proposal. However, this
alternative will probably have about the same degree of cumulative effects as
the proposal on bird populations occurring in the Shelikof Strait areas (see
tables 27, 28, 30, and 31).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Those unavoidable impacts described in the pro-
posal could be reduced for the lower Cook Inlet and Barren Islands populations
and habitats with this alternative. However, the same unavoidable effects
described in the proposal would probably occur for the Shelikof Strait bird
populations with this alternative.
e. Impacts on Marine Mammals: Refer to section IV.A.2.e. for
a general discussion of impacts. Alternative VI would expose the northern and
northwestern Kodiak Archipelago to high spill risks which are substantially
less than that of the proposal (appendix D, 35% chance, alternative VI versus
48% chance, alternative I; tables 26 and 8, respectively), but greater than
those of alternative IV or V (17% and 11% chance respectively, area D).
Western shores of Shelikof Strait would be exposed to less chance of contact
compared to the proposal (appendix D, 11% chance, alternative VI versus 17%
alternative I; tables 26 and 8, respectively, area E), but greater than would
be incurred under alternative IV or V (5% and 4% chance, respectively).
Marine mammal habitats in lower Cook Inlet (e.g., Kamishak Bay-Augustine
Island, Anchor Point, and southwestern Kenai Peninsula) would be afforded
additional protection: Appendix D, table 26 shows that the probability of
spill contact over the life of the field in the Kamishak Bay-Augustine Island
nearshore environments (area H) would be 2 percent as compared to 33 percent
under the proposal. Similarly, the Anchor Point area (area G) would be sub-
jected to virtually no chance of spills as compared to 13 percent of the
proposal. Also, marine mammal habitats of the Barren Islands would be sub-
jected to less risk, at a substantially lower probability than would be ef-
fected by the proposal or alternative IV (appendix D; alternative I; 11%
chance; alternative IV; 10% chance; alternative VI; 1% chance, tables 8, 9,
and 26, respectively, area C).
Conclusion: Alternative VI would reduce potential spill effects {see sec.
IV.A.2) on sea otter, harbor seal, and sea lions and their habitats of lower
Cook Inlet and the Barren Islands, particularly those of the Kamishak Bay and
Barren Island areas below levels which would be incurred under the proposal.
Spill contact rates of the northern Kodiak Archipelago and Shelikof Strait
marine mammal habitats may be reduced below those of the proposal but not to
the extent that could be accomplished through alternatives IV and V.
Due to probable tanker traffic to eastern Kodiak Island, spill risks to Portlock
Bank would probably be higher under this alternative than what would be incurred
under alternative IV and V. Therefore, in consideration of the probable
ecological importance of Portlock Bank and nearshore marine habitats east of
Kodiak Island to sea lions and fur seals, and of the importance of the northern
Kodiak Archipelago to harbor seals and sea otters, this alternative would
probably not assure as much overall long-term protection to marine mammals
as would alternative IV or V. It is possible that noise and disturbance
204
associated with exploration, development, and production phases of the proposed
sale would affect sea lions and harbor seals, in particular those of Shelikof
Strait and eastern Kodiak Island.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative (alternative VI plus existing tracts) proba-
bilities of spill contact for marine mammal habitats would remain moderate to
high for most areas of marine mammal use, although these cumulative probabili-
ties (appendix D, table 27) are 5-10 percent less than the cumulative probabili-
ties that would be associated with the proposal (appendix D, table 8), and
generally constitute a greater reduction than would be achieved by alternatives
IV or V (compare to cumulative probabilities, appendix D, tables 9 and 10)
except for the north Kodiak Archipelago (area D) and the Shelikof Strait (area
E). Therefore, alternative VI may provide potential for reducing long-term
cumulative oilspill related direct and indirect effects (sec. IV.A.S.e.) on
marine mammals of lower Cook Inlet, but not necessarily for those of the
northern Kodiak Archipelago (probably an area of greatest sea otter density)
or Shelikof Strait. Since a pipeline to and tanker terminal on eastern Kodiak
Island would be likely under this alternative, localized cumulative disturbance
of hafbor seals, sea lions, or sea otters in the Marmot Bay area as a result
of this alternative could be higher than what would be incurred under alterna-
tive IV or V.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: If the field goes into production, this alterna-
tive is likely to result in direct mortality of sea otters, particularly in
the north-northwestern Kodiak Archipelago as the result of oilspills. Such
effects would generally be less than what would be expected under the proposal,
but greater than under alternative IV or V. It is possible that localized
habitat deterioration and/or food source loss as a result of spills would
occur, at least temporarily for sea otters and harbor seals of the northern
Kodiak Archipelago. It is possible that unavoidable disturbance of sea lion
or harbor seal concentration would occur as a result of long-term changes in
transportation systems, localized impacts of facility codstruction, or lo-
calized short~term effects of aircraft, boat, or industrial noise. The
Information to Lessee on Birds and Mammals (sec. II.B.1.b.), which recommends
that the lessee operate aircraft and vessels no closer than 1 mile from observed
wildlife or known wildlife concentration areas would help to minimize behavioral
disturbance of a short-term localized nature, especially at hauling areas and
breeding rookeries.
f. Impacts on Endangered Species and Non-Endangered Cetaceans:
See section IV.A.2.f. for a general discussion of impacts. Alternative VI
would reduce oilspill risk and potential effects on cetaceans frequenting the
northern Kodiak Archipelago below that of the proposal (35\ chance alternative
VI vs. 48\ chance, alternative I; appendix D, tables 26 and 8, area D), but
not below that which would occur for alternative IV or V (17\ and 11\ chance,
respectively). (NOTE: unless otherwise specified, oilspill risk analyses
made in this section refer to probabilities conditional on the development of
a production field and to spill contact rates within 10 days of simulated
launch.) However, this alternative would subject the Barren Islands and
eastern Kenai Peninsula to lower oilspill risk than would alternatives I, IV,
and V. Areas of whale occurrence on the eastern shores of Shelikof Strait
would be at 5-9 percent chance of oilspill contact for this alternative (app-
endix D, table 29, nos. 12, 13, 14) as compared to 1-4 percent for alternative
IV. Therefore, alternative VI would minimize the potential for direct or
205
indirect oilspill effects (sec. IV.A.2.f.) to areas which probably receive the
most use by gray whales as compared to other alternatives but would not afford
as much protection to areas of cetacean occurrence in the northern Kodiak
Archipelago and Shelikof Strait as would alternatives IV or V. Appendix D,
table 26, shows that the probability of spill contact over the life of the
field in the Kaaishak Bay-Augustine Island nearshore environments (area H)
would be 2 percent compared to 33 percent under the proposal, and 29 and 26
percent under alternatives IV and V. Thus, direct and indirect effects of
oilspills on wintering beluga whales would be less likely under alternative VI
than under alternatives I, IV, or V. Localized oilspills and disturbance may
occur in the vicinity of a tanker terminal located on the eastern side of
Kodiak Island. It is possible, therefore, that cetaceans of eastern Kodiak
Island habitats also would sustain negative effects as a result of spills or
disturbance that may be associated with this alternative. Overall, effects
would possibly exceed those described for alternatives IV or V.
Conclusion: It is possible that endangered and non-endangered cetaceans may
sustain direct ,nd indirect effects due to oilspill occurrence in areas of
high risk of contact such as the northern Kodiak Archipelago. Risk of spill
contact and effects on beluga wintering areas of lower Cook Inlet such as
Kamishak Bay and gray whale habitats on the eastern side of the Kenai Peninsula
would be substantially less than those under the proposal. Localized effects
of oilspills and disturbances may be sustained in the vicinity of a tanker
terminal located on the eastern side of Kodiak Island. It is possible, therefore,
that cetaceans of eastern Kodiak Island habitats will sustain negative effects
as a result of oilspills and disturbance that may be associated with this
alternative. This alternative would not cause significant impacts on endangered
birds.
Cumulative Effects: Examination of appendix D, tables 8, 9, 10, and 26,
indicates that alternative VI would lower cumula~ive (alternative VI plus
existing lease sale) oilspill risk below that which would result from the
proposal but not substantially below that which would result from alternatives
IV and V for the eastern Kenai Peninsula and Barren Islands. This alternative
would have higher (59% vs. 48%) cumulative spill probability on the northern
Kodiak Archipelago than alternatives IV and V. The cumulative probability of
oilspill contact in Kamishak Bay beluga whale wintering areas would remain
high (67%) under this alternative (appendix D, table 26, area H). Therefore,
alternative VI would not reduce cumulative oilspill effects on cetaceans in
lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait (sec. IV.A.2.f.) any more than alterna-
tives IV and V.
This alternative would be expected to contribute to localized cumulative
oilspills, noise, and other disturbance on the eastern side of Kodiak Island,
particularly as may be associated with the tanker terminal near Marmot Bay and
tankering of crude oil over the Portlock Bank.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Although similar qualitatively, the degree of
unavoidable effects on endangered and non-endangered whales as a result of
this alternative are unknown. The Information to Lessee on Birds and Mammals
(sec. II.B.1.b.), which recommends that the lessee operate aircraft and vessels
no closer than 1 mile from observed wildlife or known wildlife concentration
areas would help to minimize behavioral disturbance of a short-term, localized
nature. No unavoidable adverse impacts would be expected to be sustained by
Aleutian Canada geese as a result of this alternative.
206
g. Impacts on Terrestrial Mammals: This alternative would
reduce oilspill risks to terrestrial mammals and their coastal habitats in the
lower Cook Inlet area especially in Kamishak Bay. Brown bear sprina-use areas
in Kamishak Bay would face lower risk from oil contamination with this alter-
native. Coastal wintering areas for moose would also face less risk from oil
pollution along the coast near Anchor Point. However, coastal habitats in
Shelikof Strait showing a high probability of risk from oilspills, such as the
Kukak Bay brown bear stream-and spring-use areas, and Raspberry and Uganik
Islands deer wintering areas (graphic 9), with the proposal would also be at
high risk with this alternative (refer to sec. IV.A.2.g.). The development
scenario for this alternative includes an onshore pipeline from Chernof Point
to Talnik Point and tanker terminal facilities at Talnik Point. There would
be no gas pipeline to Nikiski; thus, impact to terrestrial habitat on the
Kenai Peninsula would not occur. Disturbance of terrestrial mammals and their
habitats due to onshore activities would still occur on Kodiak Island with
this alternative as with the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.g.).
Conclusion: This alternative could reduce potential impacts on terrestrial
mammals and their coastal habitats in the lower Cook Inlet portion. The
terrestrial mammals in the Shelikof Strait portion of the proposed lease area
would face the same risk as described in section IV.A.2.g. (proposal). Overall,
impacts on terrestrial mammals would probably be minor.
Cumulative Effects: Although lower Cook Inlet terrestrial mammal resources
would be at less risk from oil pollution with this alternative than with the
proposal or with alternatives IV and V, the combined effects of this alter-
native plus the effects of the existina lower Cook Inlet lease area and exist-
ing tankering would be about the same as the proposal for the lower Cook Inlet
portion of the proposed lease area. This alternative would have about the
same cumulative effects on terrestrial mammal resources of the Shelikof Strait
area as the proposal.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: This alternative would have the same unavoidable
adverse impacts on Shelikof Strait terrestrial mammals populations as the
proposal. However, fewer terrestrial mammals would be unavoidably affected in
the lower Cook Inlet area than with the proposal or with alternative IV or V.
h. Impacts on Social Factors:
(1) Impacts on Population: This alternative would result
in the same impacts as those described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(l))
for Kodiak and Port Lions. For Kenai, Soldotna, and Homer, population impacts
would be eliminated.
Conclusion: Population impacts would be the same as described for the proposal
(sec. IV.A.2.h.(l)) for Kodiak and Port Lions. These impacts would be major
for Port Lions and less serious for Kodiak. This alternative would eliminate
population impacts on Homer, Kenai, and Soldotna.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts would be the same as the proposal for
Kodiak and Port Lions (see table IV.A.2.h.(l)-2). For Homer, Kenai, and
Soldotna, cumulative impacts would be equal to the base case. See table
IV.A.2.h.(l)-3.
207
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: For Kodiak and Port Lions, unavoidable adverse
effects would be similar to those described in section IV.A.2.h.(l) (proposal).
There would be no unavoidable adverse effects for Homer, Kenai, and Soldotna.
(2) Impacts on Sociocultural Systems: Deletion of blocks
and associated exploratory and development activity in Cook Inlet would reduce
the potential conflict associated with the proposal for the community of
Homer. Impacts on Kodiak, Port Lions, and other Shelikof Strait communities
would continue. See discussion under the proposal, sections IV.A.2.h.(l) and
(3).
Conclusion: This alternative is equivalent to alternative I (the proposal) in
its effects on Kodiak, Port Lions, and other Shelikof Strait communities.
Impacts on Homer and Kenai-Soldotna would be moderate.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects would be major in Kodiak-Port Lions,
and would be eliminated in Homer, Kenai, and Soldotna.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse effects resulting from this
alternative would include social conflict leading perhaps to increased racial
conflict, moderate job shifting during construction seasons for Kodiak, Port
Lions, and perhaps mild job shifting in other Shelikof Strait villages.
Unavoidable adverse effects in Homer would be eliminated.
(3) Impacts on Community Infrastructure: Alternative VI
eliminates all impacts on Kenai and Homer areas. Impacts on the community
infrastructure in the Kodiak and Port Lions areas would be as described for
the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(3)).
Conclusion: Impacts on community infrastructure in the Kenai and Homer areas
would be non-existant. Impacts to the Kodiak and Port Lions areas would be as
described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(3)).
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts on community infrastructure in the
Kenai and Homer areas would be non-existent. Cumulative impacts on Kodiak
would be about the same as those outlined for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.h.(2)).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Impacts would be limited to the Kodiak and Port
Lions areas as described in section IV.A.2.h.(3).
(4) Impacts on Subsistence: In spite of the fact that
petroleum-related activity in Shelikof Strait would be about the same as for
the proposal, the risk calculations on subsistence use areas for this alterna-
tive show it to be less hazardous to subsistence areas in Shelikof Strait than
the proposal itself. Cook Inlet subsistence use areas also face less risk
under this alternative. See figure IV.A.l.d.-9.
This reduction in risk to subsistence use and take areas would reduce the
likelihood of the disruption of local village economies resulting from an
oilspill.
Cumulative Effects: When both the cumulative effect of sale Cl leasing activ-
ity and the effect of existing and proposed tankering are calculated, using
the oilspill risk analysis model, two areas on either side of Shelikof Strait
208
(Kupreonof Strait and Cape Gull) show high oilspill risk, and five areas along
the strait at Ugak Bay, Uganik Island, Black Cape, Afognak Island, Cape Kulak,
and Douglas Reef show medium risk (fig. IV.A.d.-14).
In Cook Inlet, two areas in Kamishak Bay and Augustine Island show high risk
of oilspill contact, and four points show medium risk. The cumulative case of
this alternative is less hazardous than the cumulative case with the proposal.
With this cumulative case, two areas along Shelikof Strait would be at high
risk, only one of which would result in oilspill impacts on the subsistence
use area of villages located along Kupreanof Strait. This minimizes the
likelihood of disruption of subsistence activities and take in the event of an
oilspill.
Under the cumulative case, seven areas in Cook Inlet show high oilspill risk
including two close to English Bay and Port Graham (Ushagat Island and English
Bay). With this cumulative case only three areas in Kamishak Bay (away from
heavily used subsistence areas) show high risk of oilspill contact, thus
reducing the likelihood of disturbance to these village economies and their
residents and activities.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Under this alternative, the unavoidable adverse
effects of one or more probable oilspills, and their temporary to long-term
disruption of subsistence use and take, would be minimized.
i. Impacts on the State, Regional and Local Economies:
Alternative VI would eliminate all impacts on the Kenai and Homer areas because
development would occur in the near Kodiak and Port Lions areas of the Shelikof
Strait. Since gas would be reinjected, most economic impacts on Homer and
Kenai areas would be eliminated. Impacts on Kodiak and Port Lions would
remain as described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.i.).
Conclusion: Mild economic impacts in terms of employment and income would be
likely in the Kenai and Homer areas. As for the proposal, major economic and
employment impacts are likely in the Port Lions area, and mild impacts would
likely occur in Kodiak.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts would be similar to those described in
section IV.A.2.i. (proposal).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse impacts may or may not exist
depending on ones view of the implications of an economic boom in the Port
Lions area.
j. Impacts on Cultural Resources: Alternative VI could
result in reduced risks to cultural resources. Reduction in traffic through
Stevenson Entrance and Kennedy Entrance could reduce impacts on cultural
resources of the Barrier Islands (graphic 13).
Conclusion: This alternative would result in improved conditions f~r preser-
vation of cultural resources compared to the proposal. Impact is low for this
alternative.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects on cultural resources would be greatly
reduced with this alternative.
209
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse effects resulting from
this alternative would be reduced compared to those described for the proposal
(sec. IV.A.2.j.).
k. Impacts on Visual, Wilderness, and Recreation Resources:
Conclusion: This alternative would result in a reduction of impacts on the
visual, wilderness, and recreation resources of Cook Inlet (see sec. IV.A.2.k.).
Since petroleum-related activity in Shelikof Strait would be similar to that
described for the proposal, impacts on visual, wilderness, and recreation
resources would be the same as for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.k.).
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects on visual, wilderness, and recreation
resources on Cook Inlet would be slightly reduced with this alternative.
Effects of these resources on Shelikof Strait, Kodiak Island, and the Alaska
Peninsula would be as described in section IV.A.2.k. (proposal).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse effects would be the same as
those described in section IV.A.2.k. but would be slightly reduced for Cook
Inlet.
1. Impacts on Land Status and Land Use:
Conclusion: With alternative VI, impacts on land status and land use of the
Kodiak Archipelago would be substantially the same as under the proposal (sec.
IV.A.2.1.). Impacts on the Kenai Peninsula area would include those described
for alternative I (sec. IV.A.2.1.) regarding expansion of support and supply
base activity at Homer and the possibility of spillover land use impacts on
Homer.
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
m. Impacts on Transportation Systems: With this alternative,
material flowing into the city of Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula would be
cut by nearly 50 percent. Additionally, there would be no need for an exten-
sive labor force on the Kenai Peninsula as there would be no need to construct
any major facilities.
With this alternative, impacts on Port Lions would be as great or greater than
the proposal. Some increase in traffic in the Port Lions area could occur as
a result of a natural tendency to support the entire operation from the closest
possible support base. However, even in this case, routine supply operations
from Port Lions would not be likely.
Conclusion: As a result of this alternative, impacts would be substantially
reduced in Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. Impacts on Port Lions would be
the same as those described for the proposal.
Cumulative Effects: See section IV.A.2.m. (proposal).
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse impacts would be the same as
those described in section IV.A.2.m., with the exception that this alternative
210
would cause no traffic congestion on the Sterling Highway and would cause no
increase in Cook Inlet tanker traffic.
n. Impacts the Alaska Coastal Management Program:
Conclusion: With alternative VI, impacts on the State Coastal Zone Management
Program, the Kodiak Island Borough District Management Program (CHP), and
Kenai Peninsula Borough CHP would be similar to those impacts described for
the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.n.). The Kodiak Island Borough could be the site of
an exploration support base instead of the Kenai Peninsula Borough because the
lease tracts would be located principally in the Shelikof Strait, and no oil
terminal and/or processing facilities would be located on the coastal zone of
the Kenai Peninsula Borough with this alternative. However, other aspects of
the petroleum development scenario described and assessed in section IV.A.2.n.
(proposal), apply to alternative VI.
Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects would be the same as described in
section IV.A.2.n., with exceptions noted above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
o. Impacts on Water Quality:
Conclusion: With this alternative, impacts on water quality would be substan-
tially the same as described for the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.o.). Host water
quality impacts would be limited to the Shelikof Strait area.
Cumulative Effects: Same as above.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Same as above.
p. Impacts on Air Quality: With this alternative, impacts on
air quality would be localized on the northern coastline of Kodiak Island
between Chernof Point and Talnik Point. Since there would be no Anchor Point
facility, impacts on air quality would be eliminated for this area.
Conclusion: Air emissions which would occur as a result of this alternative
would be localized on the northern coastline of Kodiak Island.
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects which would occur as a result of
this alternative would be the same as those of the proposal (sec. IV.A.2.p.)
except there would be no petroleum-related air quality impacts in the Anchor
Point area.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects: The unavoidable adverse impacts which would
occur as a result of this alternative would be the same as those of the proposal
(sec. IV.A.2.p.).
B. Analysis of Other Block Deletion Alternatives
Reco~endations for block deletions were received from eight agencies, organi-
zations, and individuals as a result of the DEIS review and public hearing
processes. These block deletion recommendations have been grouped, where a
common pattern or justification for deletion exists, and synthesized for
211
analysis as three block deletion alternatives. This section contains a descrip-
tion of the block deletion alternatives and an analysis of environmental
impacts in comparison with the environmental analysis performed for the proposed
action and alternatives thereto, as appropriate. Resource estimates for the
alternatives may be less than the proposed action or respective alternative
due to block deletion; however, the extent to which resource estimates change
as a result of block deletion is unknown. Consequently, the developmental
scenarios for the leasing configurations resulting from block deletion are
assumed as in the proposed action or respective alternative. Although the
results of the oilspill risk analysis were used for this analysis where appli-
cable, no additional computerized analysis was performed for specific block
deletion alternatives.
1. Block Deletion Alternative A: This alternative involves modifi-
cation of the proposed sale area by the deletion of 12 blocks within lower
Cook Inlet and 68 blocks in Shelikof Strait, for a total deletion of 80 blocks.
The alternative proposes the leasing of 73 blocks within lower Cook Inlet,
based on the definition of demarcation between lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof
Strait as contained in alternative IV. The alternative is based on the recom-
mendations of the State of Alaska, the Kodiak Island Borough, and Friends of
the Earth. For the purpose of this analysis, the alternative is discussed in
terms of these recommendations and the justification submitted for modifying
the proposed sale area. The respective recommendations are shown on figure
IV.B.1.-1, shown for comparison with alternative IV, the basis for the State
of Alaska's position. The alternative is shown on figure IV.B.l.-2. Please
note the State proposal includes the recommendation for adding the 19 blocks
in the northern part of the lease sale area deleted for the analysis of alter-
native IV (as well as alternative V). The block deletion recommendations are
grouped because of similarity in suggesting deletion of the Shelikof Strait
blocks, although the specific demarcation line for the Strait is somewhat
different in each proposal. Block deletion recommendations in lower Cook
Inlet by the State and Friends of the Earth are identical. The Kodiak Island
Borough has no recommendation for block deletions in lower Cook Inlet. The
number of blocks recommended for deletion are as follows:
Shelikof Strait
State of Alaska
Friends of the Earth
Kodiak Island Borough
68
75
81
Lower Cook Inlet
12
12
0
Total
80
87
81
Block deletions in the Shelikof Strait are justified on the basis of inadequate
biological research and data base; the importance of the Strait to marine and
avian resources generally, to bottomfish populations particularly, and to
fisheries; the lack of a Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Kodiak Island
Borough; shortcomings in current oilspill cleanup capabilities; geologic
hazards; and the strong opposition by local governments. The blocks proposed
for deletion in lower Cook Inlet are justified as a function of impact reduction
to marine and avian resources and fisheries generally. The block deletion
proposal on the west side of lower Cook Inlet is justified on the basis of
reducing a substantial oilspill threat to State resources; whereas, the recom-
mendations near Augustine Island are based on substantial geophysical hazard.
No justification is rendered by the State for recommending the addition of the
19 northern blocks of the ]ease sale area to alternative IV, blocks which had
been deleted for analysis purposes based on concerns of Cook Inlet fishermen.
212
Figure IV .8 .1.-1
,....-----------BLOCK DELETION RECOMMENDATIONS : ALTERNATIVE A-----~"'?""-...,....-,
LOWEit CDOIC I NUT -SHD.IKOI' SJ1tAIT
~ oc:s SAU! 100.10
Sf ATE OF AUI!CA,.~ f'QSI'TICN
AJW<O#CALL
-11tACI'S \.EASED tH rAL£ NO. a
OI.DQCS CXlfGO(AEI)
AL.l£flrriiA.11VIi A
IIIIIJIJI ...
0
/~
/
L..OWER COOK INLET-SHD..IKOf' ST1lAIT
P"ftCMM''S£D OCS SALE NO. 10
FRIENDS C. THE E.M1H
a>WOSITE PftOntACTION DIAGRAIIII
OF AREA Sll£CTtO
~EA OfCAU
-TRACT$ UASED IN SAL£ NO. C1
ILOCKS CONSIDERED IN
AL."f£.fWAT1V'EA
liliED ...
0
LO WER COOK IHLET-SHELIKOr STRAIT
ftftoroSID 0CS SALE NO. 60
ALHIUI.ATlVI rv
COW'OStTl PAOTRACTION DIAGffA.M
OF AfltEA SlLECTED
AfltlA 01' CALl
-TRACTS LEASED IN SA.U HO. Cl
-ILOC .~ OOHSIDEfiED FOR
ALT~o!"'\TIVI' IY
.. OIL TERMINAL jHypofNtal)
0
LOWEit CDOIC JNL£T-SHELII<OF SlllAn
P'fiOPOSElJ OCS ~ MO. 50
AAEA Of C4U.
-T1tACTS UASED tN SALE fC1. a
ILOCICS c::oHSJDEitED IN
N..Tt:ANATMA
FIGURE IV.B.1.-2
LOWER COOK INLET-SHELIKOF STRAIT
PROPOSED OCS SALE NO. 60
BLOCK DELETION ALTERNATIVE A
COMPOSITE PROTRACTION DIAGRAM OF
AREA SELECTED
AREA OF CALL
TRACTS LEASED IN SALE NO. Cl
f.<,:~:M!i@:''':';'>>4 BLOCKS CONSIDERED FOR
ALTERNATIVE A
i' OIL TERMINAL (Hypothetical)
() GAS TERMINAL (Hypothetical \
ISLAND
Source: Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 1980
A plausible reason for the recommendation may be the proximity of the blocks
to Sta~e lease sale 35, scheduled for the first quarter of 1981.
Environmental Impacts: The block deletion proposal of the Kodiak Island
Borough is identical to alternative V. In fact, the block deletions repre-
sented by alternative V came about in response to the Borough's definition of
the northern extremity of Shelikof Strait. Consequently, the impacts within
the lease sale area of deleting the Shelikof Strait so defined are as contained
in the analysis of alternative V. The only difference between the proposals
of the State and Friends of the Earth exists in the demarcation of Shelikof
Strait from lower Cook Inlet. Within the lease sale area, the impacts of
deleting the Shelikof Strait as defined by the State are as contained in the
analysis of alternative IV. The effects of the block deletion proposal in the
Shelikof Strait by Friends of the Earth was substantially analyzed in alter-
native V.
In lower Cook Inlet, the block deletion proposals of the State and Friends of
the Earth are identical, consisting of five blocks east of Augustine Island,
abutting OCS lease sale CI tracts, and seven noncontiguous blocks in waters
off Kachemak Bay. The environmental impacts by such block deletions may be
somewhat reduced from those assessed for alternatives IV or V due to oil
weathering and dispersal as a function of OCS activities operating at an
increased distance from shore, but it is impossible to determine the nature or
extent of impact reduction from the deletion of so few blocks. It is likely
such block deletions will produce little or no difference in the impacts
already assessed in the analysis of alternatives IV and V. There may be no
significant difference in impacts from those assessed in alternative IV by the
addition of the 19 contiguous northerly blocks to the alternative, as proposed
by the State. However, in the cumulative case, adding the northerly tracts
could increase impacts to resources associated with Anchor Point and Kamishak
Bay.
Conclusion: The impacts from block deletion alternative A should be substan-
tially the same as assessed in alternative IV.
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of block deletion alternative A
should be moderately increased for the marine and avian resources and habitat
associated with Anchor Point and Kamishak Bay, as assessed in alternative IV,
due to the addition of the northerly blocks of the proposed lease sale area.
2. Block Deletion Alternative B: This alternative involves modifica-
tion of the proposed sale area by the deletion of 12 blocks within lower Cook
Inlet and 32 blocks in Shelikof Strait, for a total deletion of 44 blocks.
The alternative proposes the leasing of 49 blocks within Shelikof Strait,
based on the definition of demarcation between lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof
Strait as contained in alternative V, and the leasing of 60 blocks in lower
Cook Inlet, for a total of 109 blocks. The alternative is based on the alter-
nate proposal of the State of Alaska and the proposals of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). For the purpose of this analysis, the alternative is discussed in
terms of these recommendations and the justification submitted for modifying
the proposed sale area. The recommendations are shown on figure IV.B.2.~1;
the alternative is shown on figure IV.B.2.-2. The block deletion proposals
are grouped because of similarity in the number or pattern of recommended
213
1D1WDt c::ocM< INLET-SHELIKO, STRAIT
PftOPOS£D OCS SALE NO. 10
CI)MPII)SITI" P«OlllA.CTJOH DIAGRAM
Of MEA RL.ECTED
AI'IEA OF CfoLL
-TRACTS l.£ASU) IN U..U HO. 0
ILOC1C! CONS1DEft£0 lH
..
0
ALTE ..... lMI
~/
ARIA Oil CALL
-,......,. UAilD "',..... ..,. a
-II,.OCICI CONIIOIIJtf:O IN
IIIDlllll
.If
0
ALTI'IIIM11VEI
Figure IV.B.2.-1
ENDATIONS: ALTERNATIVE 8 ------.....,.....,.---...,.......,
L..O'WER QlOK IHL.ET-SHn.JKOP' S'TJlAJT
I'ROI'05CI ocs SAL£ NO. 10
MEA OF CALL
-11lACTI t..iASED fN ~LE NO. 0
BLDCU COHSIDOtED IN
ALTt.......,TMI
FIGURE IV. B. 2.-2
LOWER COOK INLET-SHELIKOF STRAIT
PROPOSED OCS SALE N0.60
BLOCK DELETION ALTERNATIVE B
COMPOSITE PROTRACTION DIAGRAM OF
AREAS ELECTED
AREA OF CALL
TRACTS LEASED IN SALE NO. Cl
(''-'f:lt}l;};;' %;~d;J BLOCKS CONSIDERED FOR ALTERNATIVE B
* OIL TERMINAL (Hypothetical )
0 GAS TERMINAL (Hypothetical)
ISLAND
: Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office
deletions in lower Cook Inlet and/or Shelikof Strait. The number of blocks
recommended for deletion are as follows:
Shelikof Strait
State of Alaska
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Oceanic and
21
27
Atmospheric A~inistration 20
Lower Cook Inlet
12
10
0
Total
33
37
20
The alternate proposal of the State is submitted should the Secretary consider
leasing within the entire lease sale area as opposed to choosing an area which
deletes the Shelikof Strait. The block deletion propo~al by the State in
lower Cook Inlet is identical to that described in block deletion alternative A,
with the same justification. The pattern of these block deletions are compar-
able in the main with the block deletion recommendations of FWS in lower Cook
Inlet, except that fewer blocks are included for deletion off Kachemak Bay.
Within Shelikof Strait, the State, FWS, and NOAA seek a buffer between poten-
tial oil and gas activities and shore areas supporting concentrations of
biota. The block deletion proposal by FWS is exclusively on the west side of
Shelikof Strait, comprising a 6-nautical-mile buffer zone. Justification
provided by the FWS is for the protection of seals and sea lions at six specific
points along the coast between Cape Gull and Cape Douglas. The State recom-
mends a similar but less extensive buffer in this area of the strait, as well
as the deletion of four noncontiguous blocks on the east side as a buffer zone
against oilspill threat. NOAA also recommends a buffer of block deletions on
the west side of Shelikof Strait as well as the deletion of one block in the
northeast part of the strait. The alternative contains the recommendation of
the FWS for a 6·nautical-mile buffer zone on the west side of Shelikof Strait,
within which are included in the recommendations by the other sources.
Environmental Impacts: The potential environmental impacts of block deletions
in lower Cook Inlet are as described in block deletion alternative A. Within
Shelikof Strait the impacts of alternative B were assessed as part of a larger
set of block deletions contained in alternatives IV and V. As a discrete set,
deletion of the nearshore. blocks on the west side of Shelikof Strait could
reduce to a limited extent the impacts to marine and coastal biota and habitats
of western Shelikof Strait as compared to those assessed in alternatives I and
VI. Impact reduction primarily would be associated with proportionate increases
in spill weathering, dispersion, and response time as a function of increased
transport distance to shore. Over the life of the field, the effects of
incremental block deletions may be speculative as to the potential reduction
of biological effects on Shelikof Strait resources as compared with alterna~
tives I and VI. Although noise and other disturbance effects have a relation-
ship to proximity, there is no evidence the deletion of specific blocks will
afford increased protection from oilspill effects to specific island and cape
habitats. The tidal action within the Strait is characterized by a net southwest
flow and consequent net downstream dispersion over time rather than a direct,
shortest distance flow from offshore to onshore sites. The impacts to marine
resources and habitat may be reduced on the west side of Shelikof Strait as a
function of delayed risk from oilspill effects, but such impacts should be
little different from those assessed in alternatives I and VI over the life of
the project.
214
Conclusion: The impacts from block deletion alternative B should be sub-
stantially the same in lower Cook Inlet as assessed in alternatives IV and V.
The impacts from an additional 3-mile deletion in Shelikof Strait should be
substantially the same as assessed in alternatives I and VI.
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of block deletion alternative B
should be substantially the same in lower Cook Inlet as assessed in alterna-
tives IV and V. The impacts from an additional 3-mile deletion in Shelikof
Strait should be substantially the same as assessed in alternatives I and VI.
3. Block Deletion Alternative C: This alternative involves modifica-
tion of the proposed sale area by the deletion of 34 blocks on the west side
of lower Cook Inlet, based on the definition of demarcation between lower Cook
Inlet and Shelikof Strait contained in alternative IV. The alternative proposes
the leasing of 53 blocks in lower Cook Inlet and 66 blocks in Shelikof Strait,
for a total of 119 blocks. This alternative is based on the recommendations
of Mr. Hank Pennington, representing the Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory
Council; Mr. Bob Tremain, representing Cook Inlet crab fishermen; the State of
Alaska, as an alternative to a seasonal drilling stipulation for a specific
part of the lease sale area; and Mr. Paul Lowe, Chair, Alaska Chapter of the
Sierra Club. For the purpose of this analysis, the alternative is discussed
in terms of these recommendations and the justification submitted for modifying
the proposed sale area. These recommended block deletions are shown on figure
IV.B.J.-1; the alternative is shown on figure IV.B.J.-2. The proposals are
grouped because they represent variations in block deletion configurations
based on potential conflicts within a stationary crab fishery or coincidently
derive a comparable pattern. Two of the proposals also recommend deletion of
the entire Shelikof Strait. This is not included in the alternative as a
result of being analyzed earlier. Block deletions in the respective recommen-
dations are as follows:
Shelikof Strait
State of Alaska
Cook Inlet Crab Fishermen
Kodiak Island Borough
OCS Advisory Council
Alaska Chapter, Sierra Club
0
0
(1)
72
(1) Demarcation not specified
Lower Cook Inlet
18
34
(1)
35
Total
18
34
104
107
Block deletions are justified by the same type of reasons described in block
deletion alternative A to support all block deletions recommended by the
Sierra Club and the Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council. The potential
gear conflict problem with the stationary pot fishery was singled out by the
State and the Cook Inlet crab fishermen as the sole source of justification
for block deletions on the west side of lower Cook Inlet, the State recommen-
dation being a subset of the blocks recommended by the fishermen. The State
recommendation is essentially what the fishermen term the "Compass Rose," an
area of crab breeding, rearing, and fishing. The larger set of blocks submitted
by the fishermen included the "Compass Rose" as well as crab migration routes,
all essential areas of harvest supporting the Cook Inlet crab fishery.
Environmental Impacts: Within lower Cook Inlet, the impacts of alternative C
were assessed as part of a larger set of block deletions contained in alterna-
215
Figure IV .8.3.-1
r------------BLOCK DELETION RECOMMENDATIONS : ALTERNATIVE C ----.....,....,--r-o
.UEA OF CALL
-nACTS L£AS£D .. lo\.LE Ml. a
BI.DOCS C:X:INSUlER£0 IN
AL'l'£JINATMC
IIIIlllil ...
0
LD'IUI-----IRIIAIT -OC.ML&IIQ.•
COOK NIILITCIItAI ,_. ..... ___ , __ __ ......_
---•-..oaa ____ ..
IIIL~TMC -..... __ _ -...
0
AIIEA 011 CALL
-TJI4CI'S .......... -.r lOll. 0
8L.COCI CD5DEMD IN
M.Ttflf!IATMC
C!llll!ll ...
0
---------OQML&IIQ..
!f.GIOI!I!M!e,-..nDII------111111111 ...
0
, __
_, ........ --·---0 ___ .. ..._.
F IGUR E IV. B. 3 .-2
LOWER COOK INLET-SHELIKOF STRAIT
PROPOSED OCS SALE N0.60
BLOCK DELETION ALTERNATIVE C
COMPOSITE PROTRACTION DIAGRAM OF
AREA SELECTED
A RE A OF CALL
TRACTS LEASED IN SA L E NO .. CI
f'} '~'"''')i;;:Jt:ti{'f BLOCKS CONSIDERED FOR ALT ERNATIVE C
Jtf OIL TERMINAL {Hypothetical)
0 GAS TERMINAL {Hypothetical)
ISLAND
Source : Alas ka Outer Continental Shelf Office
tive VI. As a discrete set, deletion of a substantial number of blocks on the
west side of lower Cook Inlet could significantly reduce impacts to marine
resources and habitats in Kamishak Bay and elsewhere on the west side of Cook
Inlet through reduction in risk from oilspills, as well as produce a moderate
reduction in risk to marine and coastal birds, based on limited existing
information. However, in terms of the justification for block deletions, none
of the analysis performed for the crab fisheries showed any major gear con-
flicts over the life of the field. Consequently, the potential for gear
conflict is not expected to be realized.
Conclusion: The impacts from the deletion of the blocks on the west side of
lower Cook Inlet should be significantly less for the marine resources in this
part of Cook Inlet than the impacts assessed in alternatives I, IV, and V.
However, based on the justification for block deletion, the impacts on the
stationary crab fishery in lower Cook Inlet should be substantially the same
as assessed in alternatives I, IV, and V.
Cumulative Effects: Deletion of the blocks on the west side of lower Cook
Inlet should substantially reduce the cumulative effects from oilspill risk on
the west side of Cook Inlet as assessed in alternatives I, IV, and V. However,
based on the justification for these block deletions, the cumulative effects
should be substantially the same as assessed for the west side of lower Cook
Inlet under alternatives I, IV, and V.
C. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-term Productivity
In this section, the short-term effects and uses of various components of the
environment of the lower Cook Inlet/ Shelikof Strait areas are related to
long-term effects and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
The effects of the proposed action would vary in kind, intensity, and duration,
beginning with preparatory activities (seismic data collection and exploration
drilling) of oil and gas development, and ending when natural environmental
balances might be restored.
In general, "short-term" refers to the useful lifetime of the proposal, but
some even "shorter-term" uses and effects are considered. "Long-term" refers
to that time beyond the lifetime of the proposal. The life of any oil and gas
development in the lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait has been estimated to be
about 26 years. In other words, short-term refers to the total duration of
oil and gas exploration and production, whereas long-term refers to an indef-
inite period beyond the termination of oil and gas production. This period
will vary from one environmental component to another.
Many of the impacts discussed in sec. IV are considered to be short-term
(being greatest during the construction, exploration, and early production
phases), which could be further reduced by the mitigating measures discussed
in section II.
Biological productivity would be lost in the short-term on all onshore lands
used in the proposed project. These areas could be returned to productivity
in the long-term with proper management. Restoration may not be entirely
feasible; however, the overall loss would be a minor adverse effect. The
direct land requirements, as shown in the development scenario, would show in
216
both the short-term and the long-term because of disturbance. Some species
may have difficulty repopulating and could be displaced.
Short-term oil pollution and the possibility of long-term cumulative oil
pollution impacts could cause serious adverse effects on all components of the
marine ecosystem, including fisheries. While restoration would allow fisher-
ies production to regain original levels, any reduced annual harvests during
the life of the project would be irretrievably lost. The extent is not known
presently, but the potential must be recognized.
Freshwater pollution from onshore activities is a short-term effect. The
long-term decrease in water quality may be considered to be a tradeoff for
obtaining oil and gas resources.
The biota would be threatended in the short-term by potential oil pollution.
Direct mortality could be significant through the combined effects of harass-
ment by humans and increased volume and frequency of noise from vessel traffic
or overflying aircraft. In the long-term, such disturbances could alter
behavior patterns and could drive fauna away from traditional feeding and
breeding grounds or to other critical areas within their range reducing species
populations over a long period of time.
Habitat destruction could cause a reduction in subsistence species, such as
sJlmon. This could threaten the regional economy. The improved accessibility
to primitive areas from increased construction is a short-term result from
this proposal. This overall wilderness value of the coast may decrease from
increased land use. Increased human populations in the short-term could
change the regional Native culture in the long-term. The subsistence way of
life could be modified and population shifts could occur. The overal changes
cannot be termed positive or negative, except by those affected.
Archeologic and historic values discovered during development·would enhance
long-term knowledge. Overall finds may help to locate other sites, but,
destrucion of artifacts would represent long-term losses.
Consumption of offshore oil and gas would be a long-term use of nonrenewable
resources. Economic, political, and social benefits may accrue from the
availability of oil and gas. Most benefits would be short-term and would
decrease the nation's dependency on oil imports. If additional supplies were
discovered and developed, the proposed production system would enhance extrac-
tion.
The production of oil and gas from the Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait would provide
short-term, critically needed energy and perhaps provide time either for the
development of long-term alternative energy sources or substitutes for petroleum
feedstocks. Petroleum development in these areas may mean the irreplaceable
loss of some fisheries production. The maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity will depend on efforts to control water-quality levels. Regional
planning will aid in controlling changing economics and populations, and thus
in moderating any adverse impacts.
Alternatives to the proposal, such as cancellation, delay, and partial dele-
tion options reduce to varying degrees both the long-and short-term environ-
mental effects, as well as the long-and short-term energy supply benefits, as
explained in the preceeding impact sections.
217
D. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
1. Mineral Resources: The mean resource estimates of the proposed
action are 670 MHbbls of oil and 1.173 tcf of natural gas. Should these
resources be discovered, they will be irretrievably consumed.
2. Biological Resources: Commercial fishery losses may occur in
several ways as discussed in section IV.A.2.b. and c. (Impacts on Commercial
Fish and Commercial Fishing). For example, if the nearshore areas are contam-
inated salmon and herring may avoid the areas which are also the areas in
which they are harvested. If fish tissue of any species becomes tainted,
there may be a widespread consumer avoidance of all locally harvested fish
products, which would affect both fishermen and processors alike. Any lnsses
of commercial fishing incomes attributable to this proposal would be irrever-
sible and irretrievable. Unharvested commercial finfish and shellfish, as
renewable resources, would be irretrievably lost to the economy.
If there is competition for harbor space or employees as a result of leasing,
U.S. fishermen may not aggressively exploit the U.S. offshore bottomfishery
potentials. Continued harvest of bottomfish by foreigners means irretrievably
lost income to U.S. fishermen and processors.
General industry activities, such as increased ship traffic, aircraft noise,
and land based activities, could displace marine and terrestrial birds and
mammals into less favorable environments, which would eventually result in
reduced population levels. This displacement could become irretrievable if
permanent alterations to the environment and habitat were maintained by man.
3. Endangered Species: Under the proposal, it is possible that
endangered whales could be subjected to irreversible direct and indirect
effects of oilspills, disturbance due to noise and other human activities, or
losses and/or deterioration of habitat due to facility developments. Whether
such effects would lead to permanent (irreversible) losses of whale resources
is unknown (see sec. IV.A.2.f., Unavoidable Adverse Effects Resulting from the
Proposal).
4. Social Factors: Irreversible and irretrievable lifestyle
elements could be lost if Kodiak Island and Cook Inlet villages are changed
without consideration by industry of their traditional values and social
interrelationships. These aspects of village life have evolved over centuries
of living a subsistence-oriented lifestyle which could be affected through
external economic stimulus. Irretrievable loss of customary and traditional
renewable resources could significantly damage the social and economic fabric
of village life. The city of Port Lions may lose its close-knit, small fishing
community quality and sociocultural character if consideration is not given to
the impact of people from large metropolitan and industrial communities. An
irretrievable loss of lifestyle and quality of life also may be experienced in
Kodiak and Homer, larger communities capable of a higher degree of adaptation
but which maintain aspects of village lifestyle.
5. Visual and Wilderness Resources: With the proposal, there
would be an irreversible commitment of wilderness and scenic resource areas in
certain coastal locations of the Kodiak Archipelago and Kenai Peninsula.
218
E. Worst Case Analysis
1. Endangered Species: To develop an ability to predict (with
reasonabl~ statistical confidence) the behavioral responses of a relatively
common endangered whale species to all sources of noise associated with petro-
leum exploration, development, and production would require extensive field
experiments for which it is uncertain (and unlikely) that control of all
relevant variables could be achieved. To achieve ability to predict behavioral
response patterns of very rare whale species (such as the right whale, which
has not been sighted in the proposed sale area in recent years) through experi-
mental or purely descriptive appro~ches is impossible given the present state
of the art and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future. The same
rationale could be applied with equal validity to describe the difficulty of
predicting direct physiological response of endangered whales to effects of
oilspills. Therefore, it has been determined that information on certain
endangered whale responses to effects of OCS development and production is
important to the decisions addressed herein and the means to obtain such
information is not·presently known. A worst case analysis is presented below
in order to facilitate a reasoned choice among the various alternatives.
Sufficient information exists to predict with confidence that the proposed
sale will have little, if any, detrimental effects on endangered birds.
The worst case analysis for endangered whales draws from certain subjective
judgments and assumptions regarding whale responses for which the validity has
not been statistically tested or verified. It also is based on assumptions
regarding exploration, development, and production activities of petroleum
resources in the proposed sale area (sec. IV.A.l.). As indicated by the
oilspill risk analysis, should spills occur, they would be confined usually to
the lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait area. Therefore, portions of this
analysis will be confined primarily to oilspill effects which would be generally
restricted to this area. Also, based on existing information (sec. III.B.5.)
and graphic 12), it is highly unlikely that sperm or blue whale populations or
individuals make significant use of lower Cook Inlet or Shelikof Strait. On
the other hand, recent sightings of gray, fin, humpback, and sei whales in or
near the proposed sale 60 area mandate that these species be considered in a
worst case analysis. The right whale also is considered in this analysis
since historical records indicate a previous, although not recently confirmed,
utilization of waters east of Kodiak Island. In addition, there is not suffi-
cient know~edge of the present status of the right whale to positively exclude
the possibility that a critical portion of the remaining right whale popula-
tion may occasionally frequent the proposed sale area.
Table IV.E.-1 shows a list of assumptions referenced for the purpose of this
analysis. The probability of the assumptions being correct are also indicated.
Since the whale species considered herein are similar to the extent that all
are baleen whales, they are treated in general unless otherwise specified.
Table IV.E.-2 presents assumptions regarding exploration, development, and
production effects hypothesized for this analysis.
No clear definition of a "worst case" exists and, therefore, at least two
approaches can be employed to make such an analysis. One approach would be to
speculate on the most likely undesirable consequences given a set of postulates
(i.e., an answer to the question, "What are the most likely undesirable conse-
quences that will happen given certain conditions?"). The second approach
219
Table IV.E.-1
Assumptions Made Regarding
Endangered Whale Status and Response
Assumption
Probability of 1
Assumption Being Correct-/
1. Although listed in the endangered species, the
gray whale population is close to pre-whaling
stock size and may be near the capacity of its
range.
2. Humpback, fin, sei, and right whales population
are substantially below pre-whaling stock size.
3. Gray, humpback, fin, and sei whales are found in or
near the proposed sale area during spring, summer,
and fall.
4. Right whales occur in or near the proposed sale
at least during the summer.
5. Fouling of baleen by crude oil could temporarily
reduce whale feeding efficiency.
6. Localized food sources of endangered whales
could be reduced, at least temporarily, by toxic
hydrocarbons.
7. Endangered whale behavior in the presence of
spilled hydrocarbons would permit contact with
such pollutants.
8. Direct cutaneous contact with or inhalation of
volatile compounds associated with crude oil or
other spilled hydrocarbons could affect whales
at least temporarily.
9. Direct cutaneous cont.act with or inhalation of
volatile compounds associated with crude oil or
other spilled hydrocarbons could kill endangered
whales directly.
10. Long-term use of oil-polluted areas would lead to
tissue accumulation of toxic substances and dele-
terious effects on endangered whales.
11. Endangered whales are or will be sensitive to
drilling noise or other sources of disturbance
associated with oil and gas exploration, devel-
opment, and production phases.
High
High
High
Unknown
Moderate
Low-Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
1/ Low: Less than a 50 percent chance of assumption being correct. Moderate:
SO percent chance of assumption being correct. High: Greater than a 50
percent chance of assumption being correct. (In the judgment of the analyst,
based on available data.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Table IV.E.-2
Postulate for Level of Perturbations Associated with the
Proposed Sale 60 Which May Affect Endangered Whales
Assumption
The propoyed lease sale will be held and ex-
ploration of the proposed sale area will be
initiated.
Sufficient petroleum r~sources are discovered
to warrant develop~ent of the proposed sale to
production phases.
If production phases are realized, at least
4 spills greater than 1,000 bbl will occur over
the life of the field.
If exploration or production phases are
realized at least one catastrophic spill con-
sisting of a blowout of 2,000 bbl per day
for 30 days will occur.
If spills occur, at least one or all the
spills will escape containment and thus
spill behavior will be controlled strictly
by natural influences such as winds, cur-
rents, and tides.
Probability of 41
Assumptions Being Correct-
.Moderate-High
Low 5
(5%)
High 6
(98%)
Moderate-High
!/, 11. and 3/ See section IV.A.l. for additional assumptions regarding
causes of possible impacts.
4/ Low: Less than a 50 percent chance of assumption being correct. Moderate:
50-percent chance of assumption being correct. High: Greater than a 50
percent chance of assumption being correct.
11 See section II.A.
i/ Appendix D.
would be to assign a probability of occurrence to a specifically defined
consequence (i.e., an answer to the question, "What is a probability of a
specifically defined 'worst case'?"). Both approaches are employed herein.
Host Likely Undesirable Consequences
Table IV.E.-1. and IV.E.-2 consist of a set of postulates which can be used to
speculate on the most probable undesirable consequences of the proposed sale.
Table IV.E.-2 shows that there is a moderate to high chance that exploration
activities will occur, and; given such activities, a low probability that
dev~lopment phases will be achieved. Nevertheless, this analysis will assume
the occurrence of exploration, development, and production of the proposed
sale, and speculate on the most likely undesirable consequences regarding
endangered whales that may occur for each phase. Refer to section IV.A.2.f.
for a description of possible direct and indirect effects of various perturba-
tions which may impact whales, and sections IV.A.l.a. through IV.A.l.c. for
detailed assumptions regarding each phase of the proposed sale.
Exploration: The most likely of potential undesirable outcomes which would
occur as a result of direct effects of exploration activities would be tem-
porary disturbance on localized basis of whales which may feed or migrate in
or near exploration platforms or transportation routes used to access plat-
forms. In consideration of the relatively small number of platforms, and
already substantial boat traffic in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait, it
seems unreasonable to envision disturbance due to exploration activities as
being of major additional consequence to endangered whale populations. In the
event of marine pollution, (e.g., oilspills, drilling mud and cutting disposal,
other wastes) during exploration, the entire range of direct and indirect
effects discussed in section IV.A.2.f. of such pollution may occur and the
magnitude of such effects may be in direct proportion to the magnitude of the
pollution and/or the number of whales present and potentially affected by it.
Numbers of whales affected will vary in terms of seasonal use patterns (e.g.,
relatively little direct effects in winter for all spe~ies, but perhaps more
during spring, summer, and fall) and population responses may vary proportion-
ate to the fraction of any particular population present. It would be very
unlikely that the amount of drilling muds and cuttings disposed at sea during
exploration would significantly impact cetaceans given the small amount and
probable extreme dilutions that would be achieved by any toxic fraction.
Therefore, since lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait are not presently known
to be areas of major importance to any endangered whale species (see section
IV.B.S.), it is unlikely that the exploration phase would result in major
undesirable responses (e.g., increased mortality rate, decreased productivity,
habitat abandonment) of endangered cetaceans. This conclusion was also reached
by National Marine Fisheries Service in consultation with the Bureau of Land
Management (appendix H).
Development: The most likely of potential undesirable consequences affecting
endangered whales during development would be effects of disturbance since the
maximum potential for disturbance of endangered whales would probably occur
during this phase. Such disturbance could result in at least temporary and
possibly long term abandonment of habitats in the vicinity of platforms,
pipelines, or facility construction nearshore. Drilling noise during the
development phase, vessel noise, noise of construction, etc., could all affect
whales during the 5-year development period. Temporary response of whales to
220
peak transportation activity betweeo shore and offshore support/supply bases
or platforms may occur. Such temporary or development phase effects would not
be expected to be particularly pronounced for gray whales since there is
evidence that they are relatively tolerant of human activity. Whether any
other endangered population is particularly sensitive to such disturbance and
would be adversely affected during the development phase is unknown.
In the event of marine pollution (e.g., oilspills, drilling mud and cuttings
disposal, other wastes) during development, the entire range of direct and
indirect effects discussed in section IV.A.2.f. may occur, and the magnitude
of such effects may be in direct proportion to the magnitude of the pollution
and number of whales present and potentially affected. Probably of most
significance would be cetacean habitat alteration associated with drill cutting
disposal. This may cause temporary reduction of benthic organisms utilized by
gray whales, but since most of the gray whale population feeds at more northern
latitudes, no major impact on this species would be expected. It is unlikely
that the physical presence of cuttings would affect other endangered whale
species. It is unknown whether toxic substances introduced into the marine
environment as a result of development would affect whales. However, since
lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait are not presently known to be areas of
major importance to any endangered whale species (sec. III.B.S.), it is un-
likely that the development phase would result in major undesirable population
responses of endangered cetaceans. As mentioned above, temporary or long term
abandonment by endangered cetaceans of certain locales, such as near platforms
or transportation facilities, could occur.
Production Phases: One of the most likely of potential undesirable conse-
quences of production phases would be effects on whales associated with repeated
or chronic introduction of pollutants into the marine environment. Refer to
sections IV.A.2.f. through IV.A.7.f. for detailed analysis of potential oilspill-
related effects on endangered cetaceans as may be associated with the proposal
or its alternatives. In the event of marine pollution (e.g., oilspills,
drilling mud and cuttings disposal, other wastes) during production, the
entire range of direct and indirect effects discussed in section IV.A.2.f. may
occur in direct proportion to the magnitude of the pollution and number of
whales present and potentially affected by it. Therefore, since so little is
known about the specific mechanisms or magnitude of the response of the whales
to various direct or indirect effects to oilspills or other marine pollution,
no quantitative assessment of potential endangered whale population response
can be made at this time. However, such effects are possible. As concluded
previously, spills occurring over the production life of the field would be
highly likely in the vicinity of the northern Kodiak Archipelago, Kamishak
Bay, and eastern Shelikof Strait. These risks could possibly lead to lowered
carrying capacity of these areas for endangered whales or possibly to long
term ingestion and-accumulation of toxic substances encountered in such areas.
Also to be associated with production phases would be disturbance and spill
effects associated with tankering and petroleum products. Movement of tankers
though Stevenson or Kennedy Entrance may not result in risks of oilspills
above those already existing but movement of tankers from a location on eastern
Kodiak Island over the Portlock Banks could expose what are probably important
cetacean feeding areas to risks not presently existing. Portlock Bank areas
east of Kodiak Island are probably more significant than areas inside lower
Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait in terms of whale use and potential food avail-
ability to whales. Travel of tankers throughout the range of various species
221
may affect whales over a larger region than those activitiea on the sale area
proper. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, at this ti.e to evaluate
potential effects of pollution or disturbance due to the proposed aale or to
compare such effects to those already sustained from other sourcea.
Since most construction and development drilling would have been completed
p~ior to this phase, disturbance effects due to drilling, if existant, would
be of lesser significance than during the development phase.
Probability of Defined Worst Case
Two major "worst case" situations are postulated and the probabilty of such
"worst cases" estimated. These cases were selected becauae it was the view-
point of Bureau of Land Management that whale mortality or habitat loss may
be the two consequences of the proposed project which could be causally or
directly linked to any observable population response in endangered cetaceans,
and which may be of most significance of all possible consequences.
Mortality of a Critical Number: An event which would be a major concern in
terms of a threat to the survival of an endangered cetacean apecies and,
therefore, one which would be considered a "worst caae" would be one which
caused direct mortality of a critical number of aniaala. Mortality of a
"critical number" could be considered an amount of mortality which exceeded a
level from which the population could recover. Such an event could, therefore,
be implicated as a proximal cause of the extinction of a species and reasonably
be classified as a "worst case" event. Table IV.E.-1 showa that the proba-
bilities of an individual whale being killed as a reault of direct contact
with spilled oil is "unknown" (table IV.E.-1). However, if it is assumed that
1) this latter probability is high, 2) a major portion or critical number of
an endangered whale population is present at the time of spill occurrence in
the area of occurrence, and 3) that assumption 2 or 4 (table IV.E.-2) are low,
then it must be concluded that the joint probability of (1), (2), and (3)
above is also low. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed lease sale
would cause a "worst case" threat to endangered whale populations as a result
of direct mortality.
Abandonment of Habitat: Another "worst case" situation which could be envi-
sioned for endangered whales would be the possibility of the exclusion of
these species from previous habitats as ~ direct result of noise and other
disturbance. As shown in table IV.E.-1 (assumption 8), it is unknown if the
various endangered whale species under consideration are sensitive to distur-
bance associated with oil and gas development and production. In general,
each species and each potential source of disturbance would have to be studied
on a case-by-case basis before accurate sensitivity assessments could be made.
However, if we 1) assume that these species are sensitive to most oil and gas
related disturbance, and 2) assume that the probability of development and
production of the field is as shown in table IV.E.-2, assumptions 1 and 2,
then it appears that the probability of any long term effect of noise and
other disturbance due to the proposed sale would be the joint probability of
(1) and (2); i.e., of low to moderate probability at aost. If oil and gas is
discovered, then the probability of disturbance effects on whales may be
higher, particularly on a local level and for species such as the humpback
which may be sensitive to certain types of disturbance. The probability of
such sensitivity leading to an undesirable population response is unknown and
would vary on a species-by-species basis.
222
Conclusion:
Most Likely Undesirable Consequences: It is unlikely that the exploration
phase for this proposed sale would result in major undesirable responses hy
endangered cetaceans. Temporary or long-term abandonment of certain locales,
such as near platform or transportation facilities, could occur during develop-
ment phases. Repeated or chronic pollution of the marine environment during
the production phase may affect endangered cetaceans (bioaccumulation of toxic
substances). It is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the extent of
effect of pollution associated with production phases on endangered cetaceans
at this time (see section IV.E.).
Probability of Defined Worst Case: It is unlikely that the proposed lease
sale would cause a 11 worst case" threat to endangered whale populations
(i.e., direct mortality). The probability of long-term effects of noise and
disturbance leading to habitat abandonment is low to moderate at most. If oil
and gas are discovered, the probability of habitat abandonment by sensitive
species due to noise and disturbance may be higher.
223
V. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
Comments and testimony were received from a diverse group of individuals,
groups, organizations, companies, and local, State, and Federal agencies.
Comments ranged from support of the statement and the proposal to requests for
major revisions of the statement and postponement or withdrawal of the proposal.
The latter portion of this section contains copies of correspondence received
from Federal agencies, State and local governments and agencies, and other
representative organizations and individuals that were felt to represent the
major relevant concerns regarding the draft statement and the proposed action.
A listing of persons testifying at the public hearing and a listing of those
persons who submitted written comments are also included in the latter portion
of this section.
All written and oral comments received were first reviewed relative to either
corrections and editorial changes to the DEIS or issues raised. Where possible
and appropriate, the DEIS has been revised to correct errors and omissions,
and to clarify and/or augment discussions of issues of concern. All substan-
tive issues were analyzed to determine which revisions were necessary to
strengthen and improve upon the DEIS. The FEIS reflects, wherever possible,
the consideration given to these issues.
The following pages contain a summary of the issues of major concern that were
raised during the DEIS review process. For convenience they have been grouped
in the following manner:
A. Block Deletion Recommendations
B. Mitigating Measures
C. Approach, Assumptions, and Methods Used
1. Oilspill risk analysis
2. Design of alternatives and development scenarios
3. Environmental studies and data gaps
4. Other procedural aspects
D. Environmental Impact Assessment
1. Cumulative effects with proposed OCS sale 61
2. Biological environment
3. Physical environment
4. Coastal zone management
5. Air and water quality
6. Worst case analysis
E. General Issues
A. Block Deletion Recommendations
Recommendations for block deletions were received from eight agencies, organi-
zations, and individuals. These were grouped by similarity of deletion patterns
into three block deletion alternatives for the purpose of analysis under
section IV.B., analysis of other block deletion alternatives. The description
and justification of each of the block deletion alternatives are contained in
section IV.B. The respective recommendations for block deletions which were
synthesized to form the block deletion alternatives are as follows:
224
Block Deletion Alternative A Shelikof St. Lower C.I. Total
State of Alaska,
Primary Position 68 12 80
Fr!ends of the Earth 75 12 87
Kodiak Island Borough 81 0 81
Block Deletion Alternative B
State of Alaska, Alternate Position 21 12 33
Fish and Wildlife Service 27 10 37
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration 20 0 20
Block Deletion Alternative c
State of Alaska, Mitigation Position 0 18 18
Cook Inlet Crab Fishermen 0 34 34
Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory
Council -(1) -(1) 104
Alaska Chapter, Sierra Club 72 35 107
The analysis of the alternatives synthesized from these recommendations was by
necessity comparative in relation to the analysis performed for the proposal
and the respective alternatives in the DEIS. Such analysis was lacking in
specific resource estimates and oilspill trajectory analysis because of the
time needed to carry out and coordinate such work. Although some block deletion
recommendations were made prior to establishing the alternatives for DEIS
analysis, it would have improved the analysis performed in the DEIS if as many
configurations of block deletions as possible were brought forth and justified
during the scoping process. A major emphasis during scoping had been the
identification of block deletion proposals for analysis in the EIS. It would
have improved the completeness of the analysis if the suggested block deletions
had been known earlier in the process.
The block deletion alternatives represent specific significant issues which
are responded to as follows:
Issue: Deletion of the blocks in Shelikof Strait was recommended by a
number of commenters, although the demarcation between the strait and lower
Cook Inlet differed somewhat in each case. Some concern also was expressed by
several commenters for the deletion of a single tier of blocks in several
parts of lower Cook Inlet. The addition of 19 northerly blocks of the lease
sale area to alternative IV was recommended by one commenter, incorporating
blocks which had been deleted to evaluate fisheries impact differentials.
Sources: State of Alaska, Friends of the Earth, Kodiak Island Borough OCS
Advisory Council, Sierra Club.
Response: Block deletion alternative A incorporates a synthesis of these
recommendations. The environmental impacts of the blocks subject to leasing
in the alternative are discussed in section IV.B.l. The assessment concludes
the impacts should be substantially the same as assessed in alternative IV,
225
although the cumulative effects from adding the 19 northerly blocks should be
moderately increased for the marine and avian resources and habitat associated
with Anchor Point and Kamishak Bay.
Issue: Deletion of blocks on the west side of Shelikof Strait to form a
6-nautical mile buffer from shore was recommended by one commenter. Modifi-
cations of this concept were recommended by several others, incorporating the
deletion of fewer blocks but for substantially the same reasons.
Sources: State of Alaska, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Response: Block deletion alternative B incorporates the 6-nautical mile
buffer from shore on the west side of Shelikof Strait, within which are included
the other recommendations for similar block deletions. The environmental
impacts of the blocks subject to leasing in the alternative are discussed in
section IV.B.2. The assessment concludes that the impacts and cumulative
effects from the alternative should be substantially the same in Shelikof
Strait as assessed in alternatives I and VI.
Issue: Deletion of blocks on the west side of lower Cook Inlet was
recommended by a number of commenters, several for the purpose of avoiding
potential conflicts with a stationary crab fishery.
Sources: State of Alaska, Cook Inlet crab fishermen, Kodiak Island Borough
OCS Advisory Council, Sierra Club.
Response: Block deletion alternative C incorporates the major block deletion
on the west side of lower Cook Inlet recommended by the crab fishermen, within
which are included the other recommendations for similar block deletions. The
environmental impacts of the blocks subject to leasing in the alternative are
discussed in section IV.B.3. The assessment concludes that the impacts and
cumulative effects from the alternative should be substantially less for the
marine resources in this part of Cook Inlet than the impacts assessed in
alternatives I, IV, and V. However, based on the justification for the block
deletion, the impacts and cumulative effects on the stationary crab fishery in
lower Cook Inlet shoul~ be substantially the same as assessed in alternatives
I, IV, and V.
B. Mitigating Measures
All comments concerning the mitigating measures section of the DEIS (sec.
II.B.l.b.) were discussed during field level interbureau coordination meetings
held on November 14, 18, and 26, and on December 4, 1980, and at a Washington
level interbureau coordination meeting on January 30, 1981. Refer to section
II.B.l.b. of this FEIS for background information, wording, and evaluation of
each potential mitigating measure.
Issue: The stipulation concerning the protection of cultural resources
was considered to require more than is necessary to protect cultural resources
that may occur in the proposed sale area.
226
Source: Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS).
Response: The HCRS submitted a revised version of this measure at a field
level interbureau coordination meeting. After some minor modifications,
consensus at the field level meetings was that this measure replace the one
that appears in the DEIS. This issue was discussed at the Washington level
interbureau coordination meeting. Consensus was reached to use the wording
that appears in the DEIS for this proposed sale and in the final sale notice
for sale 55.
Issue: Potential Mitigating Measure No. 1 -Well and Pipeline Requirements.
Comments received by ARCO and AOGA indicate they consider this measure unneces-
sary because OCS Orders 1 and 3 already provide adequate mitigation, and the
proposed measure does not provide economic justification for such a requirement.
The State of Alaska comments indicated concern about a potential problem that
crabs may not be able to climb over a smooth pipeline, and that a network of
gathering lines could block or channelize essential movements of crab popula-
tions. The State also suggested additional wording to require that the Coast
Guard receive notification of any subsea hazards so they can publish such
information in a local Notice to Mariners.
Sources: Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), State of Alaska, Alaska Oil and
Gas Association (AOGA).
Response: An unburied pipeline would likely become encrusted within months
after heing installed so that any potential problem a smooth pipeline would
cause to movements of crabs would be temporary. The issue of smooth pipelines
causing a change or blockage of crab movements is one that could be further
studied before possible development phase pipelines are laid and a development
EIS is written. As a result of field and Washington level interbureau coordi-
nation meetings, this measure has been deleted from the FEIS for the following
reasons:
Existing OCS Orders Nos. 1 and 3 require that all subsea objects hazardous to
navigation or commercial fishing be .arked by navaids as directed by the U.S.
Coast Guard. OCS Order No. 3 requires that all casing, wellheads, and pilings,
when abandoned, must be removed to a minimum depth of 5 meters (16 ft) below
the ocean floor; and that temporary abandonments must be identified and marked,
as directed by the Coast Guard, when a casing stub extends above the ocean
floor.
U.S. Coast Guard regulations provide for marking and protection of subsea
objects. Obstructions must be accurately reported and the location published
in a public notice. The U.S. Coast Guard has regulations, 30 CFR 147 (Federal
Register, May 1, 1980), which establish "safety zones" around OCS objects in
other OCS areas.
Rights-of-way are subject to environmental safety assurance through regula-
tions requiring best available and safest technology (BAST) and regulatory and
CZM consistency reviews (OCS Lands Act, Section 5(e), as amended).
Issue: Potential Mitigating Measure No. 2 -Transportation of Hydrocarbons.
The State of Alaska suggested addition of a reference to the Port and Tanker
Safety Act of 1978 (336 U.S.C. 1221), additional wording to require "direct
227
communication and cooperation, determined jointly between the State and Federal
governments," concerning the routing of any pipelines carrying OCS products to
shore, and additional wording to provide for "free movement and safe passage
of migratory epibenthic organisms." ARCO and AOGA expressed concern, in their
comments, that the proposed measure is unnecessarily rigid in that it requires
pipelines to shore in almost all cases, and that it does not "provide the
proper flexibility afforded by adequate planning" (AOGA).
Sources: State of Alaska, Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), Alaska Oil and
Gas Association (AOGA).
Response: As a result of field and Washington level interbureau coordination
meetings, it was decided to include the reference to the Port and Tanker
Safety Act. Opportunities for direct communication and cooperation between
the State and Federal governments concerning pipeline routing, exist through
CZM consistency review and the BLM pipeline permitting process. Concerning
the suggested wording on provisions to allow free passage of migratory epiben-
thic organisms, refer to the response to comments for potential mitigating
measure No. 1.
Issue: Potential Mitigating Measure No.3 -Environmental Training Program.
The State of Alaska suggested additional wording to emphasize avoidance of
conflicts with commercial fishing operations and gear. ARCO emphasized their
interest in providing such training to their employees.
Sources: State of Alaska, ARCO.
Response: As a result of field and Washington level interbureau coordination
meetings, it was agreed to add language to this measure to highlight the
concern regarding potential conflicts between the oil and gas industry and the
commercial fishing industry.
Issue: Potential Mitigating Measure No. 4 -Disposal of Muds, Cuttings,
and Formation Waters. The State of Alaska expressed concern that insufficient
information exists to adequately "assess the impacts of formation waters and
drilling muds on the different marine environments in the proposed sale area,"
and that the collection of any additional information is solely at the discre-
tion of the DCM. Further, concern was exP,ressed that if a conflict were to
exist between biological resources and discharges of these products, the DCM
is not required to stipulate an alternative means of disposal. ARCO and AOGA
concurred with the DEIS that the measure be deleted. The Kodiak Island Borough
OCS Advisory Council suggested a seasonal restriction on the disposal of muds
and cuttings and suggested a more conservative method of disposal to protect
the young of commercial and noncommercial species of fish and shellfish.
Sources: State of Alaska, ARCO, AOGA, Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory
Council.
Response: As a result of field and Washington level interbureau coordination
meetings, it was again agreed to delete this measure. The EPA has statutory
authority (PL 92-500, the Clean Water Act and Amendments of 1977, Section 403)
to permit the discharge of any pollutant into the territorial seas. This
regulatory procedure is supported in OCS Order No. 7. OCS No. 7 requires the
lessee to submit a copy of the EPA Discharge Permit to the Deputy Conservation
228
Manager for Offshore Field Operations (DCM), and obtain the District Supervisor's
approval for the method of muds, cuttings, and produced water disposal.
Through Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review and other regulatory review
procedures, Federal and State agencies are given the opportunity to comment on
and recommend changes to proposed disposal techniques. An Environmental
Assessment (EA) or Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared for each proposed OCS
plan wherein drilling programs and pollutant discharge techniques are identi-
fied. The EA or EIS is also available for review by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
The DCM may require, at the request of a reviewing agency, that the operator
change his proposed discharge plan prior to approval of any drilling activity.
The DCM may approve the plan with conditional requirements which prohibit a
particular discharge practice.
The regulatory requirements described above will identify and provide protec-
tion in those specific areas where discharges are to occur.
Issue: Potential Mitigating Measure No. 5 -Protection of Biological
Resources. The State of Alaska expressed agreement· with the measure, but
suggested that the words, "the DCM may require" a survey, be deleted. ARCO
•agreed with the intent oi the measure, but expressed concern that it is too
broad, and that it gives the DCM "wide discretionary powers to alter or halt
OCS exploration or development activities without requiring a factual basis
for his action." In addition, ARCO indicated that existing regulations would
have the same effect as this proposed measure. AOGA expressed its support of
this measure and suggested additional wording that would require the DCM to
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service, as appropriate, to determine whether additional protection
of wildlife would be necessary, and also to consult with these two agencies
regarding any other mitigating measures that would be necessary to protect
wildlife.
Sources: State of Alaska, ARCO, AOGA.
Response: The intent of a stipulation is to provide additional protection to
a resource and to mitigate adverse impacts to the environment resulting from
oil and gas leasing. The degree of protection provided is in addition to
measures already required by existing regulations, rules, or orders. Stipula-
tions are made a part of the lease and impose an obligation upon the lessee.
Opportunities exist for communication and consultation between the DCM and
representatives of other government agencies. As a result of field level
interbureau coordination meetings, it was agreed to include this measure in
the FEIS, as it was written in the DEIS, because it affords additional protec-
tion to wildlife that is not provided by existing regulations, rules, or
orders.
Iosue: Information to Lessee on Bird and Mammal Protection. The State
of Alaska agreed with the wording of this measure as it appears in the DEIS,
and suggested it be included in the FEIS. AOGA and the Marine Mammal Commission
had questions as to the intent of this measure. NOAA submitted revisions to
the measure so that the recommended guideline more closely approximates the
provisions of the relevant acts.
229
Sources: State of Alaska, AOGA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and the Marine Mammal Commission.
Response: The purpose of this Information to Lessee is not to interpret
relevant legislation, but, rather, to advise the lessee of a practical approach
to minimize potential disturbance of wildlife (harassment, significant or
other). At present, there are no clear guidelines or regulations regarding
what constitutes "harassment" of various species and to attempt such definitions
or focus on such a concept herein would only serve to confuse the lessee or
suggest a greater knowledge of marine mammal behavior and its consequences
than presently exists. The present Information to Lessee clearly states that
animal behavior is variable and that the lessee must exercise appropriate
discretion and responsibility at all distances from observed animals or known
concentration areas. A 1-mile distance (which implies horizontal and vertical
dimensions) would probably afford more protection than minimum distances
suggested by NOAA (i.e., l,OOQ-ft elevation and 50Q-yd lateral distance).
Also, the 1-mile minimum recommendation would afford more protection to wildlife
from those who feel obligated to test such a recommendation to its threshold.
Obviously, all distance recommendations are subject to criticism. The 1-mile
distance is conservative and probably more practical under field conditions
than those suggested by NOAA. Based on NOAA's comments, the second sentence
in the second paragraph has been altered to read, "Behavioral disturbance of
most birds and mammals found in or near the sale 60 area would be unlikely if
ocean vessels and aircraft maintain at least a 1-mile distance from observed
wildlife or known wildlife concentration areas such as bird colonies or marine
mammal rookeries (additions underlined). Another sentence is inserted there-
after stating, "Therefore, in concurrence with the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is recommended that aircraft
or vessels operated by lessees maintain at least a 1-mile distance from observed
wildlife or known wildlife concentration areas."
In regard to questions raised by the Marine Mammal Commission, the intent of
the Information to Lessee on bird and mammal prote'ction is to provide general
guidelines for the operation of vessels and aircraft, and advise lessees that
they may be cited for violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act or
Endangered Species Act. As ·comments of the Marine Mammal Commission suggest,
such guidelines may not be enforceable. This is exactly why this provision is
an Information to Lessee rather than a stipulation. Appropriate legislation
and enforcement authority already exist under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and the Endangered Species Act. The Information to Lessee clearly indicates
the responsible authorities. Official consultations with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service have been performed in arriving at these decisions in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the Departmental Manual {part 655, chapter 1).
Field level representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service have
participated unofficially in the interbureau coordination meetings, and have
concurred with this approach. Therefore, it is felt that sufficient consulta-
tion with appropriate agencies has been performed regarding this measure.
Issue: Information to Lessee Concerning Fairways. The State of Alaska
recommended additional wording to include consideration of critical fishing
areas.
Source: State of Alaska.
Response: As a result of interbureau coordination meetings, it was agreed to
alter this measure to incorporate the wording suggested by the State of Alaska.
230
Issue: The State of Alaska recommended several additional issues be
included as mitigating measures in the FEIS: that a biological task force be
established for this proposed sale, that a development EIS be written, and
that critical fishing areas be protected by a seasonal restriction on OCS
operations so as not to displace commercial fishermen or damage their gear.
Additional protection may be achieved by the establishment of a committee
composed of commercial fishing industry/petroleum industry representatives to
arbitrate conflicts between the two industries, and/or by deleting blocks from
the proposed sale. The State also expressed concern that oilspill response
capabilities are inadequate in Alaska, identified oilspill containment and
cleanup performance standards, and suggested that these standards be provided
by the U.S. Coast Guard to the Geological Survey, to the lessee, and be included
in the Notice of Sale.
Source: State of Alaska.
Response: Commercial fishing interests are protected through the OCS Lands
Act, as amended, which provides, among many things, compensation for losses to
commercial fishermen due to OCS activity and for coastal zone consistency
consultation between the lessee and the State of Alaska. The issue of potential
conflict between the commercial fishing industry and the oil and gas industry
will be further addressed in detail if and when commercial quantities of
hydrocarbons are discovered, a development and production plan is submitted,
and a development EIS is written. Section 25{e) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act, as amended {43 u.s.c. 1331-135l{e)), requires that at least
one development EIS be written "in any area or region {defined by the Secretary)
of the Outer Continental Shelf, other than the Gulf of Mexico."
The seasonal drilling stipulation imposed on leaseholders and the establish-
ment of a biological task force in conjunction with the Beaufort Sea lease
sale, were based on the severe ice conditions in the area, unproven technology,
the migratory movements of the endangered bowhead whale, and the clearcut
seasonality of biological activity in the area. There is little comparability
between the conditions encountered in the proposed sale 60 area and those in
the Beaufort Sea. Because of the year-round biological activity in the pro-
posed sale 60 area, this issue will be further addressed if and when commer-
cial discoveries of petroleum have been made, and there is a clear idea of
where platforms would be placed. This issue would be considered in detail in
a development EIS.
While the establishment of a committee to arbitrate potential conflicts between
the fishing and petroleum industries is a good idea, the two industries should
work together to establish it.
The block deletion recommendation of the Sta;.e baa been analyzed in this FEIS
{sees. IV.B. and V.A.) and will be considered by the Secretary of the Department
of the Interior before he makes a decision on whether to conduct this proposed
sale.
C. Approach, Assumptions, and Methods Used
1. Oilspill Risk Analysis:
231
Issue: Some commenters disagreed with the expected number of four spills
greater than 1,000 barrels that were projected to occur over the 26-year life
of the field. According to an industry spokesman, the spill rate should be
based on the 15 years of experience in oil and gas activities in upper Cook
Inlet. These statistics are thought to be more reflective of the current
"state-of-the-art" for the industry, especially the period from 1971 to 1980
(see table v.c.l.-1).
Sources: AOGA, S.C. Matthews.
Response: The U.S. Geological Survey historical spill data base used in the
oilspill risk analysis incorporates oil drilling activity on the entire Outer
Continental Shelf of the United States. This is still a small sample with
respect to the number of spills and the volume of oil handled internationally.
For platform spills, there are only nine spills of greater than 1,000 barrels
on record for the period of 1964 to 1979. The most recent spill occurred in
the Gulf of Mexico on November 23, 1979. Of the nine platform spills, five
were blowouts and four were non-blowout spills.
The historical record for oilspills occurring from pipelines on the outer
continental shelf of the United States is only seven spills from 1967 to 1976.
This amounts to about 2.3 billion barrels of oil transported via pipelines per
spill incident. The third spill statistic used by the USGS is for tanker
transport incidents, which is determined on a world-wide basis from 1969 to
1973. In this case, there were 178 incidents greater than 1,000 barrels
reported, or about 3.9 spills for every billion barrels of oil transported by
tanker. The four expected spills, based on the resource estimate of the
proposed sale area, is merely an additive function of spills from platforms,
pipelines, and tankers.
When using past spill rates as indicators of future spill rates, a decrease
could be assumed to follow based on experience and improved standards. This
may explain in part the low spill rate and spill volume which occurred in
upper Cook Inlet from 1971 to 1980. Conversely, an increase in spill rate may
occur due to some unknown conditions in a new or frontier lease area. This
assumption is supported in part by the higher spill rate in upper Cook Inlet
from 1965 to 1970 (see table). The USGS analysis of spill rates takes a
middle ground position between these two assumptions and thus uses a spill
rate that is strictly a function of volume of oil handled.
The problems with using a smaller data base, such as upper Cook Inlet from
1971 to 1980, is that should several major spills occur, the resulting predic-
tive spill rate could result in an overestimate of the expected spill number.
Another factor to consider is the number of spills and volume of oil produced.
While the number of spills and spill volume has decreased significantly from
1971 to the present, the volume of production has also decreased significantly
from 79 million barrels in 1971 to 43 million barrels in 1979. The data base
is further obscured for the upper Cook Inlet activity by those incidents in
which the volume of several spills was not recorded (table V.C.l.-1).
The OCS oilspill data base is under constant review. There are studies being
conducted by USGS and separately by outside contractors sponsored by the BLM
studies program. The most recent reviews provide preliminary indications that
the production spill rate is beginning to display a downward trend. If this
232
Table V.C.1.-1.
Oil Spills in Upper Cook Inlet, 1965-1980
Production Oil Industry Other Sources Unknown
Volume s2111 Volume S2ill Volume Sources
Year (MMbbls) bbls Incidents bbls. Incidents Incidents
1965 1 160 1 0
1966 14.4 4,855 28 30 2 13
1967 29.0 1,824 47 10,000 1 26
1968 66.1 1,070 49 389 17 18
1969 74.3 918 21 6,243 10 12
1970 81.0 1,039 23 3,984 9 31
1971 79.0 72 12 1,794 6 15
1972 74.0 19 8 32 7 1
1973 73.1 24 6 29 8 1
1974 72.2 19 25 268 7 4
1975 72.0 12 3
(3) 1
18 4
(6)1
3
*1976 67.0 52 13 28 19 5
*1977 66.1 12 14 (1)1 16 26 (6)1 8
*1978 50.1 14 7 (2)1 7 18 (4)1 10
*1979 43.0 4 6 (1) 1 18 15 (2)1 5
*1980 8 4 55 9 Pl 4
Figures 1965-1975 are from BLM, FEIS Lower Cook Inlet Sale CI
*This part of the table was compiled by ARCO using records obtained from the
U.S. Coast Guard in Anchorage, Alaska.
1The number in parentheses indicates the number of spill incidents for which
there was no volume report.
trend is substantiated, the production spill rate used in the oilspill probabil-
ity model will be changed. Since the oilspill probability model is used for
predicting circumstances over periods of two to three decades, there is no
justification to alter spill rates based solely upon the limited time and/or
production experience of a single geographic region. Consider, for example,
that human error is one of the most frequently cited causes for mishaps leading
to large spills. To limit the historical data base to non-or limited incidence
regions, in a predictive analysis, is to suggest a regional dependence on the
human process. We know of no basis supporting the hypothesis that human error
has any regional dependency. The central issue to establishing reliability
upon regional oilspill data bases is length of experience; measured by time of
production and volume produced (assuming that volume produced remains the best
exposure variable). An ongoing BLM contracted study is addressing the issue
of regionalized data bases and evaluation of alternative exposure variables.
Issue: There should be a discussion of the data that form the basis for
oilspill risk analysis trajectory calculations.
Source: Office of Marine Pollution Assessment/Outer Continental Shelf
Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP).
Response: The published reports that were used to develop the summer and
winter net current patterns include Meunch et al. (1978, 1980), Schumacher, et
al. (1978, 1979), and Reed, et al. (1979). Additional sources are listed in
section III.A.2.b. Tidal current patterns were developed by Dames and Moore
(1979) with the aid of a two-dimensional hydrodynamic tidal model (Mungall and
Matthews, 1973, and Mungall, 1973). The meteorological data base used in the
trajectory analysis was based on previous trajectory simulations by Dames and
Moore (1979, 1976), Putnins (1966, 1969) and updated by PMEL (1980). For a
more detailed descriptive analysis of the meteorology used in the trajectory
developed, see Schlueter (1980) and LaBelle, et al. (1980). Additional sources
are listed in section III.A.2.b. and IV.A.l.d.
Issue: Several commenters stated that recent evidence from infrared
photographs has suggested there are major discrepancies in the circulation
model of the lease sale area.
Sources: Kodiak Island Borough, Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council.
Response: The importance of these findings are presented in the revised
section III.A.2.b., Physical Oceanography. In actuality, this additional
evidence has further substantiated the hydrographic model system of the lease
sale area (Hufford, personal communication).
Issue: A question was raised concerning the spill size used in the
oilspill risk analysis in relation to the spill size defined in the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan for a major discharge
in coastal waters.
Source: Kodiak Island Borough.
Response: All oilspill frequency estimates used in the oilspill risk analysis
were based on frequency estimates for spills greater than 1,000 barrels. This
definition of a major spill is used by USGS as the basis for the collection
233
and aggregation of statistical data used for computer model simulation. A
major discharge in coastal waters is defined as more than 2,380 barrels in the
National Contingency Plan. A discharge of greater than 1,000 barrels approxi-
mates the upper limits for a medium discharge according to the Plan, where a
medium discharge is defined as ranging from 238-2,380 barrels. Essentially,
there is no relationship between the nomenclature used by the two sources of
definition. Regardless of apparent definitional inconsistency, however, a
spill of greater than 1,000 barrels or the potential for such a spill in
Alaskan coastal waters would be a significant spill incident requiring the
mobilization of all possible response resources.
Issue: The analysis in the DEIS does not examine the quantitative difference
in the effects of major and minor oilspills.
Source: AOGA.
Response: For a discussion of effects from major oilspills see section IV.A.2.g.-h.
of the FEIS. A more limited data base of chronic or background levels of
petroleum hydrocarbons and related effects are presented in section III.E. of
the FEIS.
Issue: A discussion of the expected concentrations of oil in the water
column is needed in the EIS.
Source: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Services (NOAA).
Response: The text has been modified to include this data.
2. Design of Alternatives and Development Scenarios:
Issue: A number of comments were submitted on the subject of OCS lease
sale CI, including questions on why blocks deleted from CI were included in
sale 60; why the development scenario assumes production from sale CI, especially
since there has been an absence of discovery; and why the DEIS does not assess
impacts based on exploration only for sale CI.
Sources: Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club, U.S. Geological Survey, AOGA, and
Lee Stratton.
Response: It is the practice of the Department of the Interior to include all
blocks not leased in a previous sale in a second generation lease sale for
evaluation in the tract selection and environmental impact assessment processes.
The resource estimates for sale CI are included as part of the total resources
estimated for sale 60 in the cumulative case since the sale has been carried
out and the area continues to be under exploration. Regardless of current
success or failure in discovery, the potential still exists for the discovery
of a commercially productive field. This potential, combined with the opera-
tional and transportation activities presently in Cook Inlet, have contributed
to the potential of oilspill risk in the cumulative case, resulting in assess-
ments of incremental impact from sale 60 in the main to Cook Inlet resources.
Impact assessment using the exploration only case for sale CI potentially
could separate out and make more visable the potential effects of sale 60
itself, but such an analysis would be unrealistic when considering the need to
keep in mind the production potential of the existing lease sale area.
234
Issue: Concern was expressed in a number of commments that the estimated
timing of activity in the development scenarios was overly optimistic.
Sources: AOGA, State of Alaska.
Response: The estimated timing of activities contained in the development
scenarios is as provided by the USGS, based on their experience in OCS oil and
gas activities and on the assumptions contained in the scenarios.
Issue: The increase in the mean level of estimated resource availability
from 160 million barrels of oil in the FEIS for the 5-year oil and gas leasing
schedule to the 670 million barrels used in the DEIS for sale 60 must be
explained.
Source: Kodiak Island Borough.
Response: The difference is explained on page 45 of the 5-year OCS oil and
gas leasing schedule FEIS. The resource estimates used in the 5-year FEIS are
risked estimates, in that the probability that no oil may be found is factored
into the estimates. When environmental statements are prepared for individual
sales included in the 5-year schedule, "conditional" estimates of resources
(those that assume the area to be hydrocarbon prQductive), which are based
upon the specific sale area, are used for impact assessment. Therefore, a
better assessment of impact, should the sale occur and be hydrocarbon produc-
tive.~ will be performed.
3. Environmental Studies and Data Gaps:
Issue: A major issue identified in the comments was the availability and
adequacy of biological, geological, and other data in the lease sale area,
especially in the Shelikof Strait. Some commenters suggested specific topics
for study; others noted general data gaps.
Sources: State of Alaska, Kodiak Area Native Association, Friends of the
Earth, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisher-
ies Service, Marine Mammal Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of 11arine Pollution Assessment/OCSEAP (NOAA), Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory
Council, and Derek Stonorov.
Response: Completed studies referenced in comments have been incorporated
into the text. Major revisions in the text additionally have been made in
recognition of the need for clarity in the use of existing data. The adequacy
of the current level of scientific data, especially for Shelikof Strait, is
addressed in section IV.A.4., under the Delay of Sale alternative. This
section on the impacts of delaying the proposed sale examines the adequacy of
the data base that presently exists as opposed to that which might exist in
the near future. The adequacy of the present data on biological resources in
particular is addressed in sections IV.A.4.a.-g., an examination of coastal
habitats, commercial and sport fish, commercial fishing, marine and coastal
birds, marine mammals, and terrestrial mammals. Appendix r has been updated
to contain the most current listing of reports published by the U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Outer Continental
Shelf Environmental Assessment Program.
235
The environmental geology data base for the lease sale area has been signifi-
cantly augmented in the FEIS. Environmental geology information from the USGS
in map form, previously not available for the DEIS, has been inconcluded in
appendix M. Examination of these geotechnical maps clearly demonstrates the
geological data gap in Shelikof Strait has been corrected. In addition,
research by Drs. Pulpan and Kienle provides ample information on the seis-
micity and potential volcanic hazards of lower Cook Inlet. Please refer to
the FEIS for sale CI for more information on this area, information not repli-
cated in the DEIS for purposes of brevity and focusing on specific impact
subjects. Annual reports by Kienle and Hampton may become available during
the latter processing of the FEIS. Every effort will be made to incorporate
any information from these studies that would have a significant impact on the
identification of unavoidable geohazardous blocks in the FEIS or Secretarial
Issue Document. These studies have been referenced in the FEIS.
A suggestion was made in one comment that certain studies funded by BLM and
yet to be completed be mentioned as sources of data which may reduce uncer-
tainties in predicting impacts for the near future. To specifically mention
any particular study may suggest to the reader that it has higher probability
of success than other research, including work not funded by BLM. However,
this is not necessarily so and we wish to avoid potential misinterpretations.
Many studies may reduce present uncertainty but there is no basis for identi-
fying a specific one until it is completed and has demonstrated that its
results would have a significant influence on OCS management decisions. The
purpose of the EIS is to predict possible impacts, not to predict whether
studies will yield significant conclusions.
Issue: Within the general subject of geological hazards, concern was
expressed in one comment about the relationship between specific sediment
conditions in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait and the availability of
ground acceleration data from accelerogram research.
Source: Office of Marine Pollution Assessment/OCSEAP.
Response: The use of acce~erometers by Pulpan and Kienle was initiated only
in the past few years and no high magnitude earthquake (7 or greater on the
Richter Scale) has occurred in close proximity to lower Cook InlP.t. As a
result, the response of sediments in lower Cook Inlet cannot be determined in
a scientific manner untll accelerograms from a large magnitude earthquake in
lower Cook Inlet are recorded and available for analysis. It is hoped the
seismicity studies of Pulpan and Kienle would continue until an adequate
scientific data base of accelerogram information has been established. Studies
in the past by Hampton in lower Cook Inlet have clearly established the physical
characteristics of the sediments of the area. Unfortunately, without acclero-
gram-data frC>m larse magnitude earthquakes in lower Cook Inlet, it would be
difficult to precisely define the attenuation characteristics of these sedi-
ments from local high magnitude seismic events. In fact, there is a dearth of
accelerometer data for large magnitude events outside of Cook Inlet as well.
Thus, extrapolations from other areas are still not reasonable on a scientific
basis until the seismic data base for large magnitude earthquakes improves.
4. Other Procedural Aspects:
Issue: The alternatives contained in the DEIS were cited in several
comments as inadequate in light of CEQ regulations, as only variations of a
236
single proposal and not encompassing a range of reasonable and available
alternatives. The analysis of alternatives was likewise seen as inadequate,
in tnat the DEIS failed to adequately analyze the no sale alternative or
alternatives outside the jurisdiction and control of the BLM.
Sources: Kodiak Island Borough, Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council,
Friends of the Earth.
Response: Proposed sale 60 is part of the larger 5-year leasing program for
federal lands on the OCS. The substitutability of alternative energy sources
has been evaluated within the context of the 5-year program (see sale 55 FEIS
and the FEIS for the 5-year OCS program). The block deletion alternatives
used as the basis for analysis in the DEIS are considered a workable number to
serve as the basis for a reasoned choice within the context of a lease sale
decision. In this context, the EIS offers a wide range of alternatives,
including the no sale and delay the sale cases, suitable for determining
reasonable differences of impacts and consequent reasoned choice among alter-
natives.
Issue: The DEIS contains no assessment of economic and technical benefits
of the planned action weighed against the environmental costs.
Source: Kodiak Island Borough.
Response: The CEQ regulations require that if a cost/benefit analysis is
prepared, that it be incorporated by reference or appended to the environmen-
tal statement. Cost/benefit analyses are not performed on proposed OCS lease
sales. The regulation also states:
For purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and
drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary
cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important quali-
tative considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement
should at least indicate those considerations, including factors not
related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and
important to a decision.
The Bureau of Land Management believes that this requirement has been met.
Issue: A commenter suggested that OCS leasing could violate the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 by
imposing high risks to marine and migratory populations.
Source: Kodiak Island Borough.
Response: A considerable effort was made in the EIS to assess potential
impacts and cumulative effects of the proposed action and respective block
deletion alternatives on marine and avian populations. OCS leasing alone
would not pose a th~eat to marine mammals and migratory birds. The potential
effects from leasing, however, could be such to present the possibility of
violating the laws cited. The likelihood of such potential effects occurring
is speculative and must be considered in the context of the body of law within
which the OCS program operates.
237
D. Environmental Impact Assessment
1. Cumulative Effects with Proposed OCS Sale 61:
Issue: A comment frequently raised was that the DEIS was inadequate by
failing to address the cumulative effects of proposed OCS sale 61 with OCS
sale 60. In particular, commenters stated that 1) consideration of cumulative
effects is essential if the decisionmakers are to be alerted to realistic
consequences of the proposed action; 2) the cumulative impacts of other projects
that can be expected to have similar impacts as a proposal must be acknowleged;
3) the consideration of cumulative impacts of sale 60 and 61 within the DEIS
for proposed sale 61 is unacceptable because a leasing decision will already
have been made on sale 60; and 4) in the absense of specific information on
OCS sale 61, the cumulative impact assessment of the two sales can be predi-
cated on information from the DEIS on previously proposed OCS sale 46, as well
as the presently proposed sale 60.
Sources: Trustees for Alaska, Kodiak Island Borough, Friends of the Earth,
Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council, Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Response: The cumulative impact assessment of proposed sale 61 at this time
in the context of the EIS for sale 60 would be premature and speculative,
since the lease sale has yet to be defined in specific terms. The projects
considered in examining the cumulative effects of proposed sale 60 are described
in section IV.A.l.h. With regard to proposed OCS sale 61, the decision to
conduct OCS sale 60 is not the final decision regarding OCS operations in this
sale area; it merely grants to a lessee an interest in submerged lands with a
specified burden of performance. Subsequent decisions are made by the Depart-
ment of the Interior and other state and federal agencies. Authority is
available under the OCSLAA for the Department of the Interior to suspend or
cancel OCS leases when a determination is made that further OCS operations
would pose a threat of damage to marine life, among other reasons (43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(l)). Given this brief description of the series of decision points
ensuing from both OCS sales 60 and 61, opportunities will be available in the
future to consider the issue of cumulative effects of both sales.
An estimated schedule of significant decision points regarding the two sales
is offered here to demonstrate this point. This schedule also identifies
opportunities for future cumulative impact assessment of the two sales which
would be more meaningful for purposes of OCS decisionmaking and environmental
assessment.
February 1981
Apr!~ -June 1981
August 1981
December 1981-
FEIS on sale 60 issued; Tract Selection on sale 61
completed (OCS 5-year leasing schedule).
USGS preparation of sale 61 resource estimates;
BLM/OCS preparation of sale development scenario
(USGS and BLM estimates).
OCS sale 60 scheduled occurrence (OCS 5-year leasing
schedule).
OCS sale 60 exploration plan submittals and approval
238
January 1982
March 1982
September 1982
March 1983
June 1984-
June 1985
(BLM estimates).
DEIS on OCS sale 61 released (OCS 5-year leasing
schedule).
FEIS on sale 61 released (OCS 5-year leasing schedule).
OCS sale 61 scheduled occurrence (OCS 5-year leasing
schedule).
Preparation and adoption of development and production
plan EIS on OCS sale 60 (BLM/OCS Petroleum Development
Scenario).
Proposed OCS sale 61 is not a tangible leasing proposal for purposes of environ-
mental assessment under NEPA until resource estimates are prepared, tracts are
selected for further study in an environmental statement, and a development
scenario is formulated against which the impact assessment can be performed.
The previous schedule indicates that these three types of information would
not be available before approximately June of 1981. For cumulative impact
assessment to be performed on OCS sale 61 in the FEIS on sale 60, a specula-
tive set of assumptions would have to be contrived in order to define a
"proposal." It is argued in the comments that information from the sale 46
DEIS could be used as a surrogate for the yet to be defined lease sale 61
area. Such analysis would be speculative because critical features of the
sale 61 proposal, such as the industry tract nomination pattern, the USGS
resource estimates, and the petroleum development scenarios, could be signi-
ficantly different from the previous sale 46 DEIS.
The appropriate decision point for an initial cumulative effects assessment of
OCS sales 60 and 61 would be the DEIS on proposed sale 61. The review of the
estimated schedule previously listed shows that sale 60 should occur in
August 1981, with the lessees' exploration plans anticipated to be submitted
in the winter of 1981-1982. For purposes of cumulative effects assessment of
sale 60 with 61, the post-sale 60 information would be quite helpful. Specifi-
cally, the tracts bid upon and leased in sale 60 will have been identified,
and the exploration plan and onshore facility support proposals, as well as
oilspill contingency planning logistics, will have been identified. This
discrete site-specific information will enable the EIS authors to prepare a
more realistic cumulative effects assessment of the two proposed lease sales.
Moreover, with the cumulative effects assessment being performed with the DEIS
on sale 61, the specific assumptions and information on the sale 61 lease
area, resource potential and onshore support activities, will have been iden-
tified. The combination of this discrete information for both sales 60 and 61
will result in better identification of cumulative effects, their probability
of occurrence, and future management practices that will mitigate or wid the
impacts. A critical example of the advantageous timing of this assessment
would be the oilspill risk analysis performed on sale 60 and 61. Resource
estimates for both sales would be available and specific trajectory points for
sale 60 would be known instead of hypothesized.
239
It should be emphasized that the preparation of cumulative effects assessment
on sale 60 and 61 with the issuance of the DEIS on sale 61 will not be the
only forum for such analysis. Moreover, the significant development and
production decisions for either sale 60 or 61 will probably occur 4 or more
years later, the earliest such date being 1984 for anticipated development and
production plan submittals on sale 60. If a commercial find of hydrocarbons
is made in sale 60, then the development and production EIS prepared for the
development and production plan submittals would include further cumulative
effects assessment between the sale 60 and 61 operations. At this juncture,
the decisionmakers should have more detailed information on the cumulative
effects of the two sales than with the earlier DEIS on sale 61. Thus the
process of cumulative effects assessments works inductively with the develop-
ment of OCS proposals, which are long-term, subject to decreasing uncertainty,
and characterized by sequential decisions.
2. Biological Environment:
Issue: One commenter questioned the degree to which BLM has consulted
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the u.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) to assess specific protective measures for non-endangered
species or populations of marine mammals.
Source: Marine Mammal Commission.
Response: Specific and detailed consultation on matters relevant to non-endan-
gered marine mammal protection has occurred as a part of formal meetings under
Secretarial Order 2974 (DM 655). These meetings have included representatives
from both FWS and NMFS (unofficial participant), and have been directed at the
formulation of mitigating measures compatible with the needs in the lease sale
area and capabilities of all agencies involved. Ongoing consultation is
facilitated, as well, through the BLM sponsored OCSEAP studies program and
environmental research synthesis meetings. Other means of interaction have
been employed, including the scoping process, request for resource reports,
tract selection, review of the DEIS through public hearings and comments, and
on-going discussions with various officials of NMFS/FWS and other agencies.
Leasing stipulations, notices to lessee, and leasing decisions are directly
affected by these processes. A substantial effort has been made to facilitate
interagency communication, and the EIS clearly lists all agencies with which
BLM has consulted. It would be unwieldy ~o detail all subjects discussed with
each agency, but those concerned are assured that the protection of non-endan-
gered marine mammals has been a priority subject.
Issue: Several commenters suggested the Cook Inlet beluga population has
the potential of being severely impacted by OCS activities, especially since
it is a small population which potentially is distinct from others in genetic
character. Therefore, criticism is made of the conclusions reached in the
DEIS that OCS activities will have little impact on these whales.
Sources: State of Alaska, Marine Mammal Commission.
Response: In general, it is likely that the relative severity of a specific
impact on the status of a population is inversely related to its size. Thus,
we concur that impacts on belugas in Cook Inlet could be of more long-term
240
consequence than if sustained by a more abundant population. Also, human
valuation of a population may be directly related to genetic uniqueness, e.g.,
a subspecies may be of more intrinsic value than a species. However, it is
generally unknown how eventual development of offshore oil and gas resources
would affect beluga whales in the lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. There
is no literature that shows conclusively that beluga whale populations have a
distinct physiological or behavioral sensitivity to any type of effect due to
oil pollution, noise, or other factors associated with offshore oil and gas
exploration. Therefore, we believe to conclude that the Cook Inlet beluga
population is potentially very sensitive to perturbations associated with OCS
development is no more valid than to conclude that it is not. This is why we
stated:
"However, the extent of ultimate effects of spills on beluga whales are
unclear, but most likely would be related to temporary or long term
reduction of food supplies, due to mortality or decreased productivity of
fish which may be present in the area, or possible avoidance by whales of
affected areas."
We also stated that:
"Present knowledge of petroleum-related activity and its relationship to
cetaceans is insufficient to predict with nigh confidence the unavoidable
adverse effects on endangered and non-endangered cetaceans."
In regard to cumulative effects of acoustic disturbance, we stated:
"Due to present limitations, it is not possible to conclusively evaluate
either long or short term cumulative effects of acoustic disturbance on
cetaceans."
We did conclude that unavoidable effects of exploration (a phase involving the
operation of no more than three rigs during any year of· the exploratory period)
would probably be minor and less than those of later phases. This conclusion
is based on existing data which show the probability of a spill during explora-
tion is very low (see Danenberg 1980, USGS Open File Report 80-101) and the
amount of disturbance due to this level of exploratory activity is of similar
proportions. Thus, the conclusion that unavoidable adverse effects of explora-
tion on cetaceans are probably minor is valid and somewhat at variance from
the interpretation of the conclusion that such activity will have little
impact. Ue do not believe, at this time, that any additional information
exists which could lead to a more complete assessment of the possible effects.
Issue: A commenter indicated that the DEIS tends to cite information on
short-term direct effects and downplay the impact of oil on marine mammals, as
well as making several suggestions for additional citations.
Source: Friends of the Earth.
Response: There is an emphasis in literature cited regarding information on
short-term, direct effects. This is because there is relatively little litera-
ture available regarding studies of long-term effects, not by a wish to downplay
any potential impacts. It was suggested the FEIS cite the "study" by Pearce, 1970,
241
which had been quoted by Calkins, 1979, regarding aberrant behavior of grey
seals coated by oil. We are aware of this reported behavior of grey seals but
do not believe those specific observations can be considered substantial
information which would alter basic conclusions regarding impact of the pro-
posed sale or its alternatives on behavior of marine mammals native to lower
Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. In the EIS, we have specified that physio-
logical and behavioral effects could result from marine mammal contact with
oil which would include such behavior as noted by Pearce. Also we concluded
that:
"It is possible that coating of animals or other contact with oil could
inhibit such recognition and lead to pup abandonment and starvation."
We believe this statement stands on its own merits; it is not necessary to
cite any additional literature related to marine mammal identification of
young or individual orientation as suggested. Similarly, the literature
clearly stated the potential sensitivity of sea otters to oil. We have in-
cluded an additional reference to a study by Engelhardt, et al., 1977, which
demonstrated conclusively that uptake of petroleum hydrocarbon as a result of
immersion and/or ingestion can occur in certain phocid seals. The fact is
that direct and indirect effects of a variety of manifestations may occur
depending on the species and nature of exposure. The EIS clearly brings this
out.
Issue: The relevance was questioned of including the discussion of the
relative significance of disturbance of cetaceans due to small boat traffic
and other non-QCS-related sources of noise.
Source: Kodiak Island Borough.
Response: The two paragraphs in question discussing the potential impacts of
disturbance due to small boats, fishing vessels, and other noise sources on
cetaceans, are most relevant, particularly as placed in the cumulative effects
section. In order to predict the eventual status of a species or ecological
community as a result of cumulative impacts, it is necessary to address as
many as possible of the significant impact-producing agents and develop some
perspective on the relative significance of each source. These paragraphs
identify a major potential source of disturbance which, in conjunction with
OCS activity, may affect cetaceans. In addition, it is stated that disturbance
of cetaceans due to sources other than OCS activities "may be as much or more
influence than petroleum industry impacts, either directly or indirectly,"
thus providing decisionmakers with additional perspective on the relative
significance of such sources of disturbance.
Issue: The DEIS does not recognize the significance of the complexity of
the marine ecosystem, especially its interacting, holistic, and synergistic
aspects; and, therefore, no realistic evaluations of impacts can be made.
Source: Kodiak Island Borough.
Response: Identification of key interactions among major ecosystem components
has been made throughout the EIS. Environmental impact analysis, because it
is an analysis, results in a process by which system components are identified
242
and fluctuations in major production functions of such components are predicted.
Scientific endeavors have yet to provide an adequate total ecosystem model by
which reliable predictions are possible. In fact, the theoretical development
of systems philosophy is still in formative stages and does not yet represent
an acceptable paradigm by which all scientific communities adhere. Scientific
realism is limited by the precision of measurement techniques, none of which
yet have revolutionized the present analytical methods to provide a widely
acceptable index of holistic or synergistic outputs of ecosystems. Until
synergism in ecosystems is a measureable output (and not merely a point of
philosophic debate) through which various alternatives can be assessed, we
must devote the bulk of our analysis to those which are most "real," e.g.,
species abundance, distribution, economic values, etc.
Issue: A number of commenters noted an apparent internal inconsistency in
the DEIS regarding the relationship between impacts on fisheries resources and
the impacts on the fisheries themselves.
Sources: State of Alaska, Kodiak Island Borough, Friends of the Earth, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
Response: The apparent "inconsistency" between estimated impacts on fish species
and commercial fishing exists because the impact assessments on fish populations
and commercial fisheries were done separately. The analysis of fish species
impacts is biologically-based, whereas an economic orientation is the basis
for the analysis of fisheries impacts. A biological effect does not necessarily
produce a major economic consequence. The analysis of fish populations generally
pointed out that adverse impacts on commercially exploited species would, over
the life of the project, be local, short-term, and moderate. The analysis
also pointed out that because these species are commercially exploited and
because of large natural population fluctuations, reductions may not be able
to be attributable to activities from oil and gas development and production.
On the other hand, impacts assessed on the commercial fisheries were primarily
based on direct conflicts and competition for ocean space, labor and dock
space as well as the possibilities of loss of fixed fishing gear and the loss
of marketability of a species because of flavor tainting rather than a reduction
of species. The analysis provided in the FEIS is the result of our assessment
based on all information on hand.
Issue: The subject of fisheries impacts was raised in a large number of
comments, most in a generic sense but others with specific points to be made:
assessing the economics of fisheries impacts; assessing the growing importance
of bottomfishing; recognizing Shelikof Strait as a major bottomfishing and
bottomfish rearing area, especially for Alaskan pollock; and assessing the
high sensitivity of larval forms of life to hydrocarbons.
Sources: State of Alaska, Kodiak Island Borough, Kodiak Island Borough OCS
Advisory Council, Trustees for Alaska, Oliver N. Holm, Dr. Paul L. Eneboe,
Carole Demers, Carol Griswold, and Kenneth R. Carrasco.
Response: Technical corrections have been made as appropriate to recognize
fisheries impact questions. Although already included in the EIS, emphasis
was added on the high vulnerability of larval forms of marine life to oil and
243
the importance of Shelikof Strait to the life cycle of bottom-dwelling fish
populations. The growing importance of bottomfishing to the economy of Kodiak
Island had been recognized in the description of the environment, where it was
pointed out the limited amount of data available on this sector of the economy
made it very difficult to assess impacts. No attempt was made to assess the
economics of fisheries impacts, since these conceivably would be localized and
subject to a wide variation of circumstances, not the least of which is the
ability to take into account natural variations in fisheries resources popula-
tions as a function of assessing OCS impacts.
Issue: Information was provided by one commenter to support the position
that oil and gas operations in the Cook Inlet area have not significantly
affected the salmon catch there.
Source: ARCO.
Response: Based on information supplied through the oilspill risk analysis,
salmon populations may be reduced because of this proposal. The impact on
salmon fishing is expected to be local and short-term where it is estimated to
occur.
Issue: Using the experience in upper Cook Inlet, one commenter took
issue with the finding that man-made disturbance is a major potential for
adverse effects on marine and coastal birds and marine mammals.
Source: AOGA.
Response: No evidence is supplied that existing activities have not been a
problem. The effects of air traffic, especially helicopters flying over
nesting bird colonies and mammal rookeries, have been documented in the Kodiak
area, suggesting that the potential for adverse effects indeed does exist.
The degree of adverse disturbance depends on where, when, and how frequent the
disturbance occurred. The present level of activity may not be significant
enough to cause a major adverse effect. However, increasing the level of oil
and gas activity in Cook Inlet does have the potential for adding further
disturbance levels to the point where the cumulative disturbance on bird
colonies and/or mammal -rookeries could be a major effect.
Issue: One commenter indicated the impacts assessed in the DEIS were not
adequate in terms of reflecting the effects of increased human population on
fish and wildlife resources.
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
Response: A major factor that drives the impacts assessment is the estimate
of increased human population that may result from the lease sale during the
exploration, development, and production phases of operations. The effects of
increased human population on fish and wildlife resources has been incorporated
into the EIS. In addition to effects on the biota, the potential for increased
hunting and fishing pressures from increased population has also been addressed.
Since hunting and fishing effort is regulated and managed by the State of
Alaska, any undue pressures on fish and wildlife resources would be assessed
by the staff of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, with recommendations
to the respective regulatory boards of Fisheries and Game for changing manage-
ment policies, if necessary.
244
3. Physical Environment:
Issue: A number of commenters observed that Shelikof Strait is too dangerous
a place for OCS drilling due to high seas, strong winds and currents, seismic
activity and proximity to shore.
Sources: Teresa Holm, Carole Demers, Betsey Myrick, Kathie Short, Jody Webb,
Julene Schlack, Charlie Renkert, Peter Thielke, Susan Arndt, and Mary Ann Hickey.
Response: While intuitively one might assume that spill likelihood is higher
in areas of more severe meteorologic, oceanographic or geohazard conditions,
the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence (statistical, or otherwise)
to support this assumption. Offshore structures are carefully engineered and
safety factored to withstand conditions present in specific areas. Even in
the event of a structure failure, other system controls are likely to prevail,
thereby further reducing the likelihood of a spill. That is to say, failure
of a structure as a result of environmental or other factors does not necessarily
result in failure of spill control equipment. In short, there is no apparent
relationship between severity of physical conditions and the likelihood of
oilspills. On the other hand, the relevance of proximity to shore may relate
to oilspill cleanup, but an intuitive evaluation of the function of distance
to shore must include the specific transport characteristics of the water
column. Such characteristics are considered in the design of oilspill con-
tingency plans prepared prior to exploratory and development operations (see
the response in this section to the oilspill cleanup issue).
Issue: The development scenarios for gas production assume pipelines
from both Shelikof Strait and lower Cook Inlet to Anchor Point. A direct
route for the former would cross the sand wave field in lower Cook Inlet where
some sand waves reach 12-meter heights. The hazards along this pipeline route
are not specifically discussed in the DEIS or are mitigating measures and
alternative pipeline routes.
Source: Office of Marine Pollution Assessment/OCSEAP.
Response: It is not the purpose of a pre-lease EIS to resolve site-specific
construction and design considerations on selected development facilities when
it has not yet been determined that such facilities would in fact be constructed.
At this point in time, there is no reason to assume a pipeline would in fact
be placed on the top of a 12-meter sand dune field. The second assumption
that has been made in this comment is that pipelines and sand wave or sand
dune fields are technologically mutually exclusive. Fortunately, this does
not appear to be the case. For example, pipelines criss-cross numerous sand
dune fields in west Texas and in the Middle East. Although these are onshore,
the nature of drifting sand waves is quite analogous. There are also a number
of examples of submarine pipelines crossing sand wave fields in the North Sea.
In fact, a considerable amount of scientific research has been published in
various countries adjacent to the North Sea on this subject.
In terms of the nature of the sand wave field in lower Cook Inlet, research
done by the USGS has shown that the larger dunes appear to be stationary and
that only the smaller ripples and thinner layers of sediment are actually in
motion on the surface of the sand waves. The stationary nature of these sand
waves suggests that if and when industry proposes such a marine pipeline it
245
could be suitably routed through the sand wave field without creating an undue
environmental risk as a result. Secondly, it would probably be more than
likely that such a marine pipeline would be trenched into the seabed to provide
additional protection from bottomfishing gear as well as bottom sediment
transport. Therefore, at this time, there appears to be sufficient informa-
tion available on the subject of sand waves as well as currently available
technology on the part of the oil and gas transportation industry to adequately
design pipelines for lower Cook Inlet without undue risk to the environment in
the process.
Issue: One commenter indicated the FEIS should assess the potential for
direct and indirect impacts on (ground water) aquifers that exist on land
adjacent to the lease sale area.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
Response: The onshore aquifers that have been noted conceivably are limited
in geographical extent. Insufficient subsurface well data is available to
demonstrate the subject aquifers extend into the offshore area under study.
Porosity and permeability are notorious geological factors which can and do
change the reservoir properties of aquifers even over a relatively short
distance. Thus, it appears unlikely that the exact same aquifers onshore on
the Kenai and Alaska Peninsulas would exist in a similar form beneath the
proposed lease sale area.
In addition, the drilling of wells on the OCS is regulated by the operating
orders of the USGS. These orders provide for the appropriate design of the
casing of either exploratory or production wells in such a manner that even if
an aquifer were encountered, the impact on it would be negligible. Further-
more, fluid discharges from exploratory or production wells are not permitted
by the USGS to be pumped back into a freshwater aquifer. Therefore, the
likelihood of contaminating a freshwater aquifer from the Alaska Peninsula or
the Kenai Peninsula is extremely unlikely.
4. Coastal Zone Management:
Issue: Comments were received from a number of sources requesting a
delay of sale pending completion of the Coastal Management Program for the
Kodiak Island Borough. A number of reasons.were given for this, including
1) plans such as this should guide decisions as opposed to being written after
the fact, 2) plans must be completed prior to the lease sale for the exercise
of consistency review, 3) plans that contain sanctuary proposals can only be
exercised if in approved form, 4) plans in place will allow a more effective
analysis of cumulative effects, and 5) the FEIS should fully portray the State
and Borough positions relative to Federal consistency with every lease sale
decision.
Sources: State of Alaska, Kodiak Island Borough, Kodiak Island Borough OCS
Advisory Council, Friends of the Earth, NOAA, Trustees for Alaska.
The specific issues raised on Coastal Zone Management are responded to as
follows:
246
1. It is essential that planning efforts, such as the Coastal Zone Management
Program, guide basic oil development decisions, rather than plans being written
after the fact to reflect oil development decisions previously made.
Response: The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP), as well as any district
program approved thereafter, will guide and influence oil development decisions
to the extent permissible under State and Federal law. The proposed OCS
sale 60 development and production operations will be subject to a mandatory
consistency review determination with the approved ACMP and Kodiak Island
Borough CMP pursuant to provisions in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) as amended. The Federal CZMA and the State ACMP acknowledge the critical
role which coastal energy facilities play in supplying state and national
energy needs. Explicit provisions have been included in both the Federal CZMA
and the State ACMP that the siting of such energy facilities will not be
unreasonably restricted or arbitrarily excluded. Thus, the influence which a
local CMP and the State ACMP has on oil development decisions is constrained
by reasonable consideration of state and national interests.
2. OCS sale 60 should be delayed to allow for completion of the Kodiak Island
Borough CMP, and the Borough's exercise of its consistency review authority
under the Federal CZMA.
Response: Please refer to section IV.A.2.n. of the FEIS. In addition, the
following responses are appropriate: There is no provision in the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, or the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act,
requiring delay of a scheduled OCS lease sale for a local CMP to be developed
as authorized under the Federal CZMA. In the annual review of the OCS program,
the Secretary of the Interior is required to consider the effects of the
5-year OCS oil and gas leasing schedule on the Coastal Zone Management program
and the policies of affected states, including state coastal management policies.
An EIS was prepared on the proposed 1980-1985 5-year OCS oil and gas leasing
schedule. In this assessment, the DOl considered the timing of proposed OCS
sales in Alaska with the development and implementation of the state ACMP.
For incorporated governments, the ACMP requires local CMP's to be adopted by
December 1981. This date should provide sufficient lead time in the context
of OCS sale 60 post-sale development. Any necessary consistency reviews on
proposed OCS sale 60 will be performed by the State of Alaska in response to
the proposed notice of sale on OCS sale 60. The Kodiak Island Borough may
forward its CZMA consistency concerns to the State of Alaska in reviewing the
proposed OCS notice of sale if its CMP is not authorized at that time.
3. A "Kodiak Coastal Marine Sanctuary," which includes the coastal zone area
in Shelikof Strait, has been proposed as an "Area Meriting Special Attention"
(AMSA), which can only have an affect on the OCS decision to lease if the
coastal zone planning process is much further ahead of leasing than is true in
the case of the Shelikof Strait blocks.
Response: With regard to the "Kodiak Coastal Marine Sanctuary" AMSA proposal,
this classification was made by the State Office of Coastal Management after
an earlier NOAA proposal for marine sanctuary nominations under the l1arine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. The AMSA proposal has not been
delineated by any work program, proposed management plan, or any other means
beyond an abstract statement. Therefore, it is speculative to assess impacts
247
which the OCS leasing proposal would have on this AMSA abstract as well as
other AMSA abstracts which have yet to be defined.
The OCS sale is not the only governmental decision regarding OCS operations.
Refer to the discussion in section IV.A.2.n. Moreover, in the absense of an
approved AMSA or a local CMP, the State of Alaska has the opportunity to
submit comments on mitigating measures, the OCS lease stipulations, the notice
to lessee provisions in the proposed OCS Notice of Sale, and the consistency
of permit plans. These activities by the State reflect concerns for the
coastal habitat areas which would be otherwise managed under an AMSA desig-
nation. Again, such specific Coastal Zone practices are better reviewed
against OCS operations and post-sale decisions which are more site-specific in
nature and hence can be better compared against the site-specific management
practices.
4. The discussion of cumulative effects on Coastal Zone Management is unsatis-
factory, and the statement that the CMP's will not be adversely affected and
that cumulative effects are difficult to identify in the absence of an approved
CMP are inconsistent. Moreover, the inability to perform cumulative effects
assessment because of the absence of a local coastal management program further
demonstrates a need for a delay of sale.
Response: The first paragraph regarding cumulative effects on page 229 of the
DEIS has been clarified. The intent was to indicate that a combination of
factors renders cumulative impact assessment upon the State ACMP and the
districts' CMP speculative at this time. No cumulative effects can be de-
finitely identified at this time. When future proposals become more tangible
and local CMP policies regarding siting of development and permissible uses of
the coastal zone become articulated, then cumulative effects assessment should
reveal more useful findings. Though proposals are presently imprecise and
district CMP's are not adopted, these factors are not an acceptable rationale
under NEPA, CZMA, or OCSLAA for delaying proposed OCS sale 60.
5. The EIS does not adequately describe the relationship between the ACMP
and the proposed lease sale. The EIS should fully portray the State and
Borough positions relative to Federal consistency with every lease sale decision.
Response: The State of Alaska has expressed positions on pre-OCS lease sale
consistency with the provisions of the approved ACMP. The Kodiak Island
Borough has separately expressed concerns about consistency review. However,
the Borough's CMP has yet to be approved by the State of Alaska.
The DEIS and FEIS do not fully portray State and Borough positions relative to
Federal consistency with pre-lease sale decisions because these are legal or
policy issues outside the scope of the EIS. The environmental assessment done
for proposed actions under requirements of NEPA and CEQ regulations do not
require discussion of legal or policy issues per se. The State of Alaska and
its political subdivisions may express their views on consistency through the
consistency determinations made by DOI and other Federal agencies (15 CFR 930;
44 FR 37142). For DOl pre-lease activities "directly affecting the coastal
zone," DOl will send a notice of determination to the State of Alaska (15 CFR
930.34(a)). The State of Alaska and approved District Coastal Management
Programs thereof have the opportunity to "inform the DOl of its agreement or
disagreement with the Federal agency consistency determination (15 CFR 930.4l(a))."
248
Further details on the consistency review procedures as these apply to DOI OCS
leasipg, post-sale permitting, and plan approval are provided in the Federal
Office of Coastal Zone Management rulemaking on this subject (15 CFR 930).
5. Air and Water Quality:
Issue: Technical comments regarding the accuracy and adequacy of the air
quality assessment were offered. These pertain to such factors as the validity
of sampled OCS emission sources, the suitability of the air quality modelling
utilized, and the validity of meteorologic data used.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
Response: Offshore emission sources from proposed OCS sale 60 are not considered
to significantly affect onshore air quality for the reasons stated in the text
of the EIS. The text of section IV.A.2.p.-l has been amplified to respond to
specific technical points.
The air quality assessment uses a Gaussian dispersion model with the best data
available at the time of EIS preparation. The wind data are derived from
OCSEAP sponsored research at sampling stations in lower Cook Inlet waters.
The selection of high winds was considered to be part of an extreme case
analysis to carry contaminants to shore; otherwise, low wind speeds with the
simulated emission volume would probably not yield significant onshore air
quality concentrations.
Issue: Comments and supportive evidence were submitted on both sides of
the issue whether adverse effects will result from the discharge of drilling
fluids (muds and cuttings) and formation waters, comments directed toward
determining the need for a mitigating measure to assure high standards of
water quality. Contentions pro and con were directed to the effects of dis-
charges into shallow waters, waters with limited circulation or mixing, or
waters containing high concentrations of eggs or sensitive juvenile organisms.
Sources: Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council, AOGA.
Response: The disposal of drilling fluids or formation waters during OCS
operations should not pose significant impacts on beneficial uses of marine
receiving waters in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. The findings of
acute toxicity of drilling fluid constituents are not questioned. However,
the major consideration in this issue is the mixing, dilution, and transport
of wastewater contaminants in receiving waters. Refer to table IV.A.2.o.-l of
the FEIS, which shows that background concentrations of suspended solids were
achieved within 100 to 200 meters of mud discharges in the lower Cook Inlet
COST Well study (Dames and Moore, 1978). The ocean conditions of concern
should not be present in the OCS blocks subject to lease in proposed sale 60.
The blocks are clearly not situated in shallow waters, and the prevailing
tidal flux would definitely result in mixing and circulation of the receiving
water mass.
As to the presence of larval stages of significant species, it should be
emphasized that a) only a few exploratory wells will be drilled each year
during the exploration phase, b) no more than two wells would likely be drilled
at any one time (from two different tracts in the lease sale area), c) the
249
discharge plume yields toxic and sublethal concentrations only in a localized
area around each drilling vessel, d) the age class of larval and juvenile
organisms is staggered over time so their vulnerability at any one time will
be limited, and e) the spatial surface area distribution of larval and juvenile
organisms will be enormous in comparison to the toxic area of discharge plumes
from individual OCS exploration drilling vessels.
With regard to proposed mitigating measures, an additional level of protection
(beyond existing measures) is not warranted in context of available evidence
about negligible concentrations of drilling fluid contaminants in marine
receiving waters. The Environmental Protection Agency is the final permitting
authority for wastewater discharses into marine receiving waters. The OCS
Operating Orders recognize EPA's National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) authority and defer to it in issuance of Geological Survey
permits to drill. The EPA presently relies on available information and
expertise of resource agencies in determining allowable fluid discharges from
OCS operations. The present permitting conditions take notice of larval
reproduction and larval growth seasons of commercially important species
through mandated dilution rates of drilling fluids upon discharge (40 bbl
water: 1 bbl mud) and maximum discharge volume (25 bbl/hr mud).
Issue: A commenter suggested that existing permitting processes should
be used to control the short-term and cumulative effects of contaminant discharges.
Source: Kodiak Island Borough.
Response: The avoidability of the above-mentioned effects ensuing from the
lease sale is mentioned in context of the CEQ regulations requiring the identi-
fication of unavoidable and adverse effects. However, the short-term and
cumulative water quality effects from drilling fluids and produced water
discharges are not considered to be adverse. Refer to the text on water
quality impacts. The section on unavoidable adverse effects has been clarified
to indicate there is no evidence to support a finding of probable adverse
effects from cumulative wastewater discharges in OCS operations.
6. Worst Case Analysis:
Issue: The subject of worst case analysis was raised by a number of
sources, from different perspectives. Industry portrayed the EIS as a "worst
case" analysis, since the basis for the oilspill risk analysis did not account
for new technology, new regulations, and proven Cook Inlet experience. It was
felt that if these factors were taken into account, then most all of the
stated biological impacts should be reduced. On the other hand, it was felt
the worst case analysis contained in the EIS was deficient in not covering
resources other than endangered species.
Sources: ARCO, AOGA, Kodiak Island Borough.
Response: The worst case is reserved to analysis where insufficient informa-
tion exists about a given resource. Other uses of the term connote a severe
or exaggerated situation, as in the case of industry comments about not using
previous Cook Inlet experience in the oilspill risk analysis. Please refer to
the response to comments on the oilspill risk analysis for a discussion of the
basis for the analysis in the context of Cook Inlet experience. This discussion
250
indicates there is little reason to believe the use of Cook Inlet experience
would necessarily produce reduced biological impacts as a function of different
output from the oilspill risk analysis. Please keep in mind the resource
estimates used in the oilspill risk analysis are assumed discovered and produced.
The estimates are not risked as to probability of discovery. The amount of
assumed resource production, based on this premise, is the mean rather than
the high level of resource production used in the "worst case analysis" contained
as part of the EIS. The worst case analysis considers the impacts on endangered
cetaceans because of insufficient information. Information is considered
sufficient for other resources to make a reasoned choice among alternatives.
E. General Issues
Issue: The subject of the need for developing alternate energy sources
and for a national concern for energy conservation was raised from a number of
sources, several of which criticized the DEIS for not having a substantive
discussion of alternate energy sources and failing to assess alternatives
other than block deletions.
Sources: Kodiak Island Borough, Friends of the Earth, Carole Demers,
Betsey A. Myrick, Julene Schlack, Charlie Renkert, Peter L. Thielke,
Susan Arndt, and Peggy Mcintyre.
Response: Evaluation of alternative energy sources as possible substitutes
for OCS oil development is a programmatic level evaluation of a policy nature.
Such evaluation already has been performed several times (see sale 55 FEIS and
the FEIS for the 5-year OCS program), resulting in the conclusion that other
energy sources are not an alternative to Federal oil and gas leasing under the
existing energy crisis and national policy. Federal policy recognizes clearly
that all sources are needed. The only practical short-term substitute for oil
and gas development is importing. The energy crisis in the United States is
brought about by the dependence on oil imports. An increase in imports to
substitute for U.S. oil and gas development would only compound the crisis and
should not be considered a substitute for such development. Oil development,
particularly a single lease sale, is no direct substitute for (or cannot be
substituted by) some other energy form. The impracticalities are numerous.
The practice of assessing block deletion alternatives to the proposed action
is based on specific data and a site-specific area.
Issue: The feeling that onshore areas should be explored and developed
before offshore areas are exploited was expressed_from a number of sources.
Sources: Kodiak Island Borough, Oliver N. Holm, Sandra Malloy, Derrell R. Short,
Kathie Short, Peggy Mcintyre.
Response: The Department of the Interior encourages a balanced approach to
the exploration and development of onshore as well as offshore federal lands.
The OCS oil and gas leasing program operates under a Congressional mandate
contained in the OCS Lands Act amendments and is implemented through the
5-year OCS leasing program, of which proposed sale 60 is a part. The OCS oil
and gas leasing program is carried out in conjunction with onshore programs
mandated by other legislation for the purpose of seeking all possible resources
to achieve less dependence on imported energy resources. Energy resources
developed from different sources are not necessarily substitutable, as indicated
251
in the discussion of the issue of alternative energy sources. A factor that
could contribute to the impression of emphasis being placed on offshore oil
and gas resources is that more acreage with oil and gas potential presently is
identified under federal jurisdiction offshore than onshore. In Alaska,
access to such federal lands onshore was unclear in years past during the
Congressional debate over national interest lands in Alaska. The enactment of
the Alaska lands legislation may serve to more fully equalize exploration
onshore and offshore for oil and gas resources.
Issue: A number of individuals and organizational representatives commented
on the adequacy and effectiveness of oilspill containment and cleanup technology.
Such technology was considered inadequate for the lease sale area and especially
for the Shelikof Strait. Many considered the risk of oilspill damage to
vulnerable coastal habitats and marine resources to be increased in the Shelikof
Strait because of the severe winds, tidal currents, high seas, potential
seismic activity, and the proximity of OCS operations to shore. Some also
felt the DEIS section of oilspill response was inadequate in not assessing the
time needed for response and the ability to stage a cleanup operation in the
Shelikof Strait.
Sources: Friends of the Earth, Environmental Protection Agency, State of Alaska,
NOAA, Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club, Lee Stratton, Oliver N. Holm,
Carole Demers, Jody Webb, Julene Schlack, Charlie Renkert, Peter L. Thielke,
and Susan Arndt.
Response: The OCSLAA require that the Best Available and Safest Technology
(BAST) be used in exploring and developing oil and gas resources in the Outer
Continental Shelf. The OCS operating orders of the USGS require evidence to
this effect to be submitted by the lessee prior to any drilling operations
offshore. The operating orders also require lessees to submit oilspill con-
tingency plans for approval by the USGS prior to drilling operations. The
section on oilspill response describes the type of information required in an
oilspill contingency plan.
The type of action taken in response to an oilspill event is based on the
judgment of those responsible on scene in relation to the specific character-
istics of the spill, such as the need for protecting life and property through
search and rescue operations, as well as the source, volume, and type of
materials spilled; weather and sea conditions; and proximity to vulnerable
coastal habitats. Conditions may exist where other priorities delay offshore
cleanup, such as the need to stop an OCS oilspill at the source, as covered in
the Memorandum of Understanding between USGS and the Coast Guard, or the need
to protect human life and property, as in the case of the Lee Wang Zin sinking
episode near Ketchikan, Alaska.
The amount and type of cleanup containment equipment available to the Federal
On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) of the Coast Guard is not limited to the inventory
in Alaska. The FOSC has access, if necessary and available, to any equipment
in the national roster, although some time may be needed to put the equipment
in place. For example, the Glacier Queen spill incident in Seldovia Bay in
November of 1978, required the mobilization of a 6,000-foot USN Goodyear boom
from Stockton, California, after the failure of booms in Alaska due to the
strong tidal action. It took 11 days to transport, lay out, and deploy the
boom around the Glacier Queen according to the US Coast Guard log of events.
252
There are conditions of weather, seastate, discharge volume, and geography
where oil essentially is unrecoverable at sea. In conditions of 8-to 10-foot
seas, it may be unsafe to carry on cleanup operations at sea and very difficult
to find the oil, since such energy is generated by wind and waves that the oil
becomes churned into the water column (Kazmierczak, 1980). In cases where a
large volume of oil is released relatively close to shore, such as in a tanker
incident, the salvation of beaches may be favorable winds and currents that
take the oil out to sea where it can be dispersed naturally (Vielvoye, 1980).
Although the type of response initiated at a spill site depends on the character-
istics of the spill, planning for response action takes into account specific
characteristics of the lease sale area and the types and location of equipment
needed to mobilize response in such a locale. Equipment inventories, locations,
and response times, among others, are cited in the contingency plan for approval
as to adequacy by the USGS prior to the beginning of drilling operations. The
contingency plan additionally addresses measures for defending the coast and
conducting coastal cleanup. Information on coastal vulnerability to oil
persistence and on critical coastal habitats is invaluable for contingency
planning and as a means of guiding cleanup decisions of the Scientific Support
Coordinator and FOSC.
Issue: Several comments were received concerning the compensatory funds
tstablished through the OCS Lands Act, as amended. There was concern that the
perceived $100,000 limit of liability for the Fishermen's Contingency Fund was
inadequate to deal with Alaskan fishermen's financial investment. The point
also was made that the liability limit for vessels established in the Offshore
Oil Pollution Compensation Fund was inadequate to deal with the cost and
recoverable cost of oilspill cleanup operations.
Sources: State of Alaska, Friends of the Earth.
Response: There is not a $100,000 maximum limit of liability in the Fishermen's
Contingency Fund. As indicated in the EIS, "each area account can be funded
to a maximum of $100,000 and the law specifies procedures for replenishing the
account when depleted to less than $50,000." The $100,000 maximum is a maxi-
mum for an area account, not a maximum for compensation under the Fishermen's
Contingency Fund.
There seems to be some confusion over the source of funds to pay for oilspill
cleanup operations. The Offshore Oil Pollution Compensation Fund is not the
vehicle to pay for such operations. As indicated in the EIS, there is a
National Contingency Fund for cleanup and other removal costs of spills of oil
or hazardous substances authorized under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. This revolving fund is the responsibility of and is managed by the
United States Coast Guard. There is no relationship between the Offshore Oil
Pollution Compensation Fund and the National Contingency Fund used to pay for
cleanup operations. There is also no relationship between the amount recovered
from the spiller as a proportion of the total spent for cleanup. The cost of
cleanup to the United States Government is the total cost of cleanup, less
that which can be recovered from the spiller.
Issue: The introduction of the petroleum industry as a new sector of the
Kodiak Island economy is foreseen in one comment as introducing inflationary
pressures on villages in the area.
253
Source: Kodiak Area Native Association.
Response: It is possible that an increased demand for facilities and services
by the petroleum industry could have the potential for raising prices for
goods and services in the Kodiak Island area. Such increased prices could be
brought about not only by an increased external demand, but also by a decreased
supply of locally needed goods and services such as could be brought about by
diverting ocean and air transportation space for petroleum industry-needed
goods. Impacts such as this could take place, but the assumption used in the
EIS analysis is that an increased demand for services would be followed by a
commensurate increase in the supply of such services. Consequently, an impact
of this kind would not be of long duration and would be compensated for through
normal economic processes.
Issue: It was noted by a number of sources that a developmental EIS
should be required if a commercial discovery is made in the lease sale area.
Sources: State of Alaska, Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council.
Response: Provisions for requiring a developmental EIS in frontier areas is
contained in the OCS Lands Act, as amended. Section 25 of the Act requires
that at least once in a frontier area the approval of a development and pro-
duction plan would be declared a major federal action under NEPA and a draft
and final environmental statement would be prepared. The Secretary has the
authority by this means to require a developmental EIS should a commercial
discovery be made.
Issue: It was pointed out in one comment that the subject of the impacts
of onshore development on Afognak and Ban Islands should take into consid-
eration the existing withdrawals under section 204(b)(l) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-579) and the legislation on National
Interest Lands pending before the U.S. Congress.
Source: U.S. Forest Service •.
Response: Subsequent to the preparation of this comment, the U.S. Congress
passed and the President signed the Alaska Nati,>nal Interest Lands Act. From
the best information at hand, it is not evident that any significant part of
the Kodiak Island Archipelago has been placed into the wilderness preservation
system. Regardless, the EIS shows little or no impacts to Afognak or Ban
Islands from onshore development. Under the scenarios used to evaluate the
respective alternatives, potential onshore impacts from land development are
considered primarily at Port Lions, and secondarily, in the city of Kodiak.
The source of the comment is advised to continue monitoring for potential
onshore effects should a commercial find of hydrocarbons result from explora-
tion in the lease sale area. It is at this time that specific negotiations
could take place for the siting of onshore development, subject to appropriate
regulations.
Issue: It was requested in one comment that the current status of west
coast LNG receiving facilities be clarified in the FEIS.
254
Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Response: The body of the text on transportation has been changed to reflect
the current status of west coast LNG receiving facilities.
Issue: One individual indicated the DEIS was of relatively little value
for predicting social impacts, indicating the authors were practicing faulty
social science.
Source: Alaska Resources International.
Response: The EIS is not a research document but is written in compliance
with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations governing environmental
impact assessment (40 CFR 1500). The BLM-sponsored Socioeconomic Studies
Program contracts for research in the geographic area potentially subject to
impact from OCS lease sales. The emphasis in EIS preparation is on analysis
using this reserach and all other available information.
Issue: One comment indicated justification must be provided for identifying
blocks in graphic 13 as requiring special cultural resource surveys.
Source: AOGA.
Response: The blocks are identified as having the potential for containing
cultural resources, as indicated by the studies referenced of Dixon, Sharma,
and Stoker. The discussion of the cultural resources mitigating measure
explains procedures for determining whether special surveys are indeed required.
Issue: One commenter suggested that circulation of the DEIS for comment
did not fulfill this agency's responsibilities under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
Source: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Response: The Department of the Interior believes that the Environmental
Impact Statement prepared for this proposed lease sale contains an adequate
treatment of the potential impacts on archeological and historical resources
and measures which will effectively mitigate any potential adverse effects.
The OCS leasing process is a multi-staged one and includes a number of decision
points beyond the lease sale decision. Decision points on the approval of
exploration plans or production and development plans are considered more
appropriate times to conduct necessary consultation and make more specific
determinations as to possible adverse impacts. The Department has devoted
considerable effort in order to develop and implement measures which will
ensure the protection of cultural resources from the impacts associated with
OCS oil and gas activities. Additionally, we anticipate that in the upcoming
months we will be working closely with the Advisory Council on Historic Preser-
vation in developing counterpart regulations which will clearly define the
process necessary for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
F. Public Hearings and Comments
Public hearings were held on the draft Environmental Impact Statement during
the week of October 12, 1980, in Homer, Kodiak, and Anchorage, Alaska. A
255
listening meeting also was carried out in Port Lions, Alaska, during the same
period. A total of 115 persons testified at the public hearings and at the
listening meeting. The following is a list of all persons that testified.
Homer Public Hearing
October 14, 1980
Name
Ken Bloom
Virginia de Vries
David Hoopes
Thomas Peterson
Steven Smiley
Nancy Lord
George Ripley
Carlos Freeman
Georgia Linnea Hodge
Ray W. Hodge
Greg Demers
Joy Post
Dean Heusel
Bob Schiro
Lawrence Nevitt
Yule Kilcher
Diane Spencer
Richard Knowles
Reuben Call
Jan Needham
Joel Gay
Patty Yancey
Don Dumm
Phillip Brudie
Julie Cesarini
Gail Phillips
Angelo Phillips
James Herbert (for Bill Bledsoe
and Bob Tremain)
Steven M. Clark
Michael S. O'Meara
Janet O'Meara
Peggy Mcintyre
Danny Parks
Frank s. Griswold
Robert E. Barnett
Beth Curmning
Joyce Dey
Christopher Skelly
Arnold Melsheimer
Lee Stratton
Keven Hogan
Bill Osborne
Marilyn Hammond
Home/Affiliation
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
Homer, Alaska
Kodiak Island Borough
Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alast.
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Atlantic Richfield Company
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
President, Homer Chamber of Commerce
Homer Chamber of Commerce
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Glacier View Garage
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
English Bay, Alaska
The North Pacific Rim
Homer, Alaska
Kodiak Area Native Association
Homer, Alaska
256
Asaiah Bates
Laura Barton
Paul Folley
Leslie Hafemeister
Roseleen Moore
Eric Ranger
Michael McBride
Jeff Springette
Robin Ziperman
Camdon Wall
Robert Haynes
Kodiak Public Hearing
October 15, 1980
Name
David Hoopes
Stacy Studebaker
Chris Stone
Tony Rickard
Tracy Powell
Tom Dooley
Thomas Peterson
Thomas Cook
Edward Mertens
Forest Blau
Stephen Rennell
David Wakefield
Chris Myrick
Linda Freed
Betsy Myrick
Art Panamaroff
Dorothy Pestrikoff
Wayne Marshall
Bill Osborne
Laura Bartels
Theresa Holm
Peter Holm
Richard Knowles
Dave Thompson
Bruce Baker
John Joskoski
Hank Pennington
Barbara Monkeiwicz
Kathy Short
Derrell Short
David Herrnstein
Dawn Lea Black
David Kubiak
Alvin Burch
Chuck Karpinski
Nancy Johnston
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
North Pacific Fisheries Association
Homer, Alaska
Kachemak Bay Wilderness Lodge
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Home/Affiliation
Kodiak Island Borough
Kodiak High School
Kodiak High School
Kodiak High School
Kodiak High School
Kodiak High School
Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council
Chevron U.S.A.
Chevron U.S.A.
Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Port Lions City Council
Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak Island Borough, Office of Coastal Zone
Management
Kodiak, Alaska
Larsen Bay Village Council
Old Harbor, Alaska/KANA OEDP Committee
Kodiak Area Native Association
Kodiak Area Native Association
Kodiak Area Native Association
Whale Island, Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Atlantic Richfield Company
Kodiak, Alaska
Office of the Governor, State of Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council
Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Acting Mayor, Kodiak Island Borough
Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak Island Borough OCS Advisory Council
Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
257
Anchorage Public Hearing
October 16, 1980
Name
Dieter Wuerth
Robert Rasmussen
David Hoopes
James Sumner
Margie Gibson
Ron Zobel
Peg Tileston
Mary Ellen Spencer
William Meyers
Thomas Cook
Leonard Darsow
Loren Gordon
Lee Stratton
Patricia Petrovelli
Don Gilman
Paul Lowe
David Benton
Edward Mertens
Port Lions Listening Meeting
October 16, 1980
Name
Fred Johns
Jim Calhoun
Dave Wakefield
Roger Liebner
Jan Enunick
Pat Lukin
Home/Affiliation
Alaska Resources International
Pile Drivers and Divers Local 2520
Kodiak Island Borough
Indian, Alaska
Friends of the Earth
Trustees for Alaska
Alaska Center for the Environment
Anchorage, Alaska
Alaska Oil and Gas Association
Chevron, U.S.A.
Alaska Oil and Gas Association;
Amoco Production Company
Cook Inlet Response Organization
The North Pacific Rim
Rural Alaska Community Action Program
Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough
Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club
Friends of the Earth
Chevron, U.S.A.
Home/Affiliation
Port Lions, Alaska
Port Lions, Alaska
Port Lions City Clerk
Port Lions, Alaska
Port Lions, Alaska
Mayor, Port Lions, Alaska
Public Comments: Public comments were received from 51 sources from government,
organizations, and individuals. The following is a list of all sources of
comments received.
Government
Federal
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Department of Commerce
Maritime Administration
Office of Shipbuilding Costs
258
John A. Sandor
Kenneth W. Forbes
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Michael Glazer
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Marine Fisheries Service
Outer Continental Shelf Environmental
Assessment Program
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Services
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service
Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Marine Mammal Commission
State
State of Alaska
Local
Kodiak Island Borough
City of Homer
Organizations
Friends of the Earth
Alaska Center for the Environment
Sierra Club, Alaska Chapter
Alaska Oil and Gas Association
ARCO Oil and Gas Company, a division of
Atlantic Richfield Company
Liskow and Lewis, Attorneys at Law,
for the Alaska Oil and Gas Association
Kodiak Area Native Association
259
Associate Director
H. William Menard
Harold Green
W. R. Reidel
Frank Austin
William N. Hedeman, Jr.
Louis S. Wall
Kenneth A. Williams
John R. Twiss, Jr.
Frances A. Ulmer
David Herrnstein
Wm. S. Bunselmeyer, TAMS
Margie Gibson, Alaska
Representative
David Benton, Marine Resources
Specialist
Peg Tileston, Executive
Director
Paul Lowe, Chair
William W. Hopkins,
Executive Director
G. T. Wilkinson, Vice President
William M. Meyers
lone M. Norton, President,
by Wayne E. Marshall
Individuals
Oliver N. Holm
R. J. Gillas
John and Aileen Kirkpatrick
Dr. Paul L. Eneboe
Teresa Holm
B. E. Uminski
Carolyn Johnson
James C. Manley
Derek Stonorov
Hargret Pate
Edward Taylor
Sandra Molloy
S. C. Matthews
Dianne Heiman
Carole Demers
Carol Griswold
Joy Post
Betsey A. Myrick
Kim Adams
Michael P. and Diane 0. McBride
Kenneth R. Carrasco
Derrell R. Short
Kathie Short
Jody Webb
Julene Schlack
Peter L. Thielke
Charlie Renkert
Susan Arndt
Mary Ann Hickey
Peggy Mcintyre
260
Ouzinkie, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Kenai, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
China Poot Bay, Alaska
China Poot Bay, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Port Bailey, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Kodiak~ Alaska
Homer, Alaska
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS
A. Contributing Authors and Supporting Staff Members
Ralph V. Ainger, Washington Project Officer for Sale 60
Bureau of Land Management
Ardys T. Akers, Clerk Typist
Pearl R. Akers, Secretary
Lawrence V. Albert, Community Planner
George H. Allen, Regional Planner
Joy A. Bekemans, Mail and File Clerk
Marsha E. Bennett, Sociologist
Michael A. Brogan, Economist
Phyllis J. Casey, Paralegal Specialist
Cleveland J. Cowles, Wildlife Biologist
Joseph A. Dygas, Oceanographer
Raymond R. Emerson, Oceanographer
Gordon M. Euler, Environmental Specialist
L. Jane Glynn, Visual Information Specialist
Judith C. Gottlieb, Chief, Division of Environmental Assessment
Sylvia K. Hale, Supervisory Clerical Assistant
Donald J. Hansen, Biological Technician
Jonelle G. Hansen, Clerk Typist
Virginia C. Harris, Illustrator
Ward S. Hastings, Program Analyst
Jack R. Heesch, Socioeconomic Specialist
Deborah K. Hennigh, Clerical Assistant
Deborah L. Karafelis, Clerk Typist
Roger Marks, Economist
Linda Massengale, Mail and File Clerk
Eleanor J. Maus, Cartographic Technician
Thomas K. Newbury, Oceanographer
Janice J. Peterson, Paralegal Specialist
Elaine C. Pratt, Technical Information Specialist
Colleen A. Ryan, Secretary
Ronald C. Scheidt, Oceanographer
A. James Seidl, Fisheries Biologist
Charles W. Smythe, Socioeconomic Specialist
Gilbert G. Springer, Oceanographer
Nancy K. Swanton, Technical Information Specialist
Debora K. Theis, Clerk Typist
Jean E. Thomas, Illustrator
Clyde P. Topping, Economist
Evert E. Tornfelt, Social Science Analyst
John D. Tremont, Environmental Specialist
Diane E. Webb, Mail and File Clerk
Dean R. Yoesting, Socioeconomic Studies Program Coordinator
Laura J. Yoesting, Lead Typist
B. List of Contacts for Preparation of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement
A number of Federal, State, and local government agencies, academic institu-
tions, industrial firms, and special interest groups were consulted prior to
261
and during the preparation of this final environmental impact statement (FEIS).
Agencies and groups which were contacted for information or input are included
in, but not limited to, the following list:
Federal:
State:
Local:
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service-Juneau, Seattle, and Kodiak
Department of Defense
Air Force -Daniel F. Eckert, C.E.
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Division of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Operations
Outer Continental Shelf Office-Los Angeles
Fish and Wildlife Service-Anchorage, Kodiak, and Kenai
Geological Survey
Conservation Division
Geological Division
Water Resources Division
National Park Service
Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
Alaska Pipeline Commission
Alaska Power Authority
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
· Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Fish and Game-Anchorage, Homer, Soldotna,
and Kodiak
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Minerals and Energy Management
Division of Parks
Department of Transportation
Office of the Governor
Division of Policy Development and Planning
Office of Coastal Management
Afognak Native Corporation
English Bay Village Council
City of Ouzinkie
Cook Inlet Native Association
Cook Inlet Regional Corporation
Homer City Council
Karluk Village Council
Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Department
Kodiak Area Native Association
262
Kodiak Island Borough
Planning Department
School District
Kodiak Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Council
Larsen Bay Village Council
Ouzinkie Native Corporation
Port Graham Village Council
Port Lions City Clerk
Port Lions City Council
Port Lions Tribal Council
Academic, Environmental, Industry, and Other:
Alaska Oil and Gas Association
A.R.A. Services, Inc.
Atlantic Richfield Company
Bomhoff Associates
Cook Inlet Pipeline Company
Gulf of Alaska Cleanup Organization, Manager
International Pacific Halibut Commission
Island Corporation
Kenai Pipeline Company
Kodiak Island Seafood, Inc.
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
North Pacific Rim, Inc.
Pacific Alaska, LNG Company
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratories
Placer Amex Corporation
University of Alaska
Sea Grant Program
University of California at Santa Cruz--Thomas P. Dohl
Mobil Oil Company
For scoping participants, refer to section I.F.
263
IIILIOGtiPIIY
.s-, I. 1971. •Owerview •f DrHliq Fluid Dilpoaal oct tiM! OCS." Drdt
lln'h~atal I.,.rt Stat-at: OCS Leaae Sale iS. Appeadia 1. lew
Orla ... , LA: U.S. O.,u~t of tiM Iatuior. lureau of LIDd Kau.-at,
... Ol'leau Ou.ur CoaUDUtal Sbelf Office.
Aial.,, D., C. GraD, aDd I. llorrell. 1971. laflllftu of Petrol•• 011 Ia
reraaUoa ud ._ryoAic Dnelo.-nt ia leabhda. l.a'ltro-atel Aaaeaa•
.. , of t.U Ahakaa Ca.tiDtatal IIMU. Alulual leporta of Priaciple
la .... uauon, Yol. YU, lffecta. bae.rcb liDit 4Zl. Boulder, CO: U.S.
Drepu~t of c-rce, latioaal Ouutc aDd Ateoap~ric AdlitailtraU•,
Out.er C:O.tian.tal lbelf bYtro.eatal Aaaea .. at. Proar•, p. 310.
Al.U. C...Ult.uta, lac. 1979. lortbera aod V.aten Gulf of Ahaka Local
S.Cioec.,.tc a .. eU..M Tec .. tcal leport 1.-ber 32. Aacborap, AI: U.S.
Depn'-8t of tile lat.erior, lureau of LIDd llanea-at, Al .. U Outer CoG·
tiuatal helf Office.
Al.aab Cou•luata, lac. 1.,9. V.aten Gulf of Al .. U Petrol-. DeQt.,_.t
lc ... rioa, Local Socioecoao.tc l.,.cu Tedaiul Report .._.,r 40.
Mdonp, All U.S. Dep.rtMat. of tbe lDterior, Jurqu of LaDd tleuae·
.. t, Al .. t. O.t.ar Coat.luat.al SUU Office.
Ahab Coaault.aat.a, lac. 1910. Lowr Cooll laht Petrole• ...._Jo,_at
ac.aartoa, Local locioecoao.tc Syat-Aulfail Tedmlnl Jleport ..-...
46. ADclaonae, AI: U.S. Depar'--at of tM laterior, .. ruu of Laod
•ua-at, Alaab o-tter CoaUaeatal lbelf Office.
Alaab Depar~t of a..tr.-atal Coaaenoatioa. 1910. State of .Uaat. Air
QuU.t7 C:O.trol rta.. 1 Vola. JWMau, AI.
Alull.a Departe.t of Piab ud C... 1971. Ahab fiabniea Atlaa, Vol. l.
C..,UH.., I. r. lkLeaa aDd I. V. DelauJ. Tacou, VA: Prtat lort..lll· ... ~..
.Uub Dlpart.eat of liM aDd C... 19Jt. lodiall Kaua-at Ana 1971 lia·
ftM Aaul leport. lodiak, AI.
Al .. lla Dlpart.eat of Phb aad C... 1979. Upper Cooll lalet leport t.e tM
... n of lhlleriea.
Alaaka Depart..at of ftab ud c-. tleri .. Coaatal labitat Kaaaa-at Project.
1971. Drift lottie St.wliea ia Lowr Coolr. Jalet. Statue leport lo. l.
Aaclloraae, M.
Alub Depart.eat of fhb aDd a-. labiht ProtecUo. SectiOil. 1979. leui
laow Gene. ltaliDI Area: A Proponl for aa An·• llertuq lpecial Att.•·
tiOil O.aip.aUoa Vader tM AlltboriUea of AS. 40.210(1) aad 6 AAC IO.l60(b)
of tllo Al .. lla Co .. tal llaaaa-at Proar•· ~bora1e, M.
AM:Mra• Udtaa QtlaenoDLoi'J. 19H. A Profile of fiq leaai P•iuala Tona.
W.taoa, J. 1. oad 1. I. Sc.lnteraer. 1979. "Sedt••t.ai'J altd Tnce tt.t.l
c:-c.traUo• ill ledi8eata aDd OtJDat .... " Jatioaal Oceaatc aDd At.M>e•
,Uric Adlaiaiatratioa, l.ltioul Kartae lhberiea Senotce Aaaul leport t.e
lln'iro-.t.al Protectioa qncy. bvtro-.tal Allaea .. at of •• AcUYe
otlfield iD tbe lortbweat.era Gulf of Knico, 1977-79. Vol. Ill, PllyDical
aM a.-teal lDftaliaat.ora, V. I. Jact.•. ed. Ia pre ...
W.noa, J. V., et al. 1974. "Cbaractertattu of Dieperaioaa •ed Vater-
loluble btract• of Ctvde alld lefined Otla ud Tbdr TodcitJ to
lati&Dri .. Cruat.aceua aad flail." llart .. Ito lop. Vol. 2', pp. n-U.
__,...., 1910. OrDJ Vbale1 tlianttoa o.t of tlut leriDI leD. lort.bweat aad
Al .. ll.a fillutriea CUter llootbl7 leport (Jaaury 1910), pp. l20·21.
Arcu.lteau, c. 1971. "l•ti•ttoa of Joa-bydroat.Uc Stnu lll U.. lart..b bJ
S.i•ic tt.tboda: LitboapMric Stre .. Leveb AlODJ Pacific aM J .. ca
Plata Su~Hhacttoa Zoua."' Proceedtq• of CoD.foreDce VI, IIDtioul larUa·
..... la&l!;rda leductiOD Proar•. Geolo1ical IGI'ftJ ()pea rile Report
71•t43, pp. 47•131.
,000 Oil aod Gaa eo.pa..,. 1910. "Jiat10111d Pollutioa Dhcbarp ll~iaattoa
tyat... Appliutioa for Perait to Dtacbarp Vaat.evater: Gr•aite Poiat
Pro4uctloa fDdlity.'" Alldaorap, AI: U.S. lavir._atal Protectioa
A&etK'J', Aluh Opentiou lraacb.
Ar.tnq:, 8. v .• et al. 1979. "lffecu of Oilfield lria.e lfflueat 011. ledi·
_.t.a aDd leatbic Oraaai._ lD. TrlDity lay, Tea ... " Kari.ae lll•il'o_.tal
a..eucb. Vol. 2, pp. SS-69.
Batley, 1. P. 1916. Jreediq lird Dhtributioa aad ~ace iD U.e Iarrea
JalaDd1, .Uaat.. Tbe l'blrrelet. Vol. S7, pp. 2•12.
.. tn, P. A. aad 1. A. lloe. 1971. lreNlq liolop aDd ledilll lcolop of
tlllri• ltrda ia t.be lithlidak Strait Area, Kodiak hland. U.S. Fhb aad
VU.ltfe S.nice, Aaluul bport• of Prlacipal Ianatiaaton, Appeadix lV.
leaeucb Uait )41. loulcler, CO: U.S. O.pu'--at of eo-rce, latioul
Oceuic aad At.M>epMric AdlliaiatraUoa, Outer Coatiuatal Shelf E ... troa•
.. tal Aaaea .. at Proar•, p. 42.
leUr, I. C., r. Vlllr.e, ud C. Howard .. luo. 1970, Tbe Morthera hr Seol.
Circular 3)6. U.S. Dep.r~t of tbe laterior, U.S. lilb aDd VU.life
lel'Yice, .. .-eau of eo-rctal fhbniea.
lallelle, Pacific Jortlnte1t Laboratoriel. 1979. l•lluatioD of laviro-.atal
t.,acu of O.ter Coatiant.l Sbelf Petrol.-Dnelo,-eat iD tbe Pacific
Jortltw1t. aod Alaalla. Prepared for U.S. Departaeat of Eaerp, Office of
Tocbaolop J.,act, V.aabi .. toe, DC.
lartarCou.ld, ft. aad ft. lnDett. 197S. Social t_,act of tbe Traa•·Alaalla
PipeUM Coe1tr.ctioa ia Yalde&, Alllllla, 1974·197S. Office of tbe
Qoorenor, OhiDiOII. of Policy Ornlo,..at aDd Plaaaiq, Office of co .. t.al
z.. ......... t.
Ala1U Departe.t of liall aM a.-. llariM ud Coaaul lalliUt .... _t
Project. 1971. a. ... ru lleport fer Ceek lalet lale lo. 60. Aaclilor•••
Alt •
AlaaU Depal'\ent of Ptab ud 0... 1979. lac-datlo• for ltataii:Ue tM
l.,.cta of lydrocadlloG Dnel.,_.t oa tM PiU 1 Vil.llfe, ud ...-uc
Plaat leMUrcea of Lowr Cooll lalet. a\acllor••· AI.
Alaaka U.,.l'\ent of •tual a. ... rcu, DiYtaioa of Parb. 1176. AlaaU
Outdoor lecnat.ioa Pl•, 1976·1110 .
Aluka Deparm.t of •tual leMUreea, Dt•iaioa of Parta. 1171. lecrMtioa,
kale, ud Vildeneaa Arua of Particular C.C.n: Ceek lalet, Alaab.
Alu:ber••• AI.
Alaaka U.,.rt..at of •taral le...arcea, Di•iaioa of Parb. 1971. lacnat.ioa,
Sc-tc, aM lerit.. An•• of Particular Coacen: locliak Arclt.ipelaao.
Aact.or••• AI.
Alaata U.,.~t of latual leaouce•, Plaaaiq aM Claaatfiutt• lent•.
1979. Draft hut Ar•• LaM llaaa.-at Pl•. Aaclaoraae. AI.
AlaNa Departe.t of •taral le10arce1, Plaaaiq aM Clalllficatioa lecUoa •
197t. Mlic lat.el"flt Luda leport: ll!ui Pftiuula Lewl ..... ~ra.,
Alt.
Alaall.a O.,•rt.nt of Tr•uport.Uoa aad hblic PaciUttn. 1t71. Al .. U
Hi.-•f Aaau.al Traffic Vol-leport. Jueau, AI.
Alaall.a Office of C..~t.l .... __., .., U.S. Depal'\ent of eo-rce, Office of
C..at.al Zoae tleu-t. 1979. State of AlaaU Coaaul tlua-t
Proar• aad liul lln'ir-..t.l l.,.ct IUt.a.at. V.Mtqtoa, DC.
Alull.a lea Gru.t. 1110. Lower Cook laleL PeLrole• Dnel.,_.t ac ... rioe,
eo-rctal liDIIiq ladu.ati'J Aaalpil Draft Tecbaiul leport ._..r 44 •
AacUraae. AI: U.S. Deparw.t of tile laterior, .. ,.... of LaM .......
.. t • .Uaalla O.ter CoetiMDUl helf Office .
Alaall.a ltate louaiq AlltlloritJ. 1.,0. C..rebnai" Plaaai .. Proar• leu!
haiuala loroqlil•lec-.datiou. Soldotaa, AI: leui Pftiuala 1orogp
Pl ... i .. Dlpert8at •
,._ricaa Petrol•• laatitata. Ia prua. S,..O.i•: a.Mard oa lln't,_Ul
lDte aod lffecu of DrUUaa lluida aod C..ttiap. Vaallilllt.oa, DC.
,._ricaa Petrol ... laatituta. 1979. c-at oct U.S. Depart8at of eo-rce1
Jat.ioul Oceuic ud At.M>epMrtc Adatatatrnioa, Office of Couul Z...
llaua-t: Geor•• a.M tlui .. luctuary h•ue Paper. VaaiLiqtoa, DC.
,..rtcu Petrol ... Jut.itate. 1910. "leaearcll .. lln'i~at.l rne ...
lffecta of Drilliq Pllli4a ud Cuttiaaa." Proceediap of • ·~•-i.a
Plori4a at.• bf tbe ,._ricu Petrol ... lutttute, Vadtq:toa, DC.
lauU, G. o. 1970. C..Uout.al Diet of Cycl ....... l•tiou of U.. CaUfonia
Yolo, tlicrottc ulUonicu. Jouraal of a.-tou. Yol. S2, lo. I, "·
141·1.,-.--
I.C. leaearcb. 1976. llal"iae toaicilJ Studtoa oa Drilliaa Fluid V.at.e1.
JDIIuDti'J Go"ft..-at Vorkiaa GroUif iD DiD~aal Waate flui4a fro. Petrol.-
~loratory DrilUaa t. t-.,. Ca_.iaa lorU. Yol. 10. l.._t.oa, Al .. rta:
bwir.-at Cauda, lllwir-ul PretecUM a. ... tco.
lellroM 1 f. C. 1976. a.acka, Qeeee, ........ of Jertla Morice ... l'riDkrlo
PA: Btac.lo Boob.
...,oa, J., T. McDowell. oad v. C00110r. 1979. Outer eo.u ... t.al aa..u on
aad Oaa lafo~tioa Proar•: Al .. u liUiea (Diic.-.r lt14•J-. lt7S).
O.Olo1icd luno., Opta rile lleport 7t•1l4S. Prepared for U.. U.l.
Drepllrt.at of t.._ laterior • O.oloatcal l•rvey ... tiM lUI ia coop~~raUoa
viU. U.. Couacil oa lrf'i~ot.l Qulit.J (Ceot.roct lo. IQIACOZO).
Copiel ore •••Hable fr• Cbiof, IALl Proar•. Geoloatcal a...-..,, 7H
.. Uoeal C.ater, le•toa, YA 22092 .
la~l• 1 .• et al. 1971. '"lource of~ llajor Ta-...t, n.. Gre1t Alaalla
lu~lr.e of 1966."' OceeooanpbJ .... Cooatal b.at ... riq. Vaab ... t0111 1
DC: I1Uooal Ac:a.S.., of lei-cea, pp. 122·1]9.
leraia, A. A. Dod A. A . ...,..,.. 1966. "Dhtrlbatioa aad lliaraUM of Vbale1
1• t ... lortbea1ten Pert of tbe Pacific Ocoaa, lariaa aad Claulr.cbi leaa.'"
tav. Tt.aaoou.a ... MC.,.·iaale4. laalitut.e' lyba-Doa. OUaaoar.
(TJIIO) Yol. H, pp. 179-207. (la au.ataa.)
llacldtun, J. 1. 1910. Pelaatc aDd n-raal riab Aaaea .... t ia Lower Cooll
lalet lnury .,..u.. rt .. t leport. a.a .. rcb U.it SU. loalcler, CO:
U.S. Depart.etat of c-rco, letiooal Oceoaic ... Ataoa~,..ric Allaltai••
trat.toa, Outer CODti .. at.al lllaolf h•ir ... at.Al AaHa .... t. Proar•·
ll_.r, PI, et al. 1970. TIM W.et Fd..vtlil Oilapill. .. fo.-..ce lo. 70·64.
Vooda Bole, tu.: Wood• Bole Oceouarapblc lutitut.e.
lou.., A. 1. Dlld If. A ..... toa. 1976, Pralialiaai'J leport " t ... Surface aDd
lla.allow Bub•urfoce Geelou of Lower Cook Jaln aad lo~Ud a.u, Abalr..l •
Geoloaical hnoeJ ()pea File leport. 76-695. ltealo Park. CA.
ao..a. A. 1. • et 11. 1971. lott• Cb•ut"teriiUCD of Lower Cook Jalet,
AlaaU. Oeoloaical Survey Clpea file leport 71·236.
ao..a, A. 1., et el. 1971. PIIIJ•ioaropby of Lower Cook lolet, .u .. u.
Geoloatcal SUI'YOJ Opea File leport 71·721.
ao..a, A. •ltd tl .......... 1979. '"Sbdlow rauluaa, Jott• lalt.biUtJ, aad
tlov .. at of S.dl .. at ia Lower Co•k Ialot aad W.1ten Gulf of Alaalla."
lavtr~t.ol A••••-•t of t.lae Ahalr.aa Coatiaoate1 SIMoU. Aallul
a.port• of Prlacipel t .... ttaat.ora, Vol. I, IIAurda Dlld Data llaaaa-at.,
a.•earcb Uatt :JZ7. leul!Mr, CO: U.S. Drepar~t of c-rce, lfatioaal
Oco•atc •ad At.lloap .. ric Acllliabtratioa, o-tter Coati ... tal 8belf
bwtro-aul Alllea-.at Proar-. pp. 12•52.
lo-, A. 1., el al. 1979. '"leclfo~ CUtacleriaUc• ud .... Tr...,.tt ia a
leaioa of Ler .. laa4l v ..... Lowr Coot; lalet, Al .. u." OffAon Tact.e-
lou Coat erne•, arc 34aS.
loYne, ¥. 1. P. 1961. "OU Poll•Uoa aad lir4 Pop.laUou.• ltoloaicel
l.ffecta of Oil Poll•Uoa oe Littoral c-tuea, J. D. Catt.ll7 ... D. I.
AI'U..r, Ha. 1...,1-.r., Val. 1, field Sbldtea Couctl. c:o.toa,
laahod, ... 91-121.
...._, 1. J. ft. IH6. Trace 11-ata ia lioc~iatry. t.o.doa: Aca ... ic
Preaa.
Ira_., 1. I. aDd 1. 1. Bellah. INO. Lower C... lalet Petrol ... Dewlo,..at
Sc ... rtoa Socioaaltural Spt-AuiJaia Tedaical leport ._.. .. 47.
a\aclloraae, AI: U.S. Depu~t of tU lat..-ior, hren of Lead llu.a•-
_,, Alaaka a-ttar CooUuaul SUlf Office.
Iraan, I. J. 1911. le>nah .. uo-. of NodUU4 lt.rcalli lataU1tJ of Scala for
lartbqu.aUa UaLq Diatuce aa O.teraiuat. TacUical ........ .._ ED1
.a5DC·4. U.S. Departa~nt of C-ree, laUoul Ocaaatc ... At.oapMric
Allaiaiatratioa.
lrocboa, I. w. aa«< 1. T. lul.,. 1t1l. '"a.apiratarJ lespoua of Ju ... ue
ClatDOOt; Salaoa aU Striped laaa l11p01ed ta lauaae, a Vat.ar Soluble Coe-
poMDt of Cnde Oil." Procaedtqs of tU Coofenau oa Prnonuoa lad
C..trol of Oihpilh. Waalliqloa, DC: ,._rtcu Patrol._ laatitut.a,
... 713-192.
lrower, v. 4., Jr., at al. (laUoul cu .. uc Caat.ar) alld '-•""· I. V. aM
J. L. Vhe (Arctlt ltavir~ul Iafo .... uoa aDd O.ta Cuter). 1971.
Clt.Uc Atlaa of tU O.ter CODU ... tal SIMilf V.ten aDd Coaatal a.atou
of Alaab. Vol. I, Gulf of Al .. b. loulHr, CO: U.S. Departent of
t-ree, laUoul Oceaaa.c aU Awo.,Mrtc Adlliahtratioo, Outer CoaU-
aeatal Sltalf ltaviro.eatal Aa•••-•t Proar•· (A•at.lallla fr• tiM
Al"ctic Ea.i.~tal Iafor.Uoa aDd D.la Ceat.er, Aac~rap, M.)
lrOWMll, I. L. 19JJ. Wbaln, Dol,.tu, .., Oi.l Polluti•. lieloatcal ...
Ocea .. arapllical s.,..., of tile S.ata Barbara a..u.t Oihpill, 1K9-1t7t.
Vol. I, D. Straqbaa, ed. Lot Aaplea, CA: Allaa laacod: Fo..UU•,
U...ruty of SootMra CehfonU, "' .ZSS-.Z66.
lrowwll, 1. L. aM 1. J. Leloeuf. 1911. Cahforata Sea Ltoa llort.ality:
latural or Artifact! lioloa.tul aM Oce .. olraplltcal s • ......, of Ue Sut.a
lai'"Nra Cltaaael Oihpill, l96t•1970. Vol. 1, D. !tra ........ ed. Loa
Aaplea, CA: All .. laltcocll Fauodatioa, U.iftnity of SoutUn
C.llforaia, pp . .ill7•lDS.
l•ffler, a. T. 1176. Geoloaic= llap of SoutJa AllpaUu lalaocl, Lowr CeM
lalel, Alaska. MW•M. Alada Depan.-t af Jataral ... outcal, Dhiti•
of Gaoloatcal aDd Gaopllpical krv.,a.
hrllraall, D. C. lt17. "Circuhtioa Jtudin ia &aca.-k lay ud Lowr Cooll
lalet." Ea.i~tal Studiaa of laca.-k lay 1041 l.owl' Cook la1et, L.
fraalry, L. I. Flaq, ...S D. C. hnaak, ods. Aacllorap, AI: Alaab
Departant of Fiala aDII c-.
C11211·1Ul. lt71. Offt~ra Oil O.ftlo,..a&. lD to.er Cooll lalet: J~ltcaUOUI
for tba C...i ,..tasula. Soldota., M: C...l ,..luula loreup PlaMl ..
o.p.r~t.
Chrtau .. , J. J. 1971. '"Popu.hu .. Deaatty .... a.product.twe lff.tciaact".'"
llolou of lepr.._u... Vol. 4, "' .Z41-294.
Qrtu.a.aa, J. J., J. A. Ll.yd, aad D. I. O.vh. 1~ ... Tiaa lola of l.adacl'l ..
ia tU lelf leplnaoa of a.-uaa PopuhUoat." a.c .. r. Pre1.,.•• iD
.. ..-oM leMarcll. Vol. Z1, "" ~01•S41.
City af .... r. 1111. ... .. AlaaU C_,Nbaaain Devel.,_.t. Plaa lavtdoa. ...,_,, ...
Clarll, 1. C., Jr. 1979. '"t.-Mll aU lourc" ef CrtUc:al Tl'aca ,..tall iD t.M
llllr• .. &avtr--.t." &avir~atal Aaaau-.t of t.M Alaakaa Coati-tal
SbaH, Fi.ul leports of Priacipal laftalipt.ors. Val. S, lioloatcal
StiNCII. lesearda U.tt h. 75. louldar, CO: U.S. Depal't.elat of eo.-
aerca. lata.ooal Oceaa.lc aDd At.oo,..rtc .-&aiatrati .. , OUter Coatt.Matal
suu &aVi~&.•l u .. s-.t hoar•, pp. •-u.
Cli.DI, J . .-41 1. r .. ly 1919. CUract.ertaatloa .od Source ldeati.fiuti.oa "'!
Allt.llr ... aeaic Dad •t.ural lAw ,..laular V.iafat Pa&.rol.-llydrocarbou ia
Cootr: lalat aM hrtoa $GMa4. ..aaarcll U.tt 1~). loulder, CO: U.S.
Depar .... at of C-ree, .. ti.oaal Ocasaic aDd AC.Oipbel'iC Adm.DiltrltlOO,
Outer CoattDaatal S&elf lavtro-u.l Aaaas-.t Proar•.
cuaa, J., t. later, Dad c. &au. 1910. D.lstri.kti..oa aDd~· ef lAw
llo1ecular V.tpt ll)'«<rocarboaa ... luapaDded llydi'Ota .......... Lower e-ll
Jalat, atMittr:of Strait., aDd hrtoa So.Ad, Alaska. 4Daual a.poru.
.. aaarcll IJDit ISJ. loulder, CO: U.S. Depar .... at. of c-rca, •t.i ... l
Oc:•aatc aa4 At..olpberi.t .-tailtratioo, Outer CoatlMDUl Sa..lf lav.l•
.. ._atal ,. ....... , Proar•.
Coatir.eatal SMlf A .. ociat.aa. 1975. llalt Flower Gar"• laaiL la•uo.-.aul
S•rvay. Prep.trad for .... u 011 CorporaUOD. .... Orlea .. , U.· U.S.
Depar~t. of l.M Iauri.or, a.reau ef LaM ""ua-at., ...., Orlo .. s OUter
eo.u .. atal lbalf Ofhta.
Coatiaeatal SMU Assonet••· 1916. lurve, laport for lu,..ll OU ... Gaa
eo.,Aay lip lalaa4 Area. s-tb A4dill01 I)Oclr: A·~OZ.
Da.e• aDd Jloore. 1t1S. Aa lcoloatul Anea ... at of tM Littoral Z... Aloea
tiM Outar Coest of tba leo•• P•ataaule. Aacbora .. , AI:.
Da.ea aDd Jloora. Jtl'S. lcoloatcal Studt•• of Plartae Pleat c_...ttus ta
bcll ... k lay, Alatll.a. J974·19U. Aaclaoraae, AI.
Da.ea aDd flaou. 1976. lapott, Od Spill TrajaUory Alaal,ail, Lower Coolr: ldat,
AlaaU. Prepared for U S. Depar~at of C~rce, lfatioaal Oce-aDlC aad
A'--lpiMI'it ... tai.att&UOD, Job N..-..r 6797•00)-lO.
Da.e1 aad Jloore. 1911. o\tr Qualn.y fiDalt.oriDI Plan, Tllla Alpatco Co.paay,
laut Site. Aaclilora .. , U: Alpatco Coslpaay
lu.l'll, C. A. ltU. O..IOCY of tlloa Alaakaa ,.ai.aaula•hl...S Arc ud eo.u .....
t.al llllr&iD (Patt 1). 0..1 .. ical lodet.y of "-'rica .._i.r •· "·
a.rral, D. c. 1971. "'at.ural Dt.atri.kUOII af Trace .. YJ •uta aU lavina·
-tal lacqr....t ta Alaa-.o lbalf ud l.stu.arl .. Waura." .... 1..-tal
......... ,of t.taa Alasba Coota.MDtal aa..u. --..1 lepoi'U of P.J.s .•
Vol. U. Coat....._t a. .. u...... ...eatft U.it 162. leul .. r, CO: U.S.
D.panaa.t. a( C-ue, a.u ... l Oceuic 1041 A~rtc Allllliat•naUOD,
Dut.ar Coau ... ul .... If &avh-.t.al Aaaaa .... t Praar•, PP· Zto•S06 •
lurel, D. c. 1971. Dht.riktiOD aDd o,.-tca ef lea"'7 llaub ia Alaaba
SIMU laYir-.t.s lultJect u Oil Dawl.,...t. .....rdt U.it. 162.
... ...... CO: u.s. Depal'"t8ea&. af C:~rco, latlooal Oceaatc ud A&811-
..... ic Allaialat.ratloo, Out.er c.au ... tal .... u lllvtr--.t.al AaHa-t.
PJ'Oir•·
C:.1.,.11, 1. 1., 1. ft. C:.14a.--, ud I. 1. Kalloa. 1977. "''fferta •f a
a.Mf'llter•Selultle fractlaD of Coolr. lalet c....-OU ud Ita lllijor A.--U~
C ....... ta oo Wnal lu ... af ~. ......... a Crall, ~ ••iat.el' !!!!··
fat.e ud lffacte of ht.role .. JlydACa...._. oa llari .. Oraut.M ud lce-
apt.eu, Doualaa Wolh, ed. ..., York, 1'1': ,.ra-Pr•••• pp. ZI0.220.
Callllas, D. 1919. "'11ar.l .. a.-11 ef t11oa t.ow.r Coolr. Iaht aDd t.bls h'--·
Ual for J .. act. fne Outer c..u ... r.al .... u Oil ud Oaa l.llflol'ltioa,
O...l.,...t., ud TraDiport.atl ... " Ala•P Dep.rt.n&. af ftA aad '-·
u.,.lll.IU... hport.
Callr:iaa, D. ud 1. Pit.c ... r. 1977. Populau ....... -.... lcoleu. ud T...,..,ic
lelaU..U&.pa of St..allar a.a Li.ou .a.a t.M a..u of At .. u. a..t...-ul
Aaaa•-.-t ef tM o\laakaa Coau ... u.l liM If, Aaaul lapon of Prtac.l .. l
t ... sta.aator fer t.M Yoar &Mi ....... ~~~ 1977. Vol. 1, hcopton-...,.1•.
.... .,~ Uatt zu. a.u.ldar, CO: u.s. Deparc.nt. of c--.. n. a.t.taul
Oc•-•~ ud At.oapiMnc ..._lalatl'aUoa, 0.&.11' eo..u ... ul Delf ...,,.,...
... tal Aaan .... t Proar•, "· 431-SOZ.
C:.llr:U.., D • .-41 I. Pitc ... r. 1911. ..,.latioa ADH.-at, lcelog. ud T~
pltie lalaUoubi..ps af Staller Sea Llou la tlloa O.lf of AlaaU. ....tn.-
...ul u .. a-.t af t.M Alaoba eo.u ... t.ol IIMlf. Aaaul .... n ef
Prlactpal J .... uaat.on for tlloa Year ....... ,..rcll 1971. Vol. I, a.eop.
tora-a.-h, lirdt. leaeardr. U.it. Z43. ~ldar, Q): U.S. O..r~t
of C~rca, Jati.ooal Ocaaai.c Dad Ac.oapUrte ..._lalat.l'ot.ioe, O.t..ar
CoaU ... tal SUU .... t...-u1 ........... Proar•, PP· )1)-41).
Caltr:i.M, D . ..-1. Pitc ... r. 1t79. ....Iau .. Aa•••~t., leal..,-. ud Yreoo-
plttc a.tau ... lllpa of lt.aller S.a Lioaa ia t11oa Gulf af &l-Ila. ....i...-·
-tal Aa••• .... t af u... Ala abe. c:.u ... ul IIMU. ..._.1 .... n of
Priacipal b . .,.atiaatera for t.M Yoar IMl•a llarda 1979. Vol. I, a.c..-
t.on-a.-11, lirda. leaaarcb LIDH 14). lcMal .. r, CO: U.S. Departaaat.
of C-ree, laUoaal Oceaatc aM A'-"l ... l'iC AlllllialatraUoa. Out.ar
Coatl ... tal .... u la•ir._oul Aasea .... t. Proar•, "' 144-661.
Callliaa, D . .-«~ I. P.ttc ... r, ... 1. kllae.ldal'. lt7S. -alatriltuU.oa ud
A..._..ara of ,.. .. , .. .._.h ta t.M eMU of AlaaU." Alaaka Dep.rt.nt of
rtsb aM c;-. Aocbora ... AI: u..-uabe4 laport..
O..a aDd Naon. lt71. Dnlliq Fluid Dhperuoe. aDd liol .. tc•l lffecta
St..., for tiN Lower Cooll lalet a.T Well. AocMra., AI: AUu.Ut
li~llfia1·~·
o-. aoc1 Naore. Jt71. Dri.J Hq fl•i .. aDd lioloaical llfecta St.., br tJIIeo
Lowr Coot; lalet COST Vall. ADcllorap, AI: ALlaaUc licbfiel• ec.,..,.
0..• aDd Noon. 1979. Air Quhty r_,acl Aaalpil. PropN .. UG facllitin
ltt;tslli, Abella for Pa~ifi.c Alaau UG Aaaoctflt.ea, 1919. Loa ..,.lea,
CA: Paufi.c Alaalla UG Aa•oci.at.ea .
O..• Dad IIMre. 1979. Lower Cooll lalet ud SIMIIikof Strait OCS t.aaa
Sale 60, Petrol•• Devalo,.eat SceuriM TecUical leport lo. 43.
ADcborap, AI: U.S. Dep.n~t of t.1aa Ialerior, larea• of LaDd llaaap-
...t. Alaska Outer Coatleaalal SUU Office.
O..a aod ttoore. 1919. hr\Mra Gulf of Al .. lla. htrole• Dewl.,_.t
Scnarioa Tecbaical Report lo. 19. Aac:Mu .. , AI: U.S. Depar~t af
tM laterior, hraau of WH llaaaa-at, Alaab O..t.ar coau ... tal IMlf
Office, Sot iocc011011ic St.Yd.lea Pro1r•.
0..1 •ad Ploere. 1979. leport, Othpall Traje~tOI'J' Aaalyaia, Lower CoN lalet,
Alaalla. Preparod for U.S. O.par~t of C-ree, lataoul Oc ... ac ...
A'-spUnc .._l•utrati.OII, Job .....,_r 6979•011-01.
0...1 ud lloor•· 1910. Draft Report·Taak 1 Oillpill Traject•ry Si•lau•
Lowr COot Jalet•Sbeltllef Strait, Ahab. lariaa Saa-G.lf of Alaab
Pro1ect Office. a.~earcll Ua1t 436. loulcler, CO: U.S. Depart.8aat of
c-rce, a.uooal Oceaaac aDd A'-s,Unc ..._iautrat.ioa, O.t.er Coati-
uatal Sbelf lavu~Lal Aasea .. at. Pro1r•·
O.Maberpr, E. P. 1910 "'Outer CODtiDe1ltal S..lf Oil ... Gaa llowouta.'"
Opea ftle a.port 10·101. U.S. Daputaoat of tM lateri.or, Geol .. ica1
Su.....,., Aadoraae, AI..
O.vu, J. 1., aDd S. 5. ........... 1976. "'ff acta of aDd Poll•tloa .. ac--41aa
Grey S.ah." Plllrau PolluUoa Julletla. Vol. 7, lo. 6, pp. llS·Jll.
Davis, 1. 1910. Wnt•ra Culf of Alaab Nattve-Sociocultural SJal ... l ... ct
AA&lysu T•tluucal leport 1.-.r 42. AAcllorap, AI: U.l. Dapar'--Dt
of the lateuor, lur•au of l.aad ,....peeat, Alaab O.ter Collt.i-.tal
Sbelf OHare.
DeLap~~~, f. 197\. Tile ArcbuoloiJ of Coolr. Iolat, AlaaU. AAciMr ... , AI:
The Ala•U Htatorital Sc.cletJ.
Daput.eat of Defnu, U.S. A..., Corpa of r.aaua"rs, Alut;a Oiatrtct. 1976.
Fulal !av1ron.eatal l.,act Stat-at Propose-d S..ll loat Karber. lodaat;,
AS..
Depar'--llt of Defna•, U.S. A111J Corpa of lftauaee-n, Alaska Dutract. 1911.
Cooll lalet Sboal, Alaska feaub1ltty IM-port oa CllanMl l.,rov--.ta for
~avaaattoa. A.ntbouae, AJt..
Deput.Mat of Defnu, U.S. Anr Cort• of lq.t ... u, Ahab Diltrict. 1971.
Fiaal Ea.i~at.al I.,.ct Stat-at, Port L.toaa S.ll INt larbor.
Aaclwn·ap, AI.
Dettemu, 1. L. 1961. ....cn.t Volcaaic AcU•ity oa AupatiM lahad, Ahab.'"
Geolo1.tcal l•"trJ Profellioaal P ... r 600-C, pp. C126•Ct29.
Dettoraao, I. L. 197l. Geol .. ic:al Nap of tM 1111-.. 1•2 Qudr ... le.
AII&UtiM hhada, Alaab.
Dtna, S. J., Jr. 1 G. D. SUrwa, .., 1. V. Stollru. 1971. w .. t.era Gulf of
A1111La Cultural a.aou.rce Study, Draft Fiaal Study. Patrb .. t., AI:
UoiftnitJ of Al111La lluo..-. Pnpuft for U.S. Deprt.nt of tiM'
laterior, hreau. of LaDd tlaaa-at, Aluka Outer Coatitaeatal lllaelf OfUce.
Dia•, I. J., Jr., G. D. Sbaraa, aad 1. V. Stoker. 1979. Lowr Coo~ lalet
Oaltu.l'll leaovrce Study fiaal .... rt. FairbeaU, AI: UDiYenUJ of
AluU tlue•. Prepared for U.S. Depart.eat of tM latarior, lunau. of
Lud tlau...-t. Al .. ILa Outer CoaUa.otd Sbelf Offic..
Dolll. T. P., at al. 1971. Draft Piul lleport-S....I"J' of &riM -• aad
lubinl lu.rwye of U.. loa.t.ben C.lUoraia liPt Area, Vol. 111. ........
ttaatou leport. Part 11 C.t.ac.a of tiLe Sou:t.Mn C.llfan.ta liPt.
leport of • at.., perfo...U •der lUI cootract W~O-CT7-l6. Soata Cnaa,
CA: Daiftnity of Califoraia.
O..racltt, D. D., et al. 1910. &e.altt•tty of co .. tal Ea.t~u aad Vilclltfo
to Spilled Oil -IIMrlikof Strait a.atoo. Draft leport IPJ/1/10/10/20•27.
Colu.bia. SC: a.aearda Pba.aiaa laati.tYU, hac.
Duu., J. I. aacl 1. A. laplta. 1974. fila. Ia• aad Ll"•• f~ Vaten A4-
jaceet to lodiak hlaod, Alaab Dllriq April aad ,.., 1962. Seattle. WA:
U.S. Deput.eat of C~rce, latioul Oceaaic aDd Ac..oaplaeric A•dail-
tratioe., laUoul !luiiM filM-riel Se"ice, lortbveat •ad Al .. h PUlleriea
Cn.tec-.
& .. ~. Su.u-, •ad ft. I. Spncer. 1979. KariM-~~ aad IHdl ia tiM'
Sbelillof Strait. Det• S....I"J' ud bc-.Ddat.tacta for tM Al .. ka OCI
Lo.tr Coolt lalet Leaae Sale 60. Ea.tr.-atal Stlllllin Depert.at.
UDl .. nitJ of C.lifania. S..ta Cnu.
lapllaardt I r. •. 1977. Uptab aacl Cl••nace of Petrol .. lly4roc:arboea ia
!~c:~U::~ ';:~: ~PP~i~fl~i 14~~raal of tt.e fialaeri•• baearch to.r•
Ea-.1..-otal O..ic:e• ~· 1976. S....l"f: a,..c1al V.ter PIDUtoriaa
St.., COST Atleauc G-1 Well. Ptepar~d for Oceea Produt:Uoa eo.p.a,.
la•i..-.tal Se"ic~a, Ltcl. 1979. leaal Peaioaula loroup Ca.atal ..........
••t Plaa. PILau 1 lr~akdowa Jteport. Soldotaa, AI: lead Peaiae•l•
lorouall.
laYi~atal Serwicea, Ltd. 1979. "lteaourc.a IaftlltOI"J' Atlaa of &eat
Pecuaaula kroup." Duft. (Seal• L2SO.OOO). Soldotu, AI: leui
Pe•iuula kroup.
ruede, J., ot al. 1912. An••-•t of lieH&.aracl•ttoa Poteatl•l for eo.-
trolliq OihpUh oo U.. Hip haa. Projut. ... ort ••· 4110.1/l.l.
DePIIr~at of Tuaaport•U-.
G.alheu aDd lUI•• Coaa•lttaa loai-•n. 197). Port L1. ... C~r ... ali ..
Devdo,..nt Plao. 2 Vola. Port Ltoal, M: City af Port Lioa..
Galt, J. tt19. Ahab •-rical Plo .. lt•l· .... arch Uatt 140. laul .. r, CO:
U.S. O.par~at of C:O...rc•, lf•Uoaal Oc•aaic •Dd Alt.DOapbertc ... 1aiatra-
Uoo, Out•r Coatiaeatal Sbelf lavtro-•t•l Aa•••U~eet Proar-.
Geraci, J. 1. •ad T. G. S.itb. 1976. Dtr•et aad lndlnc"t lffect of Oil OCl
ltaaod Sa•ll (Pbou bhpida) of tbe ... ufort S••· Journal of tbe
Fulle-n•• lue~loud of ca ... d•. Vol. ll, 1976·1914.
Ganci, J. 1. and T. c. S.Hb. 1917. "Coa.a,uenc•• of Oil FouHaa oa Pleri.ae
"-ah." lffect of Petrol e-. oa .t.rcttc aad Subarcuc llanae lavtro-•t•
•M Oraaah .. , D.C. llaU•, ad. Vol. II, ltolo&inl lflecu, "' liH-410.
Cenci, J. 1 .. and D. J. !t. Al.abi.n. 1919. "Ponibl• !Hecla of Offabor• Oil
aad C.a Devel..-nt 0111 llari.oe "-ala: Preaeet Statui •ad loaearcb."
l'lolauaertpt a.a.iltted to t~ PleriM "-al C~iuioa. J11l7 lO, lf79.
U&pYbltat..d.
CUI, J., Jr., C. ltii1Wie1, •od II. Poteraoo. 1971. lli&nUoa of llrda ia
Alaalla l'l.aruM• ll.lbtuu. U.S. ruh and ValdlUe ~rvtce Fta•l lepoct of
Prioc1pa1 tnventa•ton. loae•rcb Ualt 140. 8oulder, CO: U.S. Depart·
aent of C.-.rce 1 ll•tioaa1 Oceanic aad At..oapbertc ~ial.atrati.oa, <hlter
Caauaeatal Sbelf ltavtro..,.aul A••••-•t Proar•, pp. 10.
Gileore, •· 11. 19~9. "Tiae Caltforai• Gray ""'hille." Proce11ed leport. lo•ttle,
WA: U.S. O.p•r~at. of the ht•uor, U.S. Fiala aad Wildlife Ser¥tc•,
S.ctl.oa of !'lana• n.-.1 baearcb.
Gollop, K., •t. al. 1972. "Diaturbance St11d1e1 of lrHdJDI ll•c-lr. lraat,
C~a !tdera, Glaucou1 Gulli and A.rct ac T•ra• at II..._. Jul. Spit aod
Plullap• .. ,, Yulloo Territory." Duturbance to lirds t.y Gaa C~reaaor
lotse St-.Jaton, Aarcraft, •ad "'-ao Actlvaty ia tiM Kliclenaae Y•ll•y
•ftd t ... llortb Slope. Clulptel' IV, Arr-tac C.a ltoloatcal loport S.rtoa.
Vol. 14 Prepar•d by LGL Lt•tL•d.
lall, J. D. aad "· r. Tlll .. a. 1977 A Sur,.y or Cetace••• of PriaC"• WHit ..
Sound ••d Adjacent Yactoity: Tbelr lfu.b•n aad Seaaonal ~v.-eata.
lavtro-..nt•l Aneaaaeat of tbe Alaabn CoatlDeaUl Sb•lf, Annual •porta
of Puncipal lnvutilatora [or the Y•ar ladial rt.rch 1917. Vol. 1.
Aea•arc-h Urr.il 411. 8oulder. CO: U.S. Dep•rt .. nt of Co-erce, llatioaal
Oce•aic aad A~apherlc ~lnlatratioa, lavaro-atal leaa•rcb Llbor•to-
riea, pp. 611·701.
.... too, 11. A., A. I. ao-, I. Von lluene, and 1. P\llpan. 1979. ''Geo-ltavt-
ro-atal Aneu .. at of tt.. lodi•k Sbell." Preae111ted a\. Ofhhore Tech-
noloay Coafereace, tlouatoa, TX Jo preaa.
lll'rf.~tal lon-icea. Lt«<. 1MO. ln.at haiaa•l• .. roup Coaatal ...... ...
Mat Plaa. Platte I Dratt Plaa. lol4otu, AI:: 1 ... 1 haiaa•la .......... .
lrUeoa. D. 19U. DiatrikUoe • ........._c., N11nuoa. aocl lroad1 .. Locau ...
of •r1ae lir«<a--Lower C..k lalet, Alaalr..a. AlaaU Depart.eat ot Fiala ud
a-, llariu aU Coastal ... ltat llaaaa-at, pp. 1·12.
--... C. at al. 1972. n.. Coot lalat lavh--.t: A lacq:....-.d lt..., af
A•aUa.,la '--1..... uc-.or .... AI: Arctic la.-&c._ta.l bfo..-uoe
Data C..tar.
r ... r. I. 1971. Diltl'i.ktioa, aa...daaco, t-ity ltnctare, aU T ..... ic
lalatloullipa of U. ... nlaon ... tbe• of tbe locliak Aell, Cook lalot,
•on.Maat OuU •I AhaU aad .. ri. .. lea. laYi...-.tal A .. aa-.t of t.U
AlaaU.. Coa.tiMDtal lltelf . ..._.. leporta of Priacipal l ... auaaton.
Vol. IV, a.cept•r••Ptall, Lttt..oral, loatMa. a.aearda U..it 211. lcMalder,
CO: V.I. Depllr~t af c-ree, a.uooal Oceaa.tc aiMI At.Maplaeric ~
aiatrauoa, o-tu.c eoau ... t.al Aelf laYi.r-.tal .... ,_, Proar•. "'
416-730.
Fedllral .t.•UUoo .-iaiat.raU•· 1971. Al .. lla ...... 1D·I•ar Plaa. n 1910-ltat.
, ............. c-taatoa, .. n_ of a.tarll Gaa. 1916. Draft aa..t..-tal
~ct lut-.t, Coo' Ialot-Callforai.a Pc-ojact. Vol. J. Pacific Alaaka
U1C Co. DocMt lo. CP•7S•140.
Fiacu, C. 1. aU G. 1. IeiMa. 1966. Food ud Poediaa ...... tor .t lteller
loa Liou. Jot1rul of -l•lf· Vol. 47. lo. 2, "· ltS·200.
rtacuo, C. 1., et al. 1976 ........ 1 DiatrUtuUoe. aad .. lau .. ~ace of
llartM ~h 1a U. G.llf of AhaU (parti•l li .. l). la•i...,...atal
Aaaaa-ot of t. ... Alaalt.aa CoaUuatal Sbelf. Q!urt.arlJ lepol't.l of Prh-
d!P"l la .. aUa•tor•, Vol. I. laaaarcll U.lt 61. loulder, CO: U.S.
Dopart.oat of C-ree, .. Uooal Ocuaic aD4 Atlloapbaric Adaiailtntt .. ,
Ou.tor C..U ... tal SIM!lf h•iro...at.al AaHa .... t Prot:r•. pp. lt-264.
rtetcber, J. L. 1971. lffect of lof.ae u Vlldlif• aM Ot ... r Aai .. h. ITJD
:JOO.S. Ve.lllataat .. , DC: u.s. a..t...-..tal Pr•tacu .. ._..cy.
Fonall, D. J., •ad Patrick J .... ld. 1910. IH.atrtkUoa aed Abuaclaaca of
lea.,irde Viat.ari.aa to tlloe lo4hk Area of Alaaka. U.S. Dllper'-t af U.e
lat.edor-. U.l. Pia• a.d Wildlife S.r-.ica, .,. 13. ,....,.....-for U. U.S.
Depa.r'-t. of t ... taurtor, .. nau of Laa4 Kaaaa--t, Ahab O.t.er C.U·
.... ul Sllelf Offaca. larir._aul ltdiea Proar-.
r .. ta:r, I. L .... t. I. Y. &arlit ..... 1M7. G....-.d a .... u .. aU Aaaociated
lftacta ill tM Cool. 1alet Ana. Alaalr.l, a.aulU .. h• tlle PlllrC'II. 27. 1M4,
Kart~uU. 0..1oaical a. .... ., Prote111ou1 r.,.r S4l-r.
rnUr, "· A. 1t71. 1'tae 1977 ..... Koai.toriaa hotr•, llacl.eaa1• lat .. ry.
I.V.T. Yaac•wr, Cau .. : l ... rial Oil Liaitad.
f.-...dck I. aarrta. lac. 1979. S..U. Caat.ral le&ioa Deep Dr•ft lav.t .. Uoa
laport. Aacllor•J~. AI:.
._tltoa, C. J., I. J. ltal'r, M«< L. fraaky. 1979. a.c~adatiOOI IOC'
llillia&&i .. tM laapactl of .,.rocar\Moa o. .. 1.,...t. oe Ute r.taa., V114Ute,
aM Aquatic Pl•at .. aourc•• •f l.ewel' Cool. la.l•t.. Voh. I ud 11.
.. __ , V. I. 1M~. "'lff•et• of ta.. UrU..u ... of liar-ell 21. 1964, at
Aoc-laon .. , Ahab " Gaoloaiul Surwoy Prof .. aioall Paper ~42-.t..
aauil .. , c. 1. •114 J. D. aau. 1t71. Ah•U• Diltri.httOil of tllle lalqa
..,•1•, Dalplll.l .. p ~ !..!.!£!.!· C•aad1aa rte1d latunUat.. Yol. 92, lo.
l, "' 2]~·241.
Bart ... , I. 1M G. S. l110t. 1966. To••· lty uf S~ Otla to V•tarfowl.
"..,.eta t .... atiOil-Oil lubl•tbal." Jouraa1 of Wildlife ..... .....,,.
Vol. lO, lo. 3, Jaly 1966, .,. ~64·S70.
aa,..a, "· 0. •ad C. II. Jutty. 1979. OU Spill Y"lof'rat.ility, Coaatal llorpbol·
ou, •ad SocUMIIItiUoa of lodhk Arcb&pelaao. ••••arch Uait ~9. lota1der.
C U.S. Dapart..ot of c-reo, I•Uoaal Oceaatc •ad Ataaoapheric ..._&ail-
tntioa, O.ter CaatiDeatal Sltelf llavir..aat.al Aaaaa-.t Proar-, p.
149. '
aa,..a, N. o .• P. J. lrowa, aad J. Nicael. 1977. Coutal tlarpboloo aad ladt-
... utl.oa ta Lower Cook Ialat., Al••ILI. lavii'O-atal ltudiea of &ac.._.k
lay ••d t.o.er CMia Ialat. Vol. II, L. Tr11Q. •od L. Flap, aM D . .. ..._.k, Ha. Aacbor•ae. AI:: A1aaU Depllrt8Nt. o[ filii. aad ~.
..... , I. C. 19~7 ......... ht•aaled 1• loa C•blea." Deep S.• ••••reb.
Vol. IV, llo. 2 1 pp. lOS-US.
laeaea 1 1. C. •nd n. lwiaa. 1962. "T•rbidity Currnt.a aN Su.,..rt .. Sllllllpa
and t..lt.e Graad laaiLI Kar~ka." ,_.rlcaa Jourul of letenca. Val. 2!10,
... 149·17J.
loldell. r. D. ltiO. "hopacb Kap of Upper loloceae l'lllrtae Sedi .. ata, <hlter
CoatiMat•l S ... lf, Slteli.tof Strait., .t.l11b." OpeD File Report 10-2012.
U.S. Dep•rt.eeat at tM lat.erior, GaolotiuJ s.r.ey. Allellonp, M.
Noo••• P. J. aU J . ..,, .... ,. 1910. "Pilip Sbowi .. Selected Geoloa•c Foata.C'el oa
Uta Outer CoattiM'nt•l S..lf, SlwllkOr !It rut, Ala aU... O,.a Ftla •port
10·20JS. U.S. O.part.eeat of t ... Jatouor, Gaoloatcal Surwoy, Allcbarap. ...
... ••• P. J. I r. D ........... L. Lybrcll;. ltiO. "IIopach Kap of lo1oc ....
n..riu Sadl-•ta, OUter Coettaeatal SMif 1 ShelikOf Strait, A1aab ...
Opaa file lcoport IO·ao:Jl. U.S. Depart.!at of tbao Jatuior. Goolosical
Sur¥•Y I 4nclllonae, Alt.
llooaa. P. J., L. "· S.Hil. aad L. LyiNd: 1980. "C..Ioaac Crou Sectioaa of
tbe Outer Contu .. nt•l Sitae If 1 She I ikof Stratt. Alaab... Opf'a Fi I" leport
10-2016. U.S. lMp•r~at of tlllo laterior 1 Ge-nloeacal h..,.), 4ndao·• ... M .
llu .... a, S. I. aod II. 5. Alton. 1974. Trawl su...,.,.a of Gro-dftsh l•aouna•
M.ar loduk h1•11d, Alaalr.a, n7l. s~uul .. , WA: U.S. Df'p•rt-at of
C~rl'e 1 l•t1on.~~l Cke•nac aftll At.oapb•rac Adlliruatr•uon, N•taonal
ftartn• FlaiMriea Servact". lforth-•t and Al•aka Flshen•• Cent. .. c.
._,, I. L., Jr. J.t76. n. lep~u-, lcolou, r .... , .... Fera11 .. U..e
of leabir4 ••Uq .. lt. r .. & hlaad, PriUJ.of ld ..... aa.t~ul
MMa-.t of 11 .. --. eo.u ... ul ... u • .._.. leporta of Prlect,.l z .... u .. ton. Vol. 11. leourc• U.U IS .... lder, CO: U.l. Depe~t.
of e-re., •ttoa~~l Ocau1c aad Atllo .... dc ,...,ainrau.oa, O.t.er
eo.u.-ut Aelf ...-....-ul u ... --. , .... ~"•• •· u.
._tor, J. I. 1972. ~ ... aad r ... tq IHaYior of IArnl Mdlo9J
Cl!!!a.t!!ll.! !!!!!!>· fiN .. u.ua.. Yol. 70, •· :s, "· 121•123.
lat.eraaUoul Pacific .. Ukt c-toaaoo. 1979. ...._.1 .... rt, 191S. P.O.
... 5001, U..iftnit.J luuoa, Seattle, W. ttl~.
JacU.., J. I. aDd 1. f. Doni.... 1910. •o..tar eo.u ... ul ... u Oil aad ...
ktlritiaa ia U... Oulf of AlaaU (tacl .. taa Lower Cook Jalet) aad tMh
O...Ore J ... cu: A S....ry leport, lepu.lloer, 1910.• U.l. Oep.~t of
tM laurtor, Oeoloatc.t lurYeJ, a.atoo, VA.
J._a, 11. c. 1976. •rraltatury lDYeoU .. Uoa~~ oa U. lffact of Oil hll•U•
eo llarlae hlaeic 1 .... • Oil PoUuU• of .. •lpltle Vaun. ....rt U
tM locnury of ltate 1t7 U. latardepan-tal c-t.u... V.allliqtoa,
DC.
Jollutoa, D. A. lt71. "'Yolatiloa, ...... lliaiaa, aad tM ~·-of I~·
u .. of ..... u .. Yolcaao, Al .. a.. • l'tt..D. '!lwaia. ..attlo, VA:
U.iftnitr of V.alat....-.
J .... , I .... II. Pnenaa. lt19. 11M hlaatc: linN of Tu:oda1 VH .. neaa,
AlaaU. ..._.1 Report• of Pr1acipa1 z .... u .. toro. Yol. II, 11rda.
a.aurclll U.it 141. lolollder, CO: U. I. Depa~t of c-rce, latioaal
Ot-eaatc: aDd A~apbertc: Adll1ahtratioa, Outer eoeu ... ul ... u lllnroa•
... t.ol Aeaea-.t Proar•. p. 35.
b._ri, I. 1971. tile IDeru leleaaa aa lnat Ia~ .... J•nal of
..,.,_teal a. ... rcta. Yol. 12, pp. HII-2MI.
brt .... J. F. aDd I. D. ltco. lt74. lff.c:u of Pui"Aoa .. , CI'UIIIa OU ..
llolUaa Ta.-r Cr•b (Chtaocetaa bair41). llartu raNert" ...,....,, Yol.
l6, II). 7, "' Sl•l7.-----
&ata, L. II. 197J. 11M lffuu of V.ter lolulille rract1011 of CniiAa 011 oa
LarYH of U.. O.capod Cnut.ua ....... ,..,. te!!U· (laJi). Jourul
of bwt~ul Poll•U•. Vol. 5, pp. 1"·204.
laatercaall, L. J. 1tl0. ""Oihftll Clo.uup aad c.ua .... t.• O..Ler C..ti.Meul
IMlf fi'OII.thr Tec.baolou. ProcNdi ... of a 8yllpoai•, o.c .... r 6, 1t79,
c...t.ct.ed t., tJ.. fllrtM loard, ha_.t, of b.at ... rtq, a.uoul ..... rdl
eo.acu. V..u.at•, D.C.: Hett ... l kedealea of lct..c..
Kellar, I. L . ...S C. J. BriM. 1970. "lftc:rotu ...... u .. IJoloD;. Ill.
leproacu,.. CU..• 1a PhactMUq: .... bu-of !!· odtropatar ... !I·
,._.Jb!DDio ia loutMra lad tau. • lcoloatcal lloaoanpl:la. Vol. 40, ...
l, pp. 26l•2M.
lodtall Atea •u.,. Aeaodattoa. 197t. lodta• Ana •u.,. AlaodaU• O..raU
lcoe•ic Dnel.,_..t Proer•. leport 1971-7t.
lodbll Aru latift AaaodaUoa. 1910. c-tty Opialn Poll oo Propoae4
Oil Mil lea Leaae Sale 60, Oct-ober, 1980. Wiall, AI.
lodhll Ana latift AaaochU•. IMO. O..rall lcOMaic Dawlo,._t , .... ,.. ...._. ..
lodiall lalud ......... Yilt•• Sbtc:ta Plau for Len .. lay, lulU, Pon
Llou, ud Ouziallte. (Draft)
lodiall Ialaad .. ,....._. IMO. •Appucau .. for Couul bup bpart Proar•
Maiat.uc•: Qtaiall laJ aDd Aelillaf Straita OCI FactUUea ltU ..
lt...,." a.a.uted to Al .. a Depar'--Ut of c-itJ ud a.att•l Aft.tn.
Wtall, AI.
looJM,a, C. t. ud D. P. Coet.A. 1971. lffKta of 0111 .... T .... tatue .....
htloa ia Sea Ott•r•. lawha.ea.ul Alllleo ..... t of tbe Alaakaa C:O.UMD-
ut aelf. ~ul leports of Prtac:ip.d Jawauaaton for tJ11eo Year ......
&reb 19?1. Vol. VU, lffact.a, pp. 1-11.
...,.. •• G. t., 1. L. GN.try, aM V. I. lk:Alhter. 1976. ftrraiolo1ical
r.,ac:t of Oil .. Pi•ipeda. Fiul leport. .... ... a llDit 71. ao.tMr,
CO: U.S. Depart.Mat of c-ere•, laUoul Oceaaic ud A~rtc Ad-
•U.htraUoa, Outer CoaUIW8tal Sblllf lavtr.-.ul AIMo-t PI"'OI'•·
uap.bltaMd a.,ort.
lr-r, Cbta, aDd llayo, lac. 1971. lo4iAII hlaDII loroup C........._h• Pub
aDd a.cnatioa flu. rtul Draft.
lr .. r. Qia, ud Itaya, lac. 1971. Wiall hlud loroqta lqioul Pl• a ..
DrnlopMot ltrat.au. lodiAk, AI: WiAII hlud loroqlil Plauiq Depart.· -·· lnaDOW, L. D .• G. A. Saqer, aod D. V. Vta .. r. 1971. lunMre , ... , ..
lcolou of tlariDe lirda lD tiM Wtall Area. U.S Depa~t of U.
latarior, U.S. rtab aDd Wildlt.f• lei'Tice. Maul lepotta of Priacipal
Iawauaat.ora. Vol. lJ-Ilrda. a.aeuc• U.it )41. loalMr, CO: U.l.
Depart.Mat of eo-rce, llaUoul Ocenic ADd AWOapMrtc A4ftaiatratt.oa,
Outer c..u ... ul lbalf lavh---.t.al u ... -.t Pnar•. p. 25.
~··· V. V. 1970. n. laflwac:a of Cnde Ot.l • flab fl"J'. Foreip
Aaric-altun Orpatuttoa (FAO) Tec:batcal C..f•rnce oa tlariM Poll•tioa
aad lffec-ta .. Li•tq a..ourcat aad Fi ... tq. DKIIIber 1970. nl:·/7-.. 64.
a-, Italy.
r.hlle 1 I. P .• V. I. S...ls, n4 I. J. r.af•ar· 1910. All Oilapill 11111
Aaalyata for t.he Cooll lalet. aDd Sklillof ltnit. (Propoaed lal• 60) O.ter
C..tiUDtal sa..lf Leaaa Area. Oeoloaical lal'ft'J' Opn file lepott 10.
L.tar, J. C., •t al. 1979. lat.etillleport. OD t..llle lt. lliaa IAI'\.bltUIIo of 21
Fabnaary 1979. Ceolo11ca1 a.,..., Opn file leport 79•670.
leaat ,_iu•la lo~. lt7l ..... 1 '-taaala lorouafil C.. ....... t.w "--•
...... aad fajectt.... lel4otaa, AI.
.... , ,_lM•la •II'MP· 1971. O....rall ac-tc ...... .,...,mer-kaff.
,_..,....., 1971. A ProUla of U.. c-rdal Fl ..... ~try, a-at.
P•iaa•la lerouafil. lolclatu, M. •
leaat PeoiMula lor...... 1979. O....U ... uoriq Pro1r• .,.. .. .., c-&ttee.
...ctal Ceuu of tJ.. .... lattoo, ... ctal .... n. •· 1.
....i '-tu•l• lonM~C~t. 1910. -....r lplt C..atal ...... .,.._ ~
Part I: Iat~u ... • Appl1cau .. to ltat.e of At .. u, Dope~ •f
e-n, ...... toaal Afhira Coaoul llaue-t oruc.. Sol...._, M.
.... , '-iuala Ia~. 1MO. litaatioa aDd P.,....n..
...,._, 1. V. JKt. T'M ... Otter ia tM &oaten Pacific On.a. 8orU
-.rica ra ... lorlaa h. 61. V.M1qtoa, DC1 V.I. Depert..nt of U.
Jatortor, U.l. fiN aad VildUfe le"lce.
...,._, I. W. aad r. VUU. 195:S. Niantt• of U.. 8od~n hr ... 1.
J.,.nal of .._1..,. Yol. 34, 8o. 1, "' 16·•tl.
...,... I. V. aad D. V. lice. 1961. ~· aad .Dt.atl'lboU• •f U..
lt.ellar S.a Lioa. J..,._l of a.-log. Vol. 42, "' Ul·U6.
lteale, .J. •ad I. 1. ronee. 1975-7S ....... U-·IYol•li• of a Vote ... ,
...._.1 .... rt. fai~. AI:: ...,.,.acal Iuttt•t.e, a.t .. nttr or
• ........ 26.:41.
11 .. 1•, J., S. leU, I. J. !lot,U, ... P. I . ..,le. lt7t. VUaniE ... n,
AlaaU; J, April 1977 l~u ... htrol..,, aad Tact.oaJ.c llet.Uq.•
Jo.nal of Yelcaao lot4, aad OaotM.--1 a. ... rcta (a-..u. .. J-.,.,
1979) •
li .. le, J. aod G. 1. ........ 1971. Pl_. o,.a.tce, T'M .... l a-..., ... Le11i:
Diat.uca Tr ... port of V.lc-tu lnpU.• Cl .... fr• ..... U.. Yel~.
A!AaiU. JMnal or YoltaaolOJY aad OMU...--1 ....... d.. Ia fnaa.
11.-.,, P. J., D. I ... tt.oa, aad D. II. kiMill. lMt. '"liaettca of Dl.uQle•
Uoe. aad 11 ... an .. ~i-of CniiAa Oil la Alaab't Coo11 lalat.• ~
of tJ.. Jotat c..rer•co • tM Pra.al'fttt-aad Coatnl of OU lpllla.
V.lllt.taatoa, DC: ,_.racaa Petrol ... Iuttu.u.
lt.-r, P. J .• et al. 1970. o--uutt.e u ... -t of on Poll•tt•
Pl"Ml-iD AlaeU'a C..IE Ialet. Juttt•U of •riM .. rwtce .... l"l.
1·169. Faarttaab, AI:: u.t"rau, af AlaaiEa.
IU .... n., I. C. 1966. T'M ...... tllale ia AlaaiEa. ,_.., M: .....
Depen.tet of Pillll aM a.-.
lo4iall Ana ••tift Maochtt... 1979. Fift•faar a.1toul •alt.ta Pl.M, 1M1•1S.
Lalla, D. J. lt7t. "'et .. loatc ud n..--11\.lldta• at -...u .. Yolc .. ,
Abate.• ft.D. n..au. Fahbeall.a, AI: U.twwntty ef Alaeb. Ia ..........
UN.
to _,, I. J. 1971. "'il ,.,.._luU .. ood ll .... l ... 1 lortAUty: A
h ... u.,. ftadut:. • ltolo1ical ncl Oc: ..... npkic h""f ef tM 1eat.a
larNra CU..l Oil .,ill 1969·1970, D. ltr ............ Yol. I. t.
....ln 1 CA: Allu laacocll f....Uti•, UaiftraitJ of S...U.n Califoraie,
pp. 277 .. 211.
Laea, D. c. 1971. IKoMaiDNAC• of tba latent .. l ud •now a.Mi611
It otic Lowr Cook lalat. • laYi.r-ul AIMa-t of U. Aleda C..
ti.Mat.al IMU. rtul .... rt• of Pl'Udpel lnntl .. t.on. Vol. l, lte-
loatc•l St .. iea ...... reb a.u 417. IMJ.dar, CO: 0.1. DepartMat of
ec-.na, l.ltioul Oceatc a .. Al80.,..1'ic ...._tatraUn, O.ur C.•
u ... ul Aalf aa.t~ul ,.. ... ._., hoar•, pp. 119-SOI.
..it.aeU, T. L. 1910. r.tur t.a llr. JHa a..p.u, .... rtat.nMat, llad.el'-
I.IUoul .,_.t, 6 "·
LasiU, c .. J. 1962. ..,... liatotY ud Suns of 8o Ot.t.an La Alaata.•
u.p.bli~ Plt..D. n.ata. teta,.ue, II: ,_... llatftnitr •
LasiU, C. J., •t al. 1971. Dt.ttl'i .. tt• ... ~of •riM llr*
S..U.. ADd IAat locUak lolaad Vaten. V.I. Depan.eat of tM lahi'Ur.
u.s. Ftlllt. ud VildlUe a.ntce Maul a.,oru of Prtacipal t .... u .. t.en.
Vol. 11, lirda. a.aearcb U.tt 337. ao.&cler, CO: V.I. Depan.at ef
eo-rce, l.ltt ... l Oceaaic aod A~ric ~otnU•, o.tal' c:..u-
DftUl IIMlf lavi~tal AaM..-t Prop-•.
Leloeacbe, 1. 1. ud 1. A. It_.., .... 197). Alaata'o Wildlife ud IM'ltet.
Aadoraa•t AI: AluM Depart.eat. of Fiob aad 0...
Low, t. t., G. I. T...,.b, aad I. 8. IIU..... 1976. lablefiall of tM •..u-
aaaLen Pacific Oftu aod loriq leA. S.at.t.le. IM; U.l .... ~of
eo-l'ce, hu ... t Oceulc aDd AWO.,..ric Alata.tat.nU•, •u ... 1
ltart• f1Neriea Senica, lal"ttlwat ud Ah.U FlO.du C.ter.
111,..., t. 1., et al. 1976 . .,.I'OC•""-Pot•Ual, a..loaic luar*, ....
tafraatruc:t.Pre for laploi'AU• aacl DeQI.,._t of tM t.o.er CoM. lalat.,
Alaaa.. GHloatcal ...,..,.., OpeD rue leport 76-449 (Dnft). llaal• hdl,
CA: Cieol .. iCAl lal"Wf.
........ L. I., et al. 1979. leaourc:a a.pon for P~ OCI lale lo. 60
Lower Cook Jalet·Sbelikof ltntt, ....... &eoloaic•l ...,..,.., Opn rue
leport 79--61)0.
!laltu. Dould c .• eel. 1977. lffecta of Petnle• .. Al'ctlc ... lttknttc
tlariDe a-tr~t.a ud Or-... 1... 2 Vola. llaw Yod, If: Ac...._c
Praaa.
&lloy, I. J .... C. r. tt.rril. 1972. "Vertical Cl"'Mtal .._.t • tM ...
floor." n. Great AlaoU lactb4plaM of 1964. Oceaoar...., * Coett.el
IDiiDH'l'iDI· Waabtqtoa, DC: lu.iODal baurc:la Coaactl, •ttoul k..., of Scieac••.
....._, ud naaa~.., S."icn. Jt71. larlU Ylllap a.toeeU• Plu.
-1 D .... D .... .--.. 1171. e,u..lca of lal'iM liN .... latl_. • tM
luna lal .... , Alaab. ~1 leporh of Pdadpal I..,...Upt.on. Vol.
Ill. a. ... rda U.iu 341/142. IHl .. r, CO; U.l. a.pan.at of c-rce,
lntOMl Ocuatc ud .U..pMrlc '*'atar.ntt•, O..t.er c..u .. ul Adf
aa..t..-wl mar•, •· 2M.
-~aU. Otl c..p..,, JMO. ...u. ... l hll•U• Dtac'-. IUai•U• lpt..•
A19UcaUoe. fer hrait to Dtac:Mqe ¥uuwter: TndUe -h'HIIcU•
Fecilit.J. AKMrap, M: U.l. lni,_Ul PnteeU• AeeacJ, Alaab a,. ... u ... lra.dl.
•w:l.M Tedaical Cou•lU .. lo"tcn. lt76. &c.lotical ._ ... _t of DrillUe
Acttritin, Well lo. 1, lloct U4. ltP ltlaM. tn,.M for Oat• Oil
c.paa, of C:.lUenia, LM ........ CA.
llcJW.Utfe, C. D .... L. t. Pal.-r. 1176. laYt~tal MfecU of OffoMre
ot..,..al of Drilliat Fl•t ..... C.tt.iap. lociety of h&.nl ...... !Men
of AI•. P.,.r •· 1ft 5164.
llcl••• I. r., I. J. DllaMJ, ud I. A. Cnee. 1976. A flail ud VUdUfo
lnouce l...._tery ef tM Ceok Jalet-.lodtal5 Anaa. Altdaor ... , AI:
Alaollo Dopo..-ot of u .. ood -·
..... 14, 1. V. 1964. •n .. Olol.., of tM hettie. 1ft' lod:, Jllr llcGnw-
IUI MUolliq '-""f.
llercor, 1., I. anu., ... C. rtocu. 1177 ......... lltnl'iM&i• ud
lel.tift ~ of llari.M -b 1• tM O.lf of Al..U..• lntr.•
.... ..... ~ of tM Ababa c.u...ul a.u I ._. ..... ru of
PTi.clpal IPHtiptora far tM lur ladUe lllrd Jt17. Vol. 1.
•aaarcll DaU. 61. a-1 .. 1'1 CO: U.l ..... rw.t. of eo-rce, htt.eul
Oceaoic ud At.-llplteric ~atntt•, llnin..tal a.. .. rclt LaMra•
teriaa, pp 100•133.
-..,.n, 1., at al. 1t76. M. AMlfllil of Ia~ l•teut.Uoa ... lftar-
n.ce a.t.ea Ia .., ..... u .. u. hti ... l Oeoeaic .., ...._pMdc
AIIIU.tatnU• TocMical .._. .. ..._ IDI-~·3. .... ..... , COr U.S.
DepartMat of ec-.rce, 1eu ... 1 Oeoeaic ud ACMifMric Adalaiatntt•,
o.t.er eo.u ... tal IMlf llntr .... ul .........
IU.llor, I. D. ud I. Deltf'ft'OlaJ, JHt. lvficbl OlolOIJ' of ,_c:Mr ......
Yidatty, Alaab. Oeel .. icel luwy lllllotia IOU.
lloo, I. A .... I. I. 0.,. lt77. •1Pof-1att ..... Jc.lOIJ' of IMitil'da • t.M
leaillji an.,, ...... b lal .... , Abab. • Part Yl of ht-J.att• a,..tn
... T"P'ic a.taUOUUp of lal'i.M li.l'da 1a tM O.lf of Alaab ... lollt.Mn
leriq IN. ~llepoi'U of PdactpaliPHU.pt.en ...... rd Dait
)41. IHl .. l', CO: V.I. Dlpan..t of c-rce, latt ... l Oeoaaic ...
&~ .... ric WlaiabtraU•, O..t.er C..tta.tal IMU lnt~l ..._..
.. t Proar•, p. lfl.
-... I. o., 1. o ... fJold, ood 1. c. c..-u. lf71. --~· c-st-
uou ia Lowr Coo. Ialet1 lpd_.. ... a-r atn. Mrul of ..,..,_teal
..... ~. Vol. 13, pp. sot0•$011.
166Ua 1au ... 1 ... u .. of U.. -.rtcu AuedaUoa fu t.11111 AftM~d. of
lciace.
Ionia, I. I .... I. I. ....... .... 1t11. ....rt oe. 1 VDrta .... • P~l-
a.bt.M to ..... ack ...... la .... u. Pnpa .... for tN •ru. -1
c-t..t•. ....n •· IIE•17/03.
•rt.llllln -....rc. .... .-.t. 1MO. ••nan .. Oil bplorau .. Act.iriUn ta
UM Lower Cook Ialet.. Aactr.ra .. , All: V.I. o..a~t. of U. Iaa.rto&',
... NO of Lead IIIM-t, Aluka Ou:t.er C..t.iM8t.el IMU Office.
O.l .... d, 1., a. &t..tt~. eDIII. Ye .... r. tt71. a.,oaan of lllriM ltrde
t.o 18Yir-.ul hllut.aau. VDallS.-et.ea, DCJ U.l. --~t. of t.lllll
l•t.ortor, U.l. Ft•ltt. ... Wildlife Se"ico. VU.Ufo lea .. I'R .... rt. t.
Obuat, T .... I • ._ .... 1964 ..... , •• •• U..'f ... of ...... Wbele• i.8 U..
lorillt ... aMI Ala1kaa o.u.• actntUic .... rt •f u.. .._ .......... u
la•UWt.e. Val. 11, ... 11•122.
a...r •••.• Ot'al. lMt. ..lac• li .. t ...... u, tM 8ortlt. racutc.• lei•·
Uftc .... rt. of UM WMln a.eurcltt. laati\IIU. Yot. 21 1 pp. 1•11.
ou ...... t. a. 1916. .. ... u ... c-u.., oo. Draft. a..tr-.tal lt..._.t.
hiPOie4 OCI Oil aDd Aa1 l.aaoe a.te Ia. 44." llew O..leau, U.J D.l.
Dop.n:-t. of U. l•terior, luu• of ..... lllue-t., ... Ol'l .. u
O.t.er Coat.i ... t.al lllalf Office.
hciftc raciEore .... rt.. 1980. ...,l_t. t.1 .. u ... l PtiM..... AfrU 1110.
lo. 11. C_..., ., .louul hbUcaU.ou, p. 61.
racUtc as. Pl....,n. 1910. leldowil ~....._.,.. ..... lel ... taa, Mz
laui PaiMilJ.e ........ Pl ... lq DopiRMDt.,
..... 1. A. 1t1S. "h'aluti• of lei•:l.ctt.y ... lartJilrtuaM Aeki .. at. Off•
at.ore lit.ea. • Doll••• tl; ou ...... toc:Mooloe:r C.fe....ce.
•••• I. &. , et d. 1972. OnYIId l"'otloa Val ... for U.. 1• tM lei..tc Da1i ..
of tM Trau•Alaau PtpeliM .,..u.. O..loatcal l•r907 Ctrcalar 612.
Pat..r, 1. •· 1. 1HO. •ou.,&u l.awa•it ht.a tt,D50 n...• .. u ... l rta .. r-
.. , re ..... ry 1910.
reLata ... , J. r. ud J. A. l.•t..u· 1971. •acotopcal lat.oractt ... lPOl'ri ..
U. ... Otur,• M. L. tt.nit.t. ... a. 0. hiler, .... Tile larir-.t. of
~ttu bluet, AleaU. oat ••••• '111: &..ru ....... ell Deftl.,...t
.-iatat.ratioo., ... S27•S67.
Pararaa•Carapeaia, 0, IM7. •A lh4J of U.. lollrre lledtaclt• •f tM Alulr.a
&aru.. .. u ... ,., __ ,of lllrcll 21, 1M4z rare. 1, V.t.ar v. .... Pacific
kt..co. Vol. :n, "' 301•)10.
P•tt., 1 .... t. Pattu. 1971. l.ffoct.1 af ht.rol-....... -Uo II'Mdiq
&celou of U.. O.U of Ala1&a lerriq O.U Grap. (I:!!JI. UA!!l:l1!! l!!!!
al!!!!!!D!) aDd U.. ... ...-.cu .. lcoloD ef J.er• Galli ia tM WortMaat
lllteecll, I. 0. •M J. D. ldll.aclaer. 1910. ~ptcal OceaaoaraP'Jc eo.ditiou
ia tbe lorU.at O.lf of Alllh, lyatbeda bport for U. 1. ...1'\ent of
c-rce, •uoul Ckeaalc ud AteoapMric Adliiahtrauoa, Orator C..tt-
Matal llaelf a..t.._Ul A8aa1-.t Proal'•· Ia Proceaa.
.... 11. J. C. 1. 1973. Cook lalet Tidal ltn• Atlas. lutitut.e of llll'i.M
ld•ro .... rl 173•6, Fahbaata, AI: U.heraity of Alaab.
llll'ny, 1. 1t1t. ..1.,. Wbelo ia Lowr Cook lalet. lln'ir-tal A8aaa-t.
of tM Alaakaa Coatt ... tal SMU. AM.u.l leport1 of Priacipal laftaU .. -
t.on for tiN lear IMiq: l'larcll 1919. VoL l. a.aearcb Uait 243. ... ..... ,
CO; V.I. Dopal't8nt of eo-rce, •uoul Ocaaaic ...S Atao.,..ric Alima!•·
~:=~~:;: O..t.er Cooti.Matal lbalf Ea.i.._ta1 Aaae•-t Proar•, pp.
II&LCO, l.awtn..t.al lcieacoa. 1976. hpol't to Uaioa on eo.,.a, of
Califoraia: Plly.tcal ud T .. icttr li011aar St.Ddiea iD Cooll lalot AlaQ.a
Duiq Drilli.q O,.rattou Juu·Aqut 1976. lortbltroo•, llliaola.
leti ... l ~of Sctaaaa. 1972. 1'M Gnat AlaaU lart ..... b of 1964.
W.Oiaatoe, DC.
laUoul Ac.._, of lcieKel, lat.toul Aca,_, of lqiDHriq. lt73. Vat.er
Quut, Criteria. W.Htaat•, DC.
lattoul &c:.._, of lcincea. 1975. Al••••t.aa Pataatial Oeou hllataat.a .
V.Mtqt.oe, DC.
left, J. I. 197t. ,..,.., of U.. ToaidtJ ud ltoloatcal lffect.a of U...
Offallon Druuq flat .. to Kart .. Mtaall. • Collo• lt.ett•, T11 Alii
U.iftnity. u.p.bi11Md Nlhlcrtpt .
lelao;i::!.U;..!;,, 1973. Oil Pollatioa aad Nart.u lcolou. .. loU, n:
._to, T. 19St. •raterrelaUoubip lot.,... WUlea ud Pl ... t. ... • Jat.er-
.. ttoul Oeouoarapbic Coqn•• Pr.,d•t•. p. :147.
._to, T. 1964. '"lclaool of lale• .._1•• iD Poadt..c Anaa.• ldut.tftc
leport of t.M Vhaln a. .. arcll IaaUtut.e. Vol. 11, pp. 17·110.
._to, T .... T. laauya. 196S. -rooda of laloea Vhalaa ta \1M a.J.f of
Alaaka of tM lort.b Pacific."' kiuUUc bport of U. Vhaloa ..... ~
lutitut.e. Vol. 19, pp. 4S·51.
lle~ .. lr.i, I. 1966. '"Diatri .. tioa ud fti1r•U• of tile Lar•r C.tace .. 1a
tM lortla Pacific •• Bbowa. by Jap1aau WUUq le•lllt.a.• ...... ,
~~rr=~.~ .. ~~~:;: I. I. Ionia, ad. ..rtaley, CA; U.iftUltJ of
liUiwaki, 1. 1M7. DtatrdMtti-. ...s "'arattoa of •n. -la 1• t.M
:::!t:';!!!~ .. :-~~~=~=~1• lo. J. Tolrro, Japaa: U.iftnit.J of Toar,o,
larrt1, &. I. 1980. •·t.a,... btruce.., Ot.Mr Agn .. Uou of kay ...... ,
lad.ricbtiua !!~!!!!!!!•" A. lerac-.., ad. Matract.a of ...... of tM
Ou.lf of AhDU. Maul laport.• of Prlacipal l ... auaaton. Vol. VU,
lffact.1. a. .. arcb UDit 96. lcMalder, CO: U.l. Depart.-at of ec-.rca, •u ... l OcaaaJ.c ... AC.OI,..I'ic ""-iatat.retJ.•, Ou.tel' C..Uaaat.al IMlf
IPtro-.t.al • .. ••-•t Pr-oar .. , p. ttl.
Pat~. I . ...S L. Pat.t-. 1979. l•oluUoa, PaLboiOif', ... a .... dtq Kcolou
of Wr• Gulh (1:!.!!!) ia ~. .. ••rt.M111. 0.11 of Alaaka aM l.ffect.a of
htr-ol•• lqo••r• oa tH lnodt•a lc-olou of Gulb ..,. ltt.u .. ~ae •.
--..1 Iaporta of Priaci,.l la ... ttpt.orl. Vol. VII, lffact.l ... aeardt.
llail 96. lou1der, CO: U.l. Departant of c-rca, laU ... l Oceaatc ...S
A'--l ... l'ic Ailllliailtrattoa, hLal' CoGU ... t.Al IMU llwl~tal .... al-
-.t Pr-oar .. , p. us.
ra~. J, 1910. W.et.ora O.lf of Ala•ILI Patrol.-O....l.,...t lceurtoa
... ... u .. Sociocultural x.pact.l Tacbical laport ._..r 39,
ADcMra .. , AI: U.l. Depart.8Ht of U.. latel'tor, ........ of WM ..........
... t, Al11U O.ur Coatt ... tll Sllielf Ollie•.
•·~· 1. 1 1971. "A lote OD .. n.-.t.'" leport oa • "-l-U.., oa P~l
a.late4 t.o ... bAck ... ln fa llaveU, •nil, I. I .... I. D ...... a,
.U. Pnparo4 for U.. llertDO -1 c-taatoa, p. tO.
har••· c. r. 1977. '"lataatc .. fractiOD ... .., of .\uaUIUM Vole .... • •.•.
'f'llel11. rati'HDkl, AI:: u.t .. rait.y of Ala1ta.
har•-· c. r ..... J. liNl•. 1971. A lltaatc a.tra~u ... lt., of AqutiM
Volcaao, Alllb 108, 1'rao1. All. Ooopbyalcal UDtoa. Vol. St, lo. 4, p. 311
(aNtl'act.).
hi'Of, J. A. aad T. C. lllallta. ltn. lffect.l of Cnda Otla -Ac'CUc tt ... tae
lnertebruaa. laautort h• Tecbnlcal Report 11. &dlloatoo., &1Nrt.a:
Caudiaa Departant of tbe lftvl r.-at,
Pater lakl ... ud Aa•ociltaa. 1910. Lew.r Cod lalet ht.rol._ ..... .,... ..
lceurtoa, Traaapol't•Uoo Syat ... Aaalyah T1C'btcal Report. lo. U.
Aacbor••• AI: U.S. Deparc..Dt of tM latertor, ....... of Wad ..........
_.t., Alaab Outer Coati .. Dtel lbelf Office.
Pltt.Ulipa ht.rol.... 1971. "PI'rNDtiOD of llpUicaat. Air QuUtJ Datartan-
Uoa ••~it Afpltc1tioa for O..co Oc1aD louat.y .... lol'•t.o~ DrHU ..
Ya11al."' AAcbora,., M: U.S. ID•tr-atal Prot.ect.loa AaeDCJ, Alaab
O,.raUoaa lraDch.
Ptt.cber, I. ••d D. Ca.lkiD•. tt77. ltolou of tM .. ..._r llal taU.. o.tf of
Ala1U. IDYtro-at•l A••••-•t of Ut.e Allaba CoaUMatal llt.eU.
Aaau.l lepol'h of Prlacipal lawattaet.ora for U. lear 1.11141 ... lllrcla 1977 .
Vol. I, leceptora·~h. laaeucb Uatt Ul. a.u.l .. r, CO: U.l ..... rt.•
... , of C-ree, Jet:l.oul Oceaaic uul At.oapbartc A .. latlt.ratloo.1 Outer
c .. tt•ntll Shelf &n .. tro-at .u ....... t Proar•, "' llt•l2S.
Pttcbl', 1. a•d D. C1lk1aa. 1979. lloloiJ' of I.M larillor leal ia ~. .. Gulf ef
Alaab. Out.al' CODU ... u1 Delf bYir-atal Alaaa.-.t. Proar• rt .. l
leport. leaearclr. UDit 229. Ah11l1 O.,.rt.8Ht of rta• ... c;-,
PaYOnaa ... A. 1979. '"11M fHdi .. lt.c .... i.-of a.1 ... a.ln.• ~ricaa
SunU.at. Vol. 67, "' 432·470.
Pl.c•r• .... a, lac. 1977. leluaa Coal Project St.atu leport. S.a fnaeiaco,
CA.
Phfker, G. 1969. Tact•tc. of tU llarda 27, 1964, Al .. h la~U. Geo·
loa~.eal Surony Pnfa .. toul Paper !.41·1.
Phfbr, G. 1971. Pacific ICar&ia TerUuy a.ata. Mericaa A .. ect.Uoa of
htrole• G.oloaisu. ._n IS, pp. UO·llS.
Poliq Aoalyau, Ltd. 19&0. Cult ot Ahah _. Lowr Cool. blat Petrol._
Develo~t Scaurioa: Mcboraae l.,act AD.alrsia, Vol. I aa4 II. Tedlotcal
a.port No. 41. Aocboraae, AI: U.S. Depart.Mat of U... Jatal"lor, llu .. •
of Lead K.aua-.t, AlaaU OUter CoatiDIIltal SUlf Office.
Port Uooa c-.rebeui .. Pub aDd bcreatioe. Plaa. 1910. Port Li061, U..
Port Liou IDduauial Drntolopee-at Pha. 1910. Port Liou, AI.
Pol"tar, I. D. 1910. Lowr Cook laht StatewiH ud baioul ....... u .. _.
luoo.tc Syn-l~act ADalrah. Tecbaical ....., ....... 1 ud 2.
Aocbouae, AI: Ua.iverdty of Ahal.a, Iutitute of Social aM l~iC'
baaarcll. Pr.,._re4 for tk U.S. Depart.eot of tba htedor, larea• of
.. Dd llaua-at, Alaalt.a Outer Coa.ti.oeaUl SIMlf Office.
Pol"ter, 1.. D. 1910. Tbe Grovtll of tM Alaaha leoac.y: futare C ... tUou
ViU.Out tJae Propo .. l. Teclul.ical ._.r....._ 1. Aacborap, AI: UDiftrdtJ
of Al .. u, hatitute of Social aad lco.oelc ..... ucll. Pnpared for U.S.
Dep.trt.eat of Uw Iatenor, Bureau of Laad Kaaaa-at, Alaah Outer
CoatiGHtal Slrlelf Office.
Pulpao, I. aM J. lin1e. 1971. Sei•ic IDd Yolcaaic lhl. ltudt ..... Wtotel"ll
Gulf of AinU. Aalnt.al b?orl. Vol. :U ..... arcb Uait Ul. ... lder,
CO: U.S. Departent of eo-rce, Jatioul Oceutc aDd At8HpMdc
,...laiatutioa, Olatn Coathtaoul lbalf laYir.-.ul A.Ns-.t Proar•,
... 47~·~69.
hl,.., I. aD4 J. IU..ale. tllrcb 26·29, 1979. Sei•ic _. YolcaaiC' Iii~
Studios·-W.aten Gulf of .UaaiU. lllAA...OCSW Vorbbop oa Abakaa OCI
S.i1•1ou •ad lartlaqu.ske lqi ... riq. loalder, CO.
hlpu, 1 ... d J. IUnle . ..,..at.ena Gulf of At .. u Sei•ic lis~ St .. iea."
ProcHdtqa at tM Offabore Tecllaical Corlllf•I"MCI. Afdl • ..., 3, 1171,
loustoa, n. Ia prna.
Pat.oiu, P. 1966. Studlea OD t ... lt.teorolou of Allah: Firat laUrie
&eport (The aequeacea of IN! ric veatber pattena 09el' Alada). 11l••r
Spriq, PI): U.S. Depart.Mat of c-rca, &a.in.nUl Scieace Sarrices
AdltiD1atr•tioa (MatiD~Yl OceaDit aDd At.oapberic Adaioiatratioa),
la•iro~tal Dtta SerYice.
ltC'e, D. V. 1968. St.oaedl Corllltn.ts ucl Feediq lelaavior of Killer •1•• ia
tiM Iuten. lortlll PacUtc. •r•k halfaapt•U...._. lo. 21 ft"· lS·ll.
lice, D. v. 1974. .,._1•• aDd Wbal• ..,Harcll ta t.1ta a.stera hrtll Pactfic.•
T1lwt Wb.ale Probl•: A Statua leport., V. I. Scbe-1111, ... C..dd., IM:
•rw•rd Uaiftrdty Preaa.
lice, D. v. ud A. A. Volaaa. 1971. "11M Life liltory aad lcolou of tM
Gray Wbale... .W.rtcaa Soci•tJ of "-a1 .. 11ta. ...cial MUceUoa Jo.
3.
Jlice, S. D. 1971. "Todcity ucl AYGida.DH Teau Vitlll P1"11Aoe lay Oil ..,
PiU Salaoa Fry." Proc .. diqa of U. Coafar•ca a. p,.....uoa aod Coa ...
trol of Oilapilla. V.alaiaat•, DC: Meri.C'n Petrol-. IuUtat.c.
lice, I. D. 1910. "Prelt•taary leport • Drilliq tllld ToatcitJ Telta vitla
Cruat.aceaaa." Auk• a.y, AK: •r~t lad Alaaka fi ... ries C..t.er,
Auk•, .. ,. :..Sboratory. laUoaal tlariu FiaMr!aa lerYice, •uoaa1
Oceaaic aM AWOapM:ric .W.iaiatraUoa, U.S. Depart.nt of c-rca.
Rice, s. D. I a. A. !loll!, ud J. v. lbort. 197S. "fte lffoct of PnAoa le7
Crud• Oil oa Sunival aM GrowU of laa, A1ntu, aDd Fry of PtU laJaoa. •
Proceedtqa of U. Coefareace oa Prftelltioa aM Coat.rol of Oil hlllltioa.
Sao FraDCiaco, CA, pp. ~3·507.
lice, S. D .• a. 1. no-a, aad J. W. a.rt. 1976. '"lffecu of htr-ol.,._
llydrocarboaa oa lreaUiq aad Coqbiq latea lad lydrocano. U,UM•Depu·
ratioo io Pial. Sat.oa Fry... Lwtr.-at.al Aeaea.._t of t.be Alaatn C:O.-
UMatal Sbelf. PriDcipal lo .. sttpt.ora Report• for lear ladtaa llarcb
1916. Vol. I, lffecta of Coat•iaaot.l. louldar, CO: U.S. Depar"-•t of
C~rca, latioul Oc:eu.ic aDd At8Hpberic: Adaiaiatrat.i•, O..ter Coati•
aeotal Sbelf ....... iro-..Ul Aaaea-..t PI"D&1"•1 pp. U ... lll.
lice, S. D., I. lora., aDd J. F. lart.... 197t. •r.tJaal ... hbleU.l lffectl
oo S.lut•d Al .. bll ltariiM Speciea After Ante aDd Loq·Te .. bpoaue
lO 011 aod Oil Collpoonu ... ID•ir.-at.al .u ....... t of U. AlastiD
CootJ.oeatal Sbelf. Fiaal leporta of Priadp.al lDftttia•ton, Vol.
leaearcb U.it 72. Boulder, CO: U.S. Deput.Mat of c-rce, latioul
Oc .. oic aDd At.aoplleric Adliiailtntioo, Outer Coottaeotal Sladf lll•tr.-.tal
Aaaes.-ot. Proar•. pp.
lhebroup, I. V. 1971. "Pollu.t .. ll iD tlarlM ..._ .. lad a.c-.Jati-
for a.uarcb." llaiDII.Icript sut.itted to tbe tlariae ..._1 c-1•11•·
Uapubltabed.
AitteD.bou.e, G., •t al. 1969. "ttiDOr 11--.ta iD Oilfield Vat.ara." a.-teal
Geolou. Vol. 4, pp. 119~209.
lobicbau, T. J. 1975. "t.c-teriocidea Used iD Drilhq aad eo.pletioe Opera ...
tiooa." Procudiqs of &a.iro-.ul Mpecta of c...tcal U.. ia Well
Drilhq Operataou Coofereacl!. Waabiqtoa, DC: U.S. IM-ir-•t.al
Prolecuoo .. eac:y, Ofhce of Toaic s.ltauaces.
htat ... P. 1966. u.publilbed t•,ulauu of 4a1.l' bAric wat.Jaer ,.,.., for
AlaaU r .... JU~~Ury 1, 114~ to .. reb 31, lMJ. Fairtt..U, AhaiU:
U.tveni.tJ of Alaau.
ht.aiu, P. 1969. lt.••U" .. t.M Neteorolou of .t.laab: flaal lepott
(Veetlurr au-uoaa ia Ah•U d~~trtaa tt.e occurreaces of apacific Nric
Willther). lolllt•r, CO: U.S. D.par'-•t of ec-rc•, la•t.r..-.tel
Sci-co S.rYlcea ._~iatutiH (lat.1 ... 1 Oc: ... ic ... A.....,pberic
Adaiailtrat,oo), lll•t~nlal a.aoarclt. La .. ratoriaa.
I. V. n.o...,. aa4 Aa•octatos. 1979. City of leui rtul Draft. C..,,..._.t,.
Ph• Sol4ot.aa, AI: &eaat. PeDlaaula lorou.ab PhMiq Deparc.-&t..
a.,, J. P. 1971. "Drilllaa llu4 Todc-tt.y Labontory _. 11•1 World Te•ta."
Oceu a.aourc•• lqi .... riq, pp. 1~10
l1111lid, N. A. 197"· .,_lra4at1 .. d habr C 011 ...,..r Differ-t CM•t.al
lavh-au of CbedatMact.o a.,, hwa Scot.h." lat-rtM aad Coaat.al
llart.u kleaca. Vol. 2, "· 137·144.
lecant, B. lt71. C.•a St...., of Copper Ceat.er, Alaou. Todwaical laport.
._..r 7. Aadaorap, AI: U.S. Deparu..at. of tiM lator1or, Ilana• of
Laad Naue-at, At .. u Outer Coott .. at..al Shelf Office.
a..d, I. I., I. D. llltnctl, a.d J. D. ~~r. 197t. 011 larocUaic Tr ... port
of t.M AlaaUa Stre• .. ar lodhll hhad (ia preporat~ for •.a.tsai.H
t.o O..,~ha laao.arctl).
laid, G. rl. 1t71. 'Ate, C~dtiOA, V.iP,t, "-atllo a.d Sea ol' lerri .. ,
£!!!!.~ ~U~.!..!.!· Used for ledaw;u .. ,. Al .. u, 1929•1966. Specie!
Scieatlflc Rfl'port·rtalurriea, ..._r 634. U.S. Depert.eat of c-.rc-e,
Jat.toaal Oc:•aaic ..cl Atlloopbenc .W.iaht.l"atioo, laUoaal KariM Filbert"
S.ntc•.
..,_141, rl. lt71. Coaatal llet.arolou ia t.M •u af AlasiU. .. ..... do Ua.tt
)67. loul4Mr, CO: U.S. Deopar~t of eo-rca, .. ,, ... 1 Oceaaic IDd
A"-•fkrtc A4raiahtratiH, Ou.t.ar Ceatt ... t.al a.u lavtr-.tal Aaaaaa~
..., Proar•.
a.,..tlla, I. rl., S. A. Naclllta, a.ad 1 . .t.. Walt:.er. -. • ....-... •t-rolou;
..,.....,. I: A Looll at ViDdl Cooditioa t.a Lower Cooll Jalat.."' 1 .. 1roa•
-t.al A.aaa .... t of tU Alaollaa Cooti ... ul lt.elf. ADa&aal .... rt..a of
rrtocipal tawattpton for Year lalltaa fllrd 1971. Val. J:, Traaaport.
lou1 .. r, CO. U.S. hpart..ot of c._rca, lattoaal Oceaaic aDd Atllos·
pbertc ._iaiatrauoa, Ou.ter C..tt ... td Slrtelf &.ir-.t.al ......... ,
Procr•. ,.. 124 ... !.61.
t.yaold•, 1. fl., et a1. lt79. .. .......... •teorotou. 1-.tr.-r~~tal ........
... t. of the Alaollaa Coeitioeat.al Aalf. .._.1 loport.a of Priacipal
l..,..Uptou. Vol. VU. Traaaport ..... .arch UD1t )67. Joul.du, CO:
U.S. Dep.at"-111 of Cc-..rce, Matiou1 Oc:euic aadl A.._...p ... rtc .W.iah·
t.rattoa, O..l•t CoatiiWDUl lbelf &•U~tal AIIMI-t. Pr01r-, pp.
1&4·504.
a-l.olt, L. L., I. I. Ai,_, aDd I. I. lrOWD. 1977. O..taal Ftalt. ...
SMllfiab bsoul"cn al' U. O.lf of Alaatl fn. C.,. .... cer t.o U..U
Paaa, 1941·1976. A liltorical ... ,..,, fiaal leport. leaaarda Uatt 114.
lo.lftr, CO: U.S. Depart.eat of C~rc:a, •uoaal Ocaaaic aad &t8H~
pbertc .. iailtratioe, Outer C:O.UMDtal a.u ~on...-.-.t.a1 laMs-.t
Pro&~"•·
l.oabolt. Laal L., lerMrt 1. Sllippn, aDd lrtc I. lrowa. 1971. O..n.al Fiala
.aDd Sbellfilll ... sources of t.lta hlf of .Uaah fn. Cape Spo.cel" to UU.U
Paaa, 1941-1976 (A lbtortcal a..tav). Vola. 1·4. Seattle, 1M.: U.l.
Depar~t of ec-.rca, Jatioul llarU. rtaMrin S.ntca.
lots, S. L. ltao. •toatrolUq Arctic Oil .,ula." lpill TocbMl..,
hwletter K.arcb•Apl"il, 1910, p. ~5·63.
a-.ta, V. 1 .• I. J. WDf .. r, a .. A ........... 1980. "Aa Oilaptll li•l.
Aul.,.ll fol" tU lo4tal. lalaad (Pr.,.... la1e 46) O.ter Coatiant.a1 a.U
r.aae Sale area.• ()pea rUe llaport 10·17S. U.s. O.,.r'-t of U.
Jat.crior, Geoloaical Survey. Mcbou .. , AK.
S.qer, G., I. D. Joaat, nd D. Vhwr. 1911. ~ VJ.at.el" FM4tae 8abite of
Selected Specie• of llariDI lirda 1a Ia~ laJ, Aluka. U.S. Fiala ...
Wildlife larY1n Allllt&ll leporta of Priacipal III'IJUUaatora. Vol. I.
baearcb Uait )41. Boulder, CO: U.l. Depa~t of c-ru, lattou1
Ckeaaic aall AU.OI,...ric o\daliailt.rati•, O.tor too.U ... t.al Aelf IM-iua•
.. tal ..... ._, Proar•, p. 20.
Saqer • G., Y. F. IU roub aad A. I. fUry-. J977. 1'lw r ... t.aa Ecoloa:J aad
Tl"opbic hlattnabip• of ley Species of llariDe ltrds b U. lo41al hllad
Area. U.S. Fiala aDd Vtldlifa SerYtce, Allllt&ll leport.a of Pl"iadpe1 .......
Upton. Vol. 11, Appeacllia VIII. le:saarcb U.it 141. loulder, CO:
U.S. Orep.artent of c-rca, laUoul Oceaalc aM At.oaplllartc .w.iaiatra·
tioa, Outer Coe.ti ... tal SIMU &lrri,_t.a1 Aa...-..t Proer•.
Scbeffer, ¥. I. 1971. "':Hler WllaJn; Fat-Qoppen.• Too~ wt.al .. ia
lastara florU Pacific .., An:Uc Vatan, A. Soe4, od. Seattle, 1M.:
Pacific Searcb Preu, pp. 11-1!1.
Scbeffer, 9. 1. 1972. "Karia ..._ .. iD t.lta 0.11 of AbNa.• A lewtew cf
tbe Oceaaoanplly aad leD.evable baourcea of tbe Jort.lwn Gal f of Alult.a,
D. 1. loa~oNra, ed. rat.rbaalui, AI: Ua.tftraity of Aluh, Iaaut.uta of
tt.l"iDI! Scieace.
Scblnter, I. 1979. OillpUl TrajiC'tory Aulyais, Lower Cooll lal.et, Alaaka.
Re-search Uait 4)6. Boulder, CO: U.S. Depart.a.t of c-rce, Juiaaal
Oceaa.ic .sad At.oapberlc Adaiaiatratioa, Ou.ter Coatiant.al Slaelf lo'wi .....
.. at.al Aaaas.-at Proar•.
Scblnur, I. S. aad C. I. lauw. 1910. Otlapill Trajectory 1'-tlatioa ia
~r CODk loht-Sbehllof Strait. AlaaiU leUDI Sa.a--Gu.U of Al•tU
Project OUace. Boulder, CO: U.S. Dep.tr~t of c-rce, lati.OIMil
IX:eanic aad A.._.aplt.erac Adaiahtrati.oa, Out•r CoatiHat.al SMlf la•t~
ro..ntal Aallu.-at Proar•. Job Jlo, 06797·014·U.
k._ider, 1:. I. 1976. AaM•...a.t of tJae Dht.rlbutioa ... Abu .... ce of ...
Ott.en Aloq tM Kn..i Paiuuh, &.J.•~k laJ, aa• tU lodhk Al'clilltpebp.
a..t~ul M•••-•t of liM At .. u.. eo..u ... ul !bell Prtact,.l
l..,..ttaator lbpoR•, Octobar•Dec.-.r 1976. Vol. 1, leceptora (liota),
llar1M -h, lllirt .. lhda, ft1crob1olo1J. a.aoarcb 11Dit 240. loal .. r,
CO: U.S. llepart.Mot of c-ree, latioul Oceaa.ic alld A~piMric A6aida•
trau •• O.Ur eo.u. ... atal Sbalf laYi~tal u ... ~t Proll'•· ...
)76--.
ldaMtder, .1. 1979. Sea Otter Dtatrtbutioo aDd Altadaaee. &o.t.ben lodtak
Arc:b.ipelap ... tbe Seaid1 blaoda. laYtr~atel Aana .... t af tM
.UaaiiLaa C:O.tiAatal hell Aa.au.al leporta of Prtactpal Ia ... u .. tors for
t.be lear ladtaa Karclill 1979. Vol. I, lecepton--h; lirda. a.aeardt
U.tt 24]. loalclet, CO: U.S. DepartMat of t-.rce, laUoul Oceaatc
... A~,Uric ~htratioo, O.Ur Coatiaeatal IMU la•t,._.tal
AeNa-t .......... pp. 169·191.
Sc-.cUr, J. I., et al. 1971. Wiater Ctra.lattoa. aad l)'dro1raPJ O..r tU
C:O.tiaeatal Aelf of tiN llort-.u ~lf of Alaaka. Tocbatcal leport 404•
Ml. ]1. U.S. Deplll't8nt of e-rn, latlOUil Ocoaaic aa4 At8oap1Mric
~atntioa, laYho-a.tal a.uorda Labeutorias.
~r, J. D., at d. 1979. Circahtioa aDd ltpdrolou har lcHiiak lalu4i
lept ...... r • .......... 1977. U.S. O.,..rtMat of ea-rn·, latioul Oceaaic
... AtaiO ..... dc AdaWstratioa, laYir~atal a.Marclill. lAberatoriea.
(l.t.itud for pUlicaUoa aa ao DL Teclmical leport.)
~claer, J., at a1. 1979. lortllwat Gulf of AhaU Ocoaao1ra,.ic Proce81as.
a.aearclill U.it 131. loulder, CO: U.S. Dep.u'-Dt of eo-rc~, latioul
Oautc ... AteospUric Adaiailtratioa, Outer Coottantal Sbolf laviroe-
... ul Uaee .... t Proar•.
ktoace Applicatio.a, lac. 1979. "Ft1un E.l.)c." ID•tro-.tel Aeaea-t
of tM Al .. iiLaa Coatl.an.tal Shelf, lodtak l•tert. SyaU.a11 lleport.
Prepared for 0.1. O.,.rt.Mat of c-rce, .. Uoaal Oco .. tc aad ~~
,Uric Admat.strati.Oil, Boulder, CO, p. 19.
kteace Appltcatiou, lac. 1979. la9iro.atal Aaaea...a.t of tba Alatba
CoatiAatal Dolt 1 Lowr Cook Jalet latert. I)'DUesh Report. Prepared
for U.S. Dlpart.nt of c-rce, .. tiODal Ocoaaic aM AteoapUI'ic M-
aiailt.ratioa, Boulder, CO.
Scott, J. P. 1976. llllciDt lirds of Sout.Un Call.fonia (Poiat C..cepttoa t.a
.. tcaa lordor) ud Their bhU• to tbe Oil IDdutry. Appaadia I ia
U. lori,.._.tal Aaaes.._t StudJ, PcopoeH SAle of PNoral Oil aa4 Goa
LHMI, So.atUn Caltfonia Outer CoeUDeDtd Sbelf. Pr .. and foe W.tt.era
Oil ... Gaa Aaeociattoa.
a..n, 1. I .... 1. t. Z'-raa•. 1977. Alaeka latertidal s......., Atha.
Aldie laf, M: Au.b lay Laboratory, latioul l'lariH ftsbertea S."tco.
&el,., I. 1973. ..,._ IYolatioo of tM Streaa Coacept." a..ctcu lcinttat.
Vol. 16, lo. 6, pp. 67Z·677.
lpri.qer, P. F., C. V. a,.rd, aM D. W. Vooliqtoa. ft77. "Je .. tablielilliq
Alntiao Cauda Geese... bdaaaered ltrda: l'laua-Dt Teclutit• for
Preser9laa T1areete .. d Spoctea, S. A. T~le, ad. ftlldtsoa, VI: U..iftl''"'
aity of Vtacouia rn .. , pp. )]1-331.
StaU.., D. tl. JJJS. "Preliatury Obse"attoa oct Ute tlode of Ac~latioa
of Wo. 2 F•l Oil by tbe Soft Sbell Cl .. (~ areauia)." Proceedtaa• of
t.U Coafereace M Pcn"eatiOII .. d Coatrol of Oil Polluttoa. lea
fraactaco, CA.
lt.ewert, 1. J. 1976. "A Survey aDd Critict1 View of U.S. Oilaptll O.U
beou.rcea wtt.ll Applicatioll to tbe Tatabl' PipeUIW Coatro¥OtaJ." leport
to t.U U.S . .O.,.n.at of tM Jat.erior, Vasbtqtoo, DC.
Stickel, L. F. ood R. P. Dieter. 1979. lcoloatc-el aad Pb.Jaioloatnl Tutco-
loatcal lffecu of Petrole .. oa Acautic-luda. P115/0BS·79/2]. U.S.
Depan.-t of tbe Jatuiol', U.S. fiab oad Wildlife Se"tce, lioloatcal
Se"tce Proa~"•· p. 14.
lt.evort, 1. J .. •ad II. 1. lnaody. 1911. "Aa ADalysia of U.S. TaUer: aad
Offebon Petrole• Pl'oductioa Oil Spilloae Tbl'oup 197S." a.pol't to tile
Office of Poltcy Aaalyah. U.S. Dep.lrta.at of tlw Jateriol', Coatroct ....,.r 14-01-0001-219).
lttt.la, J. 1., P. V. lobba, L. f. Jtadke. 1971. ObaenatioDa of a Jluoe Ardoat.o
frott lt. Aq:uU.w Volc-uo. GeopbJsico1 leaeucb Lettau, pp. 2$9-262.
ltr ... , I. 1. 1917. Tbe Social oad lcoa.oetc-l~sct of tbe Tuu·Alaaka Oil
PipeliM Upoa tJae Aloaka Native Peoph. Proara-.d ta tbe Aa.tllropoloiJ
of Drnalopant. lloatreal. Cauda: RcG1ll Uaheuity.
Syba, L. I. 1•11. Attenbock ZoM• of Great lutt.quabs, Set•tcity Gaps,
... lartlwp&ab Predictioo for: Alaska aad tbe Aleuthaa. Jouru1 of
lltoplaptca1 leseorcb. Vol. 76, pp. 1021·1041.
Teraaa, C. 1. 1t6S. A Study of Populatioo Grovtb aod Coatro1 labibiud ia
U. Laboratory..,. Puil'ie Deemice. lc-olou. Vol. 46, lo. 6.
Yippetta, Mltott, !kCartlty, oDd StrettoD taaiaeen. 1910. Duft Part of
a-r Dnelo,.at Plaa. lo.er, AK: CitJ of Jc.eol'.
todd, J, 1., J. At-. aDd D. I. 8aJ10D. 1972. Cbe.ical C.-.aic-ottoo ia U..
S.a. lllriM Tedmolou Soc-iety Joarul. Vol. 6, lo. 4, p. S4.
Toat.lia, A. C. 19SS. Oo. tbe lehnior aad Soo1c Stpaltaa of Wbales. TrudJ
Iutitut.&' OHuloaiit Abd llauk, SSI. Vol. 18, pp. 28·47. fiallertea
leeeercb loard of CaAtda, Tnuhtioa Sede1 No. 377.
Trepp, J. L. 1917. A.rld lhd SurYeY of the Coutal Waten of lodiok lalaad,
Alaaka. U.S. Dep.u~t of tbe laterior, U.S. Fhb aad Wildlife Senrice,
lodia~ latioaal Wildlife lafyp.
Traeky, L. 1 L. flau, aad D. lu..-boak, eda. 1977. !DYll'o...,atal Studt eo of
lac.._k oad Lowr Cook lald. Aa.cbonaa, AI: Ala1ka Deputaeat of Fhlill --·
loquat, D. 1 .... r. r. lrMto. lt7S. J._tJ.ty, .......... , ud Pr .... t
:!:!7:.~f =~';:a...:!t:~:.:-r:a.:-"~rcr. 1r.f.'u!·:.~
"" 1047•1054.
Aama, G. D. ud D. C. lunll. lt70. ~ury a..t,_t aDd ... '-U
of Cook lalot, Alaaka. a..rtc• Aaaoc:U.tt• of huol._ Oeeloatett,
Vol. $4, loo. 4 aDd 9, pp. 647-654.
an, D. G. 1971. IIJ4ncerhu: latioul Met.tt._u .. ud Dpaatca oa tU
Alaab Ollltor Coeti.ant.l a.u. Vol. 1111 ...... rdt. Uait 27$. IMlder,
CO: U.S. Deport.eat of c-orea, lattoul Ocuaic ad A~rle ~~
uattoa, O..t.or C.tiuatal aeu laft,_tal ._..._t mar•, ,.
~7-727 .
an, D. C. 1971. IIJftocerhu: leU-..1 Diltl'i .. U• ud e,u..tu oa t.U
Al•aba Outer Coetl-tal IMU. .....rcll U.it .Z75. loal .. r, CO: U.l.
.0.,.1''-t of c-rct~, laUoul Oceaaic ud A~dc Aa:iaiatraU•,
o..ur C.t'-t.l sa..u IDYi,_tal ........ t rnp-•.
..._ Tedlotcal ~u. ... , Offdon O,.nton c-ttt.M. 19n. ~on .... -
... ul Aapecta of ProdKfll V.ten fn. Oil aDd Gea b\racu-. O,.ratiou
t• OffsMr• aM Coaatal Vat.r.
lt.tMD, U..,.r, ... Jooot, IK. 1177. lodiek lllaM lo...-cb O..tcr CoatU..-
tel Sbdf t.pact lt..,. 3 lob. KMJ.ak, AI: lodiak Ill.., ..........
la!tb, I. A., 1:. J. Laafeer, aM I. C. J .... lt7t. "OUeptll lhk IU.aiai·
••U• Tit.~ qpttaol tract lolectioe." leUoul Wtaten lenic:e Coa•
fanaca, ., 1-9, 197t. IPtrratc•l ......... r of on ia tlnU. lori,.._.t .
Prtacet.oa, IJ: Priacot• Uaiftr:att,..
a.ttla, I. L., J. C. Pun•, ud J. A. c-ne.. lt76. "Ante lffacta•Pactfic
lerrtaa loe ia tJMo Gulf of .Ueeka." laYi,_tal Aaee.-t of t.U
Alaska Corati.Matal •u. Piul leporU of Priaci,.l laftlti .. ton.
Vol. 1 1 lffecte of C.t.aa1au.ta. .....I'd Uait JU. lolalder, CO: 0.1.
Depn'-t of c-rct~, •uoul Oceaaic ud A~,Urtc AdaiailtroU-.,
o.ur Coati.Mat.l IMlf lln'i,_tal ._..._, troan-. ,.. 325·344.
.....,.i.Mr, I. ud J. 1. liaeoM. ltlt. a--icallcolou • ._Yon., 1.1.:
&c:acleaicrr ....
Sowl, L. v .... J. c. lort.-.k. Jt74. -....trdi-Alaeka'a liNt halect.M
a.a .. rco. • Tru .. cttou of lertb a..dcaa Wildlife •ttoul leao.reM
Coaferwace. Vol. lt, p. 10.
....t.lll, R. G .... 1. C. ......... lt72. ..,._ T....ta aa Ieee,.. ot fl ..
Statiou ud tU h.laeic a.. Vaft lpt.." Tlt.o Gnat &luka &art~wtuU
of 1964, OcuMtr-.., ... Coeetallqi.Mertq. Va~, DC: lotioul Ac...., of lc:inca, pp. Sl-110.
.,.ldUc, D. J. 1964. ~ ... u .. hedt.c le'tta of hr a..h, 1u Liou,
... ledor ... 11 oa t.U lrittllll Col•ia Cont. rt ... rtaa a.e .. rcb
loard of C...... t.lloti• •· 146.
Traaky, L., 1. Plaq, .., D ... n.au. 1977. lori,_tal lt .. iol of loclileak
... Low I' Cook JDlet. Vol. 1. 1..-ct of Oil oe. tM loc::t..ak lay Iarine.•
... t. ADc:Mrap, AI: Allaka Departaaat of Flab aDd a-, ltarU. C...tal
lebiUt lleaaa-nt. '
Tro,.w, w. A .... J. ....... 196S. ...uaa ud P ..... cti9ity of 1o1• laaln
.. tJMo lodiak latioul Vildlif• lef .. , Alaaka. AU. Vol. 12, pp.
6]6·631.
Tryclt, .,_., ... layu Jaat ... n. 1t72. IM1ak Ialud lo~ ~......_he
Drnlopant Pl•. locliak, AI' lo41U hl ... lorouaft..
V.I. Dopart.nt of Aariaalt.an, ronet lomco, a.pa lattoul Ponet.
1979. t .... tory of lat.ol'fntin Pacilitioa ud O,,rta1Un: a.pcb
lattoul ronet. (Dreft)
U.S. Oepar'-Dt of Aarlatltan, ronat len"ice, a.pcll latioul ForHt.
1979. 1971 r .... tory of b!etiaa lecrnti• oe tM a.pc11 laUoul
Foroet. (Droft)
U.S. Deport..at of qriaa1tare, Fonat loi'Yica. 197t. s-.ry fiul 1891-
~tal IU~t: aoa•tne Ane leoriow ad 1 .. 1 .. u-. (IAII II).
U.S. Dfpar'-Dt of Alricalt•r•, Fonat S.t9'1ca u4 u.tnnitJ of AbelLo,
Aartnltural b:poc'-t lt.attoa. 1979. a.pcll Laad ttoua-nt. Plu:
lupply oad O..ad Aea••-t for a.e .. rns of tM a.pclill latioa.al Fonat.
U.S. Departaeat of t.be ANJ. AIWJ Cort• of lqiDHre, Aloeb Dtatrict, 1971.
leaat llnr lnin. Aacber.,., AI.
u.s. Depa"'-t of c-rct~, latioaal Oc .. tc ... A&aNpUI'iC ~atretioa,
Outer CoatU.Ul Sklf Aa ... ~t froar•· 1971. Ea9i~tal AI••••·
... , of u AcU" Otlfiel4 ia tbe lo..U.Utan Galf of Alaska. lod .. r,
co.
U.l. Dopar ..... t of c-l'n, latioul Oceaaic oad At.aapMric A*iailtnttoa.
1971. Lowr Cook Ialot IJatlilatlia lleport (Draft). loalder, CO.
U.l. Departaeat of c-rce, latioul Oqaaic ... Ataoa,....ric A*J.ahtratioa.
1979. Uait.ed ltat.ee Coast Pilot, 9Q 14itioa, ..,,_t ......,. ... 9.
U.S. Depai''-Dt of eo-reo, latioul Ocoutc ud A'-apberic AdllliaiatrotiOG,
Outec eoau ... ul u .. a .. at rroar•. 1979. "Drillt.q ..... or Pluida."
JuH.eu, AI:: .. rtq Soo-GIIlf of AlaNa Projoct Office. tllllpubUaM4.
U.S. Depa~t of e-cce, latioul Oce .. tc ud At~~Npbertc Adllliaiatr•ttoa.
1979. Proceedtap of a Worbllop .. ld•Ufic P..-1-lohUaa to Oceaa
Pollattoa. Boulder, CO: lotioul Oceaaic oad Ateoap~ric ~iDiatreUoa.,
IDYil'o...aUl a. ... rc• W;beratorin.
U.S. Depan.at of luru, Office of Tedllol.., I.,.cu. 197t. ...1 ... Cool
Field Deftl.,..at: Social lffocta aad ftlaaa-nt .Utera.tifta. Aa.cbora1e,
AI:: Al01ka Deputaeat of C~rco ud lcoooaic Drnel.,._t, Di•iltoa of
laoru aad Powr Dnelopaeat.
U.l ..... o c-ntM • lat.erior ... lanlar Affaire. 1176. "Tem. aM
o.dittou for 1.aa11 C..oU .. ti• aM .... _, La CoM lalet Ana ~Mer
U. Alaab •u .. Cllta httl-t Act aad Alaob lh~ &«.'"
l•lleU.ted o.c..Mr to, ti7S, aM clarifi .. &.pat )1, 1176. AKMra•,
AI: V.I . .O.,.r~t of tM laterier, ... n .. of l.aall .... _t, Di•ial•
of AbaU hti .. Clata lottl-t A« O,.raU-.
U.S • .O.,.rteeat of tile laterior. 1111. ·~abtl'atiH lotioul ..._.,
Procl_U_ qd F .. ual LIMe llau-t aM Policy &c:t Vit.WrMMll."
.., (kale lal,SOO,OOO). AKbora•• AI.
V.I. Dep.ln..t of U. Iatatior, At .. u PlaMiq Or-.. 1174. Jiul a-.1•
,_tel .. ct kat-t, ,,..,..... 18t..t lntoul Pu'k, At .. u.
U.l. a.p.n.et of tile lateriu, luaaa af l.aall ..,_.,. 1110. "'lr4ro-
cut.oaa ... DrUUq FbatU ia tM tlariM lll•tn.nt.• Ftul bYir.-•
-tel lh'--t: Pnpotecl Fi" leu OCI Oi 1 ud Gea LeaN lclledll1e,
........... I ...... lqtoo, DC.
U.l • .O.,.rteeat of tbe latertor, ........ of LoM tteua-at. lt71. Wl .. ne,.
laftatoi'J, ....... Policy, Dtrecu ... Procee.nt, aDd O.idaace fol'
c.Muttac Vil .. neaa r .... ury oa PdUc l.atMia.
0 .1. ar.,.ne.at of \1M lat8J'ior, left a• of LaDd lllaa-t, Ala aU Ou:t.er eo.u ... ut a.u Office. 1977. W.at.cn hlf of IMiiak, AlaoU O.&er
Coatian.tol •u Office Oil aM C:.t Leaae Bale 46. Draft laYir-tol
.. ct. lta'--t• Aaclaora•, AI.
U.S • .O.,.n.eat of U. Iat .... tor, .. nau of Laed lllu-t, Alaab Ou.ter
CoeUMatol IMU Office. 1t76. Cook lalet Fiaal llnir-.ul .. ct
lta"-l.· .......... I AI: en .... Vol ... ).
V.I. Dlplr\ent of tM Iat.erior, ....... af Laad ltlua ... llt, Au .. uc O.ter eo.u ... tal a.u Office. 1971. "DrilUq fluid•" rtaal Suppl-.c. t.e
llni,_aut Stau.at-Pnpooed 1t7t OCI Oil ud let LaaM lale lo. U
Offllten tlaa .. rt.ll AtluUc ltat01. ApfeDdi& 6 ... lork, 11.
U.l. Depar~t of U. letarior, Oaoloaical lu""f. Office of Dap.tJ Dt•ttin
Clttaf for Offalllora lliMrall le•tau... ttiO. n. Uaa of loot A•eUaU•
aM Safest fecllaololiH (lAST) lhtrtq 01 l ud Geo Drilltac ... Prodaci ..
O,.rnt ... of tile O.tor C..tiaeat.al IMlf (OCS); Proar• for r..,t-.u.q
hcttoa 21('), OCI Laads Act -.....to of 1971. Jaat•, YA.
V.I. Depar~t of tiM latortor, .. u ... l Park Sardce, Alaak.l Pla•UC an.,.
1173. lataot latioul Park, Alaok.l, tleatel' Pl... AacMra•, AI.
V.I. Deport.at of tile Jaterior, •uoul Park hnice. lt74. lloetlaly Mlt.c
U.. leporu. AK~torap, AI: ••Uoul Partr; Se"ice, Alaoka lute Office. ._..u ......
V.I • .O.,.rt.eat of tile Iat.edor, latioul Pull; Sanica. 1910. Pr.,.....
Altenatlft ...._aht.ratift ktiou for JU_. lattoul VU41Uo let.,.,
AlaaU. Draft a..i~tal SU'-Dt. Watlliqt .. , DC: U.l. 0.....-t
Priattac Office.
u.s. r•nl IMru lep.let•I"J c-uat•. Office of PtpeH• aod Pro4llcer
leeaalau... 1971. flAil laYtl'.--tal .. ct IU'--'It: Vettara UIO
Project (PuUtc Alaab UIG &.eociat.aa DocMt h. CP-7S•Ifl0) 3 Vola.
VaUi.aat.oa, DC.
Uai.,.nit.r of AlaoU, laatituta of Soctll aod lcoaoatc a. .. arcb. 1973. "Ate
... lace br In a..ract.ariaUu of Alaoka' 1 Vt.ll•• ...,.latiou." Alaotl
a..tow of lUI'--•• ... lc...-tc C..diUou. Vol. I, h. 2. Mdonp,
Alt.
llaiftnitJ af Alaab, lea Gr .. t Proar•· 1910. Lower CoM lalot. Petnl-
Dnetop.eoat knartoa: eo-rcial ,, .. , .. ladt~~C.I"J ADatpil, recaical
lleport 44. Mellor••• AI: U.S. Dlplrt.eat of tJMo latertor, a.ra•• of
La ... Baoa-t, Alltk.l O.ur Caattont.at lbelf Office.
Uat.,.nity of ru... 1977. la•iro ... ul Studiaa·lwt.Mn Tnas O.t..ar toe•
t.iMDtal ... u 111 tlooitoriq Proar•·
Yn ct ... , I. ud A. I. h,.nr. 1953. TM PrMKUoa of lall .. t lgt • tile
St.. J .... Spwatoa laak off \1M co .. t of lrittell Cot...,ta ltl5 .. 1946 .
..,.rt ef tJIIeo Jatef'Utioul fiNortaa c-tuio-.. lo. 19. Seattle, VA.
Viet .. ,., a. 1910. A SoMriaa ~~~"•••• • lpUlt. on .., •• J..,,...l,
Aqut 11, 1910. p. ]7.
Wet.lr;taa, V. A. aDd V. 1. lcMvill. 1176. lipt WMle FHdl .. aod lat ...
&aula. J .. nat of -lou. Vol. SJ, h. 1, pp. Sl•66.
v. ... ~~eu, 11. P. 1976. PnllaiUI"J .... rt. oe lea•lt.a of lori~hl Pn·
tecUM Actiou ud lld• tloaitorlal tt.aa•r-ts of \1M bpta•ho leleo ..
of tiM! G. F. farril fr• tJMo tt.d of ~cbaal. a.y. a\aclterap, AI: Alaak.l
n.pan.at. of Fiala aM 0.., !latiM .... Co.aJhl labit.at Neoaa-at Sactt011.
W....llnl, "· P., at at. 117S. la~k a.,: A lt.at•• laport. ADcbora••
AI: Alaaka Depor..._t of FlU ... "-· !Iori• ud co .. ul lobitat
lllua-at SeetiN.
VIner, r. ud hvl.N, I. S. 197S. 1M Patt.en af Larp Scale ladfo..-ia
tJMo l.a ... hDd lalt (Iallie Sea). tlariM Gftlop. Vol. 19, Pf· 29•$9.
tl1ait.MJ, J. aM 1:. D. leldn.. IHO. "laU,..t.rlc llap of \1M o.ur c..u .. tal a.u of lbellkof ltratt, Al11ka.'" Opn File laport 10·1031. U.l.
Dlpar\ent of \1M latarior, O.ol01tcal a......,, Mcbora,., M.
111aitMJ'1 J., &. D .......... L. LJMd. 1110. "IMplcb _,of Qutenei"J
Ghcial .. tlariM la41_.h, Outer Coati ... tal Sbalf, Sklikof Streit,
Alaata.• 0,00 file .... rt 10•20)4. U.S. n.par~t. of tbe l•tertor,
Oeolo1icd au.....,, ADcbon•• AI.
tlatttle, 1:. J ..... "· 11-r. 1970. '"l•tnact.lou let .... o ..... ,_ ....
Dioaolft• Orpaic lubat.u.ce• ia tiM Sea: Cltnlical Auucttoa.a of tlae
:::!!!~ ... ':!::~·&. ~~'i£:, t~~:~~:.. ~·t,_~"~'~:=-:~c A~:~r iD
Preoa, pp. 4t!t*IOJ.
U.l • ..,.n.nc. of tile laterior, latiaul tan lo"la, &1ub Pl-.1aa .....
1174. PnpoHd laWOi •uoul Pan., Alaab. rtul lllri~tal ltate-o
..-. VaM.iqt.ea, DC: U.l. o.....-c. Priattaa Office: 1174 o-M4·7JO.
U.l' Depan.nc. of u. Iat.er.ior I U.l. PiM ... vn•ute hrric., leut lott ... t
-.. .................. 1970. lout bU-1-.. ..... llute< Ploo .
.... ,,AI,
U.S. ar.,.n.eat of tM laurier, V.I. Piall ud Vll•Ute hn"tce, Dhilt• ol
c:..t.racUa1 _. O..ral lenten. 1971. •-.n/eo.t ... ct.l & ~eor~..., of
tile lffactt,_aa of •ural ..._,.cea ProtacU• Dtartac Patnl._ Deftl•
.... t-Laade La Alaab.'"
V.I. Dep.lr\ent of tM Jaurtor, U.l. rtM ud VlldlUa h"lce. ltJI.
... UlJ MUc Uae .O.,.rta. &odiU, AI: lodialr; •ttoul Wldlife .. ,... ...... u ......
U.l . .0.,.1't8at of tJMo lateriar, V.I. Filb ud Vtldltfe hnice, W.lten
Alasb lcelOiitat lorricn Dt.•ilioa. 1979. "'nat at."r rtau: A
Pr.,. .. t for Deli1MU• 11 u Ana lllrtti .. .,.cbt Atu.u •. '" Dl'aft..
Aaclaor••· AI.
V.I. DlfartMat. of U. laterior, U.S. Fl•lll aDd VU.lUa hrrice. ltiO. Draft
lawi,_t.at l ... ct. .... 1--.t. Alaatl laU" Chialhff ...........
Altei'Mti" ...._ailuetiww ktiou. Ili-.a •uoul Vtt•Ufa ..., ..
At .. u. Va .. iqt.oa, DC •
U.l. Dlplrteeat of tile laUrier, U.l. rtU ud Vll4tife hmc.. IMO.
......... AlaoU P•toa•ta lat.ioul VUdlUa lef .. a.wt...-c.al bpact.
lt.&"-t· '
U.S. lawi,_tal ProtecU• Apacy. lt76. Dnel.,...t ~t. for Iateri8
rtul lffl...C. LiaitaU• o..t .. liMI •od Propoee4 .. lloarce Pedomaan
ltudardl for tiM OU ud let latracttoa Cat.a10ry. W.Mtqtoa, DC: U.S.
&a.ir-tal Prot.ac:ttoa Apw:J, Office of Vlter ... lauriou llat.erlall
lffl .... t O.tdalt ... DhiaiOII..
U.S. llni,_tol Pntactin Apacy. J917. At8oopMric laittt ... t ....
Offallilon Oil ... II• P...,..cUoa ud Dnel.,....t. .....rdl Tri ... le Pad,
IIC:: U.l. lawt,_tal Prot.ac:U011. ..._,, OfUca of Air Weat.c ......_t.
Office of Air QuaUtr rt .. t.aa ... lt .... N•.
U.l. a..t~t.al P.nt.ac:Uoa ....,. 1977. Off..._n Oil ... leo btracU•:
AD. a...t,_t.ala..iow. Ciaciaaati, 01: U.S. llni~t.al Prot.KU•
Aency Office of ... oudil aad Dnel.,._t., J.._trlll lowi,_Ul
.... ardt. Laboratory.
D. I .... it-hi Proucttoa ....,. 1971. MblMt lloDUoriq h.idaUae•
for p,.....u. of lt.pific .. t Det.ertoraUoa. a. ... rcb fl"iaaal• Park, IIC::
V.I. laYt..-atal Prot.ecUoa Apacy, Office of Air _. Waste ltlu-t.,
Office af Alr QuaUtJ Pluat ..... ltaedai'U,
U.l. lln'h-tal Prot.ccu .. &e-CJ'. 1171. Ala•tl lrlt,_ul QualltJ
PnfU•. laat.Lla. til: U.l. lln't....-t.at Pro'-KU-. Apw:J, lett-. I.
vt ... , J. A. 1976. ec-ttr Stnact•n, IH.otrikUoa, ud I•t.ernlatt .. ll.ipe
of flirt• linll ia tJMo O.lf of Alaeb. --.1 bporta of Prt.IDC't,.l
t ... attaotora. Vol. Il .... auct..U.tt 101. loutder, CO: U.l. Dlplrt ..
_., of c-rca, latt ... l Oceaalc _. A.....,UI'ic AlaiaistraUoa, O.ter
eoau ... ut ru..u a..t~ut &a .. a_t Proar•, p. 20.
VilMI', C. G. 1969. lt.otostcll Aapocte of Water Pell•U•. lpri..,iel., 11.:
CMI'l•• c. no-•. hbu ........
VUM, r. ud P. V • ...,.... 19~4. '"J'Iiarattoa 1Dd Food of \1M .. rt.Mn hr
..... • Trau. 1ttll •~ ~r.icoa Wildlife Coafenece. pp. 430-440.
Vtt.-, &. v. 1170. "111llt fuicity of OUspill Dt.,.ra .. u t.a \1M ._...,_ ud
La...,.. of s--tlariM rt ... " foreip Aarinltlln Or ... laatiN (FAD)
Teclmicll Coafarnce .. llertu Poll•U• aDd tt.1 lffoct. .. Uri .. le ... rcu
... Fitbi... Dec-"r 9·11, lt70. Fll: .. 170/1·4$. 11oM, ltolJ.
VelMa, A. 1172 ......... ell; Wbah." lalaea Wbalea .ia laat.an .. ~ hcific
ud Arctic V.ten, A. Bae4, ad. S.at.tle. 1M: Pacific Seardl Prooo, pp.
31-42.
Vote-a, A. 1971. ........ck 'Iaale. • •riaa -11 of l .. tara .. ..u. Pacific
ud Arctic vauro, D. lale,, ... leattta, WA: Pacific S.arclll h'no, pp.
46•54.
VooMrd·Clrdo Coaault.aott. 1977. Oil Taraiaal _. tlel'iaa larvice liM litH
ta tiM lodta• hleDd lor.p. Jueau, AI: AlaaU Depan.eat. of c-ity
•• RaiiOUt Affalrt, Di.tlio-. of c-tty Plaaatq.
Wooclvar4•CI,. Coaoultaats. 197t. Prdt.iury O..niew of UG S.iti.aa ia \1M
lcHiialr; lila ... loroqla. J .. au, AI: Ahttl Depert..Mat of ec-tt, _.
Ja1ioa.11 Affairs, Dht.aioa of C-.attJ tl ... tq.
VDo4hfant•Cl,.a. Couultaat.a. 1910. Draft Fiaal Porto ... la..-on Pl .. for
laui Peaiuula kroqlil. Soldotu, AI: .._i Pai.Da•l• loroqb Pl .. iq
O.,•rtMat..
Wpo, N. 197). Tovarda a ~ysiul UadentaDdlq of tJ11eo larthquke freq._cy
DittrtkUoa.. ~teal: Jo•rul loyal &atroloat.cal Society. Vel.
ll, pp. 341-)59.
Ziacvla, I. P. 197~. '"lffecu of Drtlltq Oparatiou ia tbe tlariM llnii'OID·
••t." &avir.-.tal Alpacta of Cbeeicol U.e ia Well Dri lliq Oparat.to-.1.
C..fer•c• ProcNdt.... Walhia&too, DC: U.S. llwl~tal ProtecU•
4pDCJ1 Office of To:~ic S.a.ataana. IPA·S60/l-7S•004, pp. 431·4~.
APPENDIX A
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS AND
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZED TO
DEVELOP THE ALTERNATIVES
INCLUDING THE PROPOSAL
AND
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CASES
Introduction
The following pages present oil and gas development scenarios which describe
the proposal, as well as the three alternatives to the proposal. These
scenarios form the basis for the following sections: Description of the
Alternatives Including the Proposal (sees. II.A. and II.B.), Basic Assumptions
Regarding Causes of Possible Impacts Resulting From the Alternatives Including
the Proposal (sec. IV.A.I), and Estimation of Direct Employment and Description
of Basic Assumptions Utilized (Appendix B).
The mean case of the proposed action is the focus of an environmental analysis
throughout this environmental impact statement. For this reason, a descrip-
tion of the mean case will not appear in this appendix. Tables indicating
time periods for facility investment and construction will be displayed for
all cases.
Exploration Field Development and Production Assumptions: The following
exploration and production assumptions were used in constructing the five
scenarios portrayed in this EIS. These assumptions are generalized and have
application to all scenarios heretofore discussed.
In order for development to be economically feasible, the 95 percent resource
level should be discovered in at least one or two fields.
Drilling would occur year-round.
Exploratory drilling would require heavy duty semisubmersibles; however,
jack-ups could be used in selected locations. Drillships would probably not
be used due to their inability to maintain their location during the violent
storms Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait experience.
Each exploratory well is assumed to require an average of 180 days to complete.
The average vertical depth of an exploratory well will be 16,000 feet. For
production wells the average depth will be 10,000 feet.
Marine support activities for the exploratory phase of OCS activity would be
launched initially from existing facilities at Nikiski, and future facilities
at Homer. No marine support activities are seen to come from Chiniak Bay.
Air support for lease sale
marine support facilities.
most definitely during the
Lions airfield.
60 would primarily issue from airfields near the
Some air support during the exploratory phase and
developmental phase, would issue from the Port
The existing industrial infrastructure at Nikiski (excluding Homer) is adequate
to support all future sale 60 support activities.
Well workovers may begin in the fifth year of each wells' operation, and
proceed on a four-or five-year cycle after that. One workover rig per plat-
form would do the work.
1
One service well for every four production wells will be drilled.
One rig per production platform (though not necessarily the same rig) would
accomplish all production-related drilling.
The type of production platform which would be emplaced in the Cook Inlet/
Shelikof Strait lease area would be determined on site-specific criteria.
Several platform types could be employed: guyed tower, catenary, and tension-
leg. However, the type of platform most probably used will be a pile-driven
steel tower engineered for the rigorous requirements of the sale area. The
platforms would be built on the U.S. west coast or in Japan, and would be
towed to the drill site. Platform crews for operation onboard at any one time
would peak at:
Minimum Case
Mean Case
Maximum Case
100 persons
170 persons
222 persons
Offshore production facilities inadequate for the sale area are subsea comple-
tions, gravel islands, and steel and/or concrete gravity structures.
No platforms would be strictly utilized for pipeline systems.
Oil production for the northern portion of the sale area would be pipelined
directly to an oil storage facility located in the Anchor Point/Stariski Creek
area. Oil from the Shelikof Strait would be pipelined through the Kupreanof
Straits to Chernof Point, and then overland to an oil storage terminal located
near Talnik Point. The size of these terminals would range from 120-170 acres
each.
*Due to the climate of the Kizhuyak-Marmot Bay area, the Talnik Point facility
would probably require a breakwater.
All gas production would be pipelined to Anchor Point and the overland to an
existing LNG facility located at Nikiski.
Storage facilities at all terminals would equal five to ten days of production;
most probably six days.
Gas production would probably be treated on the platforms and pipelined to
shore. Any gas condensates will probably be reinjected into the formation.
All gas produced is assumed to be associated gas.
There would be no onshore oil booster stations. There may be one 40 acre gas
compressor station located in the Stariski Creek/Anchor Point area.
Oil pipeline diameters will range from 18 to 26 inches, with 22 inch used in
the mean case. Gas pipeline will range from 10 to 26 inches with 18 inch used
in the mean case.
2
No offshore pipeline laying problems are antic~pated. Pipeline3burial distur-
bance would equal between 4,000 and 6,000 yds. with 5,000 yds. judged to be
applicable for the mean case.
The price of the produced LNG delivered to California would, in the mean case,
amount to approximately $5-$7 per Mcf. This figure represents approximately
$2-$3 for the cost of production and $3-$4 for the cost of shipment.
The wellhead price for oil (given world conditions at the time of preparation
of this draft) would equal $25-$30 per barrel. The price delivered to the
west coast of the United States would run some $28-$32 per barrel.
Supply boats and helicopters would move supplies and personnel between shore
and platforms. The combined air and water fleet would range between 3-4 units
per platform. The fleet size is dependent on the phase of OCS activity.
During a later period of production, the fleet size may decrease to one to two
units for every two platforms.
Onshore pipeline, on the Kenai Peninsula and on Kodiak could be laid at 2
miles per day.
Offshore barges vary in their ability to lay pipeline. Depending on climate
and length of the laying season a barge can emplace 50-75 miles of pipe in a
season.
Standard pipe lay barges can operate in wave heights up to 5 feet. As the
weather throughout the proposed sale area is generally inclement, it is pro-
bable that larger lay barges, such as the "Viking Piper," will be used in
order to minimize downtime.
Exploration wells (16,000 ft depth) would require up to 1,050 tons of crushed
rock material to be used for drilling mud. Of that tonnage, at least 825 tons
would be barite. Exploratory wells would 3also require up to 525 tons of
cement and produce approximately 375 yds. of drill cuttings.
Production wells (10,000 ft depth) would require up to 750 tons of crushed
rock material to be used for drilling mud. Of that tonnage, at least 600 tons
would be barite. Production wells 3would also require up to 370 tons of cement
and produce approximately 270 yds. of drill cuttings.
As the nature of the geological formations of the Shelikof Strait area is only
partially known, it is difficult to estimate the amount of formation water
which may be contained in the hydrocarbon reservoirs. Figures gleaned from
the production statistics of the upper Cook Inlet oilfield indicate that as of
1978 one barrel of formation water was being produced for every two barrels of
oil.
Estimated Activit Minimum Scenario: Exploration is
expected to begin and continue through with a total 11 exploration
and delineation wells drilled. No more than two drill rigs are assumed to be
working during any year. Jack-up rigs could be used in favored locations;
however, given the area's strong currents and deep water, semisubmersibles
would be employed in most cases.
3
If initiated, the development phase would begin in 1985 with the installation
of a pile-driven steel tower platform. In 1986, the second of the two plat-
forms forecast for this scenario, would be emplaced. By 1989, some 96 produc-
tion and service wells would be drilled. Full production would begin in 1986
with a peak production of 55.3 MMbbls of oil and 96.8 Bcf of gas occurring in
1990.
Pipeline construction would begin in 1985 and continue through 1988. A total
of 230 miles of gas and oil pipe would be emplaced by either a reel or lay
barge. See table A-6 for a breakdown.
Oil and gas production is expected to begin in 1987 with oil production ceasing
in 2009 and gas in 2010. The total life of the field is expected to be 23
years.
Pipeline diameters utilized for oil transport would be 18 inches for oil and
10 inches for gas.
The facility construction scenario for the minimum case closely parallels that
which was outlined for Alternative V. The minimum case scenario stipulates
the location of a small hydrocarbon reservoir in the lower Cook Inlet.
App~oximately 160 miles of offshore oil and gas pipe would be constructed to a
landfall located between Stariski Creek and Anchor Point. At the landfall, an
oil storage terminal would be constructed. The terminal would be approxi-
mately 100 acres in size, and would contain: loading facilities for tankers
of the 100,000 dwt class, ballast water treatment facilities, reservoir tanks,
and a small gas compressor station. Oil storage tanks should have a total
capacity of between 400,000 and 600,000 barrels of oil.
From the oil storage/transportation facility, natural gas would be piped 70
miles overland (along the coast) to the Kenai/Nikiski area. At that point the
gas would be liquefied at either the existing Phillips LNG plant or the pro-
posed Pacific LNG facility. From Nikiski, the gas would be shipped via LNG
tankers to the west coast of the United States.
Marine support activities would be launched from the Kenai/Nikiski area.
Existing dock facilities are such that no expansion would be necessary to
undertake the volume of activity forecast in the minimum case scenario.
Air support would issue from both the Kenai/Nikiski area as well as the Port
Lions airfield.
Due to the development of the upper Cook Inlet and the exploratory activity
required by sale CI, many oil companies (Marathon, AMOCO, Union, ARCO) have
constructed supply yards and warehouses in the Kenai area. Unless a company,
thus far foreign to the Cook Inlet, is involved in a hydrocarbon strike, it is
doubtful that any major addition to existing supply facilities will occur.
Estimated Activity Based Upon the 5 Percent (Maximum) Scenario: Exploration
is expected to begin in 1982 and continue through 1987 with a total of 28
exploration and delineation wells drilled. A maximum of four drill rigs would
4
be operational during the peak year of exploratory activity (1984). Jack-up
rigs could be used in shallow water; however, semisubmersibles are preferable
throughout most of the sale area.
If initiated, the development phase would begin in 1985 with the installment
of three pile-driven (supported) steel tower platforms. In 1987, the seventh
and last of the platforms would be installed. By 1992, some 295 production
and service wells woul9 be drilled. Production would begin in 1987 with a
peak production of 124.9 million barrels of oil and 218.6 Bcf of gas occurring
in 1993.
Oil and gas production is estimated to begin in 1987 with oil production
ceasing in 2013 and gas ceasing in 2014. Total life of the field is expected
to be 27 years.
Pipeline construction would begin in 1984 and continue through 1987. A total
of 435 miles of gas and oil pipe would be emplaced by either a reel or lay
barge. See table A-7 for a further discussion.
Standard pipe lay barges can operate in wave heights up to 5 feet. As the
weather throughout the proposed sale area is generally inclement, it is pro-
bable that larger lay barges, such as the "Viking Piper," will be used in
order to minimize downtime.
Pipeline diameters utilized for hydrocarbon transport would be 26 inches for
both oil and gas pipe.
The facility construction scenario for the maximum case stipulates the loca-
tion of large oil and gas reservoirs in both the Cook Inlet and the Shelikof
Strait. Two oil terminals would constructed. One would be located in the
Stariski Creek/Anchor Point area and the other near Talnik Point on the shores
of Marmot Bay.
The oil terminals would occupy about 170 acres each, with the Anchor Point
terminal having an additional 40 acres for a gas compressor station. The
terminal would contain loading docks (for tankers of the 100,000 dwt class),
ballast water treatment facilities, and reservoir tanks. The tanks at each
terminal should have the capacity to store up to 900 Mbbls of oil.
The oil pipeline which would be constructed to the Anchor Point facility would
pass entirely underwater. The oil pipeline to Talnik Point would pass through
the Kupreanof Straits from Shelikof to a landfall at Chernof Point. From the
landfall it would reach overland some ten miles to the Talnik Point oil terminal.
All gas produced within the Cook Inlet and the Shelikof Strait would be piped
to Anchor Point. Once reaching shore at Anchor Point, the gas pipe would
travel overland to the LNG plant(s) located at Nikiski.
Gas and oil resources would be split evenly between the facilities located on
the Kenai Peninsula and those located on Kodiak. Each group would receive 500
MMbbls of oil and 900 Bcf of gas over the life of the field.
5
Marine support for all phases of OCS activity would be launched from the
Kenai/Nikiski area. Existing Nikiski dock facilities would be adequate during
the production phase of OCS activities; however, some expansion would be
necessary to meet logistics requirements during the exploratory drilling
stage.
Air support would issue from both the Kenai/Nikiski area as well as Port Lions
on Kodiak Island.
Due to the development of the upper Cook Inlet and the exploratory activity
required by sale CI, many oil companies {Marathon, Union, AMOCO, ARCO, etc.)
have constructed supply yards and warehouses in the Kenai area. The full
import of the maximum development scenario may cause some expansion {amount
unknown) to existing supply facilities within the Kenai area. However, unless
a company, thus far foreign to the Cook Inlet is involved in a hydrocarbon
strike, it is doubtful that any major addition to existing supply facilities
will occur.
6
Tablf' A-1
Lowf'r Cook lnlf't/Shf'likof Strait
95 Pf'rCf'Dl Scf'nario (tfini••• Casf')
Estl.atf'd 0..vf'1or-.-nt Scenario and Schedule of Jnvf'st.f'nl and Prndu~tion
Exploralinn and PlatforMa and Production and
Dt-linatio2/Wf'lh Equlr-.-nt 3 / Sf'rx'cf' Weus
~ .. ...!1~----~o, _c~~-~--~!.1! __ -...!!>~.!'-~__!_o~~t-Ria•
Salf'-Sf'ptPMhf'r 19111 1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
19811
19M
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
191)5
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Tot11l 11
11/ 10.9 1
Ji/ 32.7 2
4-43.6 2
2 21.8 2
10.9
119.9 2
302.7
302.7
605.4
16
24
28
28
96
59.2 2
88.8 2
103.6 2
103.6 2
355.2
Worko11r Onshore Supply Trunk
Wells-Supp71t Facili.,ea Pipelines 91
No. Rip No.-_Coso_:t,_-__ ...:ff::.i~l:..:e:..:•::..._..:C~o:.:•c.=tc..--
18
18
Ill
18
111
18
18
18
111
18
Ill
18
18
18
18
15
13
10
308
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 22.4
22.4
135
65
30
230
373
179
83
635
llvf'rap:e Annual Production
302.7
302.7
All coats are "as inatallrd" in •illions of 1979 dollars.
Sour~f': USDJ 1979a; 1\hRka OCS OHi~r, 1979;
Pf'ak Production (t!bhh/d and ltttcf /d)
Note: Footnotrs for all t"hlf'R arP Ji11trd on Sf'par .. tf' ahrrts at POll of all tables.
33.3
32.7
43.6
697-5
1154.5
171.8
103.6
103.6
2,040.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
6.7
24.6
43.4
50.2
44.3
35.2
211.2
23.0
19.1
16.1
13.8
12. I
10.8
9.9
9.1
11.6
8.2
7.8
7.6
7.4
6.6
4.6
2.2
0.5
401.0
7.6
211.0
411.8
55.3
47.3
35.8
27.0
20.4
15.4
11.7
11.8
6.7
5.0
3.8
2.9
2.2
1.6
1.2
0.9
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.1
-o-
332.0
14.4
151.5
13.3
49.0
115.3
96.8
112.11
62.5
47.2
35.7
27.0
20.4
15.4
11.7
11.8
6.7
5.0
3.11
2.9
2.2
1.6
1.2
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.1
5111.0
24.2
26'i.2
Table A-2
Lowf!r Cook lnlct/Shcllkof Strait
H~an Sc~nario (Alternative I)
F.sti•ated Develop..,nt ScenArio and Schedule of lnve"llaf!nt and Production
Exploration And Platfo~a and Production and
Delln~ttio2/Wel1R F.qui~nt 31 Serx}ce We!}•
:te_a!:__ _ _!~~ : __ ~i_as__~:-~::_~...:..=:____f~-·~!.8•
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1991
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Sa1~-s~pte•ber 1981
31/ 31.2 2
4l/ 41.6 3
4-41.6 3
3 31.2 2
2 20.8
Tot a I 16 166.4
2
4
302.7
605.4
302.7
1,210.8
26
42
42
42
42
195
96.2
155.4
155.4
155.4
155.4
3.7
721.5
All costa are "as lnRta11Pd" in •illiona of 1979 dollArs.
Sourc": USDJ 1979a; AJa~okA OCR Offire, 1979;
2
4
4
4
4
WorkoX1r Onshore Supply Trunk
Wells-Surp~Jt F"cilt5;es Pipelines 91 Tifi11nah II/ Tohl Oreutlnll Oil
No. Rigs No.-Coat_-__ -"H=il_!~Coa~_::: __ No~--"-o_!!l_ ~_!nveRt..,n_!_ ___ _!:o!_~---~bla
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
30
25
20
12
12
624
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
22.4
145
190
65
545
714.2
245
2 605.4
22.4 400 1,504 2 605.4
Averaae Annual Production
Peak Production (HbbiR/<1 ancl Htfd/d)
';3.6
41.6
41.6
878.9
2014.8
703.3
155.4
155.4
155.4
3.7
4,210.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
6.6
24.7
50.4
75.4
88.5
86.3
73.4
58.9
47.9
39.6
33.4
28.6
25.0
22.3
20.3
18.7
17.5
16.6
16.0
15.5
Jlo. 4
12.2
8.9
5.2
2.2
0.5
810.0
7.6
28. I
56.6
81.9
96.8
91.9
75. I
56.8
42.9
32.4
24.5
18.5
14.0
10.6
8.0
6.1
4.6
3.5
2.6
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.1
-o-
670.0
26.8
265.2
Gall
Rd
13.3
49.1
99.1
14h.8
169.5
160.9
131.4
99.4
75. I
56.8
42.?
32.5
24.5
18.5
14.0
10.6
8.0
6. I
4.6
3.5
2.6
1.8
I. I
0.6
0.2
0. I
1173.0
45. I
461 •. 4
Table A-3
Lower Cook lnlet/Shelikof Strait
5 Percent Scenario (H"xi-Case)
Esti.ated Develop.ent Scenario and Schedule of lnvest~nt and Pro~uction
Exploration Rn~ Platfor•s and Production and Workog1r Ons~ore Supply Trunk
Delinatio21wells Equi~nt 31 Serx~ce We!}• Wells-Supp~~t Facili5}es Pipelines 91 TyB1inals II/ Total Operating Oil G"s
!ear ____!!'!..:___Cos ~__l!_i.!~! ___ No. Cost._-_ ___;N::;o::._:_. -_ _,c,o"'s-"t'----R"-.:.lis..,s,__---"N"'o'-'.--'-'R~i&!. No .'------"'Co,_s,_t,_-___ ,H,_,i_,l_,e,_s_:C:::o::.:a::..:t:_-__ _,_,N~o_,_. __ _,C~o,sc::t'----.. .! nve11_!_11ent. --~•-t __ .. !!!~!II .. J~d
1981 Sale-SPptembPr 19'11
1982 41/ 37.6 2 2 22.4 60.0 0.3
1983 6l/ 56.4 3 56.4 0.3
1984 9l/ 84.6 4 84.6 0.3
1985 6· 56.4 3 3 908. I 165 620 1584.5 0.3
1986 2 18.8 2 2 605.4 32 118.4 3 215 808.2 2 605.4 2158.4 0.3
1987 9.4 302.7 60 222.0 5 20 76. 610.3 6.6 7.6 13.3
19118 60 222.0 6 222.0 24.7 28. I 49.2
1989 60 222.0 6 222.0 50.7 57. I 99.9
1990 53 196. I 5 196.1 76.1 84.8 148.3
1991 16 59.2 2 53 6 59.2 95.9 105.3 184.3
1992 14 51.8 2 53 6 51.11 II 1.6 120.7 21 J. 3
1993 53 6 I 17.8 124.9 218.6
1994 53 6 110.6 I 13.7 199.0
1995 53 6 93.9 92.0 160.9
1996 53 6 76. I 69.5 121.6
1997 53 6 62.6 52.5 91.9
1998 53 6 52.4 39.1 69.4
1999 53 6 44.8 30.0 52.5
2000 53 6 39.0 22.7 39.6
2001 53 6 34.6 17. 1 30.0
2002 53 6 31.3 13.0 22.7
2003 53 6 28.8 9.8 17.1
2004 53 6 26.9 7.4 13.0
2005 53 6 25.5 5.6 9.8
2006 45 6 24.4 4.2 7.4
2007 37 6 22.9 3.2 5.5
2008 30 6 20.4 2.3 4.0
2009 15 6 16.8 1.6 2.8
2010 10 4 12.9 1.1 1.9
2011 8 3 9.0 0.1 1.1
2012 4 2 5.3 0.3 0.6
CONTINUED
.I
Exploration and
DPlinatio!1Wells
~No. Cost-__ !_ij!!.._
Table A-3--CONTINUED
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
5 Percent Scenario (Haxiau. Caae)
Esti .. ted Develo~nt Scenario and Schedule of Jnvest~nt and Production
Platforas and
Equi~nt 31
No. Cost-
Production and
Se'l;ce We~J•
No.-Cost-Ria•
Workoxyr Onshore Supply
Wells-Sup'71t Faciliife•
No. Ria• No.-Cost-
Trunk
Pipelines 91
Hiles Cost-
TtB1inala 111 Tntal Operalina
Jo.--Cost--Inves_~n-~t ___ C~o~•~t~
2013
2014
Total 28 263.2 6 1,816.2 295 1,091. 5 944 2 22.4 400 1,504 2 605.4 5,407.7
2.3
0.6
1226.0
All costs are "as installed" in •illions of 1979 dollars.
Source: USDI J979a; Alaska OCS Office, 1979;
Averaae Annual Production
Peak Productioa (Hbbls/d and HHcf/d)
Oil G ..
-~!c».!!...~_f_
0. I
-o-
to15.o
37.6
342.2
0.2
0.1
1776.0
63.4
598.9
Teble A-4
Lower Cook lnlet/Shelikof Streit
Alteraetive IV
Eati .. ted Develo~at Sceaerio end Schedule of Invest.ent end Productioa
Exploration end Phlfonu ead Productioa ead Worko17r Oaahore Supply Trunk
Delinetio2 Wells Equi~nt 31 serz;ce weu• Well•-SupP71t Fec1115;e• Pipeliaea 91 Ttfi7'188 h 11/ Total Opt' retina on Ges !~~~~~·t-' -~--No. Cost-No.-Co•t-Ria• No. Ria• No.-Coat-Hiles Coat-No.-Coet-lnve•t.ent Cost tttlbbla lcf --
1981 Sale-Septe.ber 1981
1982 21/ 16.8 2 2 22.4 39.2 0.2
1983 3l/ 25.2 2 25.2 0.2
1984 3-25.2 2 25.2 0.2
1985 2 16.8 229.9 150 426 672.7 0.2
1986 229.9 11 66.2 2 70 199 302.7 798.2 0.2
1987 28 103.6 2 30 15 188.6 6.6 7.5 13.2
1911 21 103.6 2 103.6 24.4 27.6 48.4
1989 2 7.4 7.4 39.1 43.7 76.6
1990 39.9 43.0 75.4
1991 15 2 32.4 33.9 59.5
1992 15 2 25.8 25.7 45.0
1993 15 2 20.8 19.4 34-1
1994 15 2 17 .I 14.7 25.7
1995 15 2 14.2 11.1 19.5
1996 15 2 12.1 8.4 14.7
1997 15 2 10.5 6.3 11.1
1998 15 2 9.2 4:8 11.4
1999 15 2 8.3 3.6 6.4
2000 15 2 7.6 2.7 4.11
2001 15 2 7. 1 2.1 3.6
2002 15 2 6.7 1.6 2.8
2003 15 2 6.4 1.2 2.1
2004 15 2 6.2 0.9 1.6
2005 12 2 6.0 0.7 1.2
2006 12 2 5.1 0.5 0.9
2007 I 2 5.1 O.J 0.6
2008 2 J.l 0.2 0.3
2009 1.0 0.1 0.1
2010 0.1 -o--o-
Tote I 10 84.0 2 459.1 76 211.2 244 2 22.4 250 710 302.7 1,860.1 316.5 260.0 456.0
Avereae AnA881 Production 11.3 19.11
All co•t• ere "•• installt'd" ln •U llo11s of 1979 dolhre. Peak Production (Hbbls/d e..d ""cf/d) 119.7 209.9
Sourrt': USDI 1979•; A1a•k• OCS Office, 1979;
Table A-5
Lower Cook lnlet/Shelikof Strait
Alternative V
Esti•ated Develo~nt Scenario and Schedule of Investment and Production
Exploration and PlatforMs and
Oelinatio21 Wells Equipment 31
!~a_!: __ N~_:___Cost-__ .!!_&!_ ___ '!_(). Cost-
Sale-Septrmber 19R1 1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Totd 6
1 1 / 9.5 I
2-19.0 2
2 19.0
9.5
57.0
2
2
190.7
190.7
381.4
Production and
Ser:;ce WeHs
No,-Co~t-Rigs
24
24
5
53
88.8 2
88.8 2
18.5
196.1
Worko~1r Onshore Supply
WPlls-Supp~~t Facili&;es
No. Rigs No.-Coat-
11
11
11
II
11
II
11
11
II
11
ll
II
II
11
7
5
2
168
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 22.4
2 22.4
Trunk
PipPlines 91
Hiles Cost-
135
65
30
230
373
179
83
635
Average Annual Production
Ty6'?inals ll/ Tot"! OpPratfnR Oil Gas
No.-Cos~_:_ __ !n_vcAl-!1_!_ __ _f~!_!.------~bls Bcf
2QJ .8
201.8
31.9
19.0
19.0
573.2
660.3
I 71.8
18.5
1,493.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
6.7
21.4
29.5
26.5
20.8
16.6
13.5
11.1
9.3
8.0
6.9
6. I
5.6
5.1
4.8
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.3
1.6
0.3
219.0
7.6
24.2
32.8
28.3
21.4
16.2
12.3
9.3
7.0
5.3
4.0
3.0
2.3
1.7
1.3
1.0
o. 7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
13. J
42.5
57.5
49.7
37.6
28.4
21.5
16.3
12.3
9.3
7 .o
5.3
4.0
3.0
2.3
1.7
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-o--o-
t8o.o 316.0
8.2 14.4
Peak Production (Hbbls/d and HHcf/d) 89.9 157.5
All costs are "as installPd" in Millions of 1979 dollars.
Source: USOJ 1979a; Alaska OCS OfficP, 1979;
!/ Years of exploratory WPll successes.
~I Cost of exploration and delineation wells are derived on a per unit basis fro• GS estiaates of total exploratory and expend~hle well Investment costs divi•led
by nuMber of wells:
:Cost--:Cost--:fl Exploratory :P/Unit
_ _8_':_.,.!!." rio: F.)(p_}~ra_~ion_:__~l'_<:!'di ture :_Tota 1 :Drilling We lis: Cost
Hinimum 74 46 190
Hean 98 69 167
Hax "B" 147 116 263
Alt IV 49 35 84
-~_! t _'{_~~-----~~ 23. 1 ~-4-'C7c.:·c::6_
ll
16
28
10
5
10.9
10.4
9.4
8.4
9.5
~I Platform costs (from Dames & Hoore, "Technical Report Number 43, Lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait Petroleu. Developaent Scenarios," Appendix B.)
All costs quoted from Dilmes and Hoore have been indexed fro. 1978 to 1979 at 12.1~ using the index of Finished Goods from October 1978 to October 1979, fro.
"EconoMy Week" (Citibank), November 5, 1979.
All RBB is associated. Platfonns are assumed to be Steel Jacket.
Fabrirntion Costs
Water Depth
100 ft.
300 ft.
600 ft.
$ 39.2 •illion
$ 72.9 Million
$201.8 million
Average WatP.r DP.pth (DaMes & Hoore, p.2):
Lower Cook 200 ft.
Sbelikof Strait 600 ft.
AssuMe half of platforms are in Cook/Shelikof, except Alternatives IV and V where all are in Cook.
Therefore, platfonn fabrication costs are:
\(39.2 + 72.9)/2 and \(201.8)=$128.9 •illion
for minimum, .can, and ••xi•u. and
(39.2 + 72.9)/2 $56.1 •illion for Alternatives IV and V
Installation Costs $6 7. 3 mi Ilion
Includes site prPparation,tow out, setdown, pile driving, module lifting, facilities hookup, etc.
Platfonn EquipMent and Facilities
Peak Cap~city (Hbbls/d)
25
25-50
50-100
53.8
67.3
106.5
~/ 0nf' IU~rvi<"f' Wf'tl pf'r four produc-tion vella ia asa.-ed.
~/ Avf'ra~f' Vf'rtiral df'pth 10,000 ft. (GS)
Coat= ·$3.7 •lllion/~11 (Da ... a & Hoore)
'?_/ w .. n workov,.rs ar" aas,_d tn hf'~in in thf' fifth year of earh ~ll'a opf'ration on av .. raa,., and proce"d on a four to flvf' yf'ar t•yrl... On" workov"r ril p<'r
platforM ta assu...d.
!I Exiating or Mini .. tly •odified aupply/support facilitif's ar" aaa..-ed to be uaed at Niktaki {bulk rarao) and Kodiak or Cape Chiniak (air aupport) for explor-
ation activity. Altf'rnatlvr potf'ntial .. rinf' supply/support facilitif'a inrlude HOMer and posaibly Seward. One or .arf' of these sitf'R or possibly a reMOte
sitf' within the Kodiak Island Borouah ia aaa.-ed to be expanded to arr ...... date developMent and produrtion artivitiea. On the ... an and .. xl• .. srenarioa, onP or
.are of thf' Cook Inlf't sitf's Ia ass1-..d to be expanded to arr~ate developMent and produrtion artivity in thf' northern portion of thf' sale area.
~/ The approxt .. te aaaeaaf'd valuation of OCS relatf'd farilitiea rurrently in plare at Yakutat, Cape Yakataga, and Seward was $~ •illion (sPP East"rn Gulf of
Alaaka, Sal" ~~ F.IS, FootnotP 3 to Tables A-1 throuah A-6). For this analysis the ffaure was doubled to arr~ate produrtion ancl indrxrd to 1979 for $11.2 •11-
lion/farllity.
~I Pipelln" lf'naths in •ilf's (BLH/OCS):
Oil
sc .. nario Onshore Offshore
HiniMIIM 0 80
Hran 10 160
Plaxi•u. 10 160
Hod 2 0 90
Hod 3 0 110
Pipe1inf' Dia.eter (I'.S):
Oil--18"-26" (For th" purpoae
Gas--10"-26" (For the purpoae
Pipf'11nr Costa {DaMes & Hoore)
Harine (Inrludes lluriaJ)
20"-29" $4.S •illion/•ile
10"-19" $3.0 Million/Mile
Under 10" $1. S Million/•lle
Onahore
20"-29"
J0"-19"
Under 10"
$ .8 •illion/•ile
$ .S •illion/Mile
$ .2 •illion/•ile
of
of
Gas
Onahorf' Offahotre
70 80
70 160
70 160
70 90
70 80
inveat.ent ralrulation -will a as-22" for all cases)
inveat.ent calrulation -will aaa..-e Ill" for all caaes)
10/ The oil te,..inal is ass•-d to be loratrd in the Anchor Point area, though use of the exiatt.ng Jlikiaki and Drift River facilities Ia posaihle df'pendina upon
the location of the produrlna fielda. (On the ... an and .. xi•u. arenarioa, another oil tf',..inal ia aas1a1ed in the Han.ot Ray arf'a.) Natural aas in all rases ia
assu.rd to be pipf'lined to rxiatina raparity in thf' Nikiaki arra (includina Pacifir Alaska's proposed LNG plant).
!_1/ Oil te..,.inal costs (Da-& & Hoore):
Peak Throughput
-bbh/d
Under IOC
100-200
200-300
J00-500
Cost
$201.8 •illion
$302. 7 •i 11 ion
$470.8 •illion
$605.3 •i llion
Thf' following functions are perforMed: pipeline tf'..,.inal (for offshore lines), crude stabilization, LPG recovery, tanker ball11st trellt-nt, crude storage (10
days production), and tanker loading for crude trans-shipMent.
~~/ Please note that the developaent and production scenario for alternative VI will be essentially that of the •ini•u. ca&e.
1.
Summary of Activities Required to Develop the
Estimated Resources Within the Proposed Action
Hini.at1111 Case
Table A-6
Estimated acreage, construction activity and resources:
a. Sale Acreage Offering: 350182 hectares (864,646
b. Exploration and Delineation Wells: 11
c. Production Platforms: 2
d. Production and Service Wells: 96
e. Workover Wells: 308
f. Pipelines:
acres)
Oil (18" diameter) Gas (10" diameter)
Offshore length: 129 km (80 mi to Anchor Point) 129 km (80 mi to Anchor Point)
Onshore length: 0 113 km (70 mi to Nikiski)
g. Terminal(s):
Oil: 1 (Anchor Point)
Gas: Use existing terminal at Nikiski.
h. Recoverable Hydrocarbons:
Total Production:
Peak Production:
Average Annual Production:
Oil
332.0 HMbbls
151.5 Hbbls/D
14.4 HMbbls
Gas
581.0 Bcf
265.2 MMcf/D
24.2 Bcf
2. Estimated peak annual transportation by tanker:
Oil: 55.3 HMbbls
LNG: 28 HMbbls
3. Estimated tonnage (2,000 lbs/ton) of cOIIDercial muds and volume of drill
cuttings (asslllling 11 exploration wells at 4864 m (16,000 ft) and 96
production wells at 3040 m (10,000 ft):
Muds:
Cuttings:
Exploration/Production
Per Well
947/680 metric tons
(1 ,044/750 tons)
539/206 m3
(704/269 yd 3 )
Total Field
10416/65280 metric tons
(11,484/72,000 tons)
5929/19776 m3
(7,744/25,824 yd3 )
4. Estimated volume of formation water produced:
A prediction cannot be made at this time due to incomplete knowledge of the
subsea geology of the Shelikof Strait. However, based upon the behavior of
the upper Cook Inlet field, we may hypothesize that at midlife the sale 60
field will be producing one barrel of formation water for every two barrels
of oil.
5. Estimated land use requirements for onshore facilities:
6.
Support/Supply:
Terminal(s) and
related facilities:
Existing facilities in Kenai should suffice.
However, a small 10 hector (25 acre) marine
support facility could be constructed at Homer.
Oil
1 terminar-
(24 hectares/60 acres)
Gas
1 compressor station
(16 hectares/40 acres)
3 Estimated 3burial disturbance of offshore p~peline (assu~ng 2377 m /km
(5,000 yd /mi) for oil pipeline and 1902 m /km (4,000 yd /mi) for gas
pipeline) will be:
Oil: 306633 m3 (400,000 yd 3 )
Gas: 245358 m3 (320,000 yd 3 )
Summary of Activities Required to Develop the
Estimated Resources Within the Proposed Action
Maximum Case
Table A-7
1. Estimated acreage, construction activity and resources:
a. Sale Acreage Offering: 350182 hectares (864,646 acres)
b. Exploration and Delineation Wells: 28
c. Production Platforms: 6
d. Production and Service Wells: 295
e. Workover Wells: 944
f. Pipelines:
Oil (26" diameter) .Q!!. (26" diameter)
Offshore length: 129 km (80 mi to Anchor Point)
129 km (80 mi to Chernof Point)
16 km (10 mi to Talnik Point)
129 km (160 mi to Nikiski)
113 km (70 mi to Nikiski) Onshore length:
g. Terminal(s):
Oil: 2 (Anchor Point and Talnik Point)
Gas: Use existing terminal at Nikiski.
h. Recoverable Hydrocarbons:
Total Production:
Peak Production:
Average Annual Production:
Oil
1,015.0 MMbbls
342.2 Mbbls/D
37.6 MMbbls
Gas
1,776.0 Bcf
598.9 MMcf/D
63.4 Bcf
2. Estimated peak annual transportation by tanker:
Oil: 124.9 MMbbls
LNG: 65 MMbbls
3. Estimated tonnage (2,000 lbs/ton) of .commercial muds and volume of drill
cuttings (assuming 28 exploration wells at 4864 m (16,000 ft) and 295
production wells at 3040 m (10,000 ft):
Muds:
Cuttings:
Exploration/Production
Per Well
947/680 metric tons
(1,044/750 tons)
539/206 m3
(704/269 yd 3)
Total Field
26516/200600 metric tons
(29,232/221,250 tons)
15092/60770 m3
(19,712/79,355 yd 3}
•
4. Estimated volume of formation water produced:
A prediction cannot be made at this time due to incomplete knowledge of the
subsea geology of the Shelikof Strait. However, based upon the behavior of
the upper Cook Inlet field we may hypothesize that at midlife the sale 60
field will be producing one barrel of formation water for every two barrels
of oil.
5. Estimated land use requirements for onshore facilities:
Support/Supply:
Terminal(s) and
related facilities:
Existing facilities in Kenai would expand by an
unknown amount of acreage. However, a small,
10-hector (25-acre) marine support facility could
be constructed at Homer.
Oil
2 terminals
(69 hectares/170 acres
each)
Gas
1 compres~ station
(16 hectares/40 acres)
6. Estimated 3burial disturbance of offshore pipeline (assuming 2853 m3 /km
(6,000 yd /mi):
Oil: 368037 m3 (480,000 yd 3 ) each to
Anchor Point and Chernof Point
Gas: 736074 m3 (960,000 yd 3) to Anchor Point
Summary of Impacts
for the Minimum and Maximum Cases
The environmental impacts from proposed lease sale 60 are based on the mean
case, which represents a middle ground in the range of potentially recoverable
oil and gas resources estimated for the proposed lease sale area. The minimum
and maximum cases are the extremes of the resource estimate range. Potentially
recoverable resources (total production of the field) are estimated to range
from 332 to 1,015 million barrels of oil and from 581 to 1,776 billion cubic
feet of gas. The following summarizes the possible environmental impacts for
major scoping issues that could derive from the minimum and maximum cases,
based on the developmental scenarios established for the respective quantities
of potentially recoverable resources.
Minimum Case:
Impacts on Commercial and Sport Fish: The impacts on commercial and sport
fish from the minimum case could possibly be less than the impacts from the
proposed action as a result of reduced population pressure and a possible
reduction in the potential risk from oilspill incidents due to one less plat-
form in operation and five fewer wells drilled during exploration, two less
platforms at work and about 100 fewer wells drilled for production, a reduc-
tion of 338 million barrels of oil and 592 billion cubic feet of gas in the
estimated total production of the field, and a reduction in the peak annual
volume of oil and LNG transported by tankers of 41.5 and 22.0 million barrels,
respectively.
Impacts on Commercial Fishing: The impacts on commercial fishing from the
minimum case could possibly be less than the impacts from the proposed action
as a result of reduced population pressure, a reduced potential for employment
competition with the fishing industry, due to reduced OCS employment demands
(a reduction in the peak average monthly demand of 461 employees during the
development phase), a reduction by 1608 hectares (4,022 acres) of fishing
grounds that might be removed due to offshore platform construction and opera-
tion, and the possible reduction in the potential risk from oilspill incidents
as cited under fish resources above.
Impacts on Social Factors: The impacts on social factors from the minimum
case could possibly be less than the impacts from the proposed action as a
result of reduced population pressure and a possible reduction in the potential
risk from oilspill incidents due to the factors cited under fish resources
above.
Impacts on State, Regional, and Local Economies: The impacts on State, regional,
and local economies from the minimum case could possibly be less than the
impacts from the proposed action as a result of reduced population, employment,
and income effects and a possible reduction in the potential risk from oilspi11
incidents to the fisheries sector of the economy due to the factors cited
under fish resources above.
Impacts on Land Status and Land Use: The impacts on land status and land use
from the minimum case could possibly be less than the impacts from the proposed
action as a result of reduced demand for urban land and facilities as a function
7
of reduced population and employment demand, and a reduction in need for
onshore oil and gas facilities by 72 hectares (180 acres) due to a reduction
in potentially recoverable resources.
Impacts on Transportation Systems: The impacts on transportation systems from
the minimum case could possibly be less than the impacts from the proposed
action as a result of reduced drilling activity and less tanker traffic to
transport the product to market as a function of reduced potentially recoverable
resources, as indicated under fish resources and elsewhere above.
Impacts on Alaska Coastal Management Program: The impacts on the Alaska
Coastal Management Program from the minimum case could possibly be less than the
impacts from the proposed action as a result of a 1-to 2-year difference in
the timing of development but, procedurally, the impacts would be substantially
the same as for the proposal.
Impacts on Water Quality: The impacts on water quality from the minimum case
could possibly be less than the impacts from the proposed action as a result
of reduced drilling activity as indicated under fish resources above.
Impacts on Endangered Cetaceans: The impacts on endangered cetaceans from the
minimum case may possibly be less than the impacts from the proposed action as
analyzed in the worst case (sec. IV.E.l.), but insufficient information pre-
vents such analysis.
Maximum Case:
Impacts on Commercial and Sport Fish: The impacts on commercial and sport
fish from the maximum case could possibly be greater than the impacts from the
proposed action as a result of increased population pressure and a possible
increase in the potential risk from oilspill incidents due to one more platform
at work and 12 more wells drilled during exploration, two more platforms in
operation and about 100 more wells drilled for production, an increase of 345
million barrels of oil and 603 billion cubic feet of gas in the estimated
total production of the field, and an increase in the peak annual volume of
oil and LNG transported by tanker of 28.1 and 15.0 million barrels, respectively.
Impacts on Commercial Fishing: The impacts on commercial fishing from the
maximum case could possibly be greater than the impacts from the proposed
action as a result of increased population pressure, an increased potential
for employment competition with the fishing industry due to increased OCS
employment demands (an increase in the peak average monthly demand of 337
employees during the development phase), an increase by 1608 hectares (4,022
acres) of fishing grounds that might be removed due to offshore platform
construction and operation, and the possible increase in the potential risk
from oilspill incidents as cited under fish resources above.
Impacts on Social Factors: The impacts on social factors from the maximum
case could possibly be greater than the impacts from the proposed action as a
result of increased population pressure and a possible increase in the potential
risk from oilspill incidents due to the factors cited under fish resources
above.
8
Impacts on State, Regional, and Local Economies: The impacts on State, regional,
and local economies from the maximum case could possibly be greater than the
impacts from the proposed action as a result of increased population, employment,
and income effects and a possible increase in the potential risk from oilspill
incidents to the fisheries sector of the economy due to the factors cited
under fish resources.
Impacts on Land Status and Land Use: The impacts on land status and land use
from the maximum case could possibly be greater than the impacts from the
proposed action as a result of increased demand for urban land and facilities
as a function of increased population and employment demand, and an increase
in need for onshore oil and gas facilities by 40 hectares (100 acres) due to
an increase in potentially recoverable resources.
Impacts on Transportation Systems: The impacts on transportation systems from
the maximum case could possibly be greater than the impacts from the proposed
action as a result of increased drilling activity and increased tanker traffic
to transport the product to market as a function of increased potentially
recoverable resources, as indicated under fish resources and elsewhere above.
Impacts on Alaska Coastal Management Program: The impacts on the Alaska
Coastal Management Program from the maximum case could possibly be greater
than the impacts from the proposed action as a result of a 1-to 2-year diff-
erence in the timing of development, but procedurally the impacts could be
substantially the same as in the proposal.
Impacts on Water Quality: The impacts on water quality from the maximum case
could possibly be greater than the impacts from the proposed action as a
result of increased drilling activity, as indicated under fish resources
above.
Impacts on Endangered Cetaceans: The impacts on endangered cetaceans from the
maximum case may possibly be greater than the impacts from the proposed action,
but insufficient information prevents such analysis. Refer to the worst case
analysis (sec. IV.E.l.).
9
APPENDIX B
ESTIMATION OF DIRECT EMPLOYMENT AND
DESCRIPTION OF BASIC ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZED
This section summarizes the estimated direct employment anticipated to result
from the alternatives, including the proposal, as described in section I. The
summary tables are included for reference purposes (tables B-1 through B-5).
The development assumptions are summarized in section I, Alternatives Including
Proposed Action; anticipated activities resulting from potential oil and gas
development are described in section IV.A.1., Basic Assumptions Regarding
Causes of Possible Impact Resulting from the Alternatives Including the Proposal;
and are discussed further in this section in terms of activities which generate
employment. The reader is referred to these pages and tables for a thorough
understanding of the estimates, employment, and population effects.
Exploration Activity: After issuance of leases and required permits, explor-
atory drilling would be initiated. The exclusive use of semisubmersible
drilling rigs is assumed; however, the use of other types of drilling units
such as jack-ups may be possible. It is judged, however, that environmental
conditions such as water depth (limiting the use of jack-ups) and the length
and severity of storms (limiting the use of jack-ups and drillships) would
restrict their widespread use. Indeed, the performance of the drillship
Diamond M. Dragon, during the exploratory activities of sale CI, indicated
that the inclement weather of lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait would
greatly hinder the activities of drillships.
In conducting an exploratory program, the operator typically performs super-
visory and administrative functions, contracting with oil field service firms
to perform the major drilling and logistic functions. These functions include
drilling, mud engineering, well logging, completion services, diving, any
predrilling biologic~! or other surveys, and supply (vessels, aircraft, and
shore based facilities). Operator personnel are typically composed of managers,
operations superintendents, geologists, engineers, material expediters, and
administrative support staff. These functions are detailed in the following
paragraphs and are based upon previous drilling activity in the western Gulf
of Alaska (OCS sale 39).
Based upon Gulf of Alaska experience, drilling contractor crews would likely
work the same number of days on as off. ODECO used a 28-day rotation scedule
with half the shipboard employees changing every 7 days. SEDCO used a 21-day
rotation schedule. The rotation factor would be 2, thus total employment
would be 68 per drilling platform.
Supply/support vessels used for exploratory activity would be similar to those
used as a result of sale 39 and sale CI, i.e., supply vessels in the 200-foot
class with 6,000-7,000 plus horsepower. Many would have anchor handling
capability. (See Dames and Moore, 1979, pp. 11-13, for a detailed description
of these supply vessels and cargo capabilities.) Each vessel is assumed to
employ a crew of 13 on duty 24 hours per day, working 40 days on and 20 days
off. Total employment per vessel would then be 20. Two supply vessels are
assumed to serve each active rig; one of these vessels would always be in the
vicinity of the rig in case emergency evacuation was required. Four would
work the day shift, two the night shift, and one would accomplish miscella-
neous tasks. Assuming employees worked 28 days on and 14 days off, total
catering services employment would be 11 (Dames and Moore, 1979, pp. 36-37,
from A.R.A. Services, Inc.).
1
Crew changes and light cargo transfer from ship-to-shore are assumed to be
made via helicopter of a type similar in capability to the Sikorsky S-61's
employed in previous Gulf of Alaska drilling. It is assumed one helicopter
would be needed per rig, plus a common backup. For example, if only one plat-
form were active, two helicopters would be required. Should more than one
platform be employed, the total number of helicopters employed in the field
would be N + 1. Where N equals the total number of platforms in the field and
the + 1 is a backup helicopter.
Based on gulf experience, two pilots are required in flight and three mechanics
are required per machine. Crews would work 14 days on and 14 days off, thus
each active rig would employ a total of 10 (Dames and Moore, 1979, p. 38.,
from ERA Helicopters).
Shore bases serve as storage and transfer points for offshore operations.
Heavy goods such as casing and drill pipe, water, fuel, muds and chemicals are
stored and transferred to supply vessels for delivery offshore. Typical
facilities include heliopads, runways, open and covered storage, mud, water
and fuel storage, docks, and minor repair facilities.
The shore base complement at Yakutat employed some 90 personnel during pre-
vious exploratory activities in the eastern Gulf of Alaska. Of this number at
least half were devoted to marine support activities. According to the tenets
of the mean case scenario associated with the proposed action, Port Lions
would have responsibility for air support activities only. As a result of
this limited responsibility, the shore base complement at Port Lions would be
reduced by at least half from that needed for Yakutat. In regard to the
Nikiski support facility, it would need at least a full complement of 90 or
more workers.
Mud engineering and mud logging may or may not be provided by the same firm.
Mud engineering firms supply the drilling muds. Based upon previous gulf
activity, 1 such engineering position is required during drilling; the posi-
tion is filled by 1 engineer on call 24 hours per day, working 7 days on and 7
days off (Dames and Moore, August 1978, pp. 38-39, from Magcobar and
Schlumberger). Extrapolating this experience to the future, 2 mud engineers
would be required per rig, 1 on duty and 1 off duty.
Well logging services include mud logging and electric logging. Based upon
Gulf of Alaska experience, mud logging typically requires 2 men on board the
drilling rig, each working a 12-hour shift. Electric logging does not require
a permanent crew aboard the vessel. Contracts with operators required 3 men
assigned to each rig who would provide services as required. A typical trip
to the rig for the 3 men would require about 5 days. Two or more trips might
be made to the rig per month by the 3-man crew. Special problems could require
more frequent service (Dames and Moore, August 1978, p. 39, from Schlumberger).
Thus, employment per rig to perform the well logging function is 7.
Cementing is the primary completion service resulting in offshore employment.
One engineer may be assigned to each rig. This engineer would be on call on a
24-hour basis, working 21 days on and 21 days off (Dames and Moore, 1979,
p.40, from Halliburton). Cementing services would account for the employment
of 2 engineers per active rig.
2
Diving services may involve up to 7 divers per rig; however, only 2 would live
onboard to maintain and ready equipment between dives. Diving services would,
thus account for a maximum of 7 employees per rig (Dames and Moore, 1979,
p.40, from Oceaneering); 3 full time equivalents are assumed here.
As stated earlier, operators perform the supervisory and administrative func-
tions governing an exploratory drilling program, overseeing drilling and
logistics activities, evaluating drilling results and administrative support.
The number of operator personnel varies by company, and presumably, by the
specific drilling program itself. (Reference the Notices of Support Activity
submitted by operators in compliance with sale 39, Stipulation No. 5.) Notices
submitted as a result of sale 39 indicate a total operator complement of 10
per rig is representative, including onsho'e logistics personnel. Allowing 2
onshore logistics positions (already accounted for under the shore facility
discussion), a total of 8 (additional) operator personnel per rig is assumed
here.
Development Activities: The results of exploratory drilling would be evaluated
and the decision made as to whether or not the next stage of operations would
be undertaken. If the results of the exploratory activity do not reveal
economically producible quantities of oil and/or gas, no further impacts would
result from this proposed sale. However, for assessment purposes, exploratory
drilling is assumed to yield commercial deposits of oil and natural gas.
The production of the estimated recoverable petroleum resources would require
the construction and placement of production structures, and the drilling of
development wells, along with the construction of support bases and facilities
for gathering, storing, and transporting oil and gas from the acreage leased.
The precise type of production facilities, the humber of development wells
required, the location of any onshore facilities required, and the possible
route of pipelines and other transportation facilities required to bring the
produced oil and gas to shipping terminals would be dependent primarily on the
information gained as a result of the exploratory drilling, modified by addi-
tional data obtained as a result of developmental drilling. Other factors
influencing the type of facilities required (in addition to the number of
fields and amount of resource discovered), are water depth, character of the
sea floor, depth to the producing horizon, number of wells required for effi-
cient recovery (i.e., the spacing of the wells), and the structural position
of the producing wells.
Offshore Employment: Development activity is distinguished from exploration
activity in terms of the level (and intensity) of activity and, to a lesser
extent, functions performed. Drilling and well service personnel requirements
are generally less. Assuming normal circumstances, measurements of well data
are fewer, casing and drill string needs may be less and diving services
generally are not needed. The reduced need for services decreases drilling
related employment (on a per active rig basis) during the development phase.
Total onboard drilling crew requirements during the development phase are
estimated at 27 (2 fewer than estimated for exploratory drilling); assuming a
rotation factor of 2, total drilling crew employment would be 54 per active
rig.
3
Total well service personnel requirements are estimated at 7. Functions
incluBed are mud engineering, cementing, special casing crews, and personnel
which may be required in survey and fishing services. The estimate represents
an average of well service personnel. Periodically, during the drilling of a
well, special crews are needed to perform specialized functions, however,
these tasks are of limited duration. Thus, an average of 7 is used to reflect
these periodic services (Alaska OCS Office and personal communication with
Mobil Oil, Anchorage, Alaska, February 1979).
Production platform operation personnel are estimated in table B-14. Produc-
tion platforms placed in lower Cook Inlet would be similar to existing plat-
forms in upper Cook Inlet, i.e., steel bottom-founded, with certain design
accommodations, e.g., for greater water depth. Based upon upper Cook Inlet
experience, onboard production employment is estimated at 23 per platform; a 1
week on, 1 week off work schedule is assumed. Hence, total employment per
platform would be 46.
Catering services employment is assumed comparable to that estimated for
exploration activity, i.e., a total of 11 would be employed in catering ser-
vices.
Shore-based operating and supply/support personnel requirements are judged
similar to exploration phase requirements. Each fully staffed shore base is
assumed to require a total operating complement of 25, or half that amount
when only 1 rig is active. Each active rig is assumed to require the services
of 1 helicopter of the Sikorsky S-61 type, plus a common backup at all times.
Each active (development) drilling rig is assumed to require the services of 2
supply vessels. Upon completion of development drilling, each platform is
assumed to be serviced by a single supply vessel.
Table B-2 summarizes production, drilling, and supply/support related employ-
ment assumptions.
Technical and Management Operations Staff: The size of technical and manage-
ment operations staffs (e.g., geologists, engineers, drilling foremen, and
managers) would depend on the amount of development and production activity.
Headquarters staff is assumed to number 30 individuals at the start of the
production phase and decrease with the diminishing size of the field.
Construction Activity: Development and production activities must be preceded
by the construction, installation, and assembly of permanent platforms, pipe-
line construction for transport of the produced oil and gas to production
treatment facilities and terminals, and shore base construction.
Platform Installation: The installation of the platforms would involve the
temporary employment of specific contractors for specific tasks such as plat-
form construction, placement, pile driving, deck structure placement, and
finishing. It is assumed all platforms would be constructed at facilities
outside Alaska, towed to the field location, set in place, deck structures
installed, and finished. Typically, tug crews, derrick barge personnel,
welders, electricians, equipment installers, and others are employed for brief
periods during placement and assembly of the platform.
4
The total number of personnel required to set and assemble multiple platforms
per season would depend on many factors, such as the number of platforms to be
set, environmental constraints (e.g., weather), the type and availability of
equipment used, and the number of oil field operators involved. For assessment
purposes, it is assumed a complete work crew consisting of the above mentioned
skills approximates 100 workers. Because of the relatively short offshore
construction season (approximately April to September), few economies of scale
may be realized in platform installation. For example, the length of the
construction season may not permit the use of a single derrick barge for deck
structure placement on 2 platforms; 2 barges in simultaneous operation may be
required. For purposes here, a complete complement of 6 crew and equipment to
install each platform is assumed as required. Note, however, that individual
crews would be on-site less than 6 months, and many would be housed offshore.
It is assumed 14 months are required from installation to commissioning.
Thus, in estimating average annual employment, 7 months of construction effort
is allocated to the year a platform is shown as "installed," and 7 months of
effort to the following year.
Pipeline Installation: Pipelines linking the platforms to terminals must be
fabricated and installed using a pipe lay barge. On and offshore pipelines
are assumed to be constructed. Offshore pipelines would be constructed by
means of pipe lay barges working primarily during the summer season. It is
anticipated that the major effort of onshore pipeline construction would also
occur during the summer months. It is not expected that offshore pipeline
construction would provide year-round employment, i.e., offshore pipeline
construction would likely require approximately 6 months in any year.
It is anticipated that large pipe lay barges similar to those utilized in the
North Sea would be used for offshore pipeline construction. These units are
largely self-contained, including living quarters; thus, it is estimated that
most of these personnel would be housed offshore.
Based upon experience in the North Sea, each lay barge of the type described
can install approximately .5 mi of offshore pipeline per day, including an
allowance for non-productive time due to weather conditions. It is estimated
that three would be required for a period of 6 months, per construction season,
in the installation of offshore pipelines. Workers are not normally rotated
on and off the work location for off-duty periods, thus no rotation factor is
assumed.
Estimated on and offshore pipeline construction employment for the development
phase is shown in table B-12.
Onshore Facilities -Supply/Support Bases, Production Treatment and Crude
Oil Terminal Facilities: The construction of onshore facilities would involve
the employment of construction personnel on a variable basis depending upon
the season and specific skill required at any given time. Existing facilities
may be utilized (in the case of shore bases), as well as new facilities con-
structed near existing communities or in remote locations. At remote construc-
tion sites, personnel would probably be housed in camps and be similarly
housed in camps near existing communities where the community infrastructure
cannot accommodate the additional services required.
5
Production Treatment and Crude Oil Terminal Facilities: The size, nature, and
capacity of production treatment facilities would depend upon many factors,
including the volume of water produced. For example, greater quantities of
water requiring treatment may be produced in the latter stages of a field's
production life than in the initial years of production. Thus, as greater
treatment is required, employment may increase. It is assumed here, however,
that each production treatment facility would require a total of 85 employees
throughout its life. It is also assumed that production treatment facilities
are co-located with the oil terminal.
Based on upper Cook Inlet experience (Drift River), approximately 30 personnel
would be required to operate each crude oil terminal, along with an administra-
tive support staff of 5, for a total of 35. Each crude oil tanker terminal
facility would employ a total of 120 workers, 85 in production treatment
operations and 35 in storage and tanker te~inal operations (Alaska OCS Office,
from Kenai Pipeline Co., 1978).
Supply/Support Base Construction: Supply/support bases would be required to
service offshore development and production activity. Potential sites include
those where the necessary facilities would be expanded upon the existing
infrastructure (e.g., enlargement of piers, site improvement, etc.), and those
where supply/support facilities would be constructed "from the ground up" at
remote sites. Because this possible mix of facilities use/construction is
unknown, and because engineering requirements would vary from site-to-site, it
is not possible to estimate construction employment with any accuracy. An al-
lowance of 75 workers for a period of 1 year is therefore included in an
attempt to reflect this activity (Alaska OCS Office, from Bomhoff Associates,
1978). These workers would consist of "offshore" crews (pile driving, tug and
barge personnel employed in pier loading or dock construction), heavy equipment
operators, carpenters, welders, electricians, etc.
Construction activity would likely continue through the life of production due
to upgrading and expansion or addition of facilities. However, the level of
activity may vary greatly from year-to-year and, excepting major projects,
would be small compared to the initial years of the development phase.
6
Table B-1
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait-
95 Percent Scenario
Estimated Development Employment -Development Phase
Development Supply Support Shore Oil Production Total Average
Dr~l~ing 1121 Aircraft/Vessels Bases Headquarters Terminal Operations Han Monthly
Year (M1n1ns)--(Trans2ortation) (Minin&~ (Minin&) (Trans2ortation) (Minin&) Months EmploYJBent
(Wells)
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986 (16) 1736 1320 720 25 720 4521 377
1987 (24) 2471 1320 720 50 1440 1104 7105 592
1988 (28) 2839 1320 720 184 1440 1104 7607 634
1989 (28) 2839 1320 720 321 1440 1104 7744 645
1990 1320 720 364 1440 1104 4948 412
1991 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
1992 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
1993 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
1994 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
1995 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
1996 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
1997 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
1998 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
1999 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
2000 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
2001 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
2002 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
2003 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
2004 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
2005 (18) 1656 720 720 364 1440 1368 6268 522
2006 (15) 1380 720 720 364 1440 1368 5992 499
2007 (13) 1196 720 720 364 1440 1368 5808 484
2008 (10) 920 720 720 364 1440 1368 5532 461
2009 720 720 364 1440 1368 4612 384
2010 720 360 182 720 684 2666 222
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1/ Assumes 1.333 months to drill one well.
~/ Workover wells start year 1991.
Assume wells need workover@ 5-year interval.
Table B-2
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Mean Scenario
Estimated Development Employment -Development Phase
Development Supply Support Shore Oil Production Total Average
Dr~l~ing 1121 Aircraft/Vessels Bases Headquarters Terminal Operations Han Monthly
Year (H1n1ng)--(Trans2ortation) (Mining) (Mining) (Trans2ortation) (Mining) Months Emploi!!ent
(Wells)
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986 (26) 2787 1920 720 25 1440 6892 574
1987 (42) 4391 2520 720 so 2880 2208 12769 1064
1988 (42) 4391 2520 720 185 2880 2208 12904 1075
1989 (42) 4391 2520 720 372 2880 2208 13091 1091
1990 (42) 4391 2520 720 552 2880 2208 13271 1106
1991 (36) 3311 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11843 987
1992 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
1993 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
1994 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
1995 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
1996 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
1997 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
1998 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
1999 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
2000 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
2001 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
2002 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
2003 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
2004 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 97~
2005 (35) 3219 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11751 979
2006 (30) 2759 1560 720 636 2880 2736 11291 941
2007 (25) 2299 1560 720 636 2880 2736 10831 903
2008 (20) 1840 1560 720 636 2880 2736 10372 864
2009 (12) 1104 1200 720 636 2880 2052 8592 716
2010 (12) 1104 720 360 636 2880 1368 7068 589
~11 480 360 636 2880 684 5040 420
2012 480 360 318 1440 684 3282 274
2013
2014
2015
!/ Asswaea 1.333 months to drill one well.
~/ Workover wells start year 1991.
Assume wells need workover@ 5-year interval.
Table B-3
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
5 Percent Scenario (Maximum Case)
Estimated Development Employment -Development Phase
Development Supply Support Shore Oil Production Total Average
Dr~l~ing 1121 Aircraft/Vessels Bases Headquarters Terminal Operations Man Monthly
Year (M1n1ng)--(Trans2ortation) (Mining) (Mining) (Trans2ortation) (Mining) Months Employaent
(Wells)
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986 (32) 3339 1920 720 25 1440 7444 620
1987 (60) 6179 3120 720 50 2880 2760 15709 1309
1988 (60) 6311 3720 720 185 2880 3312 17128 1427
1989 (60) 6311 3720 720 375 2880 3312 17318 1443
1990 (53) 4875 3120 720 558 2880 4104 16257 1355
1991 (69) 6346 2160 720 692 2880 4104 16902 1409
1992 (67) 6162 2160 720 794 2880 4104 16820 1402
1993 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
1994 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
1995 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
1996 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
1997 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
1998 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
1999 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
2000 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
2001 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
2002 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
2003 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
2004 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
2005 (53) 4875 2160 720 821 2880 4104 15560 1297
2006 (45) 4139 2160 720 821 2880 4104 14824 1235
2007 (37) 3403 2160 720 821 2880 4104 14088 1174
2008 (30) 2759 2160 720 821 2880 4104 13444 1120
2009 (15) 1380 2160 720 821 2880 4104 12065 1005
2010 (10) 920 1440 720 821 2880 2736 9517 793
2011 (8) 736 1080 720 821 2880 2052 8289 691
2012 (4) 368 720 720 821 2880 1368 6877 573
2013 720 720 821 2880 684 5825 486
2014 720 360 410 1440 684 3614 301
2015
1/ Assumes 1.333 months to drill one well.
~I Workover wells start year 1991.
Assume wells need workover @ 5-year interval.
Table B-4
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Alternative IV
Estimated Development Employment -Development Phase
Development Supply Support Shore Oil Production Total Average
Dr~l~ing 1121 Aircraft/Vessels Bases Headquarters Terminal Operations Man Monthly
Year (M1n1ng)--(Trans2ortation) (Mining) ~Mining) (Trans2ortation) (Mining) Months Employment
(Wells)
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986 (18) 1920 1320 720 25 720 4705 392
1987 (28) 2839 1320 720 49 1440 1104 7472 623
1988 (28) 2839 1320 720 181 1440 1104 7604 634
1989 (2) 184 720 720 287 1440 1368 4719 393
1990 720 720 287 1440 1368 4535 378
1991 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
1992 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
1993 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
1994 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
1995 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
1996 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
1997 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
1998 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
1999 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
2000 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
2001 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
2002 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
2003 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
2004 (15) 1380 720 720 287 1440 1368 5915 493
2005 (12) 1104 720 720 287 1440 1368 5639 470
2006 (12) 1104 720 720 287 1440 1368 5639 470
2007 (8) 736 720 720 287 1440 1368 5271 439
2008 (2) 184 480 720 287 1440 1368 4479 373
2009 480 720 287 1440 1368 4295 358
2010 480 360 141 720 684 2385 199
!/ Assumes 1.333 months to drill one well.
~/ Workover wells start year 1991.
Assume wells need workover @ 5-year interval.
Table B-5
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Alternative V
Estimated Development Employment -Development Phase
Year
Development
Dr~l~ing 1121 (M1nmg)--
(Wells)
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986 (24)
1987 (24)
1988 (5)
1989
1990
1991 (11)
1992 (11)
1993 (11)
1994 (11)
1995 (11)
1996 (11)
1997 (11)
1998 (11)
1999 (11)
2000 (11)
2001 (11)
2003 (11)
2004 (11)
2005 (7)
2006 (5)
2007 (2)
2008
2009
2471
2471
460
1012
1012
1012
1012
1012
1012
1012
1012
1012
1012
1012
1012
1012
644
459
184
Supply Support
Aircraft/Vessels
(Transportation)
1320
1320
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
480
480
480
1/ Assumes 1.333 months to drill one well.
l/ Workover wells start year 1991.
Shore
Bases
(Mining)
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
360
360
360
-Assume wells need workover@ 5-year interval.
Headquarters
(Mining)
25
50
159
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
158
Oil
Tenainal
(Transportation)
720
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
720
Production
Operations
(Mining)
1104
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
1368
684
Total
Han
Months
5256
7105
4867
4464
4464
5476
5476
5476
5476
5476
5476
5476
5476
5476
5476
5476
5476
5476
5108
4923
4048
3864
2402
Average
Monthly
Employment
438
592
406
372
372
456
456
456
456
456
456
456
456
456
456
456
456
456
426
410
337
322
200
Table B-6
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
95 Percent Scenario (Minimum Case)
Estimated Employment -Exploratory Phase
(Equipment/Man-Months)
Supply Support Total Average
Drilling J}gs Aircraft/Vessels Shore Man Monthly
Years (Mining)-(Transportation) Bases Months Employment
1981 Sale--September
1982 (1) 455 (2/2) 270 360 1085 90
1983 (2) 1364 (3/4) 765 720 2849 237
1984 (2) 1818 (3/4) 990 720 3528 294
1985 (2) 909 (3/4) 495 720 2124 177
1986 (1) 455 (2/2) 270 360 1085 90
!I Assume 4.5 months to drill one well.
Table B-7
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Mean Scenario
Estimated Employment -Exploratory Phase
(Equipment/Man-Months)
Supply Support Total Average
Drilling J}gs Aircraft/Vessels Shore Man Monthly
Years (Mining)-(Trans2ortation) Bases Months Employment
1981 Sale--September
1982 (2) 1364 (3/4) 765 720 2849 237
1983 (3) 1818 (4/6) 1080 720 3618 302
1984 (3) 1818 (4/6) 1080 720 3618 302
1985 (2) 1364 (3/4) 765 720 2849 237
1986 (1) 909 (2/2) 540 720 2169 181
!I Assume 4.5 months to drill one well.
Table B-8
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
5 Percent Scenario (Maximum Case)
Estimated Employment -Exploratory Phase
(Equipment/Man-Months)
Supply Support Total Average
Drilling J}gs Aircraft/Vessels Shore Man Monthly
Years (Mining)-(Trans2ortation) Bases Months Em2loyment
1981 Sale--September
1982 (2) 1818 (3/4) 990 720 3528 294
1983 (3) 2727 (4/6) .1440 720 4887 407
1984 (5) 4091 (6/10) 2115 720 6926 577
1985 (3) 2727 (4/6) 1440 720 4887 407
1986 (2) 909 (3/4) 495 720 2124 177
1987 (1) 455 (2/2) 270 720 1445 120
!I Assume 4.5 months to drill one well.
Years
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Table B-9
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Alternative IV
Estimated Employment -Exploratory Phase
(Equipment/Man-Months)
Supply Support
Drilling l~gs Aircraft/Vessels Shore
(Mining~-(Transl!ortation) Bases
Sale--September
(2) 909 (3/4) 495 360
(2) 1364 (3/4) 765 720
(2) 1364 (3/4) 765 720
(1) 909 (2/2) 540 720
!/ Assume 4.5 months to drill one well.
Years
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
!I
Table B-10
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Alternative V
Estimated Employment -Exploratory Phase
(Equipment/Man-Months)
Supply Support
Drilling l~gs Aircraft/Vessels Shore
(Mining)-(Transl!ortation) Bases
Sale--September
(1) 455 (2/2) 270 360
(2) 909 (3/4) 495 720
(2) 909 (3/4) 495 720
(1) 455 (2/2) 270 360
Assume 4.5 months to drill one well.
Total Average
Man Monthly
Months Employment
1764 147
2849 237
2849 237
2169 181
Total Average
Man Monthly
Months Employment
1085 90
2124 177
2124 177
1085 90
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Table B-11
Lower Cook InletiShelikof Strait
95 Percent Scenario (Minimum Case)
Estt.ated Construction Employment -Development Phase
Total
Platform shortt Pipeline 3 Oil 21 Han
Installation Base-Construction-' Terminal-Months
(2) 670 670
(1) 1250 2130 3380
(1) 1250 1201 (1) 2700 5151
131 1350 1481
Average
Monthly
E!!2loyment
56
282
429
123
ll Assume expansion of existing facilities -67 people for five aonths for both shore
bases (Dames and Moore).
~I Assume 225 people for 18 aonths (Daaes and Moore).
~I Assume 2 miles per day for onshore pipeline construction on Kenai. It should be
noted that this ratio is only an approximation. Too many factors, such as right-
of-way location, type of terrain, time of year, diameter of pipe, construction
specifications, and river crossings can influence this ratio.
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Table B-12
Lower Cook InletiShelikof Strait
Mean Case
Estimated Construction Employment -Developaent Phase
Total
Platform Shortt Pipeline 3 Oil 21 Han
Installation Base-Construction-' Terminal-Months
(2) 3155 3155
(1) 1250 2130 3380
(2) 2500 2327 (2) 5400 10227
(1) 1250 197 2700 4738
Average
Monthly
Emplo!!!ent
263
282
852
395
ll Assume expansion of facilities on Kenai -67 people for 5 months and major construction
at Cape Chiniak -235 people for 12 months. (Source: Dames and Moore)
~I Assume 225 people for 18 months (Daaes and Moore).
~I Assume 2 miles per day for onshore pipeline construction on Kenai and 1 mile per day
for construction on Kodiak. It should be noted that this ratio is only an approxi-
mation. Too many factors, such as right-of-way location, type of terrain, time of
year, diameter of pipe, construction specifications, and river crossings can in-
fluence this ratio.
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Table B-15
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Alternative V
Estimated Construction Employment -Development Phase
Total
Platform Shori; Pipeline 3 Oil 21 Han
Installation Base-Construction_/ Terminal-Months
(2) 670 670
(1) 1250 2130 3380
(1) 1250 569 (1) 2700 4159
131 1350 1481
Average
Monthly
Em;2loyment
56
282
377
123
!/ Assume expansion of existing facilities (67 people for five months) for both shore
bases (Dames and Moore).
~/ Assume 225 people for 18 months (Dames and Moore).
~/ Assume 2 miles per day for onshore pipeline construction on Kenai. It should be
noted that this ratio is only an approximation. Too many factors, such as right-
of-way location, type of terrain, time of year, diameter of pipe, construction
specifications, and river crossings can influence this ratio.
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Table B-13
Lower Cook InletiShelikof Strait
5 Percent Scenario (Maximum Case)
Estimated Construction Employment -Develop.ent Phase
Platform
Installation
(3)
(2)
(1)
3750
2500
1250
shortt
Base-
(2) 3155
Total
Pipeline 31 Oil 21 Man
Construction-Terminal-Months
2130
2568
219
(2) 5400
2700
3155
5880
10468
4169
Average
Monthly
Employment
263
490
872
347
!I Assume expansion of facilities on Kenai (64 people for 5 months) and major construction
at Cape Chiniak (235 people for 12 months). (Source: Dames and Moore)
~I Assume 225 people for 18 months (Dames and Moore).
~I Assume 2 miles per day for onshore pipeline construction on Kenai and 1 mile per day
for construction on Kodiak. It should be noted that this ratio is only an approxi-
mation. Too many factors, such as right-of-way location, type of terrain, time of
year, diameter of pipe, construction specifications, and river crossings can influence
this ratio.
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Table B-14
Lower Cook InletiShelikof Strait
Alternative IV
Estimated Construction Employment -Development Phase
Total
Platform shorv Pipeline 3 Oil Man
Installation Base-Construction-' Terminal21 Months
(2) 670 670
(1) 1250 2130 3380
(1) 1250 601 (1) 2700 4551
131 1350 1481
Average
Monthly
Employment
56
282
379
123
!I Assume expansion of existing facilities -67 people for five months for both shore
bases (Dames and Moore).
~I Assume 225 people for 18 months (Dames and Moore).
~I Assume 2 miles per day for onshore pipeline construction on Kenai. It should be
noted that this ratio is only an approximation. Too many factors, such as right-
of-way location, type of terrain, time of year, diameter of pipe, construction
specifications, and river crossings can influence this ratio.
Table B-16
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
95 Percent Scenario (Minimum Case)
Summary of Direct Employment
Average
Monthly
Year Mining Construction Trans2ortation Total Employment
1981 Sale--September
1982 815 670 270 1755 146
1983 2084 765 2849 237
1984 2538 990 3528 294
1985 1629 3380 495 5504 459
1986 3296 5151 2310 10757 896
1987 4345 1481 2760 8586 716
1988 4847 2760 7607 634
1989 4984 2760 7744 645
1990 2188 2760 4948 412
1991 4108 2160 6268 522
1992 4108 2160 6268 522
1993 4108 2160 6268 522
1994 4108 2160 6268 522
1995 4108 2160 6268 522
1996 4108 2160 6268 522
1997 4108 2160 6268 522
1998 4108 2160 6268 522
1999 4108 2160 6268 522
2000 4108 2160 6268 522
2001 4108 2160 6268 522
2002 4108 2160 6268 522
2003 4108 2160 6268 522
2004 4108 2160 6268 522
2005 4108 2160 6268 522
2006 3832 2160 5992 499
2007 3648 2160 5808 484
2008 3372 2160 5532 461
2009 2452 2160 4612 384
2010 1226 1440 2666 222
Table B-17
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Mean Scenario
Summary of Direct Employ.ent
Average
Monthly
Year Mining Construction Transportation Total Employment
1981 Sale--September
1982 2084 3155 765 6004 500
1983 2538 1080 3618 302
1984 2538 1080 3618 302
1985 2084 3380 765 6229 519
1986 5161 10227 3900 19288 1607
1987 7369 4738 5400 17507 1459
1988 7504 5400 12904 1075
1989 7691 5400 13091 1091
1990 7871 5400 13271 1106
1991 7403 4440 11843 987
1992 7311 4440 11751 979
1993 7311 4440 11751 979
1994 7311 4440 11751 979
1995 7311 4440 11751 979
1996 7311 4440 11751 979
1997 7311 4440 11751 979
1998 7311 4440 11751 979
1999 7311 4440 11751 979
2000 7311 4440 11751 979
2001 7311 4440 11751 979
2002 7311 4440 11751 979
2003 7311 4440 11751 979
2004 7311 4440 11751 979
2005 7311 4440 11751 979
2006 6851 4440 11291 941
2007 6391 4440 10831 903
2008 5932 4440 10372 864
2009 4512 4080 8592 716
2010 3468 3600 7068 589
2011 1680 3360 5040 420
2012 1362 1920 3282 274
Table B-18
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
5 Percent Scenario (Max~ Case)
Summary of Direct Employ.ent
Average
Monthly
Year Mining Construction Transportation Total Employment
1981 Sale--September
1982 2538 3155 990 6683 557
1983 3447 1440 4887 407
1984 4811 2115 6926 577
1985 3447 5880 1440 10767 897
1986 5713 10468 3855 20036 1670
1987 10884 4169 6270 21323 1777
1988 10528 6600 17128 1427
1989 10718 6600 17318 1443
1990 10257 6000 16257 1355
1991 11862 5040 16902 1409
1992 11780 5040 16820 1402
1993 10520 5040 15560 1297
1994 10520 5040 15560 1297
1995 10520 5040 15560 1297
1996 10520 5040 15560 1297
1997 10520 5040 15560 1297
1998 10520 5040 15560 1297
1999 10520 5040 15560 1297
2000 10520 5040 15560 1297
2001 10520 5040 1!)560 1297
2002 10520 5040 15560 1297
2003 10520 5040 15560 1297
2004 10520 5040 15560 1297
2005 10520 5040 15560 1297
2006 9784 5040 14824 1235
2007 9048 5040 14088 1174
2008 8404 5040 13444 1120
2009 7025 5040 12065 1005
2010 4477 5040 9517 793
2011 4329 3960 8289 691
2012 3277 3600 6877 573
2013 2225 3600 5825 485
2014 1454 2160 3614 301
Table B-19
Lower Cook Inlet/Sbelikof Strait
Alternative IV
Summary of Direct Employment
Average
Monthly
Year Mining Construction Transportation Total Employment
1981 Sale--September
1982 1269 670 495 2434 203
1983 2084 765 2849 237
1984 2084 765 2849 237
1985 1629 3380 540 5549 462
1986 2665 4551 2040 9256 771
1987 4712 1481 2760 7472 623
1988 4844 2760 7604 634
1989 2559 2160 4719 393
1990 2375 2160 4535 378
1991 3755 2160 5915 493
1992 3755 2160 5915 493
1993 3755 2160 5915 493
1994 3755 216'0 5915 493
1995 3755 2160 5915 493
1996 3755 2160 5915 493
1998 3755 2160 5915 493
2000 3755 2160 5915 493
2001 3755 2160 5915 493
2002 3755 2160 5915 493
2003 3755 2160 5915 493
2004 3755 2160 5915 493
2005 3479 2160 5639 470
2006 3479 2160 5639 470
2007 3111 2160 5271 439
2008 2559 1920 4479 373
2009 2375 1920 4295 358
2010 1185 1200 2385 199
Table B-20
Lower Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait
Alternative V
Summary of Direct Employment
Average
Monthly
Year Mining Construction Transportation Total Employment
1981 Sale--September
1982 815 670 270 1755 146
1983 1629 495 2124 177
1984 1629 495 2124 177
1985 815 3380 270 4465 372
1986 3216 4519 2040 9775 815
1987 4345 1481 2760 8586 716
1988 2707 2160 4867 406
1989 2304 2160 4464 372
1990 2304 2160 4464 372
1991 2304 2160 4464 372
1992 2304 2160 4464 372
1993 2304 2160 4464 372
1994 2304 2160 4464 372
1995 2304 2160 4464 372
1996 2304 2160 4464 372
1998 2304 2160 4464 372
2000 2304 2160 4464 372
2001 2304 2160 4464 372
2002 2304 2160 4464 372
2003 2304 2160 4464 372
2004 3316 2160 5476 456
2005 2948 2160 5108 426
2006 2763 2160 4923 410
2007 2128 1920 4048 337
2008 1944 1920 3864 322
2009 1202 1200 2402 200
APPENDIX C
USGS ANALYSIS OF GULF OF
ALASKA OCS OPERATING ORDERS
OCS ORDERS
OCS Orders are formally numbered directives issued to implement the
provisions of Title 30 of the Code of Federal Requlations qoverninq Oil and
Gas Operations on the OUter Continental Shelf.
OCS Orders Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 12, for the Gulf of Alaska were
initially published in the Federal Reqister on January 3, 1975, with an
invitation for the submission of comments and recommendations. The issuance
of OUter Continental Shelf (OCS) Orders for the Gulf of Alaska was formally
pUblished by Federal Reqister Notice of March 9, 1976.
The Gulf of Alaska Orders were revised on May 18, 1979, after comments and
recommendations were solicited by Federal Reqister Notice, June 29, 1977,
(Vol. 42, No. 125) and Auqust 25, 1977, (Vol. 42, No. 165).
Present OCS Orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12, were made effective by
Federal Reqister Notice (Vol. 44, No. 247) Friday, December 21, 1979. The
effective date of the present Orders was January 1, 1980.
Present Gulf of Alaska Orders cover the Gulf Qf Alaska, Cook Inlet, Kodiak,
and the Southern Aleutian Shelf sale areas.
The followinq is an analysis of the present orders:
Gulf of Alaska ocs Order No. 1
This order requires all platforms, drillinq riqs, drillinq ships, and wells
to have signs of standard specifications for identification of the operator,
the specific lease block of operation, and well.number.
This Order also requires that all subsea objects, resultinq from lease
operations which coul.d present a hazard to other users of the ocs, must be
identified by naviqational markinqs as directed by the u.s. Coast Guard
District Commander. Onder this provision, the potential of accidents
associated with subsea production systems, "stubs", fishinq qear, and ship
anchors, is substantially reduced as is the possibility of an oil spill from
such an accident.
'l'his Order also requires, whenever practicable, owner • s identification, as
approved or prescribed by the Director, to be placed upon all materials,
cable, equipnent, tools, containers, and other objects which could be freed
and lost overboard fram riqs, platforms, or supply vessels, and are of
sufficient size, or are of such a nature, that they could be expected to
interfere with commercial fishinq qear if dropped overboard.
'l'he Order mitiqates impacts caused by offshore drillinq and completion
operations, fishinq anchorinq, shippinq, and naviqation activities.
Gulf of Alaska OCS Order No. 2
Proposed Order No. 2 concerns procedures for the drilling of wells. It
requires the operators to file, under an approved exploration or a
Development and Production Plan, a drilling application which includes
information on the drilling platform or vessel, well casing, mud control,
safety training of the operator's personnel, and a list describing critical
drilling operations which may be performed. The Order then describes
certain procedures, or equipment, to be used in each phase of the drilling
operation.
Due to the technical complexity of the Order, not all details are included
in describing its mitigatory impact. This proposed Order requires that
drilling platforms and vessels to be capable of withstanding the
oceanographic and meteorological conditions of the area, applications must
include all pertinent data on the fitness of the platform or vessel, and
each such drilling structure must be inspected by the u. s. Geological
SUrvey (USGS) for compliance with the OCS Orders. During the period of
operations, operators must collect and report oceanograhic, meteorological,
and performance data. These requirements should mitigate concerns about the
impact of weather, waves, sediment scour, and currents on offshore drilling
units.
Order No. 2 requires operators to conduct sha.llow geological hazard surveys
of the well site or lease block, prior to the commencement of drilling
operations. The purpose of each survey is to locate shallow gas deposits,
near-surface faults, obstructions, unstable bottan areas, or other
conditions which are hazardous to drilling operations.
All wells must be cased and cemented to support unconsolidated sediments and
to prevent conmunication of fluids between the formations, or pressure
changes in the well.. If there are indications of improper cementing, the
operator shall re-cement and run logs to insure proper aealing of the well,
or take other actions as approved by the Supervisor. The casing design and
setting depths are to be based on all engineering and qeoloqic factors,
including the presence or absence of hydrocarbons, potential geologic
hazards, and water depths. Additional casing strings may be required if
abnormal geopressures are encountered. A pressure test is required of all
casing strings, except the drive or structural casing, to determine the
presence of leaks or inadequate cementing. The use of casing decribed in
this Order should eliminate potential impacts of freshwater zone
contamination, lost production, or the possibility of accidents caused by
inadequate well control.
Operators are required to obtain directional surveys on all wells.
surveys, which are filed with the Supervisor, indicate whether the
drilled in accordance with the planned bore hole migration. These
also provide the information required for the •target• of a relief
the event of a blowout.
'!!lese
well is
surveys
well in
Blowout preventers and related pressure control equipment muat be installed,
used, and tested in a manner necessary to insure positive well control. A
specific· nunber of these preventers must be used in every well, and they
aut be equipped with dual control. systems. 'l'he blowout preventers an4
related control equi~ent shall be adequately protected to ensure reliable
operation. under existinq weather conditions. Special requirements are
included for floatinq drillinq operations which necessitate the placement of
the blowout preventer stack on the sea floor. These devices provide
protection aqainst oil spills resultinq from a loss of well control.
'!'here are specific requirements for the use and testinq of drillinq muds.
Di'illinq muds have a n\Diber of critical functions, one of the most important
beinq the con1;.rol of sub-surface pressures and the prevention of qaseoua and
liquid influxes into the wellbore. Drillinq mud proqrams must be approved
prior to the ccmmencement of drillinq. 'l!le operator must, at all times,
maintain sufficient and readily accessible quantities of mud to insure well
control. Drillinq operations shall be suspended in the absence of minimum
quantities of mud material specified, or as modified in the approved plan.
Representatives of the operator must provide on-site supervision of drillinq
operations around the clock. A member of the drillinq ~rew, or the
Tool Pusher, must maintain surveillance of the riq floor continuously from
the time drillinq operations commence until the well is secured with bloWout
preventors, bridqe pluqs, storm packer, or cement pluqs. Lessee and
drilling contractor personnel shall be trained and qualified in present-~ay
methods of well control, and records of the traininq are to be kept at the
well site. Specific well control traininq requirements are outlined in
Geological Survey ocs standard No. Tl (Gss-ocs-Tl) • 'l'he traininq
requirements are intended to minimize the potential for well blowouts caused
by h\Dan error. lbrmal traininq is supplemented with weekly
blowout-prevention ~ercises for all riq personnel. Drills are frequently
witnessed by USGS representatives and must always be recorded in the
Driller's log.
Procedures to be followed when drilling operations may penetrate reservoirs
known or expected to contain hydrogen sulfide CB 2s), or in areas where the
presence of H2S is unknown, are included in u.s. Geological Survey OCS
Standard No. l (GSS-ocS-1), •Safety Requirements·for Drilling Operations in
a Hydrogen Sulfide Environment. • '!!lis eat of standard operating procedures
will assure proper equipaent testing, and crew training, should hiqhly toxic
a2s be encountered. Hazards of a2s are substantially reduced by the
institution of these procedures.
Since some operations performed in drilling are considered more critical
than others with respect to well control, and for the prevention of fire,
explosions, oil spills, and other discharges and emmissions, each lessee
must file a Critical Operations and Curtailment Plan for the Supervisor's
approval.
'!!lis Order includes a requirement for listinq and describinq of critical
operations that are likely to be conducted on the lease. Before exceeding
the operational limits of an approved plan, the operator must notify the
SUpervisor and curtail operations. This allows the USGS to provide either
specific approval in advance of the conduct of the critical opttration, or to
c!ispatch.peraonnel to the lease site for observation of the operation. 'l'his
part of OCS order No. 2 provides additional regulatory review of drilling
operations which may pe hazardous to the drilling platform, vessel, crew,
and the environment.
Order No. 2 also requires that when sufficient geological and engineering
information is obtianed as a result of drilling operations, the lessee may
make an application, or the Supervisor may require an application, for the
establishment of field drilling ru+ea. After field drilling rules have been
established by the Supervisor, developnent wells shall be drilled in
accordance with these rules, and the requirements of this Order, which are
not affected by such rules.
In accordance w:i.th Section 21 of the ocs Iands Act Amendment of 1978, this
Order requires the use of the Best Available and Safest Technologies (BAST).
(This is discussed in the analysis of order 5.)
Gulf of Alaska OCS Order No. 3
This Order relates to the plugging and abandonment of wells. For permanent
abandonment of wells, cement plugs must be placed so as to extend above the
top, and below the bottom, of freshwater and oil or gas zones to prevent
those fluids from escaping into other strata.· Portions of a well in which
abnormal pressures are encountered are also required to be isolated with
cement plugs. Plugs are required at the bottom of the deepest casing where
an uncased hole exits below. Plugs or cement retainers are required to be
placed above and below any perforated interval of the well hole used for
production of oil and gas. If casing is cut and recovered, the casing stub
shall be plugged.
Any annular space communicating with any open hole and extending to the
ocean floor shall be plugged with cement. A surface plug at least 45 meters
(148 feet) in length, with the top of the plug 45 meters (148 feet) or less
below the ocean fioor, shall be placed in the smallest string of casing
which extends to the ocean floor.
The setting and location of the first plug below the surface casing shall be
verified by either placing a minimum pipe weight on top of the plug or by
pressure testing it with a designated minimum pump pressure. The space
between the plugs must be filled with drilling mud of sufficient density to
exceed the greatest formation pressure encountered in drilling the
interval.
The casing and piling on the sea floor must be removed to a depth below the
ocean floor as approved by the SUpervisor. For temporary abandonment&, all
plugs and mud, discussed above, must be placed in the well with the
exception of the surface plug. (The temporary abandoned well would have to
be marked in accordance with Order No. 1.)
Tbis Order should eliminate concern about contamination of freshwater zones
or the possibility of oil and gas leaks from abandoned wells. The
requirements that the sea floor above each final abandonment must be
cleared, and that the removal depth of casing and piling must be examined en
a case-by-case basis,_ will provide protection to navigation and fishery
interest. The chance that obstructions might become exposed due to changes
in bottom. conditions is reduced as well.
Gulf of Alaska OCS Order No. 4
Order No. 4 provides for the extension of a lease beyond its primary term
for as long as oil or gas may be produced in paying quantities and the
lessee has met the requirements for diligent development. If these
circumstances should occur, a lease can be extended beyond its initial term
pursuant to the authority prescribed in 30 CFR 250.10 and 250.11, and in
acco: ~ance with 30 CFR 250.12.
In addition to a production test for oil, on• of similar duration is
required for gas. All pertinent engineering, geologic, and economic data
are required to support a claim that a well is capable of being produced in
commercial quantities. Each test must be witnessed by the USGS although,
with prior approval, an operator affidavit and third-party test results may
be acceptable. When the District Supervisor determines that open hole
evaluation data, such as wireline formation tests, drill stem tests, core
data, and logs, have been demonstrated as reliable in a geologic area, such
data may be considered as acceptable evidence that a well is capable of
producing in paying quantities. The primary purpose of this Order is to
provide for determinations of well productivity Which may permit extensions
of lease terms. SUch extensions are frequently necessary to insure the
orderly development of ocs oil and gas resources.
Gulf of Alska OCS Order No. 5
This Order sets forth requirements for the installation, design, testing,
operation, and r~oval of subsurface. safety devices. Due to the technical
complexity of the Order, not all details are included in describing its
mitigatory impact. In accordance with section 21 of the OCSLAA of 1978,
this Order requires the use of BAST. The lessee· is encouraged to continue
the development of safety-system technology. As research and product
improvement results in increased effectiveness of existing safety equipment
or the development of new equipment systems, such equipment may be used, and
if such technologies provide a significant cost effective incremental
benefit to safety, health, or the environment, shall be required to be used
if determined to be BAST. Conformance to the standards, codes, and
practices referenced in this Order, will be considered to be the application
of BAST. Specific equipment, and procedures or systems not covered by
standards, codes, or practices, will be analyzed to determine if the failure
of such would have a significant effect on safety, health, or the
environment. If such are identified, and until specific performance
standards are developed or endorsed by the USGS, the lessee shall submit
such information necessary to indicate the use of BAST, the alternatives
considered to the specific equipment or procedures, and the rationale why
one alternative technology was considered in place of another. This
analysis shall include a discussion of the cost involved in the use of such
technology and the incremental benefits gained.
'l'his Order requires that Safety and Pollution-Prevention Equipment (SPPE)
shall confom to the ~ollowinq quality assurance standards or subsequent
revisions which the Chief, O:mservation Division, USGS, has approved for
use.
a. American National Standards Institute/American society of
Mechanical Enqineers Standard RQuality Assurance and Certification
of Safety and Pollution Preventional Equipment Used in Offshore
Oil and Gas Operations", ANSI/ASHE SPPE-1-1977, December 1977,
(formerly ANSI/ASME-ocs-1-1977).
b. American National Standards Institute/American Society of
Mechanical Enqineers Standard "Accreditation of Testinq
Laboratories for Safety and Pollution Prevention Equipment Used in
Offshore Oil and Gas Operations", ANSI/ASME-SPPE-2-1977, December
1977, (formerly ANSI/ASME-OCS-2-1977).
This Order requires that all well tubinq installations, open to hydrocarbon-
bearinq zones, shall be equipped with a subsurface-safety device such as a
SUrface-Controlled Subsurface-Safety Valve (SCSSV), a Subsurface-Controlled
Subsurface-Safety Valve (SSCSV), and injection valve, a tubinq pluq, or a
tubular/annular subsurface-safety device unless, after application and
justification, the well is determined to be incapable of flowing.
The lessee shall furnish evidence that the surface-controlled
subsurface-safety devices and related equipment are capable of normal
operation under subfreezinq conditions. The surface controls may be located
at a remote location.
These surface and subsurface safety valves, shall conform to RAmerican
Petroleum Institute (API) Specification for SUbsurface-Safety Valves•, API
Spec 14A, Fourth Edition, November 1979, or subsequent revisions which the
Chief, Conservation Division, has approved for use at the time of
installation.
!estinq or checkinq of these devices must be done at specified intervals.
If a device does not operate correctly, it must be promptly removed and a
properly operatinq device must be put in place and tested. Additionally,
all tubinq installations open to hydrocarbon-bearinq zones and capable of
flowinq in which the subsurface-safety device has been removed, in
accordance with the provisions of this Order, shall be identified by a siqn
on the wellhead statinq that the subsurface-safety device has been removed.
A subsurface-safety device shall be available for each well on the platform.
In the event of an emerqency, such as an impendinq storm, this device shall
be properly installed as soon as possible with due consideration beinq qiven
to personnel safety.
'!'he subsurface-safety valves prescribed in this Order serve as a mechanism
for automatically shuttinq in a well below the ocean floor in the event of
an accident, or natural event, which destroys, or threatens to destroy,
surface well control equipment. The reliability of such devices is
aaximized throuqh reqular testinq.· As a result o~ these requirements, the
prObability o~ a pr~ucible well blowout is minimized.
Proposed Order No. 5 also aets forth requirements for the desiqn,
installation, operation, and testinq of safety syst~~s for platform
production facilities. All new platforms resultinq from this sale will have
to be in conformance with ..API RP 14C, "Analysis, Design, Installation, and
18stinq o~ Basic SUrface Safety Systems on Offshore Production Platforms.•
Pr~or to the installation o~ platfoDD equipment, the lessees must submit,
for the District Supervisor's approval, schematic diaqrams with equipment,
pipeing, firefiqhting, electrical-system, gas-detection, and safety-shutdown
specifications. A safety Analysis Function Evaluation Chart must also be
submitted. This chart relates all sensinq devices, shutdown devices, and
emergency-support systems to their functions. The chart provides a means of
verifying the desiqn logic of the basic safety system.
This Order requires additional safety and pollution control requirements
which midify or are in addition to. those contained in API RP 14C for
operation of pressure vessels, flowlines, pressure senors, emerqency
shutdown systems, enqine exhaust systems, glycol dehydration units, qas
compressors, fire fighting systems, fire and qas detection systems,
electrical equipment and erosion detection and measurement equipment.
Whenever operators plan to conduct activities simultaneously with ~oduction
operations, which could increaee the possibility of occurrence of an
undepirable event, a "General Plan for Conducting Simultaneous Opera·tions•
in a producing field must be ~iled for the Supervisor's approval.
Activities requirinq the plan include drilling, workover, wireline,
pumpdown, and major construction operations. '1'he intent of this requirement
is to permit USGS review of the conduct, control, and coordinations of the
proposed operatio~s. This review will determine whether the operations can
be conducted simultaneously without significantly increasing the risk of
accidents or spills.
Prior to welding or burning operations, lessees must sUbmit a plan
describing personnel requirements and designating safe weldig areas.
Procedures for establishing sa~e welding areas, and for conducting
operations outside such areas, are specified in this Order. The
requirements reduce the potential for explosions, injuries, and pollution
discharges.
This Order also requires the lessees to maintain records, for a ~4mum
period of five years, for each surface-safety device installed. These
records shall be available for review by any authorized representative of
the USGS. The records shall show the present status and history of each
device, includinq dates and details of installation, inspection, testing,
repairing, adjustments, and re-installation.
As per USGS's Failure and Inventory Reporting System (FIRS), which applies
to offshore structures, includinq satellites and jackets, which produce or
process hydrocarbons and includes the attendant portions of hydrocarbon
pipelines, when phys~cally located on the structure. When the devices
specified are used as a part of the production safety and pollution
prevention system, this Order requires the lessee to:
a. SUbmit an initial inventory of the safety and pollution prevention
devices with periodic updates.
b. Report all device failures which occur.
Tb mitiqate the potential for accidents resultinq from human error, all
personnel enqaqed in installinq, inspectinq, testing, and maintaininq safety
devices must meet specific training requirements. This Order also sets
forth requirements for employee orientation and motivation programs
concerned with safety and pollution prevention in offshore oil and gas
operations.
Gulf of Alaska OCS Order No. 7
Order No. 7 relates to the prevention of pollution to the marine environment
and provides rules for the disposal of waste materials generated as a result
of offshore operations in a manner Which will not "adversely affect the
public health, life, property, aquatic life, wildlife, recreation,
naviqation, commercial fishing, or other uses·of the ocean.•
The operators must submit a list of drillinq mud constituents, additives,
and roncentrations expected to be used1 this provides a means to evaluate or
alter the use and/or disposal of specific components which might be harmful
to the environment. The disposal of drilling mud and drill cuttinqs, sand,
and other well solids including those containinq oil, is subject to the
Environmental Protection Aqency's permittinq procedures, pursuant to the
Federal Water Pol~ution Control Act, as amended. Approval of the method of
drillinq mud disposal into the ocean shall be obtained from the District
Supervisor, each request will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
'Ibis Order requires that curbs, qutters, drip pans, and drains shall be
installed in all deck areas in a manner necessary to collect all
contaminants and to be piped to a properly designed, operated, and
maintained sump system which will automatically maintain the oil at a level
sufficient to prevent discharge of oil into ocs waters. Also, no solid
waste materials or debris can be disposed of in the marine environment.
Compliance with these requirements virtually el~inates the potential for
adverse impacts on the biological communities, water quality, commercial
fisheries, and offshore recreation, and also mitiqates ~pacts along the
coastline which would be caused by the washinq of oil, fuel, chemical
residues, or toxic substances to shore.
The disposal of equipnent into the sea is prohibited, except under emerqency
conditions. The location and description· of any equip1lent so discharged
must be reported to the Supervisor. This requirement is intended to
mitigate the potential for interference with commercial fishinq operations.
All personnel must be thoroughly instructed in the ~evention of pollution
from offshore operations. Riqorous inspection schedules are required for
all facilities. Pollution reports are required for all oil spills, and
procedures are set forth for the notification of proper authorities.
Pollution-control equipment must be maintained, or available, to each
lessee. The equipment must include booms, skimmers, cleanup materials, and
chemical agents. 'nle equipment must be maintained and inspected monthly.
(Chemical agents or additives for treatment of oil spills requires the
consent of the SUpervisor in accordance with Annex X, National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan, and in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Transportation
{U.s. Coast Guard) and the Department of Interior (U.s. Geological Survey),
dated August 16, 1971).
This Order also sets forth requirements for pollution inspection of manned
and unattended facilities on a daily basis or at intervals prescribed by the
Supervisor, Also, it sets forth requirements for pollution reports.
Operators must submit an Oil Spill Contingency Plan for approval by the
Supervisor before an application to conduct drilling operations may be
approved. The plan must contain provisions for varying degrees of response
effort depending on the severity of the oil spill1 identification of
available containment and cleanup equipment, notification of responsible
persons and alternates in the event of a spill1 identification of areas of
special biological sensitivity; and specific actions to be taken after the
discovery of an oil discharge. Should a spill occur, immediate corrective
action must be taken.
Drilling and training classes for familiarization with pollution-control
equipment and operational procedures must be conducted on a schedule
approved by the Supervisor. '!be drills must include the deployment of
equipment.
Although the emphasis of the OCS Orders is on the ~evention of oil spills,
it is recognized that spills will occur. It is also recognized that it is
not tecnically possible to completely control and mechanically remove all
oil that is discharged. The intent of this .portion of the Order is to
insure the operators have ready access to the best practical control
equipment for the area, and for the prevailing conditions, and that
personnel are trained to effectively utilize the equipment. The operator's
plans must have sufficient flexibility to permit different spill-control
strategies for different environmental conditions. This ~ovides for
mechanical and chemical measures which best compliment the forces of nature
and maximize the protection of biological communities, shoreline resources,
and commarcial interests.
Gulf of Alaska OCS Order No. 8
This Order sets forth requirements for the design, installation, major
modification and repairs, and verification of platforms and structures.
The Order specifies the procedures for the Platform Verification Program, as
well as the requirem•nta for verifying the structural integrity of the OCS
platforms.
All structural plans must be certified by a registered professional
structural engineer or a civil engineer specializing in structural design.
Verification of the design, fabrication, installation, and modifications to
offshore platforms and structures, will be done by a certified verification
aqent who is nominated by the lessee.
The Order requires submittal of the design plan to cover design
documentation, general platform information, environmental and loading
information, foundation and structural information, and the design
verification.
~r new platforms, or other structures, and for modifications which are
subject to review under the requirements of the Platform Verification
Program, the lessee shall submit a Fabrication Verification Plan for new
platforms or other structures, and.for modifications subject to review under
the requirements of the Platform Verification P~ogram, the lessee shall
submit an Installation Verification Plan subsequent to the submittal of the
Fabrication Verification Plan.
Order No. 8 also requires the lessee to compile, retain, and make available
for review for the functional life of the platform or other structure that
is subject to the provisions of this Order, the as-built structural
drawings, the design assumptions and analysis, and a summary of the
Non-Destructive Examinations records.
This Order assures careful review of platform design and m~n~zes the
possability of spills and environmental damage resulting from structural
failure.
Gulf of Alaska OCS Order No. 12
This Order sets forth requirements for the public availability of data and
records concerning offshore petroleum operations. Under the Order, specific
types of data and records pertaining to drilling and production operations,
well testa, sale of lease production, accidents, inspections, and pollution
incidents, are to be available for public inspection. Privileged
information, such as certain geological and geophysical data, would be made
available for public inspection with the lessee's consent or after a fixed
period of time has elapsed. By making operations data available, this Order
permits increased public awareness of OCS activities and involvement in OCS
programs. Increased public interest and understanding should result in
continuing improvements in the safety and pollution-prevention programs of
both industry and Government.
APPENDIX D
USGS OILSPILL RISK ANALYSIS
DRAFT
'fable 1. --Oilspill probability estimates for spills
greater than 1000 barrels resulting from
OCS Lease Sale 60. from existing Federal
leases. or from existing oil·transportation
in the Cook Inlet area.
Expected number Most likely Probability
of spills number of of one or
(mean). spills (mode). more spills.
Sale 60 4.0 4 0.98
Existing leases 5.0 5 0.99
Sale 60 + existing 9.0 9 0.99+
Deletion alt. A 1.6 1 0.80
Del. alt. A+ existing 6.6 6 0.99+
Deletion alt. 8 1.3 1 o. 71
Del. alt. 8 +existing 6.2 6 0.99+
Existing tankers 2.0 2 0.87
Sale 60. existing leases.
and existing tankers 11.0 11 0.99+
Conditional
Table 2. --Problbflftfes (expressed fn percent chance) that an oflspfll startfng
at 1 particular locatfon ~11 contact 1 certafn target
~thfn 3 days.
Target
Land
Seabfrd. s .• Apr-Sep
Seabfrd. s .• Oct-Mar
Seabird. N •• Apr-Sep
Seabfrd. N •• Oct-Mar
Sea otter. area A
Sea otter. area B
Sea otter. area C
Sea otter. area D
Sea otter. area E
Sea otter. area F
Sea otter. area 6
Sea otter. area H
Red R her sa l110n
Karluk River salmon
Rocky. All •• Grassy
Dart. Sent •• Latex
Barren Is lands
Augustine Island
Kfukpalfk. Shakun
Target
Land
Seabfrd. s •• Apr-Sep
Selbfrd. s .• Oct-Mar
Seabird. N •• Apr-Sep
Seabfrd. N •• Oct-Mar
Sea otter. area A
Sea otter. area B
Sea otter. area C
Sea otter. area D
Sea otter. area E
Sea otter. area F
Sea otter. area 6
Sea otter. area H
Red Rfver sal110n
Karluk Rfver sal.on
Rocky. All •• Grassy
Dark. Sent •• Latax
Barren Islands
Augustfne Island
ltukpalfk. Shakun
fCYpothetfcal Spfll Locatfon
PI P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 PlO Pll P12 P13 P14 PIS Tl T2 T3
55 38 47 51 35 25 44 64 47 42 46 34 13 12 45 62 57 50
31 16 11 9 4 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 n n n 37 42 31
47 lb 31 16 10 7 11 9 9 5 4 1 1 n n 45 44 44
1 Z6 26 15 50 50 30 6 13 17 13 15 37 24 5 n n 4
n 16 12 3 50 50 26 n 9 17 12 19 41 22 6 n n n
n n -n n 1 3 n n n n n n 8 n n n n n
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
n 3 16 6 12 4 5 1 1 1 n n 1 n n n n 1
3Z Z3 16 10 5 2 3 n 1 n n n n n n 14 18 22
1 2 6 5 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 n n 1 1 7 8 2
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
n n n n 1 6 n n n n n n 17 1 n n n n
n 2 7 30 23 19 32 38 33 29 26 18 4 10 15 2 1 1
n
2
13
2
n
n
2
n n
n n
4 3
8 1 s 18
n n
1 s
n n
n n
2 n
3 1
7 15
3 7
3 1
n n n n
n n n n
n 1 n n
1 1 n n
6 6 2 3
4 15 39 30
n n 1 1
n n n n n n n n
n n n n n n 3 2
n n n n n n 2 1
n n n n n n n n
1 n n 1 n n n n
25 24 19 10 13 15 n n
n n n n n n 11 10
n
1
9
3
1
n
3
T4 T5 T6 17 T8 T9 T10 Tll T12 T13 T14 TIS T16 T17 TIS T19 T20 T21
u n 23 ~ ~ v u ro " 39 ~ 64 38 v u 8 4 s
lU l n n n 1 n n n n n 30 1 n SO n n n
29 10 1 1 2 4 1 n n n n 34 9 n SO n n n
18 43 18 28 51 SO 36 25 6 1 1 1 51 19 n n 6 1
8 42 19 35 SO 51 37 27 8 1 1 n SO 29 n n 8 2
n 1 n ~ 5 15 8 3 n n n n 19 4 n n 1 n
n n n n 5 1 n n n n n n n n n n 3 n
5 3 n n 17 4 n n n n n n 4 n n n 2 n
16 2 n n 2 1 n n n n n 57 2 n 32 n 1 4
3 1 1 n 1 1 n 1 n n n n 1 n 4 n n n
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
n 1 1 35 11 25 50 2 1 n 1 n 9 22 n n n n
10 !2 14 4 13 7 2 5 2 1 1 n 16 2 n n n n
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 2 n n n
3 1 n n n n n n n n n 49 n n n n n n
6 n n n 1 n n n n n n 1 n n n n n n
6 4 n n 28 5 n n n n n n 7 n n n 3 1
n1115 714 4 8 2 I In 6 6 n n n n
3 n n a 1 n n n n n n 1 1 n 6 n n n
Note: n • less than 0.5 percent.
Conditional
Table 3. --Probabilities (expressed fn percent chance) that an oilspill starting
at 1 particular location will contact a certain target
within 10 days.
~pothetical Spill Location
Target P1 P2 P3 P4 PS P6 P7 P8 P9 PlO Pll Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 PIS Tl T2 T3
Land 9U 8!1 89 88 85 86 90 95 91 92 93 91 81 86 93 94 94 90
Seabird, s •• Apr-Sep 38 25 18 17 8 5 10 7 7 5 6 6 4 8 8 40 45 38
Seabird, S., Oct-Mar 5U 40 39 23 18 19 17 17 zo 15 16 14 14 17 13 46 45 47
Seabird, N., Apr-Sep 2 27 28 18 50 50 32 9 16 19 15 19 40 28 7 1 1 6
Seabird, N., Oct-Mar n 16 12 4 50 50 27 2 11 17 13 zo 43 27 8 n n n
Sea otter, area A n 1 .1 1 3 6 1 n n 1 " 2 12 4 " " n 1
Sea otter, area 8 n 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 n n n " Sea otter, area C 1 b 11 9 18 7 10 4 6 6 4 4 4 2 3 n n 1
Sea otter, area 0 4J 35 26 21 12 10 12 10 11 9 10 9 12 10 7 19 26 32
Sea otter, area E 7 6 8 8 4 2 4 3 4 3 2 3 2 4 2 11 10 7
Sea otter, area F " n n " n n n n n n " n n n n n n n
Sea otter, area G n " n n 2 11 1 n n n 1 2 19 2 n n n n
Sea otter, area H 1 4 11 34 34 34 40 44 39 42 34 36 24 32 26 3 2 3
Red R tver salmon n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n " Karluk River salmon 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 n n n 1 4 3 1
Roc~. All., Grassy 14 7 5 5 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 4 11
Dart, Sent., latax 3 9 2 4 2 1 4 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 n 1 4
Barren Islands 1 7 20 11 zo 9 11 4 8 9 5 4 5 4 3 n n 2
Augustine Island n " 1 4 12 11 18 40 33 31 28 27 20 23 zo n n n
liukpaltt, Shakun 9 !» 8 !» 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 15 14 8
larget 'A Tb Tti T7 T8 T9 T10 Tll T12 Tl3 Tl4 TlS Tl6 T17 T18 T19 TZO T21
Lind 88 88 88 88 /8 90 88 85 79 83 89 92 89 86 94 18 zo 17
Seabtrd, S., Apr-Sep 21 9 5 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 32 5 2 50 n n n
Seabird, S., Oct-Mar 36 23 18 12 9 18 11 16 11 5 6 36 22 10 50 n n n
Seabird, N., Apr-Sep zu 44 20 31 51 50 36 29 14 8 6 2 51 24 n 1 8 4
Seabird, "·· Oct-Mar 8 43 20 37 50 52 38 32 19 11 8 1 50 32 n 3 11 6
Sea otter, area A n 2 3 7 8 18 12 9 3 1 1 " 19 8 n n 3 2
Sea otter, area 8 1 1 n n 12 2 1 1 n n n 1 2 n n 1 13 5
Sea otter, area C 9 7 7 4 22 7 4 4 2 1 1 1 10 4 n 1 4 4
Sea otter, area D 3U 11 1 8 9 11 5 7 4 4 2 63 12 6 37 2 2 5
Sea otter, area E b b 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 n n n
Sea otter, area F n " n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
sea otter, area G n 2 l 3/ 12 27 52 6 5 1 2 n 9 23 n n n n
Sea otter, area H 14 34 31 20 zo 26 17 27 24 16 16 1 25 22 n n n " Red River salmon n . n n n n n " n n n n n n n n n n n
Karluk River salmon 1 n 1 n n 1 1 1 n n n 1 n n 4 n n n
Rocky, All., Grassy 7 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 n n 50 3 1 1 " n n
Dark, Sent., Latax 7 3 1 z 3 2 1 1 1 n n 2 2 1 n n n n
Barren Islands 10 8 7 5 32 9 4 5 3 1 1 1 12 5 n 1 5 5
Augustine Island 1 15 25 14 3 10 lZ zo 20 13 14 n 9 17 n n n n
Kiukpalit, Shakun 9 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 " n 4 3 1 10 n n n
"ote: n • less than 0.5 percent.
Conditional
llble 4. --Probabilities (expressed in percent chance) that an oilspill starting
at 1 particular location will contact a certain target
w1thin 30 days.
"'pothetical Spill Location
llf'iet Pl P2 P3 P4 PS P6 P7 P8 P9 PlO Pll P12 Pl3 P14 PIS Tl T2 T3
Land 99 96 97 98 98 99 " 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 --99 99
Seabird, s., Apr-Sep 38 25 19 17 9 5 10 7 7 5 7 6 5 8 8 40 46 38
Seabird, S., OCt-Mar !IU 40 39 23 19 19 17 17 zo 15 16 15 16 18 13 46 45 47
Seabird, N., Apr-Sep 4 zu ZB 18 50 50 32 9 17 zo 15 19 40 Z8 8 1 2 6
Seabird, N., Oct-Mar n 16 12 4 50 50 27 2 11 17 13 zo 44 27 8 n n It
Sea otter, area A 1 1 1 1 3 7 2 1 1 1 n 2 13 5 n n n 1
Sea otter, area B 1 4 2 2 6 4 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 n n 1
Sea otter, area C 2 6 18 10 18 9 11 4 7 7 ,. ., 4 4 3 3 1 n 2
Sea otter, area 0 44 36 26 22 13 11 13 10 11 10 11 10 16 12 8 20 27 33
Sea otter, area E 7 1 IS 8 4 2 5 4 5 3 2 3 4 4 2 11 10 7
Sea otter, area F n n n 1 n n n n n n n n n n n It 1 n
Sea otter, area G n n n n 2 11 1 n n 1 1 2 zo 3 n n It n
Sea otter. area H 1 5 12 34 34 36 40 44 39 42 35 37 25 34 27 3 2 3
Red River salmon n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Karluk River salmon 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 n n 1 1 4 3 1
Rocky, All •• Grassy 14 7 5 5 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 4 12
Dart. Sent •• Latax 4 9 3 4 2 2 4 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 4
Barren Is lands z 9 21 11 21 11 12 5 9 9 5 5 5 5 4 1 n 2
Augustine Island n 1 1 4 12 11 18 40 33 31 28 27 21 24 21 • n • Kiukpalik, Shakun 9 6 8 6 3 3 4 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 15 14 9
llf'iet T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 TlO T11 T12 T13 T14 TIS T16 T17 T18 T19 TZO T21
land 98 99 99 99 94 98 99 99 99 94 --99 --36 37 37
Seabird. s .• Apr-Sep 22 9 5 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 1 32 5 3 50 n It n
Seabird, s., Oct-Mar 3b 23 18 13 10 18 11 16 13 6 6 36 22 11 50 n n n
Seabird. N •• Apr-Sep 2U 44 21 31 51 50 36 30 14 8 8 3 51 24 1 4 9 6
Seabird, N •• Oct-Mar 8 43 21 37 51 52 39 32 zo 11 8 1 50 32 n 4 12 8
Sea otter. area A 1 4 4 1 9 19 15 11 4 1 3 1 zo 9 • 1 4 3
Sea otter. area B 3 3 2 1 16 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 n 4 18 8
Sea otter. area C 9 8 8 4 22 8 4 6 3 2 2 1 10 4 It 3 5 6
Sea otter. area D 3U 12 7 9 10 12 6 7 7 5 3 64 13 8 37 2 2 7
Sea otter. area E 6 5 4 2 2 3 2 4 2 1 1 3 4 2 7 n n • Sea otter, area F n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 1 3 1 2
Sea otter. area G n 2 3 38 12 27 52 7 6 1 3 n 9 24 n n n • Sea otter. area H 15 35 32 21 21 26 18 Z8 26 18 17 2 26 23 It 1 n n
Red River salmon . n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n • Karluk River salmon 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1 1 4 n n n
Moe~. All •• Grassy 7 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 It n 50 4 1 1 n n n
Dark, Sent •• Latax 7 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 n 1 1 1
Barren Islands 11 9 8 5 33 10 5 7 4 2 2 1 12 5 n 4 ' 7
Augustine Island 1 16 25 15 3 10 12 20 21 15 14 n 9 17 n 1 • n
Kiukpalik, Shakun 9 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 n 1 5 3 2 10 n n n
Note: n • less than 0.5 percent. ** • greater than 99.5 percent.
Conditional
T1bte 5. --Prob1btltttes (expressed tn percent chance) thet en ot1spt11 1t1rttno
1t 1 ptrttcul•r loc1tton wtll cont1ct 1 cert1tn l1nd s.,..nt
wtthtn 3 d1y1.
Land HYpothettcll Spt11 Loc1tton
Segment P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 T1 T2 T3 T4 TS TS Tr Tl T9 TlO Tll TlZ T13 T14 T15 TIS T17 T18 T19 T20 T21
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
liS
20
21
22
23
24
26
21
4U
41
4l
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 so
51
53
54
!»!»
56
57
58
59
6U
61
bl
63
64
bb
67
b9
10
71
12
/3
1 "
1 " 4 1
3 2
7 4
5 3
11 9
2
16 13
2 2
" " 1 n
1 1
n n
n n
n 1
n n
" " " " n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n z 2
3 3
4 1
1 1
4 4
1
n
n
n
" n
n
" " n
" n
1 rr
5 2
4 1
1 " 2 n
3 2 z 1
n Z
3 15
n 4
n n
2
n
" " n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n n n
n n n n
1 n 2 1
2 n 2
1 n
n n
n 1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
" 1
" n
n
2 z
1
n
1
1
" n
II
1
1
n
n
1 n n n
6 4 2 1 1
7 11 16 3 8
" 4
n
1
n
1
" 2
" n
" 1
n 3 1
9 29 21
1 2 n
3
8
3
3 21
2
3
n
1
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n n n n
n n
"
1 1
1 n
2 1 " 12 S 3
n 1 n
13 15 lZ
n n 1
1 3 3
2 5 1
9 13 10
2 2 2
" 1 1 n n 1
" " 1 n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n
n
n
n
3
" 1
n
n
n
1
1
" n
2
n
" n
2
n
1
n
1
n 1
7 11
n " n 5
n 4
1 7
n 6
" 6 n 6
3 n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n " n n
2 2 n
6 4 n
4 3 7
1 2 2
4 5 1
2 5 1
3 1 12
" "
1
2 22 21
3 4 1
1 1 n
6 5 1
4 4 1
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n " n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n
n
2
3
2
2
5
1
1
n
1
2
4
1
3
2
n
n
n n
n n
1
1
n
n
" n
n
n
n
n
n
" " " II
" " " 1
n
" n
1
1
n s
8 3
n n
5 11
n n
1 2
1 n z z
1 1
" 2
" 2 n 2
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
2
n
1
" n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
1
"
" " " " n
" 1
1
1
7
3
n
n
n
n
" n
n
n
n
n
n
n
" n
n
n
"
4
n
1
" " " n
n
n
1
" 1
1
1
n n
" n
n
n
" " " "
2
"
n
"
"
2 2 1
n n n
n n n
n n n n
1 n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
4 10 21 3
n n 1 n
n n 6 n
n n 2 n
1 3 7 22
" " 2 20 n n 1 1
n n n 5
" " 2
1
4
4
45
" " " " " II
" n
" " " " 2 s
1
" 1
" n
" " " " " n
n
n
" " n
1
n
n
1
1
n
3
7
n
2
n
n
1
2
n
n
n
n
" " n
n
n
n
n
"
1
" 1
n
" " n
n
" " 1
n
n
n
1
1
2
2
3
1
9
5
23
" n
n
n
" n
" n
" II
1
1
3
1
5
7
1
1
4
" n
n
n
n
" n
n
n
" " n
n
n
n
" n
" " n
n
n
n
" " " " " " n
" " 1
2
3
2
1
"
n
"
" II
II
" n
n
" 1
1 z
1
" " "
n
I
Conditional
Table 6. --Probabtltttes (expressed tn percent chance) that an ottspttl starttng
at a particular tocatton wtll contact a certatn land segment
wtthtn 10 days.
Land Hypothetical Spttl Locatton
Segment P1 PZ PJ P4 PS P6 P7 P8 P9 PIO P11 P12 P13 P14 PIS Tl T2 Tl T4 TS T6 T7 T8 T9 TIO Til T12 Til Tl4 TIS T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21
9
lU
11
1l
13
14
15
16
11
18
2U
21
22
2J
24
26
21
29
3l
3/
38
3!1
40
41
42
43
44
4!»
4b
47
48
4!1
50
51
53
54
55
!lb
5/
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
n n
1 1
2 1
2 1
5 3 s 3
10 1
6 4
22 14
3 n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
2
3
3
8
5
6
2
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n· n
n n
n n n
I 1 1
1 2 1
2 1 1
1 n 2
2 3 4
19 21 10
3 !I 6
2 1 2
4 3 4
3 3 6
n 2
n
n
n
1
4
4
3
2
8
1
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
2
4
2
3
2
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
n
1
n
2
2
3
3
2
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n n n n
n
n
n
1
3
3
2
2
3
I
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
n
n
n
1
3
1
2
1
4
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n 1 n n 1 n n
n
1
n
1
3
2
2
2
3
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
2 1 n n n n 1 n
n
n
1
1
3
2
2
1
3
1
n
n
n
n
n
2
2
2
2
4
n
n
n
n
n
n
1 z
3
3
1
4
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 n n n
1 n n n 1 1 n n n n 1
31212111111 s 3 s s 4 4 4 3 3 2 s
2 2 1 1 2 2 I 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 n n 1 n 1 n 1
2 1 1 2 1 1 n 1 n I 1
4 2 n 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
/3111111212 n
n n 2 1 n 1 n n 1 1 I 1 1
5 19 9 8 s 3 3 6 2 s 2 4
1 S 12 19 20 4 11 IS 11 9 13 11
n
n
n
n
4
2
1
1
2
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
3
6 s z
8
4
4
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
2
n 1 n n
1 n n n
3 1 1 1 s 3 1 2
5 9 4 .. 4
3 4 5 3
9 4 7 z
8 3 3 1 s 16 12 3
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1 1 z
1 n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n 1
n
n n
r. 1 1 1 n n
1 n 1 2 2 n
1 1 1 2 1
1 2 3 I z
1 2 4 2 2
4 30 26 2S 14
1 4 4 4 3
n
1
2
7
2
n
n
1
2
2 z
2 z z
1
1
2
3
1
n
n
n
1
2
1
2
1
3
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
n
n
1
2
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
2 s
2
n
1
3 2 2 2 n n n n
8 8 4 2 1 1 n 1
74 561111
n n 4 1 n n 3
n
n
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
1
1
3
1
n
1
1 z
n
1
1
1
1
3 s
n n
1
2 1 1 n 1 11
4 10 4 3 10 3
3 13 9 11 5 14
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
2
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
I
n
2
n
n
n
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
1 1 4 2 2 I 1
ti 11 29 22 16 18 17
1 3 n I 1 1 s 22 6 3 s s
3 1 10 6 6 2
s 2 4 11 16 12
n
1
1
3
1
n n 2
7 1S 14
1 n z
2
2
1
1
2
8
n
6
7
9
7
9
7
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1 1
8 16
1 s
1
4
4 s
5
3
n z
3
4
1 z
1
1
n
5
n
1
2
3
n z
n
1
1 z
1
n
5
n
2
1
1
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n "' 2
5
n
n
n
1
n
n
n
n
n 2 3 2
n 1 2 3
n· 1 1 5
n n n 2
2
3
4
2
2
2
7 n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n·
n·
n·
n·
n
n
n'
n
rr
"
n
2
1
5
n
n
1
n
n
1
3
n n n n
n n n n
1 1 n n
n 1 1 n
2 2 2 1
1 2 2 1
1 2 1 1
2 1 n n
2 2 1 2
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n 1 n n
n n n n
1 n n n
n 1 n 1
2 3 2 1
1 1 n n
n 1 n n
n 1 n n
n 1 n 11
1 1 1 n
n n n n
3 2 1 3
7 12 6 3
n 1 1 n
6 11 14 10
n n n n
1 2 3 z
1 1 4 3 z 3 3 2
1 2 z z
n 2 2 2
1 2 2 1
3 11 17 27
n n n
n n n
n n n
I 1 2
1 4 2
1 2 2
1 s 3
6 1
47 3
n 1
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
1 n
n n
n 1
2 1
3 1
2 n
4 1
1 9 4
n 1 2
n 2 n
n 2 1
n 1 2
n n 1
n n n
1 n 7
4 1 10
1 n n
9 n 6
n n n
1 n 1
n n 2
2 n 3
1 n 1
1 n 1
1 n 1
8 " 2
n 1
n 1
n 4
n 2
1 10
1 6
1 zs
1 2
2 2
1 n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
2
5
4
3
1 1
2 10
1 2
n Z
1 6
1 1
1
n z
9
1
9
n
2
1
2
1
1
2
7
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
2
4
4
2
2
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
2
2
n
n
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Conditional
T1ble 7. --Problbflftfes (expressed fn percent ch1nce) that 1n oflspfll starting
1t 1 p1rtfcul1r loc1tfon wfll contact 1 certafn l1nd segMent
wfthfn 30 d1ys.
L1nd Hypothetical Spfll Loc1tfon
Segment P1 PZ P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P1Z P13 P14 P15 T1 TZ T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T1Z T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 Tl9 TZO TZ1
1
3
4
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1!1.
16
11
18
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
Z8
2Y
30
32
33
34
3!1
36
37
38
3!1
40
41
42
43
44
4!)
4b
4/
48
49
50
51
53
n n n n
1 n 1 1
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
n n n n
1 1 n 1
Z 1 1 n
J 2 2 1
5 3 3 4
5 3 3 5
10 1 8 3
1 4 5 3
23 14 6 9
3 2 1
n 1
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1 n
1 n 1 z 1 1
1 2 1
2 1 1
1 n 2
2 J 4
20 21 10
3 5 6
2 1 3
4 3 4
3 "4 6
n 2
n
1
2
1
1
3
6
3
1
2
5
7 n
n
n
n
2
n 2
5 19
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
1 1
1 n
2 2
4 2
2 3
3 3 z 2
1 n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
1 n
1 n
1 n
1 1
1 n
1 n
1 2
3 6
3 2
1 1
1 1
3 n
3 2
1 n
9 8
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
3
3
3
1
4
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
1
n
2
5
2
1
2
2
2
1
5
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
1
1
3
2
2 z
4
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
1
1
2
4
2
n
2
2
1
n
3
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
4
3
2
2
3
1
n
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
1
n
1
n
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
n
3
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
1 1
n 1
2 2
3 3
1 2
2 3 z 2
4 4
n n
n n
n n
n n
n · n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n 1
1 n
1 1
n n
1 1
4 3
1 2
1 n
n 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
6 2
n n n
1 n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
1 n 1
1 n 1
3 2 2
2 4 3
2 2 3
1 3 1
4 5 5
n 1 1
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n . n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
n n n
1 n n
1 n 1
1 n 1
1 n 1
1 2 1
3 2 6
1 1 3
1 n 1
1 1 1
2 3 2 z 1 2
1 1 1
5 2 4
n n n n n n
n n n 1 n n
n n n n n n
n n
1 1
n 1
n 1
n 4
n 6
4 6
2 2
1 9
2 4
2 5
n
n
n
n 2
n n n
n n n
1 1 n
1 n n
4 1 1
5 3 2
5 9 4
3 4 5
9 4 7
8 3 3
5 17 13
1 1
1
n
n n
1 n
n
n
1
1
1
2
4
3
3
1
3
2
n
1
n n 1 1 1 n
n 1 1 2 1• n
n 1 2 2 n 1
1 1 1 2 1 1
2 2 3 1 2 2
1 2 4 2 2 2
4 30 26 26 15 7
1 4 4 4 3 2
1 3 2 3 3 n
1 9 8 4 3 1
1 7 5 5 6 2
1 n n n 4 2
1 n n n 2 1
4 n n 1 4 10
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
n
n
2
1
2
3
1
n
1
1
n
1
4
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
1 1
1 1
3 n
1 n
2 1
1 2
3 5
n 2
1 n
11 n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n 1
1 n
n n
n n
n n
2 1
2 2
1 1
n n
1 1
2 1
n • 3 n 1
3 10
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
2
1
4
2
4
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
n
1
1
1
1
4
1
n
1
1
2
n
3
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
1 1
n 1
2 2
1 2
1 2
2 1
2 2
n n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n n
1 1
n n
1 n
1 1
2 3
1 2
n 1
n. 2
n 2
1 1
n n
3 2
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
1
n
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
2
1
n
2
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
1
2
1
n
n
1
n
1
n
3
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n 1
n n
1 1
1 4
1 2
2 6
6
48
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n 1
n n
n n
n 2
n 3
1 2
n 5
1 9
1 1
n 2
1 3
n 1
1 n
• n 1 n
n
n
n
1
1
n
n
n
2
2
3
4
1
4
1
1
n
n
n
1
n
1
1
1
n
1
4
2
1
1
2
1
n
7
n n
n 1
n n
n n
1 n
n 1
n 1
1 4
n 2
1 10
1 6
2 26
2 2
2 2
1 n
11 n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n n
n 1
n 1
n 2
n 5
1 4
1 4
1 1
3 10
1 3
1 2
1 6
1 1
1 n
n n
2 n
1
1
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
n
1
3
4
5
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
n
n
1
1
n
n
1
1
n
n
1
1
1
n
1
1
1
n
1
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
1
1
3
3
n
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
DRAFT
Final
Table 8. --Probabtltttes (expressed tn percent chance) of one or more sp111s,
the most likely number of sptlls, and the expected number of sp111s
occurring and contacting targets over the production 11 fe
of the proposed lease area.
-------Wtthtn 3 days ----------------Wtthin 10 days ---------------Wtthin 30 days --------Proposed Extsttng and Proposed Extsttng and Proposed Ex 1st 1 ng and
Proposed Proposed Proposed
Target Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
land 71 1 1.5 95 2 2.9 94 2 2.8 ** 6 6.4 96 3 3.3 ** 7 7.4
Seabird. S., Apr-Sep 49 0 0.7 54 0 0.8 54 0 0.8 66 1 1.1 55 0 0.8 67 1 1.1
Seabtrd. S., Oct-Mar 57 0 0.8 69 1 1.2 63 0 1.0 83 1 1.8 63 1 1.0 83 1 1.8
Seabird. N •• Apr-Sep 35 0 0.4 84 1 1.8 38 0 0.5 86 1 1.9 40 0 0.5 86 1 2.0
Seabtrd. N •• Oct-Mar 33 0 0.4 83 1 1.8 36 0 0.4 85 1 1. 9 37 0 0.5 85 1 1.9
Sea otter. area A 3 0 0.0 12 0 0.1 5 0 0.1 20 0 0.2 8 0 0.1 26 0 0.3
Sea otter. area 8 1 0 0.0 6 0 0.1 8 0 0.1 25 0 0.3 13 0 0.1 38 0 0.5
Sea otter. area C 5 0 0.1 22 0 0.3 11 0 0.1 39 0 0.5 14 0 0.2 44 0 0.6
Sea otter. area D 35 0 0.4 42 0 0.6 48 0 0.7 68 1 1.1 50 0 0.7 70 1 1.2
Sea otter. area E 8 0 0.1 12 0 0.1 17 0 0.2 27 0 0.3 17 0 0.2 29 0 0.3
·Sea otter. area F n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 0.0 4 0 o.o 5 0 o.o
Sea otter. area G 12 0 0.1 37 0 0.5 13 0 0.1 40 0 0.5 13 0 0.1 41 0 0.5
Sea otter. area H 22 0 0.2 60 0 0.9 33 0 0.4 77 1 1.5 35 0 0.4 79 1 1.5
Red River salmon n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 1 0 o.o
Karluk River salmon 3 0 0.0 3 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 9 0 0.1
Rocky, All., Grassy 6 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 17 0 0.2 10 0 0.1 18 0 0.2
Dark. Sent •• latax 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 14 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 16 0 0.2
Barren Is 1 ands 7 0 0.1 29 0 0.3 14 0 0.1 46 0 0.6 17 0 0.2 50 0 0.7
Augustine Island 11 0 0.1 41 0 0.5 16 0 0.2 53 0 0.7 17 0 0.2 54 0 o.a
Kiukpalik, Shakun 11 0 0.1 13 0 0.1 19 0 0.2 26 0 0.3 19 0 0.2 27 0 0.3
Note: n • less than 0.5 percent;, ** • greater than 99.5 percent.
Final
Table 9. --Probabilities (expressed in percent chance) of one or more spills.
the most likely number of spills. and the expected number of spills
occurring and contacting targets over the production life
of the proposed lease area. deletion alternative IV.
-------Within 3 days ----------------Within 10 days ---------------Within 30 days --------
Proposed Existing and Proposed Existing and Proposed Existing and
Proposed Proposed Proposed
Target Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
Land 38 0 0.5 85 1 1.9 69 1 1.2 99 4 4.7 74 1 1.4 ** 5 5.5
Seabird, S., Apr-Sep 5 0 0.1 15 0 0.2 12 0 0.1 34 0 0.4 12 0 0.1 35 0 0.4
Seabird, S., Oct-Mar 13 0 0.1 38 0 0.5 23 0 0.3 65 1 1.0 23 0 0.3 65 1 1.0
Seabird, N., Apr-Sep 34 c 0.4 84 1 1.8 36 0 0.4 85 1 1. 9 36 0 0.4 85 1 1. 9
Seabird, N., Oct-Mar 32 0 0.4 83 1 1.8 33 0 0.4 84 1 1.8 34 0 0.4 85 1 1.9
Sea otter, area A 3 0 0.0 12 0 0.1 5 0 0.0 19 0 0.2 6 0 0.1 25 0 0.3
Sea otter, area 8 1 0 0.0 6 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 25 0 0.3 10 0 0.1 35 0 0.4
Sea otter, area C 5 0 0.1 22 0 0.3 10 0 0.1 38 0 0.5 11 0 0.1 42 0 0.5
Sea otter, area D 6 0 0.1 17 0 0.2 17 0 0.2 48 0 0.7 18 0 0.2 50 0 0.7
Sea otter, area E 2 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 5 0 0.1 18 0 0.2 6 0 0.1 19 0 0.2
Sea otter, area F n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 0.0 n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
Sea otter, area G 10 0 0.1 36 0 0.4 -11 0 0.1 39 0 0.5 11 0 0.1 40 0 0.5
Sea otter, area H 20 0 0.2 59 0 0.9 29 0 0.3 76 1 1.4 30 0 0.4 77 1 1.5
Red River salmon n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o
Karluk River salmon n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 0.0
Rocky, All., Grassy 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 12 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 12 0 0.1
Dark, Sent., Latax 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 4 0 0.0 12 0 0.1 4 0 o.o. 14 0 0.1
Barren Is 1 ands 7 0 0.1 29 0 0.3 12 0 0.1 45 0 0.6 14 0 0.1 48 0 0.7
Augustine Island 9 0 0.1 40 0 0.5 13 0 0.1 51 0 0.7 14 0 0.1 52 0 0.7
Kiukpalik. Shakun 1 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 4 0 0.0 12 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 13 0 0.1
Note: n • less than 0.5 percent; ** • greater than 99.5 percent.
Final
Table 10. --Probabilities (expressed in percent chance) of one or .ore spills,
the .ost likely nUMber of spills, and the expected nu.ber of sptlls
occurring and contacting targets over the production life
of the proposed lease area, deletion alternative v.
-------Within 3 days ----------------Within 10 days --------··-----Within 30 days -------·
Proposed Existing and Proposed Existing and Proposed Ex1sttng and
Proposed Proposed Proposed
Target Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
Land 32 0 0.4 83 1 1.8 59 0 0.9 99 4 4.5 65 1 1.0 99 5 5.2
Seabird, s .• Apr-Sep 3 0 o.o 13 0 0.1 8 0 0.1 32 0 0.4 8 0 0.1 32 0 0.4
Seabird, S., Oct-Mar u 0 0.1 35 0 0.4 17 0 0.2 61 0 1.0 17 0 0.2 62 0 1.0
Seabird, N., Apr-Sep 27 0 0.3 82 1 1.7 29 0 0.3 84 1 1.8 29 0 0.3 84 1 1.8
Seabird, N., Oct-Mar 26 0 0.3 81 1 1.7 27 0 0.3 83 1 1.8 28 0 0.3 83 1 1.8
Sea otter, area A 2 0 o.o 11 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 18 0 0.2 5 0 0.1 24 0 0.3
Sea otter, area 8 1 0 o.o 5 0 0.1 5 0 0.1 23 0 0.3 8 0 0.1 33 0 0.4
Sea otter, area C 4 0 o.o 22 0 0.2 8 0 0.1 37 0 0.5 9 0 0.1 40 0 0.5
Sea otter, area D 3 0 0.0 14 0 0.2 11 0 0.1 ~ 0 0.6 12 0 0.1 47 0 0.6
Sea otter, area E 1 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 17 0 0.2 4 0 o.o 18 0 0.2
Sea otter, area F n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
Sea otter, area G 8 0 0.1 34 0 0.4 9 0 0.1 38 0 0.5 9 0 0.1 38 0 o.s
Sea otter, area H 18 0 0.2 58 0 0.9 26 0 0.3 75 1 1.4 26 0 0.3 76 1 1.4
Red River sal.on n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o
Karluk River salmon n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
Rocky, All., Grassy 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 10 0 0.1 3 0 o.o 11 0 0.1
Dark, Sent., Latax 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 11 0 0.1 3 0 o.o 12 0 0.1
Barren Islands 5 0 0.1 28 0 0.3 10 0 0.1 44 0 0.6 11 0 0.1 46 0 0.6
Augustine Island 9 0 0.1 39 0 0.5 12 0 0.1 50 0 0.7 12 0 0.1 51 0 0.7
Kiukpalik, Shakun 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 11 0 0.1 3 0 o.o 12 0 0.1
Note: n • less than 0.5 percent.
Final Table 11. --Probabtltties (expressed tn percent chance) of one or more spills.
the most likely number of spills. and the expected number of sptlls
occurring and contacting targets over the production life
of the proposed lease area. transportation alternative A.
-------Withtn 3 days ----------------Withtn 10 days ---------------Wtthin 30 days --------
Proposed Existing and Proposed Existing and Proposed Existing and
Pl'oposed Proposed Proposed
Target Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
Land 72 1 1.:$ 93 2 z.7 95 2 2.9 •• 6 b.5 97 ;j ;$.4 .. 1 7.6
Seabird. s •• Apr-Sep 28 0 0.3 3ti 0 0.4 39 0 u.s !»5 u u.a 3~ u U.!) 55 u u.a
Seabtrd. s •• Uct-Har 42 0 u.~ 59 u u.~ !)!) u u.ts 7~ 1 lob ,.. u u.ts tsU 1 1.b
Seabtrd, N., Apr-Sep 51 u 0.7 88 2 2.1 5!) u u.a w l Z.J !Sb u u.a !IU l z.;j
Seabtrd, N., Oct-Mar !)'l u 0.7 UH z 2.1 55 u u.a ~~~ z z.z 5b u u.a !IU z z.;j
Sea otter, area A 1 u 0.1 15 u u.z 161! u 0.1 ~ u U.:$ 15 u u.z 32 u U.4
Sea otter, area B 3 u u.u 7 u U.1 14 u 0.2 31 u 0.4 21 u u.z 4:$ u U.b
Sea otter, area C I:S u U.1 2!) u u.J 17 u u.z 44 u U.6 20 u u.z 4H u U.b
Sea otter, area D 'll u u.z 31 u 0.4 4U u U.!) 62 u 1.U 42 u u.s 6!) 1 1.U
Sea otter, area E b u 0.1 1U u 0.1 1!) u u.z Zb u u.J 1.b u u.z 21:1 u u.J
Sea otter, area F n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u 1 u u.u z u u.u
Sea otter, area G 1~ u u.z 42 u u.s 21 u u.z 4b u U.b 21 u u.z 47 u U.b
Sea otter. area H :a:s u U.:$ bJ 1 l.U 47 u u.b HZ 1 1.7 49 u u.7 I:SJ 1 1.8
Red M1ver salmon n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u 1 u u.u
Karluk Niver salmon 1 u u.u .1 u u.u 4 u u.u !) u U.1 4 u u.u 7 u U.1
Rocky, All., Grassy 6 u 0.1 8 u U.l 11 u U.1 18 0 0.2 11 0 0.1 19 u u.z
Dark, Sent., Latax 4 u u.u !) u 0.1 8 u U.1 1b u u.z 9 u U.1 ltS u u.z
Barren Islands 11 u U.1 ;u u U.4 ZC! u u.z !)1 u u.7 zs u u.J !)!) u u.ts
Augustine Island 1b u u.z 44 u U.b 27 u U.:$ !)9 0 u.Y 27 u U.:$ bU u U.Y
K1ukpaltk. Shakun 1 0 0.1 9 0 U.1 14 u u.z ~~ u u.z 1!» u u.z 24 u u.J
Note: n • less than 0.5 percent; •• • greater than 99.5 percent.
Final
Table 12. •• Probabilities (expressed in percent chance) of one or more sp111s,
the most likely number of spills, and the expected number of sp111s
occurring and contacting targets over the production ltfe
of the proposed lease area, transportat.ton alternative B.
---·-·· Within 3 days --·---·--------· Wtthtn 10 days ---····--···-·-Wtthfn 30 days -·------
Proposed Ex1st1ng and Proposed Extst1ng and Proposed Ex1stfl19 and
Proposed Proposed Proposed
Target Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
Land 7l. 1 1.3 !IJ l l.7 94 l l.U ** 6 b.4 96 3 3.3 ** 7 1.4
Seabtrd, s .• Apr-Sep 29 u 0.3 36 0 0.!) 40 0 0.5 !)5 u u.s 40 u U.!) !)b u u.u
Seabtrd, s., Oct-Mar 4!) u U.b b1 u U.!l !)/ u u.u tru 1 1.b 51 u u.u HU 1 l.b
Seabtrd 1 N •• Apr·Sep 57 u O.H 89 2 2.2 59 u 0.9 91 l 2.4 60 u u.9 91 2 Z.4
Seabtrd. N •• Uct·Mar !)4 u u.s tJij l z.z f)/ 0 0.8 90 2 2.3 5/ 0 U.9 90 l Z.J
Sea otter, area A 12 u 0.1 lU u u.z 1!» 0 u.z 28 u u.3 18 u U.l ;$4 u u.4
Sea otter. area B 4 u u.u l:i u U.1 18 u 0.2 33 0 U.4 25 u U.J 46 u U.b
Sea otter •. area C 11 0 U.l 27 0 0.3 20 u U.l 4b u U.b 23 u U.3 !)() u U.7
Sea otter. area D 2J u 0.3 Jl u U.4 41 u U.!) bJ u 1.U 43 u U.b bb 1 1.1
Sea otter. area E 6 u U.1 11 u 0.1 1!) 0 U.l lb u U.3 16 u u.z lU u U.3
Sea otter. area F n 0 u.u n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u 1 u u.u z u u.u
Sea otter. area G 7 u 0.1 :u u U.4 8 u U.1 37 u U.!) 8 u U.l Jl:i u u.:,
Sea otter. area H 3J u 0.4 bb 1 1.1 4!) u U.b HZ 1 1.7 4b u U.b HZ 1 1.7
Ned Rtver salmon n 0 u.u n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u 1 u u.u
Karluk K1ver salmon 1 u u.u 1 u u.u 3 u u.u !) u U.l 4 u u.u b u U.1
Rocky, All •• Grassy 6 u U.l 8 u 0.1 12 u 0.1 19 0 u.z 12 u 0.1 zo u u.z
Dark. Sent., Latax 4 u u.u b u U.1 8 u U.1 lb u 0.2 g '() U.l Ul u u.z
Barren Islands 1b u u.z 3b u U.4 2b u u.3 !)4 u U.H 2tS u U.J 57 u u.u
Augustine Island 14 u u.z 43 u U.b 20 u u.z !)!) u U.H 21 u U.l !)b u u.u
K1ukpal1k, Shakun 7 u 0.1 10 u U.1 1!» u u.z l"~ u u.J 1b u u.z Z4 u U.J
Note: n • less than 0.!) percent; •• • greater than 99.5 percent.
Final
Table 13. --Probabtlftfes (expressed fn percent chance) of one or more spflls,
the most ltkely number of spflls, and the expected number of spills
occurr1ng and contacting targets over the production life
ot the proposed lease area, transportation alternative C.
-------Wfthtn 3 days ----------------Wtthfn 10 days ---------------Wtthfn 30 days --------
Proposed Existing and Proposed Existing and Proposed t:.x1Sting and
Proposed Proposed Proposed
Target Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
Land 71$ 1 1.5 95 2 2.9 93 2 2.7 •• 6 6.3 96 3 3.2 .. 7 1.4
Seabird, s .• Apr-Sep 47 0 0.6 53 0 0.7 55 0 0.8 66 1 1.1 55 0 u.s 67 1 1.1
Seabird, s .• Oct-Mar 59 0 0.9 71 1 1.2 64 1 1.0 83 1 1.8 64 1 1.0 83 1 1.1$
Seab1rd, N., Apr-Sep 21 0 0.2 81 1 1.6 28 0 0.3 8~ 1 1.8 31 0 0.4 1$4 1 l.ts
Seab1rd, N., Oct-Mar l!» 0 0.2 19 1 1.!) 21 0 o.z til 1 1.7 2~ u u.J 8l 1 1.7
Sea otter, area A n 0 o.o 9 0 0.1 3 u o.o 18 0 0.2 6 0 0.1 24 u U.J
Sea otter, area B n u u.u 4 u o.u 1 u 0.1 2!» u u.J 14 u U.l 38 0 0.!»
Sea otter, area C 4 0 u.u Z1 u u.z lZ 0 0.1 40 u 0.!» 1b u u.z 4!» u U.b
Sea otter, area 0 53 u u.as !»1$ u U.Y 63 u 1.U 71 1 1.!» 65 1 1.U 79 1 1.!»
Sea otter, area E 6 u U.l 10 u U.1 1S u u.z Zb u U.J 1ti \.1 u.z ZIS u u.J
Sea otter, area F n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u 3 u u.u 4 u u.u
Sea otter, area G n u u.u zy u U.J 1 u u.u JZ u U.4 1 u u.u :u u U.4
Sea otter, area H 17 u u.2 !»8 u U.Y 2!» u U.J 7S 1 1.4 2b u U.J 7b 1 1.4
Red River salmon n 0 o.u n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u n u u.u 1 u u.u
Karluk Rtver salmon z u u.u z u u.u 4 u u.u b u U.1 4 u u.u 7 u U.1
Nocky, All., Grassy 3S 0 U.4 36 u u.4 38 0 u.s 43 u u.6 3tS u U.!» 44 u U.b
Dark, Sent., Latax 5 u u.u 6 u U.1 8 0 U.1 16 0 U.2 9 0 0.1 18 0 u.z
Barren islands 5 u U.1 Zl:i u U.l 14 u u.z 4b u U.b liS u u.z !»1 u u.7
August1ne island 7 u 0.1 38 0 u.s g 0 0.1 49 0 0.7 9 0 0.1 50 u U.7
K1ukpal1k, Shakun 8 0 U.l 11 u U.1 18 0 0.2 25 0 0.3 19 u u.z Z7 u u.J
Note: n • less than u.s percent; •• • greater than 99.5 percent.
Final
Table 14. -· Probabilities (expressed in-percent chance) of one or more spills,
the most likely number of spills, and the expected nu•ber of sptlls
occurring and contacting land segMents over the production life
of the proposed lease area.
'
-··-··· Wt th 1n 3 days ----------------Within 10 days ---------·--·--With 1n 30 days --------
Proposed Existing and Proposed Existing and Proposed Ex 1st tng and
Land Proposed Proposed Proposed
Segment Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Hun Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
3 n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 0.0 2 0 o.o
4 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
1 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
8 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
9 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 u o.o 2 0 o.o
10 n 0 o.o n 0 u.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 u.o 3 0 o.o
11 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 1 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 8 0 0.1
12 4 0 o.o 4 0 0.0 6 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 11 0 0.1
13 10 0 0.1 11 0 0.1 14 0 0.2 23 0 0.3 14 0 0.2 24 0 0.3
14 5 0 O.'J 8 0 0.1 g 0 0.1 17 0 0.2 9 0 0.1 18 0 0.2
15 17 0 0.2 19 0 0.2 23 0 0.3 30 0 0.4 24 0 0.3 32 0 0.4
16 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 12 0 0.1 1 0 0.1 13 0 0.1
17 8 0 0.1 9 0 0.1 15 0 0.2 24 0 0.3 16 0 0.2 26 0 0.3
18 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 1 0 0.1
20 n 0 o.o n u o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 u o.o 2 0 o.o
21 n 0 o.o n u o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 u o.o 1 0 o.o
22 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
23 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
24 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 5 0 o.o
26 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
27 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
28 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u o.o 2 u u.o
29 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 I) o.o 2 0 o.o
30 n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n· 0 o.o 1 " o.o 2 0 o.o
32 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
33 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u u.o 2 0 o.o
34 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
35 n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
31 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 u.o 1 0 u.o
38 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 2 0 u.o 4 0 o.o
39 n 0 o.o n 0 u.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
40 n 0 o.u n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 u.o 5 0 0.0
41 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 5 0 u.o 1 0 0.1
42 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 7 0 0.1
43 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 5 0 o.o 8 0 0.1
44 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 13 0 0.1 9 0 0.1 14 0 0.2
45 23 0 0.3 26 0 0.3 31 0 0.4 43 0 0.6 31 0 0.4 44 0 0.6 46 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 13 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 14 0 0.2 47 1 0 o.o :1! 0 u.o 4 0 u.o 6 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1
Final
Table 15. --Probabilities (expressed in percent chance) of one or •ore spills,
the Most lfkely number of spflls, and the expected nuaber of spills
occurring and contactfng land segaents over the productfon life
of the proposed lease area, deletfon alternative IV.
-------Wfthfn 3 days ----------------Wfthin 10 days ---------------Within 30 days --------Proposed Exfstfng and Proposed Exfstfng and Proposed Exfst i ng and
Land Proposed Proposed Proposed
Segaent Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
3 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
4 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
7 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
9 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
10 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
11 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 0.0 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
12 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 1 0 o.o 6 0 0.1
13 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 14 0 0.2 4 0 o.o 14 0 0.2
14 1 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 12 0 0.1 3 0 o.o 12 0 o.1
15 1 0 n.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 12 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 13 0 0.1
16 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 8 0 0.1
17 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 17 0 0.2 7 0 0.1 18 0 0.2
18 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 7 0 0.1
20 n 0 o.o n u o.o 1 u o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
22 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
23 n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n u o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
24 n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 u.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
28 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
29 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
30 n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
33 n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
34 n 0 o.u n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 u.o 1 u u.o
3!» n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n. 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
38 n 0 o.u n 0 0.0 n 0 0.0 1 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
39 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o n 0 o.o l u o.o
40 n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 u.o z 0 o.o
41 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o z 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 3 u o.o
42 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 u u.o
43 n 0 u.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.u 1 0 o.o !» u o.o
44 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 u.o 7 u 0.1 2 u u.o 8 0 0.1
4!» l 0 u.o 6 0 o.1 8 0 0.1 24 0 0.3 H 0 0.1 l4 0 0.3
46 n 0 o.o z 0 o.o 2 0 u.o 8 0 0.1 z 0 o.o 9 0 0.1
47 n 0 o.u n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 u.o 1 0 u.o 3 0 o.o
48 n 0 u.o 1 u o.o 1 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 2 u o.o b 0 0.1
49 1 u o.o 3 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 3 0 o.u 11 0 0.1
!>0 2 0 o.o !) u o.o 3 u o.o H u U.1 3 u o.o 8 0 0.1
~1 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 1 0 u.o ;$ u o.u
!>3 ti 0 0.1 18 0 0.2 10 0 0.1 29 0 0.3 10 0 0.1 29 u 0.3
54 7 0 0.1 24 0 0.3 11 0 0.1 40 u 0.5 11 0 0.1 41 0 u.s
Final
Tlble 17. --Probabtltttes (expressed tn percent chance) of one or •ore spills,
the most likely number of spills. and the expected nu•ber of spills
occurring and contacting land segments over the production life
of the proposed lease area, transportation alternatt.ve A.
-------Wtthfn 3 days ----------------Wttht n 10 days ---------------Withfn 30 days --------Proposed Extstfng and Proposed Extstfng and Proposed Extstfng and
Land Proposed Proposed Proposed
Segment Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
3 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
4 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
1 n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 u.o 1 0 o.o
8 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u o.o 1 0 o.o
9 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
10 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 u.o 3 0 o.u
11 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 6 0 0.1
12 2 0 0.0 3 0 o.o 5 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 10 0 0.1
13 5 0 o.u 6 0 0.1 9 0 0.1 19 0 0.2 10 0 0.1 lU u 0.2
14 3 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 15 0 0.2 8 0 0.1 16 0 0.2
15 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 11 0 0.1 19 0 0.2 12 0 0.1 21 0 0.2
16 3 0 o.u 3 0 o.o 1 0 0.1 12 0 0.1 1 0 0.1 13 0 0.1
1/ 9 u 0.1 10 0 0.1 17 0 0.2 26 0 0.3 18 0 0.2 28 0 0.3
18 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 1 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 8 0 0.1
20 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
21 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n u u.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
22 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n u o.o 1 u u.u
lJ n 0 o.o n 0 u.u n 0 o.o n u u.o n 0 u.o 1 0 u.o
24 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u u.o 2 0 o.o
l1 n 0 o.o 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n u o.o 1 0 o.u
28 n 0 o.o 0 o.o n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.u
29 n 0 o.o 0 u.o n 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 1 0 u.o 2 0 o.o
30 n 0 o.u 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u o.o 2 0 o.o
JJ n 0 o.u 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u o.o 2 0 o.o
34 n 0 o.o u o.o n 0 u.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
35 n 0 o.o 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 u o.o 2 0 o.o
37 n 0 o.o 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
JH n u u. ~~ 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 3 0 o.o
39 n 0 o.o 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
40 n 0 o.o 0 o.o 1 0 o.u 2 u o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 u.u
41 n 0 o.o 0 o.o 2 u u.o 4 u u.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
42 n 0 o.o 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 5 0 o.o
43 n 0 o.o 0 u.o 3 0 u.o 5 u u.o 3 0 u.o 1 0 0.1
44 n 0 o.o 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 10 0 0.1 5 0 0.1 11 0 0.1
45 19 0 0.2 22 0 0.3 29 0 0.3 41 0 u.s 29 0 0.3 42 0 u.s
46 2 0 o.u 4 0 o.o 6 0 o.1 12 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 u u 0.1
47 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 3 0 o.o s 0 0.1
48 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 8 0 0.1 12 0 0.1 49 3 0 o.u 5 0 0.1 8 0 0.1 13 0 0.1 9 0 0.1 17 0 0.2
Final
Table 16. --Probabilities {expressed in percent chance) of one or more spills.
the most likely number of spills. and the expected number of spills
occurring and contacting land segments over the production life
of the proposed lease area, deletion alternative V.
-------Within 3 days ----------------Within 10 days ---------------Within 30 days --------
Proposed Existing and Proposed Existing and Proposed Existing and
Land Proposed Proposed Proposed
Segment Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
3 n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
4 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
7 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
9 n 0 o.o n 0 u.u n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n u o.o 1 0 u.o
10 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
11 n 0 o.o n 0 o.u n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 3 0 o.o
12 n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 1 0 o.o 5 0 0.1 1 0 o.o 6 0 0.1
13 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 13 0 0.1 3 0 o.o 14 0 0.2
14 1 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 11 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 11 0 0.1
15 n 0 11.0 3 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 11 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 12 0 0.1
16 n u u.u 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 0.1 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.1
17 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 15 0 0.2 4 0 o.o 16 0 0.2
18 n 0 o.u 1 0 o.o 1 u o.o 5 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 6 0 0.1
20 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
22 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
23 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
24 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
28 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
29 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
JO n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
33 n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
J4 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 u.o 1 0 o.o
35 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 u.o
38 n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
39 n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n 0 u.o 1 u u.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
40 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
41 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 u.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 42 n 0 o.o n u u.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o n 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 43 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 44 n u u.u 1 0 u.o 2 0 o.o I u 0.1 2 0 u.o 8 0 0.1 45 1 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 21 0 0.2 5 0 o.o 22 0 0.2 46 n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 2 u o.o 9 0 0.1 47 n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o n u o.o 3 0 o.o 48 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 4 u o.o 1 0 o.o !) u o.o
4!1 1 u o.o 3 0 o.o z 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 10 u U.1 50 2 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 2 u u.o 8 0 0.1 !)1 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.u 1 0 u.o 2 u o.o !)3 6 0 0.1 1/ 0 0.2 8 0 0.1 28 0 0.3 8 u 0.1 2ts 0 0.3 54 6 0 0.1 24 0 0.3 10 0 o.1 39 0 o.s 10 0 0.1 3!1 0 u.s
Final
Table 18. --Probabilities (expressed in percent chance) of one or more spills,
the most likely number of spills, and the expected number of spills
occurring and contacting land segments over the production life
of the proposed lease area, transportation alternative B.
-------Within 3 days ---------·····--Within 10 days ---------------Within 30 days --------
Proposed l::x fst 1ng and Proposed Exfstfng and Proposed Existing and
Land Proposed Proposed Proposed
Segment Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
3 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o . 1 0 o.o
4 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
7 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
8 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
9 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 2 0 o.o
10 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
11 1 0 u.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 u o.o 3 0 o.o 6 0 0.1
12 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 11 0 0.1
13 5 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 19 0 0.2 11 0 0.1 20 0 0.2
14 3 u o.o 6 0 0.1 8 0 0.1 16 0 0.2 8 0 0.1 11 0 0.2
15 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 11 0 0.1 20 0 0.2 12 0 0.1 21 0 0.2
16 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 12 0 0.1 1 0 0.1 12 0 0.1
17 9 0 0.1 11 0 0.1 17 0 0.2 27 0 0.3 111 u 0.2 29 u u.J
111 1 u o.o 1 0 u.o 3 0 o.o 1 0 0.1 4 0 u.o It u 0.1
lO n 0 u.u 1 u u.u 1 0 u.o 2 u o.o 1 u o.o 2 0 u.o
21 n 0 o.o n 0 o.u n u o.o n 0 o.o n u u.o 1 u u.u
22 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n u u.o n u u.o 1 0 o.o
23 n u o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
24 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n u u.u n 0 o.o 1 u u.o 2 0 o.o
27 n 0 u.o n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 0.0
28 n 0 o.u n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u o.o 1 0 o.u
29 n 0 u.u n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 1 0 u.o 2 0 o.u
30 n 0 o.o n 0 u.u n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
33 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 2 0 o.o
34 n 0 u.o n 0 o.u n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 u o.o
35 n 0 o.o n u o.u n u u.o 1 u u.u 1 u o.o 2 u o.u
3/ n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n 0 o.u n u u.o 1 u u.o 1 u o.o
3H n 0 u.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 u.o 2 u o.o 3 0 o.u
39 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 u.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 u o.o
40 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
41 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
42 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 2 u o.o 5 0 o.o
43 n 0 o.o n u o.o 3 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 1 0 0.1
44 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 5 u o.o 10 u 0.1 ~ 0 u.u 11 u 0.1
4~ 19 u 0.2 22 0 0.3 29 0 0.3 41 0 o.s 29 u 0.3 42 0 0.5
46 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 13 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 14 0 0.2
47 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 3 0 u.u 5 0 0.1
48 3 0 o.o 4 0 u.o 7 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 11 u 0.1
49 3 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 8 0 o.1 14 0 0.2 9 0 o.1 17 0 0.2
Final
hble 19. --Probab111t1es {expressed 1n percent chance) of one or •ore spills,
the most likely number of spflls, and the expected number of spflls
occurring and contacting land segMents over the production 11fe
of the proposed lease area, transportation alternative c.
-------Within 3 days ----------------Within 10 days ---------------Wfthfn 30 days --------
Proposed Ex1stfng and Proposed Exist tng and Proposed txfst i ng and
Land Proposed Proposed Proposed
Segment Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
1 n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
3 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n "() o.o n 0 o.o 1 u o.o 2 0 o.o
4 n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u o.o 2 0 u.o
7 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
8 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
9 n 0 o.o n 0 u.o 1 0 u.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
10 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
11 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 3 0 u.o 5 u 0.1
12 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 11 0 0.1
13 8 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 12 0 0.1 21 0 0.2 13 0 0.1 22 0 0.3
14 4 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 8 0 0.1 16 0 0.2 8 0 0.1 17 0 0.2
15 7 0 0.1 9 0 0.1 13 0 0.1 21 0 0.2 14 0 0.2 23 0 0.3
16 5 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 15 0 0.2 10 0 0.1 16 0 0.2
17 36 0 0.4 'J/ u u.s 41 u u.s 48 0 0.6 42 0 0.5 50 0 0.7
18 1 0 o.o 2 u u.o 2 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 3 u u.o I 0 0.1
20 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
21 2 0 o.o 2 0 u.o 3 u u.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 4 u o.o
22 1 0 u.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
23 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u o.o
24 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 2 u o.o
26 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
27 n 0 o.o n 0· o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o l 0 o.o
28 n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
29 n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n u o.o 1 0 o.o 2· 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
30 n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o l 0 o.o
32 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 u o.o 2 0 o.o
33 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 u u.o 2 0 u.o
34 n 0 'l.O n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
35 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n u o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
37 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
38 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
39 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 u u.o
40 n 0 u.o n 0 u.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 2 u u.o 4 0 o.o
41 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 4 u o.o 5 0 u.o
42 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 7 0 0.1
43 n 0 u.o n 0 u.o 3 u o.o 6 0 0.1 4 u o.o 7 0 0.1
44 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 12 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 13 u U.1
45 28 u 0.3 30 0 0.4 35 0 0.4 4ti 0 0.6 35 0 0.4 47 0 O.b
46 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 7 0 o.1 13 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 14 0 0.2
Final
Table 21 Probabtlfties {expressed fn percent chance) of one or •ore spil~s.
the most likely number of spills. and the expected number of spills
occurring and contacting land segments over the production life
of the proposed lease area. compared with total risks from
the proposed leases. existing leases. and exfsting tanker
transportatfon.(including upper Cook Inlet).
-------Within 3 days ----------------Wfthi n 10 days ---------------With 1 n 30 days --------
Proposed Existing. Pro-Proposed Extsttng. Pro-Proposed Ex fst i ng • Pro-
Land posed + tanker posed + tanker posed + tanker
Segment Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
3 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
4 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
7 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
8 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 0.0 1 0 o.o
9 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
10 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 0.0 3 0 o.o
11 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 10 0 0.1
12 4 0 O.Q 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 12 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 13 0 0.1
13 10 0 0.1 11 0 0.1 14 0 0.2 27 0 0.3 14 0 0.2 28 0 0.3
14 5 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 9 0 0.1 21 0 0.2 9 0 0.1 22 0 0.2
15 17 0 0.2 19 0 0.2 23 0 0.3 33 0 0.4 24 0 0.3 3!» 0 0.4
16 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 14 0 0.2 1 0 0.1 15 0 0.2
17 8 0 0.1 9 0 0.1 1b 0 0.2 29 0 0.3 16 0 0.2 31 0 0.4
18 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 10 0 0.1
20 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
21 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
22 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 0.0 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
23 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o s 0 u.o
j!4 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1
26 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
27 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
2H n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
29 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
30 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
32 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 1 0 o.o
33 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
34 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
35 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
37 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
38 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 u u.o 3 0 o.o 2 u o.o 4 0 o.o
39 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
40 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 u u.o 4 u o.o 3 u o.o 6 0 u .1
41 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o s u u.o 1 0 0.1 5 0 u.o 8 u u .1
42 2 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 8 0 0. 1
43 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 5 0 o.o 9 0 0.1
44 3 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 15 0 0.2 9 0 0.1 16 0 0.2
45 23 0 0.3 26 0 0.3 31 0 0.4 47 0 0.6 31 0 0.4 48 0 0.6
46 3 0 o.o 4 u o.o 7 0 0.1 15 0 0.2 7 0 0.1 17 0 0.2
47 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 7 0 0.1
48 6 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 11 0 0.1 15 0 0.2 11 0 0.1 17 0 0.2
49 3 0 o.o 5 0 0.1 7 0 0.1 14 0 0.2 8 0 0.1 19 0 0.2 so 2 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 10 0 0.1 3 0 o.o 11 0 0.1
51 1 0 o.o 2 0 o. 0 . 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
53 6 0 0.1 19 0 0.2 10 0 0.1 34 0 0.4 10 0 0.1 34 0 0.4
54 6 0 0.1 28 0 0.3 12 0 0.1 55 0 0.8 12 0 0.1 56 0 0.8
55 n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
56 6 0 0.1 28 0 0.3 9 0 0.1 49 0 0.7 10 0 0.1 51 0 0.7
57 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
58 2 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 3 0 o .• o 16 0 0.2 4 0 o.o 19 0 0.2
59 1 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 17 0 o.z 3 0 o.o 19 0 0.2
60 2 0 o.o 9 0 0.1 4 0 o.o 21 0 0.2 4 0 o.o 23 0 0.3
61 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 1 0 o.o 9 0 0.1
62 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 10 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 10 0 0.1
63 1 0 o.o 1 0 n.o 1 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 1 0 o.o 9 0 0.1
64 n 0 o.o 11 0 0.1 2 0 0.0 30 0 0.4 3 0 o.o 32 0 0.4
65 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o n u o.o l 0 u.u
66 n 0 u.o n 0 u.o 1 0 u.o 5 u u.o 1 u o.o 6 0 0.1
67 n 0 c.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
69 n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
70 n 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 1 u 0.0 10 0 0.1 1 0 o.o 10 0 0.1
72 n 0 o.o 1 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o n 0 u.o 3 0 o.o
73 n 0 o.o 1 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 u u.o 3 0 o.o
74 n 0 o.o 3 0 0.0 1 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 6 0 0.1
75 7 0 0.1 40 0 0.5 8 0 0.1 45 0 0.6 8 0 0.1 46 0 0.6
76 n 0 0.0 1 0 0.0 n 0 0.0 2 0 o.o n 0 u.o 3 u o.o
77 n 0 o.u n 0 o.u n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o n 0 u.u 2 0 o.o
78 n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 1 0 o.o 1 0 u.o 4 0 o.o
79 1 0 0.0 8 0 0.1 3 0 o.o 2l 0 0.3 3 u o.o 2b u 0.3
80 1 0 o.o 9 0 0.1 3 0 o.o 20 0 0.2 5 0 u.o 2!) 0 0.3
81 3 0 o.o 11 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 28 0 0.3 8 0 0.1 34 0 0.4
82 1 0 o.o 8 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 14 0 0.2 3 0 o.o 17 0 0.2
83 n 0 o.o 2 0 0.0 2 0 o.o 14 0 0.2 4 0 o.o 19 0 0.2
84 n 0 o.o 2 0 0.0 1 0 o.o 9 0 0.1 3 0 o.o 14 0 0.2
85 n 0 0.0 1 0 0.0 1 0 o.o 7 0 0.1 2 0 o.o 10 0 0.1
86 n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 9 0 0.1
87 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
88 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
89 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
90 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
91 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
92 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
93 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 0.0 n 0 o.o 2 0 0.0
94 n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
Note: n • less than 0.5 percent. Those 1 and segments for wh1 ch all probabtltttes are less than 0.5 percent are not shown.
Tlble 20 Probabtltttes (expressed tn percent chance) of one or •ore spills,
the •ost 11kely nu•ber of sptlls, and the expected nu•ber of sptlls
occurring and contacting ttrgets o~er the production 11ft,
of the proposed lease area, existing leases, and existing tanker
transportation (including upper Cook Inlet).
-------Wtthtn 3 days -----···-··-···· W1th1n 10 days ---···-· -------W1th1n 30 days ···-···· Proposed Ex1st1ng, Pro-Proposed Extsttng, Pro-Proposed Extsttng, Pro-
posed + tanker posed + tanker posed + tanker
Target Prob Mode Hun Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean Prob Mode Mean
Land 77 1 1.5 97 3 3.6 94 2 2.8 ** 9 9.2 96 3 3.3 ** 10 10.9 Seabird, s •• Apr-Sep 49 0 0.7 54 0 0.8 54 0 0.8 69 1 1.2 55 0 0.8 70 1 1.2 Seabtrd, s •• Oct-Mar 57 0 0.8 70 1 1.2 63 0 1.0 88 2 2.2 63 1 1.0 89 2 2.2 Seabtrd, "·· Apr-Sep 35 0 0.4 93 2 2.7 38 0 0.5 95 2 2.9 40 0 0.5 95 2 3.0 Seabird, N., Oct-Mar 33 0 0.4 93 2 2.7 36 0 0.4 95 3 3.0 37 0 u.s 9!1 3 J.1 Sea otter, area A 3 0 u.o 22 0 0.3 5 0 0.1 36 0 o.s 8 0 0.1 46 0 U,6
Sea otter, area 8 1 0 o.o 11 0 0.1 8 0 0.1 41 0 0.5 13 0 0.1 55 0 u.s Sea otter, area c 5 0 0.1 28 0 0.3 11 0 0.1 50 0 0.7 14 0 0.2 56 0 0.8 Sea otter, area 0 35 0 0.4 43 0 0.6 48 0 0.7 74 1 1.3 50 0 0.7 17 1 1.5 Sea otter, area E 8 0 0.1 13 0 0.1 17 0 0.2 31 0 ·0.4 17 0 0.2 35 0 0.4 Sea otter, area F n 0 u.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 o.o 4 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 Sea otter, area G 12 0 0.1 58 0 0.9 13 0 0.1 64 1 1.0 13 0 0.1 65 1 1. 1 Sea otter, area H 22 0 0.2 65 1 1.0 33 0 0.4 89 2 2.2 35 0 0.4 90 2 2.3 Red Rtver sal•on n 0 o.o n 0 o.o n 0 u.o n 0 u.o n 0 o.o 1 0 u.o Karluk River sal•oR 3 0 o.o 3 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 9 0 0.1 6 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 Rocky, All., Grassy 6 0 0.1 1 0 0.1 10 0 0.1 20 0 0.2 10 0 0.1 ll 0 U.2 Dark, Sent., Latax 3 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 6 0 0.1 17 0 0.2 7 0 0.1 20 0 0.2 Barren Islands 7 0 0.1 36 0 0.4 14 0 0.1 58 0 0.9 17 0 0.2 64 1 1.0 Augustine Island 11 0 0.1 50 0 0.7 16 0 0.2 71 1 1.2 17 0 0.2 72 1 1.3 Ktukpaltk, Shakun 11 0 0.1 14 0 0.1 19 0 o.z 28 0 0.3 19 0 o.z 31 0 0.4
Note: n • le11 than 0.5 percent; ** • greater than 99.5 percent.
TRhl~ 22 --FinRI prc>hnhi lit IPa (PXJlrPRB~d in percf'nl C'hRncto) of onf!' or ~MJrf'
Rpflh, thto ..,At llkf'ly nuMhPr of 11pll111, ani! th~ expPctf!d nuMber
of IIJlllla ort·urrlnJ! Rnd contRrttnll tllrt~etll ovtor thr produrlton life
of thP f'XiAtinJI leRRra.
tAHJI<O FtJilAf;HI(; AIU A :llJIIIII 1\I>IIJL-SF.PII:MUflf
l11t1)1~1> ftll!llldNt. 1\f.ltll ~qi.Jitt tJ(IIIIlfii-MAiiCit
fflllll•l> Fli~II(;Jtot; ,\llt.A 1~(1411i 11Ptlll-SEPitt4hfH
t 1\1111<1> ftl'•nl:Jrll; IIIIHI lit ow lit lit ltJo\FI!-~;1\!Ir:tt
.tl\ llllt.t' f.U~H.FttiHIIIItJII AlitA A
t: II U ll t II 1: I il'll F N lilA 1 I u•l A~ r: II iJ
fll OlH.II rtttlll:tHIIIIIJOtl A~EI\ C
Ul OllER Ct.JIIlf.I~IIIIII(Ut~ 1\tlf:.A 0
Ell niHil t:t•:lt.HdiUliUN Allt:A t.
r11 ~lltU (UNLINlwllfJUN \Ntll F
·1:'1 llllfU Clll-ll.(l;f:IIII)UI~ AHEA 1i
~ .\ ilfllU ("li'J(Fi·•T"Al IIIU Aht::A H
fo) 'H\'lll SntMIIf• 5(1flll1ll;lft; 1\RI:.A
1\lllliK O.IVt•• !illl~'tiN SI.IIO•JLIIII; Allfll
tll:o\Y, (ll.l.lt./1 !ll!tr' 111•11 t;t;A3SY I:JLAI-JI)S IIIU.A
.\IlK, St.,lll.tl JSLII••Il:;, ,_i~U LiliA)( IIUCI\S Al!f,\
\'li· f ;, l'H 1\o".ot:i Al?t II
.,o(.II';J I ·•' I :;1 11''1! t\111: II
IIIKI'~lll\, 'oil·•• 'Ill l:oLAI~IIS, A~U Stti\Kllo'l RUCK Al"f A
PWut•
7b
10
2Q
1';
l'i
'I
u
'" 17
•;
I)
'"' 'f:, ""lii•E
I
(I
n
I
1
0
0
f)
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
c
0
t)
toll-AN
I • II
0. I
,, • J
'·" 1 • II
1).1
o.o
I) • i!
o • I
0.1)
o.o
0 •. ~
0.7
l'. 0
0 .tl
o.n
0.1)
0. ~
O.ll
0. II
Itt
PHIJiJ
'H
IS
"l•l
17
7b
I 'j
I'J
3l
H
u
0
.H
bb
0
l.
8 ,,
lH
lilt
'l
t)I\YS
r40i)f.
j
0
0
I
I
0
0
0
u
I)
II
0
I
II
tl
0
0
t)
u
0
Tahir 21 --Final prnhahilitir11 .(rxrrrlla~d In pPrc~nt rhRnrto) of onto or MOrr
topills, lhr MOSt. llkrly nuMbrr of apilh, and thf! f!xprrtrd ntiMhPr
n( RJllliR ncrurrinJ! and cnntartin11 tRrf1Pltl over thp !'rodnrtion llfr
of thf' exi11t.in11 tankrr tranarorlatinn (lndudinl! upp~r Cook lnlrt).
IINU
•t:III111W t'tl~llf~l:lt; /\IlLII :;(riJitl 1\P~IL-Sfi'IH•BEH
>t.flt:llrl!J FUIH,(;pt(; Af~t:.ll SttJitt lt(l(lfifH-Ml~Hf.l1
of.ll!lltdl FlJtll\(;fNt; 1\Ht.ll NIJ~IIi M'Hil-SEPltMflfll
lfAUihll fii~IH;Ii'JG API:II NUHitl OCIOllfi<-1-1AI1(11
il:A OllER (IIIJlfNltll\lltl~ t\HEA A
;tt\ lll ILl~ ('tiii(F 111ft"\l lt1•4 41{f II 0
it A 01 Ill! riiiiCt::r~Jt<lllllllll II~F: A l
;lll 01 ltll CIINLf~li(I\JIIIio At<tl\ 0
if.A IJIHJJ Cft~!l.f.NlRIIIfttl~ Allf.A t.
;[II OIHI\ Cll'-ll.fNIHI\IIU~I AlitA~
itA OITtR CI.INUttll!lllltiN Allf:.ll G
it II II II U< ft.f~ILftdtlll I I liN AhtA II
11:0 R(Vf-.~ ~~~~till~ SCIIOIILJNt; AREA
,1\llltiK t<IHH :,1\L,_.IJI~ SLitflULING ,_kEA
ltiC"Y, f•lLII.I\IItR, 1\NO GHIISSV ISLIINOS Al~l:,_
1111\1\, ~lt4II.~Fl l~L"t40S, fli·lfl LAIIIX RUCKS Aftf.A
lAIII( f. If 15L '"·l•S /Ill f."
lllt:usrt"F 1s1 u•n API-."
;III~Pf\lJI<, :lli(II.L"J J:;LAI'oi•S, 1\NJ) Slt-KUN RU("K tWtll
Plll.Jfi
';,II
0
I
~7
'·I
12 .,
7
I
I
0
.sa
IS
0
0
~
I
Ill
I';
0
1111(,1•1'.
0
0 ,
(I
" 0
0
0
0
" (l
II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
l~fAN
II • 1
0.1)
o.o
o ...
n.q
II. I
0.1
0.1
o.o
n.o
11.1)
0 ·'' o.t
o.o
o.o
O.ll
n.o
0.1
O.l
0.(1
I'IUIU /lOur.
Q/j l.
fl 0
lc! 0
fd 0
hU I
?.J u
21 0
I ti 0
70 0
6 0
(I 0
j'} 0
50 0
,, 0
l 0
... 0
ll 0
i!l 0
36 II
.s u
Mf:AI~
l.b
u • .s
t) ...
I • '>
I • •I
ll.c?
O.c!
o.ll
0.'>
I). l
u.u
0.11
I . I
11.0
11.11
II. I
II. I
n.o;
IJ • ()
0. I
~1:1\r~
1-.6
0.1
0. ,,
1.0
l . I
11.1
IJ •,!
ll.l
o.c
tJ • I
1).11
u.o;
0.1
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o • .s
0.5
0. ,,
.so
PNU"
'18
lt.>
'jlt
77
77
t'J
21\
lS
1'1
Ill
I
32
b7
0
3
q
10
ItO
II ':I
10
311
PRU"
'H
If)
Jlf
btl
bq
27
l'R
u
.!3
8
I
Ill
52
f)
7
II
s
2 ..
3'J
5
111\YS
'4U0t.
II
0
0
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OAYS
•400[
3
I)
0
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MEAN
11.2
0.3
O.fl
I. S
1.'>
0.2
0.3
0.11
0.5
0.2
o.o
0.11
I • I
o.o o.o
0. I
0.1
o.c;
O,b
0. I
MEAN
"\.5
0. 1
0.11
1.0
1.2
I) •. ~
0.3
0.7
0.3
O.l
o.o o.s
0.7
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
O.J
0.'5
0. I
T~hl~ 24 --Final prohahllitira (expr~Kaed in prr~ent rhanr~) of on~ or .orP
spills, thP 111010t likely n-ber of 11ptlla, and thl" expl"ct~rl nn•hPr
of Kpllla o~~urrin•~ Rnd rontactin~ llond SP~ntR over th~ produr-
tion life of thP e~istinR leas~a and exiatin~ tankPrinR (lnrludinR
upp~r Cook Inlet).
lEGM~ NT ~ iHtY"S 10 OAYS jO Ill\ Y::;
I'Hllt' MOUE fAt AN PHOii I~O[lf. ~:f. liN f'Hllti MI.I(Jf f~l:.l\111
I It 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 u o.o
l ,, 0 o.u 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
3 0 0 o.u 0 0 o.o I 0 11. o I
q 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 () 0.01
5 0 I) 11.0 0 0 0.11 0 I) o.u , 0 II o.u 0 0 O.ll 0 II 0.111)
7 I) 0 o.o (I 0 0. ,, 0 !I o.ou
e 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 n.oo
Q 0 ll u.u I) 0 o.o I u II. o I
10 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 I). 01
1 I II 0 o.o (' 0 o.or? 3 v 0.0.5
17 0 0 o.oo Q 0 0.011 5 u o.os
I l ?. 0 o.or? 10 0 0. t 1 I 1 0 0. 12 ,,, ' 0 0.03 0 0 0.0? q u o. I 0
15 2 0 I) • 02 q 0 0.1v 10 II U. I l
If> I 0 11.01 6 0 O.Ob 0 u o.oT
I 1 ? " u.o~ 12 0 O.ll 1.5 u 0. l II
'" I I) 11.01 Q 0 0.011 .., 0 o.us
·~ 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.ou 0 " o.no
.-u n (I 0. •Ill I 0 0.01 I I) o. 0 I
..... 0 II n.o 0 0 (1.0 (I v 0.110 ,., 0 ,, ''·" 0 0 11.00 I v 11.01
c.S () v o.o 0 0 (1.0 I II 0.111
C:ll f\ II II. 0 0 II o.n I u ll. 0 I
'" '·I (I I) o.o 0 0 o.o " II 11.11
?I• II " 11.0 0 0 o.o ,. II 0.110
<' ' 0 " o.o 0 0 o.o " II 0.110
i~ fl 0 (I • 0 0 u 0.0 I 0 11. o I
<''~ II 0 o.o I 0 0.01 I (j 0.01
30 II 0 o.u 0 0 o.o I " II. Ill
.51 (f 0 n.o 0 0 o.o (/ " o.o
J(' (I I) o.o 0 0 o.o I) u o.o
B tl I) o.o 0 0 o.o I 0 11.01
.\ ,, II II o.o (I 0 o.oo I " II. 0 I
y; 0 0 o.u 0 0 o.oo I 0 0.111
Jl, 0 u o.o 0 0 o.o 0 " o.uo
.57 (I 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 I) o.oo
31l 0 I) ,, • u I 0 0.01 c II o.oc
,SQ (I u o.o I) 0 o.oo I 0 0.01
110 0 It 11.0 I II 0.01 c 0 0.112
Ill () 0 11.0 I 0 0.111 ?. I) u.nc
II? II I) I). 0 c 0 O.Oc ?. .. 11.112
~~~ 0 0 0.() 3 0 0.03 q 0 11.1111
411 0 0 o.oo o; 0 0.05 b II n.nb
II'; " 0 0.0<1 I 7 0 0. I q Ill (J 0. I q ,,, ;> u I).Ur? 6 0 0.07 7 II 0.117
,, 7 0 0 0.111) I 0 0.01 i' ll 0.02
ll'i I " o.o1 J 0 0.03 II " 0.011
''" ;> (J (I.Oc , 0 0.0& li u o.uq
',0 ~ () o.o.s 5 0 0.05 ., 0 n.oo
'J I I II I). I) I (' 0 0.0.? c 0 o.o-c
l.J~ 0 ,, o.o 0 0 o.oo II II o.oo
:.,3 I.\ ... II. I ~ 21 u 0.211 c\ 0 o .... ,
'.:-II 1'1 v II.,Jl S? 0 0.39 .ss ll n.llll
'>5 (I I) (l. IJU 'l u o.ot (! II 0 .t•t
~b '" u u.t<' t7 0 0. ~t eli u u.H -; ., II II 0.01. I " Ct. 0 I II rt .IJI
~tl ~ u ''· 0 ~ t' 0 o.o~ 4 I) II. I u
~q t. II u.ub II 0 fJ. I c II u II. It!
bO 7 u 0.0/ 12 0 (,. 1 c 12 I) II.I.S
bl I I) o.o1 3 0 0.0.5 3 0 o.u3
b2 0 0 o.oo II 0 0.04 4 0 0.011
o3 0 ,, o.ou ~ u o.o.s -~ u o.o.s
(,II II 0 o.oo b 0 O.Ob 7 " 0. 0 7
o') 0 II o.o I (J 0.01 I u 0.01 on 0 u o.o I 0 0.01 2 0 0.02
b7 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo IJ 0 u.oo
bH (I 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
b9 II 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 1.1 o.oo
10 0 0 o.oo ? 0 0.02 2 u o.uc
71 0 u o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.nu
12 I 0 0. 0 I I 0 0.01 I ll 11.01
15 II u o.oo I 0 0.01 I ll 0 .Ill
]II I 0 0.01 2 0 o.o~ 2 u 0. (•.:0
i':J PI u u. 19 co 0 o.u 20 u n • .?~
1b II u 0.011 I 0 0.01 I 0 0.01
11 II II u.uo 0 0 o.oo I II 0.01
/It " 0 O.llu I 0 0.01 ? 1.1 ll.O~ I,, \ u ll.td 7 0 ().1)1) q 1.1 n.IO
llfJ II u u.o~ 1:1 0 0.99 II II 0.1<'
til 1 I) 11.01) I 7 0 0. I I) I'' u o.c!l ,., •, u ,, • 0'· 4 0 (•. 0'1 10 ,, ''·I 0
t1 ; u tl.ul t> 0 u.ul II II IJ.QI)
t;•l tJ ,, • Ill It 0 0.0'1 b u 0.0/
"" (I u n.oo 2 0 o.oe> 'I 0 u.O<~
hh II 0 u.u I 0 o.o1 II u o.o<~
111 (I u u.o I 0 0 .o I I u 0.01
!)I\ 0 1.1 fi.U 0 0 0.011 I u 11.01
r,4 " 0 "·'' " 0 0 • (I I u 11.01
40 (I u o.u 0 u 11.0 0 0 o.oo
-II " (j II.(; () 0 o.o I II o.u1
'I r' II II 11.11 ll " (1.0 I ,, u. I' I
'I\ II II ,, • u 0 0 o.o tJ
0 ·'" ~·· •• 0 u.u 0 0 o.o u 11.01
., '> (I 0 11.0 (I 0 o.o (I u o.o
')h (I " n.o 0 0 0.0 0 u o.u
T<tble 25 --t'iu<tl probabil it ieli (expressed in perceut chance) of one or •ore
"Viii s, the wo"l likody u...,ber of spills, and the expected n...,ber
of spills occurriu11 and cootsctina tsraeta over tbe production life
uf the existin& tsnkerina in upper Cook Inlet.
SEGMfl'fl l I>AYS 10 OAt'S ~0 I>AY S
I'IHltl ... uuE l·lt. Ali PHOIJ MODE ~.LAN I'IHIIJ "'Ovt 14fAN
I 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o f) 0 o.o
2 0 0 o.u 0 0 o.o 0 u o.o
3 0 u o.o 0 (J o.o 0 0 o.oo
q 0 u o.o 0 0 o.o I " 0.01
5 0 u o.o 0 () 0.11 0 u o.o
n 0 0 o.o 0 " o.o 0 0 o.o
1 0 0 o.o 0 (I o.o 0 1.1 o.oo
tl 0 0 0.1.1 0 (I o.o 0 u u.Ou
9 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
I 0 {I (I o.o 0 0 o.ou 0 0 o.oo
II (J 0 o.o l 0 1).01 l II 0.02
12 0 0 o.o 2 0 o.oc! 3 t) o.o~
13 u {) o.o 5 0 O.O':i 6 1.1 o.oo
Jll II 0 u.O q 0 o.oq s 0 0.05
1'\ (I u o.o 4 0 o.o':J s \) 0 ·''5
16 ll u o.oo 2 (J o.oc! l 0 (1.03
I 7 0 I) 11.00 s 0 o.oo 7 u 0.01
I~ II 0 o.ou l 0 o.oc 3 \) O.Ol
l'l 0 u 0.1) 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
c!O II u u.ou I 0 0.01 I I) 0.01
1.1 II 0 n.o I) 0 0.0 II I) 0 • Q IJ
c.? () 0 l.l.tl 0 0 o.o I I) 0.01
d 0 0 u.o 0 0 o.o I u 0.111
t''l tl u ,) . 1.1 0 0 o.o I u u.u1
... ., II t) 11.0 I) 0 o.o I) u o.o
i'h II II li. u I) 0 o.o ,, u I) • I)
<' I " I) 'l.O 0 0 o.o 0 I) 11.110
21 II 0 ll.u 0 0 o.u I 0 I) .lll
t!'l II 0 u.o I 0 0.01 I 0 0.01
}II 0 0 11.0 I) 0 o.u l 0 0.0~
~I II 0 11.0 u u o.o 0 " 0.11
~2 I) II ll. u 0 0 o.o 0 u u.o
H ,, II ''· u 0 u o.o u 1.1.111
~:, ll II u.u Cl I) o.oo I) II. ill
~0:, •• II tt.O 0 0 o.oo ., n, Ill
~" II " fj. u 0 u o.o tl u I) • 00
H tt li u.o ll 0 0 ·''
I) 0 fl,(l
~II " 0 11.11 0 u o.ou II u n.uu
~·~ (I u u.o 0 0 o.oo II u o.uu
•tO ,, II u.Ci l u 0.01 l u 0. U I
~~I u " '1.11 I (I 0.01 I u o.o1
•11 0 u o.u l \) 0 .Ill I u I). li I
~' 0 u u.u 0 0 o.ov I u 0.01
1111 0 0 11.11 l u o.u~ .s ., o.o:s
II<; () II u.u 7 II 0.07 A 0 O.Od .. ,. 0 u n .llv 2 u O.Oc' q u o .....
117 it u ''·" I u o.ul l u •I .o I
'Ill " u lt.U I u o.l)l ~ u II.II.S , .. , ,, " fl, Ull 2 u o.oc: II II f) .Oil
0.,(1 II u u.\111 2 u 0,02 .s u I) 0 0 i
~I 0 11 o.uu I 0 0.01 0 0.01
~;> II u 11.0 0 u o.u II II 0.0
':d .. lt 11.11.: 7 0 0.01 1 u o.ou
~u ') 1) 11.11'> ~·I II 0.2d ib u '' • .so '!li' II " o.u 2 0 11.0~ l 0 O.Ol
~b ,, II 0. 0•1 cS u u.l"t> t•• u 0. i'l
':>1 I• It •l.u 0 u n.ov t' u 0 ,II,!
~" 0 u 0.1)11 s 0 o.u':> 1 J 0.111
~.., II 0 11.0 r; I) u.u"> t> 0 O.On
bO 1 0 o.o1 1 I) O,Od tl II 0.0'1
bl 0 0 tl.tlO q tl O,Oq ';) 0 0.0')
b2 0 I) ll.O q 0 0.04 s u 0.0'.>
t>\ ll 0 11.0 q 0 o.ou ~ 0 o.os
bll 10 0 0. I 1 211 0 il.2d ~c; \) o.2n
bS 0 u 11,0 I 0 0.01 l II 1).01
bb 0 II o.o l 0 o.o.s ~ 0 o.o.s
b1 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.ot l " 0,01
"" 0 0 11.0 0 0 0,01) 0 II o.ou
bq II I) o.o I) 0 0,01) 0 I) u.oo
70 ' I) o.H 8 0 O.Od 6 0 0,06
11 0 0 n.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
72 1 II ll,01 I i) 0.01 I II o.ut
n I u 11.01 1 0 0.01 ? 0 II.Oc
111 I u 0.01 ~ 0 o.o.s 3 II II. (I II
I'> <'I 0 O,,?q ~5 0 0.2'1 "b II 0 0 ~IJ
1h 0 0 0.110 1 0 0.01 2 0 0.02
11 II 0 11,00 1 II 0,01 I u 0.01
/II IJ 0 o.ou 0 0 0,011 2 0 1).02
I 'I c ·' II u.o~ 1'1 0 o. 1'.) 15 u 0.17
1<11 , 0 o.o~ I 0 0 (1. l il 1 I u f). I c
l'l II 0. o I q 0 0,0'1 ll tl I). 12
h?. c' 0 O.l)c ,, IJ II ,ll II tl " o.no ,. ~ I II 11.01 h 0 (1.01 11 0 1). 0~
1\11 I ,, II. U I II u II, U•l b u tl,lib
~ .. It u u.ou ~ (J 11,(13 '> 0 11,0')
~~I) " 0 U,J I 0 0.01 .., \) tl.lt~
t<7 n II u.v u 0.01 I \) fl. 0 I
ll/1 fl u n.o C) 0 0.00 I \) II • U t
,.,q " II o.u 0 0 o.o I II 0.01
'JIJ " II fl. 0 0 0 O.ll 0 0 o.ou
'II II u ll.il 0 u o.o 2 I) 0.0"
'J ... " 0 0.11 0 0 (f. 0 u ,, • (t 1
'd ,., I) 11.0 0 0 o.o \) f). 0 I
·J~ " II 11.11 0 ll o.o I) n.ot
'I<, II u ''· 0 0 0 0~0 II u o.u
11h 0 {) I) • U 0 0 o.o 0 u tl. 0
'l'able 28 --•·inal l:'robllbi I it ies (exvresaed in percent chance) of one or -re
spill11, the: •osl likely uw.bec of avilla, and the expected n-bec
of spills occurrinx and conlactin& land sea-enta over the produc-
tioo life of Alternative VI, existin& leaaea and tanker transpor-10 DAYS 30 DAYS
tal.ion (includin& uvper Cook Inlet). PROB HOOf HEAN PROB MODE MEAN PROS MODE HEAN
LIINO 9!) 2 3.o 100 1 7.6 100 9 9.3
SfAMWD fUHAGING ARt:. A SOUTH APRIL-SEPTEMBER 49 0 0.7 63 0 1.0 64 1 1.o
SlAIHkD fORAGING AREA SOUTH OCTOBER-MARCH 64 1 1. 0 84 I 1. 8 84 1 •• 9
St:AtHRD fORAGING AREA NORTH APRIL-SEPTEMBER 89 2 z.z 92 z z.s 92 2 z.s
SlABIRD fORAGING AREA NORTH OCTOBER-HAR~H 90 2 2.3 93 2 2.6 93 2 2.7
SfA onn~ CONCENTRATION AREA A 20 0 o.z 35 0 0.4 42 0 o.s
SrA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA 8 10 0 0.1 36 0 o.s so 0 0.7
5EA OTTlR CONCENTRATION AREA c 24 0 o.3 44 0 0.6 so 0 0.7
S• A OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA D 38 0 o.s 67 1 1.1 70 1 1. 2
SFA OTTER CONCENTRATION ARlA E 11 0 o.1 27 0 o.3 30 0 0.4
St.A OTTER CONCENTRATION AkEA f 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o s 0 0.1
St.A OllER CONCENTRATION ARlA G 53 0 0.8 58 0 0.9 60 0 0.9
St:A OflEH CONCENTRATION AREA H 56 0 o.8 83 1 1.8 85 1 1.9
kED RIVER SALMON SCHOOLING AREA 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
KARLUK RIVlR SALMON SCHOOLING AREA 3 0 o.o 8 0 o.1 9 0 0.1
kOCKYo ALLIGATOR, AND GRASSY ISLANDS AREA 6 0 o.1 16 0 o.2 18 0 0.2
0.\RKo SENTINEL ISLANDS, AND LATAX ROCKS AREA 3 0 o.o 13 0 o.l 15 0 o.z
RARREN ISLANDS AREA 32 0 0.4 52 0 o.1 58 0 0.9
AliGUSTINE. ISLAND AREA 43 0 0.6 65 1 1.0 66 1 1.1
K IUKf>ALJKo SHAKUN ISLANOSo AND SHAKUN ROCK AREA 12 0 0.1 24 0 o.3 27 0 o.3
Table 29 --··iual probabil.llie" (expressed in percent chance) of one or •ore
lll'ill" the .aosl likely m .. ber of spills, and the expected n-"er
of spills occucrin& and contactin& laud sea-nts over the pcoduc-
tion life uf Alternative VI.
SEOHENT ~ uAr::» 10 DAYS 311 DAYS
PHOtl HOOf MEAN PROS HOOf MEAN PROS MODE HEAN
1 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
2 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
j 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
4 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
f= 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
6 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
1 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
8 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
9 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.ol 1 0 0.01
10 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 1 0 0.01
11 3 0 0.03 4 0 0.04 5 0 o.os
12 4 0 0.04 5 0 o.os 5 0 o.os
ll 8 0 0.09 9 0 0.10 10 0 o.1o
14 4 0 0.04 6 0 0.06 6 0 0.06
15 16 0 0.11 19 0 0.21 20 0 0.22
16 z 0 0.02 4 0 o.o4 4 0 0.04
11 5 0 0.06 8 0 o.o8 9 0 0.09
18 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
19 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
20 0 I) o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 {1.00
21 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
1'11ble 26 --~·1u11l vrobabi 1 i ti"& {expres11ed in percent chance) of one or aore
>iiJi lh, lh" 1110sl likely nWDber of apil h, and the expected number
of 11pilla occurring and contacting targets ov"r the production life 10 DAYS 30 DAYS
of A)t.,cnalive VI (Shelikof Strait only). ·I>E MEAN PR06 HOOE MEAN PROB MODE MEAN
59 0 O.'il 75 1 1.4 80 1 1.6
SLAI:IIHD fORAGING ARlA SOUTH APRIL-SEPTEMBER 44 0 0.6 46 0 0.6 46 0 0.6
SfAHIRD fORAGING ARt:: A SOUTH OCTOBEH-HARCt1 48 0 0.7 49 0 o.7 41.J 0 0.1
StABIRD fORAGING AREA NORTH APRIL-SEPTEMBER 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
SlABIRD fORAGING AREA NORTH OCTOBER-MARCH 0 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
SFA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA A 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o
SFA OTTfR CONCENTRATION AREA B 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
SlA OTTER CONCENTRATION AIUA c 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA 0 29 0 o.3 35 0 0.4 36 0 0.4
SlA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA E b 0 0.1 11 0 o.l 11 0 0.1
SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA f 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
St:A OTTEH CONCENTRATION AREA G 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
S~ A OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA H 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
Rf.O RIVER SALMON SCHOOLING AREA 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
KARLUK RIVER SALMON SCHOOLING AREA 3 0 o.o 5 0 o.o 5 0 0.1
ROCKYt ALLIGATORt AND GRASSY ISLANDS AREA .. 0 o.o 5 0 o.l 6 0 o.1
OARKo SENTINEL ISLANDS, AND LATAX ROCKS AREA 1 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 2 0 o.o
I:IARREN ISLANDS AREA 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o 3 0 o.o
·AuGUSTINE ISLAND AREA 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
KIUKP~LJK, SHAKUN ISLANOSo AND SHAKUN ROCK AREA 10 0 0.1 14 0 o.2 15 0 o.z
Table 'J.7 --•·iual probabilities (.,xpressed in percent chance) of one or oaore
spills, the aost likely nwaber of spills, and the expected nwaber
of 11pill11 occurring and contactin& targets over the production life
of Altermotive Vl and tbe exialin& leases (CI). j DAYS 10 DAYS 30 DAYS
PROS MODE MEAN PROS MODE MEAN PROB MODE MEAN
LAND 90 2 2.3 99 4 5.0 100 5 5.8
SEA~IRO fORAGING AREA SOUTH APRIL-SEPTEMBER 49 0 0.7 59 0 0.9 60 0 0.9
SEABIRD fORAGING AREA SOUTH OCTOBER-MARCH 63 0 1. 0 76 1 .... 76 1 1.4
SEABIRD fORAGING AREA NORTH APRIL-SEPTEMBER 75 1 1.4 78 1 1.5 78 1 loS
SfABIRO fORAGING AREA NORTH OCTOBER-MARCH 75 1 1.4 71 1 1.5 77 1 1.5
5EA•.(>TTER CONCENTRATION AREA A 9 0 0.1 15 0 o.z zo 0 o.z
SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA 8 4 0 o.o zo 0 o.2 30 0 0.4
SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA c 18 0 0.2 32 0 0.4 36 0 0.4
SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA 0 37 0 o.s 59 0 0.9 61 0 0.9
SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA E 10 0 o.l 23 0 o.3 24 0 o.3
SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA f 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 4 0 o.o
SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA G 29 0 o.3 31 0 0.4 32 0 0.4
SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREA H 49 0 0.7 67 I 1.1 68 I 1. I
REO RIVER SALMON SCHOOLING AREA 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
KARLUK RIVER SALMON SCHOOLING AREA 3 0 o.o 6 0 o.1 1 0 o.1
ROCKYt ALLIGATOR• AND GRASSY ISLANDS AREA 6 0 0.1 13 0 0.1 14 0 o.1
OARKt SENTINEl ISLANDS, ANO LATAX ROCKS AREA 2 0 o.o 10 0 o.1 11 0 Ool
HARREN ISLANDS AREA 24 0 o.3 38 0 o.s 42 0 o.s
A11GUST INE ISLAND AREA 33 0 0.4 44 0 0.6 45 0 0.6
KJUI<PALIKo SHAKUN ISLANOSo AND SHAKUN ROCK AREA 12 0 o.1 22 0 o.2 23 0 0.3
22 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
23 1 0 0.01 2 0 o.o2 3 0 0.03
24t 2 0 0.02 3 0 o.o3 3 0 0.03
25 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
26 1 0 0.01 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1
27 1 0 0.01 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
28 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1
29 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
30 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
J1 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
32 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1
33 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1
34 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
35 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.u 0 0 o.oo
Jb 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
J7 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
)tl 0 0 o.o 2 0 0.02 2 0 o.ol
"19 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1
ctO 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
ctl l 0 o.ol 4 0 0.04 4 0 0.04
42 2 0 0.02 3 0 0.03 3 0 0.03
4) 0 0 o.oo 3 0 o.o3 3 0 o.o4t
44 3 0 o.oJ 6 0 0.06 b 0 O.Ob
45 20 0 0.22 23 0 0.26 23 0 0.27
46 2 0 0.02 4 0 o.o4t 4 0 0.04
47 l 0 o.ol 3 0 0.03 J 0 o.oJ
48 6 0 o.o6 9 0 0.09 9 0 o.o~
49 2 0 0.02 5 0 o.o5 5 0 0.05
50 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
Sl 0 0 u.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
52 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o u 0 o.o
';)3 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.uo 0 0 o.oo
54 0 0 u.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
~s 0 0 o.8 8 8 g.o 0 8 g.o ,f, 0 0 o. .o 0 .oo
57 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
~8 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
59 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
bO 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
61 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
62 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
63 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
64 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
65 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
66 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
b7 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
68 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
69 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
70 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
71 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
72 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
73 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
74t 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
75 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
76 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
77 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
78 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
79 -0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
80 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1
fll 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.02
ll2 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
63 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.ol
64 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1
H!l 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
86 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
IH 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
66 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
89 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
90 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
91 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
92 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
93 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
94 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
<,~S 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
<,16 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
Tabl" 30 --Final probabililie11 (expre11aed in percent cluonce) of one or ...,r.,
11pillu, the ~&l likely nwaber of apilla, and Lbe expected nuab"r
of 11pill11 occurrlna and coutaclin& land aea-nta over the produc-
Liou llf" of Alternative Vl aud the exialina leases (C-1).
~I. G~lf.tH 3 OAYS 10 DAYS 30 DAY~
PIWti HOOE Hl AN PkOB MODE Ht:AN PkUU MODE Ht:AN
1 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
2 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
3 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 2 0 o.oz
4 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 0.01
5 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
b 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
7 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1
8 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
9 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
10 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
11 3 0 O.OJ 6 0 0.06 1 0 0.07
12 4 0 0.04 9 0 0.09 9 0 o.1o
l3 10 0 o.1o 19 0 0.21 20 0 0.22
14 6 0 o.ol 14 0 0.15 14 0 0.16
15 18 0 0.20 27 0 0.31 28 0 o.33
16 3 0 o.o3 10 0 0.10 10 0 o.11
l7 1 0 0.07 19 0 0.21 20 0 0.23
18 1 0 0.01 4 0 0.05 5 0 o.o!i
1fol 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
20 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 1 0 0.01
21 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1
c2 0 0 o.oo 2 0 0.02 2 0 0.02
23 1 0 o.o1 2 0 o.oz 3 0 0.03
24 2 0 0.02 3 0 o.oJ 4 0 0.04
2~ 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
26 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1
21 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
28 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 0.01
29 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1
)0 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 2 0 0.02
H 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
32 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1
)3 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 2 0 0.02
34 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 2 0 0.02
)~ 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
J6 ·o 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
37 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1
)t! 0 0 o.o 3 0 0.03 3 0 0.04
)9 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
40 0 0 o.oo 3 0 o.oJ 4 0 0.04
41 1 0 o.o1 5 0 0.05 5 0 0.06
42 2 0 0.02 5 0 o.o5 6 0 0.06
4J 0 0 o.oo 5 0 0.06 1 0 0.01
44 3 0 o.o3 11 0 0.11 11 0 0.12
45 23 0 0.26 37 0 0.46 Jl 0 0.46
46 4 0 0.04 10 0 0.11 11 0 0. 12
4 7 1 0 0.01 4 0 0.05 5 0 o.os
4ts 6 0 o.ol 12 0 0.12 13 0 0.14
49 4 0 0.04 10 0 0.11 13 0 0.14
so 3 0 o.o3 5 0 o.os 6 0 0.06
'>l 1 0 o.Ol 2 0 o.o2 2 0 0.02
52 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
53 13 0 o.13 21 0 0.24 21 0 0.24
S<t 19 0 0.21 32 0 0.39 3) 0 0.40
~~ 0 0 8:~~ A 0 8:3~ 2 0 o.oz
19 0 0 21.J 0 0.34
~7 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 1 0 0.01
.$8 3 0 o.o3 8 0 o.o9 9 0 o.10
59 6' 0 0.06 11 0 0.12 11 0 0.12
60 7 0 o.ol 12 0 0.13 12 0 o.1J
61 1 0 o.o1 ) 0 o.ol 3 0 o.oJ
62 0 0 o.oo 4 0 0.04 4 0 0.04
63 0 0 o.oo 3 0 o.oJ J 0 o.o3
64 0 0 o.oo 6 0 0.06 7 0 o.o7
65 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1
66 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
67 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
68 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
69 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
70 0 0 o.oo 2 0 0.02 2 0 o.oz
71 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
72 1 0 O.Ol 1 0 o.o1 1 0 0.01
73 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1
74 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02 2 0 0.02
75 18 0 0.19 20 0 0.22 20 0 0.23
76 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1
77 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
78 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
79 3 0 0.03 7 0 0.08 9 0 0.10
80 4 0 0.04 9 0 0.09 12 0 o.l3
81 7 0 o.oa 17 0 0.19 20 0 0.22
82 5 0 o.os 9 0 0.09 10 0 0.11
83 1 0 o.o1 7 0 o.o1 9 0 o.to
84 1 0 o.o1 4 0 0.04 1 0 0.07
BS 0 0 o.oo 3 0 0.03 4 0 0.04
86 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 4 0 0.04
1H 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 1 0 0.01
88 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
89 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1
90 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
91 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1
92 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 0.01
93 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1
'14 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 0.01
95 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
96 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
Table ll --•·•nal p•·obabilili"& (eXIH"CIIIIed in percent chance) of one or .are
&)Jil h, the 111011l I ikely 1alllllber of &pills, and the expected nua~ber
ot 11pilla o..:cur-r-iua and cout•ctina land &e&JDents over-the pr-oduc-
tiou life of Alternative VI exiatina leases (C-1) and exiatina
l"nkea· t•·anspor-tation (incl'!dina upper-Cook Inlet).
Sl GMI N! l DAY~ 10 DAlS 30 l>AYS
PHOH HOOf. Mt.AN PROS MOO MEAN PHOB HOOE HlAN
1 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
2 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
~ 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 2 0 0.02
4 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 3 0 o.o3
5 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
6 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo
7 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1
8 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1
9 0 0 o.o 1 0 0.01 2 0 o.o2
10 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.ot 3 0 0.03
11 3 0 0.03 7 0 o.o8 9 0 o.1o
12 4 0 0.04 10 0 0.11 12 0 0.12
13 10 0 o.1o 23 0 0.26 24 0 o.28
14 6 0 0.07 18 0 0.19 19 0 0.21
15 18 0 0.20 30 0 0.36 32 0 0.38
16 3 0 o.o3 12 0 0.13 13 0 0.14
17 7 0 o.o7 23 0 0.26 26 0 o.3o
18 1 0 o.o1 7 0 0.07 8 0 o.oe
19 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
20 1 0 o.o1 2 0 o.o2 2 0 0.02
21 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
22 0 0 o.oo 2 0 0.02 3 0 0.03
23 1 0 0.01 2 0 o.o2 4 0 0.04
24 2 0 0.02 3 0 0.03 5 0 0.05
25 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
26 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1
27 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1 3 0 o.oJ
~8 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 2 0 0.02
29 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 2 0 o.o2
)0 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 4 0 0.04
31 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
32 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
33 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 3 0 o.o3
)4 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 3 0 0.03
35 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 3 0 o.o3
36 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 u.oo
37 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 1 0 0.01
38 0 0 o.o 3 0 o.o3 4 0 o.o ..
J~ 0 0 o.o 1 0 0.01 2 0 0.02
40 0 0 o.oo 4 0 0.04 5 0 0.05
<t1 1 0 o.o1 6 0 0.06 7 0 0.07
42 2 0 0.02 6 0 0.06 7 0 0.07
43 0 0 o.oo 6 0 0.06 8 0 0.08
44 3 0 0.03 13 0 0.13 14 0 0. 15
45 23 0 0.26 41 0 0.52 42 0 o.~ ..
<t6 4 0 0.04 12 0 0.13 15 0 0.16
47 1 0 0.01 5 0 o.o5 6 0 0.07
48 6 0 o.o7 13 0 0.14 15 0 0.11
4~ 4 0 o.os 12 0 0.13 16 0 0. 18
so 3 0 o.oJ 7 0 o.o7 a 0 o.o<~
Sl 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02 2 0 0.02
52 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
53 14 0 0.15 27 0 0.31 27 0 0.32
!J4 23 0 o.2b 49 0 0.67 ~0 0 o.7o
55 0 0 o.og 3 0 0.04 4 0 0.04
56 23 0 0.2 44 0 o.5e 45 0 0.61
57 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 3 0 o.o3
58 3 0 0.03 13 0 0.14 16 0 0.17
59 6 0 0.06 15 0 0.17 17 0 0.18
60 8 0 o.oe 18 0 0.20 20 0 0.22
61 2 0 o.oz 7 0 o.o7 8 0 o.oa
62 0 0 o.oo 8 0 o.o8 9 0 0.09
63 0 0 o.oo 7 0 0.07 7 0 0.07
64 10 0 o.ll 29 0 0.34 30 0 0.36
65 0 0 o.o 2 0 0.02 2 0 o.oz
66 0 0 o.o 5 0 0.05 5 0 0.05
67 0 0 o.o 1 0 o.o1 1 0 o.o1
68 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
t,9 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
70 3 0 0.04 9 0 0.10 9 0 0.10
11 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo
72 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02 2 0 0.02
73 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02 3 0 o.ol
74 2 0 o.oz 5 0 o.os 6 0 0.06
75 35 0 0.43 40 0 0.52 41 0 0.53
76 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02 3 0 o.oJ
71 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 2 0 0.02
78 0 0 o.oo 1 0 o.o1 3 0 0.04
79 7 0 o.oa 20 0 0.23 23 0 0.27
80 8 0 0.08 18 0 0.19 22 0 0.25
81 8 0 0.09 24 0 0.28 29 0 0.34
82 7 0 0.07 l3 0 0.14 15 0 0.16
83 2 0 0.02 13 0 0.13 16 0 0.18
li"t 1 0 0.01 8 0 0.0'1 12 0 0.13
85 1 0 o.o1 6 0 0.06 9 0 0.09
So 0 0 o.o 3 0 0.03 8 0 o.oa
87 0 0 o.o 1 0 0.01 3 0 0.03
H8 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.oo 2 0 0.02
89 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 2 0 0.02
90 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 0.01
~· 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 3 0 o.o3
92 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 2 0 0.02
93 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 1 0 0.01
9"t 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 2 0 0.02
95 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
Ql) 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o 0 0 o.o
'
LAS A
ISLA NO
(J
CHIRIKOF' AND ORT
i
LOCATION Of-SEABIRD FORAGING AREAS, NORTH & SOUTH,
OF COOK INLET OCS SALE 60
1980.
Figure D.-2.
LAS A
' ~-~·----~~~~--~----~-----+-----+-----+-----r----~----~
F.Chi ORT
i
LOCATION OF SEA OTTER CONCENTRATION AREAS A THROUGH H,
COOK INLETOCS SALE 60
1980.
r-
1
I
LAS A
Islands
~r' --·---r--~~~~-;--~~~~--r-----T-----;------r-----r-----;
' ~-~»----+-----~----~----~------+----~------~-----+-----+----~
ORT
i
THE LOCATIONS OF 7 TARGETS, COOK INLET AND SHELIKOF
STRAIT OCS LEASE SALE 60.
APPENDIX E ·
INVENTORY AND LOCATION OF POLLUTION
CLEANUP EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS,
COOK INLET RESPONSE ORGANIZATION (CIRO)
AND GULF OF ALASKA CLEANUP ORGANIZATION (GOACO)
•
CIRO OWNED/GOACO USE AGREEMENT EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Revised 1/17/80
CLASS
Oil
Recovery
Support
Vans
Oil Contain-
ment Booms
Oil/Water
Separators
Oil Storage
TYPE/DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
Acme Skimmer 1
Command & Control Vans -1
40' -personnel and cummuni-
cation support 1
Vikoma Seapack 23' hull 1
with 1450' of inflatable 1450'
boom and related equipment
does not include tow vessel.
Whittaker Expandi Boom
4300 -43" skirt open water
oil containment 200'
sections
Aqua ~ence Open Water 30"
Skirt
Acme Harbor Boom -12'
Skirt -200' Sections
200 Bbl Oil Separator Tanks
100 Bbl Holding Tanks
Marine Portable Skid
Mounted
Pillow Tank Firestone
Fabri-tank, 25,000 US Gal.
Inflatable Tank, Dunlap,
towable, 2,500 U.S. Gal.
Three 20' sections of tow
hose.
1
2000'
1000'
1000'
1000'
2 ea.
2
1
1
LOCATION
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AX
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AX
City Dock
Anchorage, AX
Homer, AX
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AX
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AX
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AK
City Dock
Anchorage, AX
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AK
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AK
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AX
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AK
CLASS
Dispersants
Aerial Spray
Units
\Hrd Pro-
tection
Oil
Recovery
Systems
Skimmers
TYPE/DESCRIPTION
Exxon Corexit 9527
" " "
" " "
Exxon Collectant OC-5
(Herder)
Simplex/Aerial Spray Unit
200 Gal. capacity
Helo Spray Unit, 600 Gal.
capacity
Scare Away Model M-Y
Propane filled.
RECOVERER II -Lockheed
3100 self-propelled/Bay
Harbor
Cyclonet 120 -M/V RIG
ENGINEER modified for
installation. High seas
capability.
RECOVERER -Cyclonet 070
Self-propelled. Open sea.
Bay capability.
Cyclonet 050 Zodiac Boat
50 hp Mercury outboard,
Bay/Harbor capability
Komara Mini Skimmers w/
Power pack
2
QUANTITY
102
90
90
1
2
1
20
19
1
1
1
1
1
2
LOCATION
Kenai Pipeline
yard, ARCO Yard
Kenai, AK
Manley Terminal
Homer, AK
Anchorage (CES)
Manley Warehouse
Homer, AK
Kenai Pipeline
Kenai, AK
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AK
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AK
ARCO Warehouse
Kenai, AK
Anchorage (CES)
Anchorage (CES)
City Dock
Anchorage, AK
Rig Tenders
Nikiski, AK
Onshore
Homer, AK
Manley Terminal
#3, Homer, AK
Manley Terminal
#3, Homer, AK
1 KPH Property,
Nikiski, AK
CLASS
Work Boat
Sorbents
TYPE/DESCRIPTION
19' Zodiac 70 HP Volvo
Penta 0/B
Conwed Sorbent Blanket,
Bale ISO' x 30" x 3/8"
Conwed Sorbent Pad
110 pads per bale 17" x 17"
Conwed Sorbent Pillow
20 per Bale 18" x 12" x 4"
3M Sorbent Pads, Type IS6
100 18xl8x3/8 pads per Bale
3M Sorbent Sweeps Type 126
100' x 22" x 3/8" per Bale
3M Sorbent Boom Type 270
4 10' x 8" Boom per Bale
3
QUANTITY
1
SO Bales
23 Bales
1 Bale
18 Bales
10 Bales
94 Bales
LOCATION
Kenai, AK
Kenai Pipeline
yard. Kenai, AK
ARCO yard
Kenai, AK
The following equipment is also available in Kenai:
Quantity
1
1
1
20
1
2
140'
140'
300'
300'
4
Electric Generator, 3 KW, portable, gasoline
powered with 2 flood lights, 100 w on tripod,
3 electrical leads, 75 ft.
Electric Generator 7.5 KW, portable, gasoline
powered. 110-220 volt.
Air Compressor or 150 PSI 220, single phase
Containment Boom Marker Lights.
Vacuum cleaner, tank type, wet/dry.
Barrel Pumps (hand op.).
3" Sunction hose (Camlock Fittings) 7 20' sections.
4" Sunction hose (Camlock Fittings) 7 20' sections.
3" Discharge hose (Camlock Fittings) 6 50' sections.
4" Discharge hose (Camlock Fittings) 6 50' sections.
Diesel-powered, electric start Gorman Rupp trash
pumps with fire/wash down nozzle attachment.
4
GOA CO
CIRO
GOA CO
GOA CO
GOA CO
GOA CO
GOA CO
GOA CO
GOA CO
GOA CO
GOA CO
Function
Command and
Control
Communi-
cations
GULF OF ALASKA CLEANUP ORGANIZATION
Inventory and Location of Equipment/Material
April 15, 1980
Description
40' Vans, equipped to conduct
management of the cleanup
operation. (See Enclosure 1
complete list of items/equip-
ment contained in each Van.)
Mobile Radio Repeaters (100
Watt) Receive on 459 MHZ/
Transmit on 454 MHZ.
Base Station UHF Antenna,
mounted on the 40' Command
Center Vans, for use with
Repeaters or Handheld MX-330
Radios.
Marine Band; VHF transceivers
(25 watt) Motorola Nautilus
440 with antennas.
Aviation Band; 720 channels,
7 watts, King KY-92 trans-
ceivers .(118 MHZ-136 MHZ)
UHF/FM Handheld Radio, Motorola
MX-330. Transmits on 459 MHZ
or 454 MHZ. Receives only on
454 HHZ. Battery operated.
Battery Chargers, Multiple and
Single.
Spare Batteries for MX-330
Radios.
Citizen Band Radio w/antenna.
Telephone System, 10 stations
per command Center Van, PBX,
intercom between all stations.
5
Quantity Location
2 Van #4 Anchorage
Van 115 Kenai
2 Van #4 Anchorage
Van /15 Kenai
2
2
2
12
6
12
2
Van /14 Anchorage
Van 115 Kenai
Van #4 Anchorage
Van /15 Kenai
Van #4 Anchorage
Van 115 Kenai
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Van /14 Anchorage
Van 115 Kenai
Van /14 Anchorage
Van 115 Kenai
Function
Storage/Fast
Response
Containment
of Oil
Oil Pick Up
Description
40' Vans, used to store materi-
al/equipment and to transport
to spill site.
Wittaker Expandi Boom Hodel
4300 Seaboom (1000'/pallet,
wt. 4,000/J)
Acme Corral Boom
(8" freeboard, 12" skirt,
200' section) (1000'/Trailer,
1000' Boom wt. 1,500#)
Harker lights for containment
booms
Cyclonet 150 Open Ocean Skimmer
At 3-6 kts oil recovery rates
range to 1,600 gallons/min.
will operate in 10 ft. seas.
Total system wt. apx. 75 tons
Komara Hiniskimmer, rotating
disc type, maximum recovery
rate of crude is 10 tons/hour
(13 gal/min) Skimmer wt. 120#
Hydraulic power pack wt. 330#
Electric start.
Acme Skimmer, 39TG-4
Wier is variable, and will pump
25 to 275 gal/min at a maximum
head of 30 feet. Weight is
138 lb.
Sorbent Boom, 3M Type 270
5, 8' x 8" booms/bale
Sorbent Blanket, 3M Type 100
One 150' x 30 " x 3/8" per roll
Sorbent Pad, 3M Type 156
100 18" x 18" x 3/8" per bale
Sorbent Pillow, 3M Type 240
10 5" x 14" pillows per bale
6
Quantity
3
3000'
3000'
20
1
2
2
40
41
14
5
Location
Van #1 Yakutat
Van 112 Yakutat
Van 113 Kenai
1000' Yakutat
2000' Kenai
Van f/5 Kenai
Stored in Long
Beach, California
Yakutat
Kenai
Yakutat
Kenai
Van 112 Yakutat
Van /12 Yakutat
Van f/2 Yakutat
Van /12 Yakutat
Function
Oil Pick Up
(continued)
Oil/Water
Separation
Product
Storage
Aerial
Spraying
Description
Sorbent Boom, 3M Type 270
5 8' x 8" booms/bale
Sorbent Boom, 3M Type 270
5 8'x 8" booms/bale
Sorbent Blanket, Conwed
One 150' 30" x 3/8" per roll
Sorbent Pad, Conwed
17\" x 17\" x \" (110/bale)
Sorbent Pillow, Conwed
18" x 12" x 4" (20/bale)
Sorbent Sweep, 3M Type
(one 100'-22" x 3/8"/bale)
Sorbent Pads, 3M Type
(100-18" x 18" 3/8"/bale)
200 bbt Oil/Water Separator
Tanks mounted on 40' flatbed,
rated at 90,000# gross wt.
Designed for use with Cyclonet
150 system. Can be used sep-
arately or for storage. Marine
Portable on skids.
100 bbl holding and separator
tanks. Marine Portable on·
skids, stored on 60,000 lb.
gross wt. 40' flatbed.
Pillow Tank, Firestone Frabri-
tank 25,000 gal. Stored on
flatbed (empty wt. 2,600 lb)
Inflatable, Dracone Dunlop Tow-
able Tank. 2,500 gal. (empty
wt. 700 lb) Stored on flatbed.
Helicopter Dispersant Applica-
tor. Self powered, indepen-
dent controls in cockpit.
Empty wt. 705#, with payload
(612 gal) -5,600#
7
Quantity Location
74
20
50
23
1
10
18
2
2
2
2
2
Van 113 Kenai
Van #4 Anchorage
Kenai
Kenai
Kenai
Kenai
Kenai
Van 118, Van 119
Kenai
Van 116, Van 111
Kenai
Van Ill Yakutat
Van fl7 Kenai
Van Ill Yakutat
Van f/6 Kenai
Van Ill Yakutat
Van 113 Kenai
Function
Dispersants
Collectants
Bird/Sea
Mammal
Protection
Workboats
Transporta-
tion/Stor-
age
Pumps and
Power Packs
Description
Exxon Corexit 9527 (36 drums
in Van 113 Kenai)
Exxon OC-5
Scare away Model M-Y, propane
fired, with individual pro-
pane tanks.
Zodiak 19' Mark V inflatable
workboat (equipped with out-
board motors and safety
equipment).
40' Modified Vans, equipped as
an Operations Center and for
storage of oilspill response
materials.
40' Flatbed Trailers, selec-
tively loaded with tanks,
booms, skimmers for fast
response.
19' Boat Trailers
Acme Boom/Skimmer Trailers
Trash Pumps, Gorman Rupp, 4",
Diesel powered, electric start.
(Fire/wash down nozzle attach-
ment.)
Barrel Pump (hand operated)
Diesel power, Hydraulic power
pack for Cyclonet 150 opera-
tions.
8
Quantity
102 Drums
80 Drums
5 Drums
1 Drum
20
2
5
4
2
3
4
1
1
Location
Kenai
Yakutat
Yakutat
Kenai
5 Anchorage
5 Kenai
10 ARCO Yard,
Kenai
1 Yakutat
1 Kenai
2 Yakutat
2 Kenai
1 Anchorage
4 Kenai
1 Yakutat
1 Kenai
1 Yakutat
1 Kenai
1 Anchorage
4 Kenai
Kenai
Kenai
Function Description Quantity Location
Lighting Portable Flood Lights, two (2) 2 Van #1 Yakutat
1000 watt lights on tripod/ Van 115 Kenai
electrical leads.
Generators Gasoline Generator, portable 2 Van Ill Yakutat
3000 watts. Van 114 Anchorage
Hoses 3" Suction Hose (Kamlock fit-60' Yakutat
tings)(3 20' sections)
3" Discharge Hose (Kamlock 100' Yakutat
fittings)(2 50' sections)
4" Suction Hose (Kamlock fit-60' Yakutat
tings)(3 20' sections)
4" Discharge Hose (Kamlock 100' Yakutat
fittings)(2 SO' sections)
3" Suction Hose (Kamlock fit-. 140' Kenai
tings) (7 20' sections)
4" Discharge Hose (Kamlock 300' Kenai
fittings)(6 50' sections)
4" Suction Hose (Kamlock fit-140' Kenai
tings)(7 20' sections)
4" Discharge Hose (Kamlock 300' Kenai
fittings) (6 50' sections)
Heating Herman Nelson, BT-400-10 Gaso-2 Anchorage
line Heaters (400,000 BTU cap)
Support Vacuum Cleaners, tank type, 2 Van 111 Yakutat
wet or dry type, for use with Van 115 Kenai
Expandi Boom
Hand Sprayers, 4 gal., disper-4 2 Yakutat
sant applicators 2 Kenai
Air Compressor, 150 psi 220v 1 Kenai
single phase
9
Function
Training
Description
Slide Projector
Camera SX-70
Camera Cannon AE-1
Video Tape Player/Recorder
(to view training tapes)
NUS Training Tapes, Oilspill
Cleanup Series
IO
Quantity Location
I Anchorage
I Anchorage
I Anchorage
I Anchorage
23 Anchorage
GULF OF ALASKA CLEANUP ORGANIZATION
Command and Control Vans
Operations Center
Two 40' Semi Trailers have been equipped for Command Center oilspill
cleanup operations. Each Van has a self-contained power plant, lighting, and
heating system. The communication package used in the Vans is packaged in a
manner to allow removal and use in a remote command center location. Listed
below is a typical inventory contained in GOACO Vans #4 and #5:
a) Foul weather clothing/footwear for 12 people.
b) Two MSA Air Masks (Model #401, pressure demand).
c) Two fire/flame protections suits.
d) One resuscitator (MSA Portolator).
e) Spare parts for small engines, pumps, and generators.
f) Medical Kits for each Van and individual kits for 12 pers.ons.
g) Oxygen and Masks for emergency medical use.
h) Steam/Hot Water cleaning machine (Anchorage).
i) Fire Extinguishers.
j) Cleaning materials and perservatives for equipment.
k) Small refrigerator.
l) Aluminum ladder.
m) Warn electric winch.
n) Equipped with rear loading ramp.
o) Four built-in bunks per van/with blankets (8 total).
p) Nylon line.
q) Antenna for L~ frequency (454.~459. MHZ),
Antenna for VHF Marine Band, and Antenna for Aviation Band, Citizen
Band.
r) 40' Van spare tires and rims.
s) Twelve (12) tables, twenty-four (24) chairs.
t) 110V extension cords (100').
u) Wind Speed and Direction Indicator.
v) Charts and Display Boards.
w) Clock.
Communication System
10 Station per Van #4 & #5 Telephone PBX System with 20 Station Intercom.
Radio, UHF-FM, hand held, Motorola MX-330. Transmit on 454. or 459. MHZ.
Receives ONLY 454. MHZ. Type H44, battery operated with:
4 -Battery Chargers, Single
2 -Battery Chargers, Multiple
Mobile UHF-FM radio repeaters (100 Watt). Receive on 459. MHZ, transmit on
454. MHZ.
Marine Band, VHF Transceivers.
Aviation Band VHF Transceivers.
Citizen Band Transceivers.
11
APPENDIX F
OFFSHORE OIL POLLUTION
COMPENSATION FUND
Refer to the DEIS for the text to this appendix
or to 44 FR 16860
APPENDIX G
FISHERMEN'S CONTINGENCY FUND
Refer to the DEIS for the text to this appendix
or to 45 FR 6062
APPENDIX H
BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON ENDANGERED WHALES
AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
AS AMENDED
Mr. Frank Gregg
Director, Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.c. 20240
Dear Mr. Gregg:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Ocaanic and Atmospharic Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Washington. D.C. 20235
lAY 2 3 1980
F/MM:CK
This responds to your letter of January 24, 19ao, in which the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) requested
initiation of formal procedures for a joint regional consultation on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas program in the Gulf of Alaska area.
Consultation was requested for all operations pertaining to oil and gas leasing
and exploration for the total area involved in Lease Sales 46 (Kodiak), 55
(Eastern Gulf of Alaska), and 60 (Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait).
You also requested that the Draft Environmental Statements for proposed
Lease Sales 46 and 55 and the biological assessment of endangered whales in the
proposed eastern Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak Island, and Cook Inlet Lease Areas
serve in lieu of a formal consultation meeting. We find these documents
provide sufficient information to prepare a biological opinion and that a
formal consultation meeting is not necessary at this time.
Endangered Whales in the Gulf of Alaska
Seven species of endangered whales (gray, right, blue, fin, sei, sperm, and
humpback) are present seasonally in the Gulf of Alaska area from late spring
into early autumn (approximately May through September) as described in the
biological assessment. Of these only the humpback appears to summer in
significant numbers in or near the area encompassed by the three lease sales.
The other species are thought to occur in the area mostly as transients during
both spring and fall migrations. Except for the gray whale, which is
restricted to the North Pacific Ocean, all of these endangered whales are
worldwide, or nearly worldwide, in distribution. All seven species occur in
the Kodiak and Eastern Gulf of Alaska proposed lease areas but only gray, fin,
and humpback whales have been observed in the Cook Inlet-Shelikof area. The
seasonal occurrence of endangered whales and an indication of their relative
abundance in the proposed lease areas in the Gulf of Alaska region are given in
Table 1. None of these whales are known to mate or calve in the area
considered herein. Therefore, this facet of their biology and life history
will not be adversely affected by oil and gas development in the Gulf of
Alaska.
2
Generally it is assumed that these whales feed only within their suamer
range. Their principal food items and methods of feeding are given in Table 2.
Proposed Activities
A. Leasing and Pre-exploration Stages.
Activities associated with the lease sales include offering the leases,
submission of bids, and awarding of leases to the successful bidders. Pre-
exploration activities may involve further geophysical exploration and a small
increase in vessel traffic. No adverse impact to endangered whales is
anticipated from these activities, as the whales probably would actively avoid
the source of any annoyance, such as high energy acoustic exploration.
B •. Exploration Stage
Site specific geophysical work may be required at exploratory well
locations. Lessees must submit to USGS an exploration plan and obtain USGS
approval before any exploratory drilling can take place. Generally the
exploration plan will identify where and how the exploratory drilling will take
place. The Director of the Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service
will have opportunity to review exploratory drilling permit applications and
make such recommendations for protection of living marine resources as he deems
necessary.
Estimated Exploration Activity Based on Mean Scenario -Sale 55 (Eastern Gulf
of Alaska).
Exploration is expected to begin in 1981 and continue through 1985 with a
total of 14 exploration and delineation wells drilled. No more than two rigs
are assumed to be working during any year. Jack-up rigs could be used in
shallow water and drillships and semi-submersibles could be used in deeper
water.
Primary support/supply activities would be based at the existing Yakutat
facility owned by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and soae marine traffic
would utilize the existing facilities at Seward. These facilities would be
capable of handling all necessary marine support activities during the
exploratory phase. Aircraft support would be conducted at the state-owned
airport at Yakutat, and Cape Yakataga would be used as an auxiliary support
area during bad weather.
Estimated Exploration Activity Based on Mean Scenario -Sale 46 (Kodiak).
As this sale apparently will be postponed until 1983, we assume that the
timing of exploration activities will be advanced from 1981 and 1986 to 1984
3
and 1989 respectively. Exploration is expected to begin in 1984 and continue
through 1989 with a total of 24 exploration and delineation wells drilled. No
more than one rig is assumed to be working during any year. Jack-up rigs could
be used in shallow water and drillships and semi-submersibles could be used in
deeper water.
Primary maritime support and supply activities would occur from existing
industry facilities located at Seward and possibly from a base that would be
constructed in the Chiniak Bay area. Aircraft support would be conducted from
airfields located at Seward, Kodiak City, and Cape Chiniak.
Estimated Exploration Activity Based on Mean Scenario -Sale 60 (Cook lnlet-
Shelikof Strait).
No more than four rigs are assumed to be working during any year. Semi-
submersibles could be used, each requiring 120,000 square feet of surface area.
Primary support/supply activities would be based in the Homer area. These
facilities would be capable of handling all necessary marine support activities
with no further expansion during the exploratory phase. Aircraft support is
unknown at this time. Two or three support and supply vessels would be needed.
Future facilities may be built near Kupreanof Straits. No offshore terminals
are anticipated.
Potential Impacts on Whales
Human disturbances arising from exploration activities could affect whale
behavior. Development elsewhere has indicated that vessel traffic or certain
engine sound frequencies may alter whale behavior. Scammon Lagoon in Mexico
has been closed to all but local fishing boat traffic because of disturbance to
gray whales there. Changes in the manner humpback whales occupy Glacier Bay,
Alaska, have been attributed, at least in part, to increased tour ship and
small boat traffic. The National Park Service has published regulations
governing the number of tour ships that may enter Glacier Bay and the speeds
and the distances which ~11 vessels must observe in the presence of humpback
Whales. Similar guidelines have been published for the Hawaiian humpback whale
grounds. There also is concern over the effects of noise and human disturbance
on bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea. Studies currently are being conducted
or planned to determine the effects of sound frequencies and vessel traffic on
whale behavior. The NMFS will review the results of these studies and take the
appropriate action to prevent jeopardy to any of the endangered Whales.
A major adverse impact to endangered whales could result from an oil spill
during exploration. Potential effects of oil pollution on endangered whales
may include: (1) fouling of the feeding mechanism (i.e., baleen plates), (2)
ingestion of oil with unknown ef·fect on whale physiology, (3) the reduction of
4
food supplies through contamination or alteration of their aarine habitat, (4)
irritation of skin and eyes, and (5) disruption of respiratory functions.
Major data gaps exist on the effects of oil pollution and associated OCS
activities on marine mammals, especially cetaceans. For example, no
comprehensive studies have been completed to determine either the effects of
various sound frequencies emitted from oil and gas operations or related
activities on the behavior of marine mammals, or to evaluate the impacts
resulting from offshore structures and human activity on marine mammal
populations, or to delineate the effect of petroleum products on marine
mammals. Studies currently being conducted or funded by BLM address these
problems and meaningful results should be available in two to four years. The
NMFS will review these results and take the appropriate action to insure that
OCS activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of any of the
endangered whales;
Conclusion
Based upon our knowledge of the biology of these whales, the broad
distribution of most of these endangered whales, the relatively small area
involved in the lease sales, the very low probability of a major oil spill
during exploration (no major spills have ever occurred from an exploratory well
in u.s. waters), and the anticipated level of exploration activities (no more
than four rigs working in one year in the Cook lnlet-Shelikof area; no more
than two rigs working in one year in the eastern Gulf of Alaska; no more than
one rig during any year in the Kodiak area; and a small increase in vessel and
air traffic), NMFS concludes that the lease sale and exploration activities
associated with Lease Sales 46, 55, and 60 are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any of the endangered whales or their habitats.
This biological opinion ends formal Section 7 Consultation for the lease
sale and exploration activities associated with OCS Lease Sales 46, 55, and 60.
However, consultation must be reinitiated if significant new information
becomes available (habitat studies and reanalysis of available data are planned
for this summer) or if the lease sale or exploration plans change
significantly.
The level of development stage activity, if any, depends upon the results
of exploration. Until the amount of recoverable hydrocarbon resources is
estimated and the extent of production and development activities is
determined, we cannot address the potential impacts on the endangered whales
from such activities. Studies are now on-going or being proposed to enable us
to better determine seasonal occurrence and habitat utilization patterns and
the direct or indirect impacts of OCS development on endangered whales. These
studies, however, are not scheduled to be completed for the next two-to-four
years. We encourage studies such as those proposed in the biological
5
assessment. Formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
should take place before development and production operations proceed in the
eastern Gulf of Alaska, Cook lnlet-Shelikof, or Kodiak lease areas.
Sincerely yours,
J-~~ 0 Assis Administrator
for Fisheries
Enclosures
Table 1. Seasonal occurrence of endangered cetaceans in the Gulf of Alaska
proposed lease areas.
r'
OCS Lease areas
46 -Kodiak 55 -EGOA/Yakutat 60 -Cook/Shelikof
Species w Sp Su A w Sp Su A w Sp Su A
Gray whale a a + a a a + a +
Right whale 0 + + + 0 + + + 0
Blue whale 0 + + 0 + 0
Fin whale 0 + a + 0 + + + 0 + +
Sei whale 0 + + + 0 + + + 0
Sperm whale 0 + + + 0 0 + 0
Humpback whale 0 + a + 0 + a + 0 + + +
Season
w -Winter, Dec. -Feb. a = abundant
Sp -Spring, March -May. 0 = essentially absent
Su -Summer, June -Aug. + = present but limited data
A -Autumn (fall), Sept. -Nov. blank = unknown
Table 2. Principal food items and feeding method of endangered
whales in the Gulf of Alaska
Species
Blue
Fin
Humpback
Sei
Gray
Right
Sperm
Prlncipal
food i terns
euphaus i ids
euphaus i ids,
herring, ,capelin
euphausiids,
herring, capelin
Copepods,
herring, capelin
benthic amphipods,
polychaetes
Plankton
squid, fish
Feeding
method
engulfment
engulfment
engulfment
skimming
Bottom feeder -
engulfment
skimming
unknown, may
feed off bottom
APPENDIX I
BLM/OCS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PUBLICATIONS
The following reports are published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP).
Name
Ainley, D. G. and
C. R. Grau
Arneson, P.
Atlas, R.
Atlas, R.
Barrick, D.
Blackburn, J. and
P. Jackson
Bouma, A. and
M. Hampton
Burrell, D.
Cacchione, D. and
D. Drake
Cline, J. and
K. Feely
English, T. s.
Fay, F.
Feder, H.
RU = Research Unit
Date
1978
1979
1977
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1977
1978
Title
Influence of Petroleum on Eggs Formation and Embryonic Development in Seabirds.
(RU 423).
Identification, Documentation, and Delineation of Coastal Migratory Bird Habitat in
Alaska. (RU 03).
Microbial Communities in the Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. (RU 30).
Assessment of Potential Interactions of Microorganisms and Petroleum Pollutants in
Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf Areas. (RU 29).
HF Surface-Current Mapping Radar, 1977 Alaskan Operations-Lower Cook Inlet. (RU 48).
Seasonal Composition and Food Web Relationships of Marine Organisms in the Nearshore
Waters of Lower Cook Inlet -Including Fishes and Benthic Epifauna. (RU 514).
Shallow Faulting, Bottom Instability, and Movement of Sediments in Lower Cook Inlet
and Western Gulf of Alaska. (RU 327).
Distribution and Dynamics of Heavy Metals in Alaskan Shelf Environments Subject to
Oil Development. (RU 162).
Bottom and Near-Bottom Sediment Dynamics in Lower Cook Inlet. (RU 430).
Characterization and Source Identification of Anthropogenic and Natural Low Molecular
Weight Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Cook Inlet and Norton Sound, Alaska. (RU 153).
Lower Cook Meroplankton. (RU 424).
Morbidity and Mortality of Marine Mammals. (RU 194).
Distribution, Abundance, Community Structure, and Trophic Relationships of the Near-
shore Benthos of the Kodiak Shelf, Cook Inlet, and Northeast Gulf of Alaska. (RU OS)
Feely, R. and
J. Cline
Flagg, L. and
R. Rosenthal
Galt, J.
Griffith, R. and
R. Morita
Hayes, M.
Hoskins, c.
Hoskins, c.
Kaiser, R.
Kaplan, I. R. and
N. E. Reed
Kaplan, I. R. and
M. I. Venkatesan
Karinen, J.,
S. Rice, and
S. Korn
Kienle, J. and
H. Pulpan
1979
1976
1979
1979
1979
1978
1978
1977
1977
1980
1979
1979
Kooyman, G. L. and 1978
W. A. Garey
Kooyman, G. L. and 1979
W. A. Garey
Larrance, J. and
A. Chester
RU = Research Unit
1980
Composition, Transport, and Deposition of Suspended Matter in Lower Cook Inlet and
Norton Sound, Alaska. (RU 152).
An Ecological Assessment of the Littoral Zone Along the Outer Coast of the Kenai
Peninsula. (RU 27).
Alaska Numerical Modeling. (RU 140).
Study of Microbial Activity and Crude Oil -Microbial Interactions in Water and Sedi-
ment of Cook Inlet, Norton Sound, and the Beaufort Sea. (RU 190).
Oilspill Vulnerability, Coastal Morphology, and Kodiak Archipelago. (RU 59).
Grain-Size Analysis and Data Reduction of Bering Sea Bottom Sediments. (RU 291).
Grain-Size Analysis of Sediment from Alaskan Continental Shelves. (RU 290).
Razor Clam Distribution and Population Dynamics. (RU 24).
Characterization of Organic Matter in Sediments from the Gulf of Alaska, Bering and
Beaufort Seas. (RU 480).
Characterization of Organic Matter in Sediments from Cook Inlet and Norton Sound.
(RU 480).
Vulnerability of Pink Salmon Eggs and Alevins Exposed to Oil in a Simulated Spawning
Environment. (RU 72).
Seismic and Volcanic Risk Studies -Western Gulf of Alaska. (RU 251).
Effects of Oiling on Temperature Regulation in Sea Otters.
Effects of Oiling on Sea Otters in Nature. (RU 71).
Composition and Source of Organic Detritus in Lower Cook Inlet. (RU 425). (Final
Report).
Lees, D.
Lensink, C.
Lens ink, C. ,
G. Sanger, and
P. Gould
Malins, D.,
H. Hodgins,
N. Karrack, and
D. Weber
Muench, R. and
H. Jofjeld
O'Clair, C. and
S. ZiDIIerman
Pitcher, K. and
D. Calkins
Pitcher, K. and
D. Calkins
Polcyn, F.
Reynolds, M.
Rice, S.,
J. Karinen, and
S. Korn
Robertson, D. and
K. Abel
Royer, T.
Schleuter, R.
RU -Research Unit
1979
1979
1979
1979
1978
1980
1979
1979
1978
1978
1978
1978
1979
1979
Ecological Studies of Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Habitats in Lower Cook Inlet
and the NEGOA Region. (RU 417).
Seasonal Distribution and Abundance of Marine Birds. (RU 337).
Population Dynamics and Trophic Relationships of Marine Birds in the Gulf of Alaska.
(RU 341).
Sublethal Effects on Petroleum, Including Biotransformation&, as Reflected by Morpho-
logy, Chemical, Physiology, Pathology, and Behavioral Indices. (RU 73).
Oceanographic Conditions in Lower Cook Inlet; Spring and Summer 1973. (RU 307).
Intertidal Biota and Subtidal Kelp Communities of the Kodiak Island Area. (Final Re-
port). (RU 78).
Biology of the Harbor Seal -Phoca Vitulina Richardi in the Gulf of Alaska. (RU 229).
Population Assessment, Ecology, and Trophic Relationships of Stellar Sea Lions in the
Gulf of Alaska. (RU 243).
Intertidal Algal Analysis. (RU 428).
Nearshore Meteorology. (RU 367).
Lethal and Sublethal Effects on Selected Alaskan Marine Species After Acute and
Long-Term Exposure to Oil and Oil Components. (RU 72).
Trace Metal Baseline Studies at the Aleutian, Kodiak, and St. George Basin Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Sites. (RU 506).
Circulation and Water Masses in the Gulf of Alaska. (RU 289).
Oilspill Trajectory Analysis, Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. (RU 436).
Schneider, K.
Schumacher, J. ,
S. Hayes,
R. Charnell,
R. Munch, and
R. K. Rord
Shaw, D. G.
Warner, J. S.
Whipple, J.
Wise, J.
RU -Research Unit
1976
1979
1979
1978
1978
1977
Assessment of the Distribution and Abundance of Sea Otters Along the Kenai Peninsula,
Kamishak Bay, and the Kodiak Archipelago. (RU 240).
Northwest Gulf of Alaska Oceanographic Processes. (RU 138).
Hydrocarbons: Natural Distribution and Dynamics on the Alaskan Outer Continental
Shelf. (RU 275).
Activity-Directed Fractionation of Petroleum Samples. (RU 500).
Transport, Retention, and Effect of Water-Soluble Fraction of Cook Inlet Crude Oil
in Experimental Food Chains. (RU 389).
Marine Climatology of the Gulf of Alaska, the Bering, and Beaufort Seas. (RU 347).
APPENDIX J
A COMPENDIUM OF THE SIZE, DISTANCE FROM SHORE,
AND WATER DEPTH OF BLOCKS WHICH
COMPRISE THE PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Water Distance
Depth from shore
Block Hectares Acres (Meters) (Statute Miles)
No. 5-1 484 2304.00 5693.18 37 7
#* 527 2304.00 5693.18 35 8
615 2304.00 5693.18 40 8
659 2304.00 5693.18 45 8
703 2304.00 5693.18 50 8
II* 748 2304.00 5693.18 60 11
II* 836 2304.00 5693.18 75 14
#* 880 2304.00 5693.18 40 10
I* 923 2304.00 5693.18 95 15
#* 924 2304.00 5693.18 120 17
II* 968 2304.00 5693.18 132 15
II* 1011 2304.00 5693.18 125 11
II* 1012 2304.00 5693.18 143 13
II* 1055 2304.00 5693.18 143 9
II* 1056 2304.00 5693.18 150 11
No. 5-2 93 1037.00 2562.42 15 4
94 2304.00 5693.18 25 6
137 2028.00 5011.18 25 5
138 2304.00 5693.18 37 7
181 2304.00 5693.18 28 7
182 2304.00 5693.18 40 9
186 2304.00 5693.18 48 11
224 2304.00 5693.18 27 8
225 2304.00 5693.18 27 10
226 2304.00 5693.18 35 11
228 2304.00 5693.18 76 15
229 2304.00 5693.18 60 14
230 2304.00 5693.18 40 11
268 2304.00 5693.18 35 11
269 2304.00 5693.18 32 14
270 2304.00 5693.18 50 17
271 2304.00 5693.18 76 15
272 2304.00 5693.18 70 17
273 2304.00 5693.18 53 b
II* 312 2304.00 5693.18 39 12
II* 313 2304.00 5693.18 39 15
#* 314 2304.00 5693.18 70 16
#* 315 2304.00 5693.18 76 18
II* 316 2304.00 5693.18 60 18
II* 317 2304.00 5693.18 46 15
#* 359 2304.00 5693.18 70 20
II* 360 2304.00 5693.18 55 18
II* 361 2304.00 5693.18 45 16
II* 404 2304.00 5693.18 54 20
II* 405 2304.00 5693.18 50 18
II* 487 2304.00 5693.18 55 15
#* 533 2304.00 5693.18 57 22
II* 580 2304.00 5693.18 70 16
1
Appendix J
(continued)
Water Distance
Depth from shore ' No. 5-2 Block Hectares Acres (Meters) (Statute Miles)
#* 621 2304.00 5693.18 62 23
I* 625 2304.00 5693.18 80 12
I* 661 2304.00 5693.18 58 14
I* 662 2304.00 5693.18 73 17
I* 663 2304.00 5693.18 70 20
I* 664 2304.00 5693.18 63 23
#* 665 2304.00 5693.18 65 23
I* 666 2304.00 5693.18 65 20
#* 669 2304.00 5693.18 80 11
#* 705 2304.00 5693.18 65 14
#* 706 2304.00 5693.18 80 17
I* 707 2304.00 5693.18 80 20
I* 713 2304.00 5693.18 80 11
II* 751 2304.00 5693.18 100 21
#* 756 2304.00 5693.18 96 14
I* 757 2304.00 5693.18 95 11
I* 793 2304.00 5693.18 95 17
#* 795 2304.00 5693.18 120 22
#* 800 2304.00 5693.18 100 14
I* 837 2304.00 5693.18 120 19
I* 838 2304.00 5693.18 133 21
II* 881 2304.00 5693.18 138 19
#* 882 2304.00 5693.18 140 22
II* 925 2304.00 5693.18 143 17
No 5-3* 43 2304.00 5693.18 165 7
* 44 2304.00 5693.18 165 10
* 88 2304.00 5693.18 168 8
131 1958.00 4838.21 174 5
* 132 2304.00 5693.18 159 7
* 176 2304.00 5693.18 155 8
& 219 2304.00 5693.18 179 6
& 220 2304.00 5693.18 146 9
& 263 2292.00 5663.53 168 8
& 264 2304.00 5693.18 146 10
& 306 2028.00 5011.18 155 8
& 307 2304.00 5693.18 159 10
& 308 2304.00 5693.18 155 13
& 350 2304.00 5693.18 161 9
& 351 2304.00 5693.18 168 12
& 352 2304.00 5693.18 161 14
& 394 2304.00 5693.18 168 11
& 395 2304.00 5693.18 165 13
& 396 2304.00 5693.18 159 16
& 438 2304.00 5693.18 168 13
& 439 2304.00 5693.18 161 14
& 479 2304.00 5693.18 134 8
2
Appendix J
(continued)
Water Distance
Depth from shore
No. 5-3 Blocks Hectares Acres (Meters) (Statute Miles)
& 480 2304.00 5693.18 165 11
& 481 2304.00 5693.18 174 13
& 482 2304.00 5693.18 168 14
& 483 2304.00 5693.18 163 12
& 522 2304.00 5693.18 146 10
& 523 2304.00 5693.18 146 12
& 524 2304.00 5693.18 179 13
& 525 2304.00 5693.18 176 15
& 526 2304.00 5693.18 174 13
& 565 2304.00 5693.18 119 12
& 566 2304.00 5693.18 137 13
& 567 2304.00 5693.18 146 14
& 568 2304.00 5693.18 183 15
& 569 2304.00 5693.18 176 13
& 570 2304.00 5693.18 176 11
& 607 2304.00 5693.18 192 7
& 608 2304.00 5693.18 174 10
& 609 2304.00 5693.18 165 13
& 610 2304.00 5693.18 174 16
& 611 2304.00 5693.18 183 16
& 612 2304.00 5693.18 179 13
& 613 2304.00 5693.18 179 11
& 651 2304.00 5693.18 192 8
& 652 2304.00 5693.18 177 11
& 653 2304.00 5693.18 177 14
& 654 2304.00 5693.18 177 16
& 655 2304.00 5693.18 177 14
& 656 2304.00 5693.18 177 12
& 695 2304.00 5693.18 192 9
& 696 2304.00 5693.18 177 12
& 697 2304.00 5693.18 177 14
& 698 2304.00 5693.18 177 14
& 699 2304.00 5693.18 177 12
& 737 o.oo 0.00
& 738 2304.00 5693.18 210 9
& 739 2304.00 5693.18 192 11
& 740 2304.00 5693.18 179 13
& 741 2304.00 5693.18 177 14
& 742 2304.00 5693.18 177 12
& 781 2304.00 5693.18 219 7
& 782 2304.00 5693.18 201 10
& 783 2304.00 5693.18 192 12
& 784 2304.00 5693.18 187 15
& 785 2304.00 5693.18 179 12
& 825 2304.00 5693.18 210 8
3
Appendix J
(continued)
Water Distance
Depth from shore
No. 5-3 Blocks Hectares Acres (Meters) (Statute Miles)
& 826 2304.00 5693.18 199 11
& 827 2304.00 5693.18 196 14
No. 5-4
* 48 2304.00 5693.18 170 13
* 90 2304.00 5693.18 159 14
* 91 2304.00 5693.18 174 16
* 92 2304.00 5693.18 187 13
* 133 2304.00 5693.18 150 11
* 134 2304.00 5693.18 155 14
* 135 2304.00 5693.18 168 16
* 177 2304.00 5693.18 146 12
* 178 2304.00 5693.18 155 14
221 2304.00 5693.18 146 13
265 2304.00 5693.18 146 14
309 2304.00 5693.18 150 12
* Denotes blocks incorporated as Alternative IV.
# Denotes blocks incorporated as Alternative V.
& Denotes blocks incorporated as Alternative VI.
4
APPENDIX K
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
All units of weights and measures are metric unless otherwise stated.
The 'following is a conversion table from the metric system to the
English system:
Metric English
LENGTH
1 millimeter (mm) [0.1 centimeter (em)] = 0.0394 inch (in.)
1 em [10 mm] = 0.3937 in.
1 meter (m) [100 em] = 39.37 in.
= 1.09 yard (yd)
= 3.28 feet (ft)
1 kilometer (km) [1000 m] = 0.621 mile (mi)
1 nautical mile [1852 m] = 6076.1 ft
= 1 minute of latitude (approx.)
AREA
centimeter 2 1 square (em ) = 0.155 square inch (in.2 )
2 1 square meter (m ) 10.76 2 = square feet (ft ~
= 1.196 square yards (yd )
1 hectare (ha) = 2.4710 acres (a)
1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.386 square mile (mi 2 )
VOLUME
cubic 3 1 centimeter (em ) = 0.0610 cubic inch (in.3 )
cubic 3 1 meter (m ) 35.314 cubic 3 = feet (f§ )
= 1.31 cubic yards (yd )
1 liter = 1. 06 quarts (qt)
= 0.264 gallon (gal)
159. 18 liters = 1 barrel of oil (42 gal)
1
MASS
1 kilogram (kg) [1000 grams (g)] = 2.20 pounds (lb)
= 0.0011 ton
1 metric ton (MT) [1000 kg] = 1.10 ton
= 0.9842 long ton (LT)
136. 2 kilograms = 1 barrel of oil (300 lbs)
APPENDIX L
USGS MEMORANDUM
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS TO HYDROCARBON
EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION IN
LOWER COOK INLET AND SHELIKOF STRAIT
To:
Fror.-::
/
Scoject:
Cons~rvDt1on u1v1s1on
f,las~il H{;q1un
aOU A Street, tuitc ~Jl
Anchur~qc. Alaska Y~5~1
Conservation Manager--Alaska Region
Chief, Branch of Pacific-Arctic t1arinc CeolO'?Y
i}cputy Cons~rvation Hanagcr--Offshore Resource Evaluation
Supervisor, ~eolo1ic hazards Unit
Peter Hoc,se, tlcophysic1st
blenn Thrasher. Geopt~sicist
cruce Turner, Geologist
I·;Clnty ttai:'l;>ton, Geo 1 ogh t
Joint Conservation Division and Geologic Division ~~~ting
concerning geologic hazards to nydrocarbon exploration and
production in Lower Cook Inlet and St,elikof Strait, proposed
011 and Gas Le~sc S~le 60.
un :'ove!il;)i::r ld and 19, l9bu, the authors met to re,:1 ew a no eva 1 ua1:e t!:e
surrace aua n~ar-surjace geology of the propos~d 011 and bas Lec:s~ Sale
bu c:.r.:!a. The purp!>se of this meeting tlas to assure r:1utual asre~!"'~nt un
the identity of potential geologic hazards '"h1ch !"!ight "ffect future oil
anu !;laS explora"t1on anG develop!:ient. This mer!:orantlum su:r.:tarizes tne
data used for tract analysis, the g~olo~ic setting of the area~ and the
potential h~zards existing within the sale area.
iJata Sources
Portions of the area proposed for Oil and Gas Lease Sale 60 are in Lower
Coo~ Inlet. This section of Lo\'ler Cook Inlet ~1as offered in a previous
lEase s~l~, Sale CI. The cnvironm~nt~l geologic an~lysis for Sale CI
;:-;~r.tincu no 11calN<ic hazards that \lould n:erit trilct ~lithdrawcal or
sti~!l!lc:.tio!'l. Ct'rtain e:ntto·.\ conditions did ncrit a calltionary note.
n.e:.e con::li~ians \.,.er~ (a) hedforr.t features, (b) 1:ectonic features, ana
(c) steep sln~es.
As at1u1tioual dllta fro!!'l Low~:r Cook Inlet hAve ~Jccome avafhble, the
analysts of hazards hat been updated and refined. The sources of d~ta
incorporatcu into the analysis were:
1. bBt~ l'roprfetary Survey, 1973
2. f.quatronfcs Proprietary Survey, 1974
3. bcophysical Corporation of Alaska Proprietary Survey, 1~76
4. Pctty-~ay --US~S Publtc Survey, 1976
~. USGS R/V SEA SOLIUDER Public Surveys 1976, 77, 78
6. Site specific high resolation data from leases within
Sale Cl.
Tile r;eolo31c hazards evaluation of the Shelikof Strait portion of the
Sale 6u area (south of Cape Douglas) was acco~lish~d by m~ppfng the
rcgi~nal environmental geology of the strait and then concentrating on
the ~locks proposed for inclusion in the sale. This analysis utilized
the rollowing public data sets:
1. riekton, Inc., USGS contract, 1"979
2. USGS, rt/V S.P. LEE, 1~76 and 1980
~. USGS, R/V DISCOVERER, 1980
Tne following table sumarizes the surveys, thefr length, and the types
of data collected.
Survey Line Kilometers
i.lt:. i'ror,.rh:tary 5475
1~73
Aquatronics Proprietary 1167
1974
Geophysical Corp. of Alaska 3280
~roprietary, 1976
PE!tty-~~ay ( l!Sl..S) 4231
h76
R/\' S:.f, SOU!;uER (USliS) 5u72
1976, 77, 7S, 7~
iicKton (USGS) 2557
1979
Data
Sparker, Acou~tipulse
3:5 kHz, side scan sonar
Sparker
Uultichannel Sparker,
H1 n1 sparker
Sparker, 3.5 kHz,
side scan sonar
Sparker, minisparker,
Unibo~. ·ll kHz, 3.~ kHz
side scan sontr.
bottol'l samples
~wltichannel sparker,
Un1boDR. minisparKer,
3.5 tHz. fathoneter,
side scan sonar
~/Y S.~. LEE (U~~~)
1!17o, &u
R/V UlSCuVERE~ (US~S)
1!4~0
Geologic Setting
1\1 r!)un, Utt1 boo~, 3.5 ldtz
12 kllz. botton sanpl~s
Airgun, ~inispnrker,
3.5 kHz, 12 il.llz,
bottom sa.,ples
Tne tract.s schec!uled to be offered in 011 and Gas Lease Sale 60 ore
locatea \'litt~in the northeast trending structural trough of Cook Inlet
ctnd Sn~hk.of Strctit. The sale area is uucierla1n by folded ana fa•llted
l'ie$OZoic !n:J T~rtiary strata ~hich art: t>hmketed by relat1vE:ly
undefor.~aa Quaternary sed1r.'1ents. Tne d~forrnation of tlae hesozo1c and
Tert.i ary strata is a rcsul t of cor:t:,ression due to the northwestward
und~rtnrusting of oceanic lithosphere Ler.eath the region. The hir,il
seis!:1icity of the region results fror.; this subduction of the Pacific
Plate oer.eat.h tt1e ~corth American Plate.
Alon~ the western side of the proposed sale area, a line of volcanic
centers lies parallel to the northeast structural trend. These volcanic
centers are another expression of the un~erthrusting of oceanic
lithosphere beneath southern Alaska. Due to the anlles1t1c n~ture of
this volcanis~. eruptions tend to be explosive.
Cook Inlet ~as experienced at least five ~ajor Pleistocene 9laciations
(Karlstrco, l~ti4). Each of these glacial events at least partially
filled the Coak Inlet trough. As a result of these 9laciations, the
seafloor of Coot Inlet is underlain by ur to 1~0 r.~eters of glacial
aaposits.
The surficial sedit;~ent in Lo~er Cook Inlet is predor!linantly a Sat"ld and
gravel lag deposit. This is a consequence of the vigorous tidal
currents that rework glacial sediment. In ~tcneral, sed1rn~mt texture
becorr~s finer tram north to south. In the central portion of Lower Cook
Inlet, bottom currents have molded the surficial sediment into a field
of large sand waves and sr.taller ripple t'larks.
Surfidal sedi•·~r.t in SheHkof Strait 1s generally finer than that of
Lo.,~r Cook Inlet. Sana in the northe~stern end of the strait Qrades
1 nto fine send and mud in the south~·t£:stern end. The i>edfonns present in
Lo.-1~r Coo~ Inlet are absent in Sht!likof Strait. The part of Shelikof
StraH proposed for Sale 6\J appears to be a deposition~l, rather than
~res; on31 , sr:di :~.ent>ary ~nv1 ron:nent.
piscussfora of Potential Geoln'}ic Hazards
Sei s•::i city:
Lower Cook Inlet and She11kof Strait are located 1n a tectonically
active region. Tt.is tectonism h associated with con~ergence of the
f'acific and Harth American plates along the Aleutian Subduction Zone.
As a consa~uence of th1 s dynar.:ic setting, the region has a high lev~:l of
seh1aicity. In the past 65 years, 13 earthquakes of ~~aagnitude 6 or
9reater have occurred in tht.! ~icinfty of Lower Cook Inlet (Na~oon et al.
1975). EarthQuakes of this size are capable of causing major structural
damage either directly by ground shaking, fault displacement and surface
~arping, or indirectly by tsuna~is, ground failures and consolidation of
s.:c!h1ents. The level of seismic hazard is considered uniformly high
t~roughoijt the sale area. A tract-specific analysis is not considered
meaningful w1 th the present data or analytical techniques.
Tsunar.1is which are generated by coastal or submarine earthquakes have
been unprecJfcta~le in their occurrance. The major impact of a tsunami
would be along the shoreline and in shoal areas. There are no proposed
lease tracts \·lhich fall into either of these categories.
Faulting:
Five dhtinct, mappable fault scarps that displace surface sedfmpnt
occur within or adjacent to the proposed sale area. Oisplacenent of
surf ace sedhoent may ue an i ndi cation of recent r:tOve&.'lent, but not
necessarny continuing activity. Although fault scarps themselves
shoul~ be avoided in siting seafloor installations, the hazards from
ground sha~ing in their vicinity will vary greatly with the specific
site characteristics such as state-of consolidation, thickness of
overburden, grain size, water content, and slope of bottom. Attac~~nt
A 11 sts all tracts having faults with surface expression tn the sale
area. The purpose in identifying these tracts is to insure that
potential lessees are a"1are that conditions surrounding the fault will
De carefully reviewed when site specific data becomes available prior to
drilling.
Seai;-:1ent Hass hover:aent:
Cecause the entire area is covered by unconsolidated sediment, the
potential for mass movement in areas of sloping bottom ~st be
consiat!rcd. HowevE!r, based on review of all the data at hand, tnere is
no Evidence of r.1assiv~ slumps, liquefaction, or debris flow within tbe
propos~d sale area. Only one definite case of slope failure, associated
\'iith faulting, \-las round near the sale erea in Shelikof Streit. This 1s
a re 1 atively Sl'lall feature but does serve to point out that a hazard may
exist in areas of slo~1ng bottom especially along fault scarps.
Shall 0~1 Gi s:
Ho gas seeps \'lere ot.served, althouuh tt.~ rrcsence of possf.,le shall~'
gas is 1r.1pl1ed on the seh;1ic reflection records by the occurrence ot
brfgilt spots, termfnatea re:tlcctors, and acoustically attenuated
reflectors. Some or all of these conditions were recognized over broad
are~s of Shelikof Strait and in a few localized areas of Lower Cook
Inlet. Hydrocarbon analyses h0\1ever, showed extreiRely low levels of qas
in sediment samples taken in the sale area. The authors conclude that
the presence of sha1lm1 gas is not sufficient to l1r.1it the exploration
or ~~velopment of any tract in the pro~,osed sale area. Because the
acoustic anll~alies are generally r.1appable features, avoiaance or caution
should be exercised when drilling in the proximity of such features.
The depth below :nudline at which the acoustic ano~!lalfes occur is bet\teen
~u to 60 ~i111seconds (25 to 50 Deters). Tracts tn which these
anu~nl1es occur are listed in Attachment B.
~edfoms and anot:talous bottom features:
Several sizes of sand waves and ripple marks, fo~in~ fields or
occurrin~ as isolated features, cover an extensive area of l~~er Cook
Inlet. These features range in wavelength from a few meters to as much
as 350 meters. Wave h~1~hts range up to as much as 10 ~eters. Smaller
ripplE: niilrl~s commonly occur astride the larger waves. Conparison of
coincioent track lin~s shot in 1973 and 1~76, reveals that over that
tirl•e period, the large sand waves were stable {\-lhftney et al, 1979).
The relatively short time frame of ttds study does not rule out the
possibility that these features are mollfle but at an ur.detecte6 slow
r~te. ~rospective developers of this area should be cautioned about
tMs possibility, because bedform r.Jigration could cause rer:1oval of
sup~ort or excess loading on bottom-founded installations.
In ShelH:of Strait nur.:erous near circular, crater-111ce features occur in
the sefsl'!iC reflection dcata. These features are typically 60 11 in
di ai~ter, ana Z to 5 meters deep. Origin of these is unk.nm-m •t this
time, but two possibilities considered are (1) liquefaction of sediment
during a seismic event and subsequent formation of mud or sand volcanoes
or {2) expulsion of biogenic gas in bubble phase fro~ within the
St!Oihi<::nt. Although neither of these explanations are considered
tntirely satisfactory, the features are very localized and are seen to
pr~sent no obstruction to exploration or develop~ent. Tracts ~ich
con~in crater-like ftatures are listed in Attachment C.
Volc~n1c Hazards:
Five active vulcanoes c.re located along or ncar the \'lrstarn short: of the
proposed sale area. From north to south they are: Re(jc,ubt Volcano,
11 h.-:ma Volcano, Augustine Island, ~tount Douglas and fiount Katrr•a1. All
but r~ount Douglas have erupted 1n historic time and all five can be
cunsiciered likc:ly to erupt in the future. The cor.lpos1t1on of these
volcanoes 1s andestt1c and hence their eruptions will tend to be
violent. Jn aod1t1on, the following volcanoes were reported to steam
wi~h varying intensities dur1ng 1953 and 1954: r.uka~. Kn1fe, Trident,
and Mage1k (Keller and Reher, 1959). So~ of the potential hazards
that can be associated w1th these volcanoes are ash falls, ejecta,
noxious gases, corrosive vapors, lightening discharges, nuee ardantes,
ana tsunar~is. Except for the tsuna~is and ash falls, these phenomena
will be !)enerally localized near the volcano and will not impact the
1 ease blocks.
Summary
Having considered all the aforementioned data, the authors are in
agreement that no tracts within the proposed sale area are sufficiently
impacted by geologic hazards to prevent safe exploration and development
for hydrocarbons.
Karlstro~, T., l~b4, (Juaternart Geolo:JY of the Kenai Lor1land and Glacial
History of the Ce;ok Inlet Region, .hla~;ka: u.s. Geological S•Jrvcy
Prcfe~sional Paper ~43.
Koller, A. S., Reiser, H. H., 1Y59, Geology of the "'ount Katna1 Area,
Aliaska: Get~lo,1cal Survey Bulletin 1058-Ci.
riagoo:1, L., llaPpton, 11., Sable, E., S:1t1th, R., Cher:te11k, F., 1975,
Hydrocarbon Potential, Geologic Hazards, and the Technology, Time-
Fra~ and Infrastructure for Exploration and Devclopnent of the Lower
Cook Inlet, Alaska: Open-File Report 75-549.
Uh1tney, J. W., Hoonan, U. G., Thurston, D., Bouoa, A. H., Hampton, r-:.
A., 1~7~. Lower Cook Inlet Alaska: Do Those Large Sand Waves
Hi grate?: Offshore Technology Confer~nce Proceedings.
Blt·i Protraction lifagram
5-4
5-3
/.ttachi.lf.mt A
Tracts with Faulting
Tract
221
2u5
263
264
308
523
566
567
568
608
611
653
6!i4
(,55
697
784
627
Location
S\1 1/4
tJW 1/4
SE 1/4
NW, SE 1/4
NW, tJE 1/4
SE 1/4
SE 1/4
i!E, SE, Stl 1/4
f~\~ 1/4
Mol 1/4
S\f 1/4
SE, UE l/4
tM, S\4, t:E l/4
NW 1/4
UE 1/4
s~ 1/4
WE 1/4
Slf.i i'rotact 1 on IJ1 a~rar11
5-4
5-3
Attach'lK:nt D ---
Tracts \11th Gas Indicators
Tract
90
133
134
135
177
178
265
309
176
220
3u6
)07
308
350
351
352
394
395
396
439
480
4£;3
Location
tJW, S\4 1/4
NE, SE, SW l/4
wt'!ole block
SW, tiW 1/4
UW, NE 1/4
whole block
SE 1/4
HE, SE, SW 1/4
SE 1/4
~E 1/4
SE 1/4
SE 1/4
SW, SE l/4
SE 1/4
SE, ME, S\1 l/4
whole block
t:E 1/4
HE, S£. H\:1 1/4
whole block
NE, SE 1/4
sw 1/4
UE 1/4
Attclchr:~nt C
Tracts \lith Crater-like Features
Blli Protraction U1agram
!>-3
Tract
7tl4
7B5
626
APPENDIX H
ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY MAPS
SHELIKOF STRAIT
USGS OPEN-FILE REPORT 80-2036
-t-flY"~
~~ ~
.,_
*"~ ~Oj
~"
+
BATHYMETRY MAP OF SHELIKOF STRAIT. ALASKA
EXPLANATION
:::-.. ~ .... ,__, _......__...,.....
·--~~ ----....---.------... ,.,_.....,.., --· ---
GEOLOGIC FEATURES OF SHELIKOF STRAIT, ALASKA
0
t ·---'--t".....,t---r--'-,,.----r', I -
ISLAND
GEOLOGIC HAZARD SURVEY COVERAGE OF SHELIKOF STRAIT. ALASKA
EXPLANATION
,....,,~
~----~-~-.~.
ISOPACH MAP OF QUATERNARY GLACIAL MARINE SEDIMENTS. SHELIKOF STRAIT, ALASKA
UTM ZONE 5
ISOPACH MAP OF UPPER HOLOCENE MARINE SEDIMENTS SHELIKOF STRAIT, ALASKA
DD'IUITNDIT Of T><[ INTtMJI
l.HT[D ITAT£1 OOOlOCICAL. !UN'f.Y
UTM ZONE~
UTM ZONES
ISOPACH MAP OF HOLOCENE MARINE SEDIMENTS, SHELIKOF STRAIT, ALASKA
APPENDIX N
LEASING PROCESS
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended, charges the Secretary
of the Interior with administering mineral exploration and development on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), as well as conserving natural resources of the
shelf. The law requires that the Secretary of the Interior develop oil and
gas, in an orderly and timely manner, to meet the energy needs of the country,
to protect the human, marine, and coastal environments, and to receive a fair
and equitable return on the resources of the OCS. The Secret3ry delegated
responsibility for the leasing of submerged Federal lands to the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and the responsibility for the supervision of offshore
operations after lease issuance to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). BLM
works closely with USGS, particularly on technical matters. USGS also super-
vises and regulates exploration, development, and production activities after
the leases are issued. The leasing process includes the following decisionmaking
steps:
1. Sale Schedule: The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as
amended, requires the Secretary to develop a 5-year OCS oil and gas leasing
program, to be revised at least once yearly. This program must consist of a
schedule of proposed lease sales which the Secretary determines will best meet
national energy needs for the 5-year period following its approval. The
current schedule, approved in June 1980, cover~ the period from mid-1980,
through mid-1985, and provides for 36 lease sales, including five reoffering
sales. These reoffering sales will re-auction rejected-bid or no-bid tracts
which were offered for sale in the previous calendar year.
2. Request for Resource Reports: Resource reports for a specific
lease area are requested from numerous Federal and State agencies, generally
from 2\ to 3 years prior to the scheduled lease sale date. These reports
provide valuable geological, environmental, biological, oceanographic, naviga-
tional, recreational, archeological, and socioeconomic information on the
leasing area to be offered, and are an important factor in determining the
suitability for leasing and the possible need for mitigating measures for
certain blocks within the leasing area.
3. Call for Nominations and Comments: The Call is a request for
information and is published in the Federal Register. Responses are requested
from oil companies and the public in general, concerning which blocks should
be included in the lease sale.
4. Tentative Tract Selection: Using information received from the
Call for Nominations and Comments, together with recommendations from USGS and
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), State comments, and the Department of the
Interior's own environmental, technological, and socioeconomic information,
the Secretary selects a tentative list of blocks for further consideration for
leasing in an environmental impact statement.
5. Scoping Meetings: Scoping meetings provide an opportunity for
the OCS staff to meet with people in their own communities to surface impor-
tant issues and alternatives to the proposed action. The OCS office works
together with other Federal and State agencies, environmental groups, and
concerned individuals to identify critical issues.
6. Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS):
The issues and alternatives raised in the scoping meetings are further devel-
1
oped in the DEIS. Included in the DEIS are a description of the marine and
onshore environments, a detailed analysis of possible adverse i~acts on the
environment (including cumulative i~acts as a result of other projects in the
area), proposed mitigating measures, any irreversible or irretrievable commit-
ment of resources, the alternatives to the proposal, and the records of consul-
tation and coordination with others in preparation of the statement.
7. Endangered Species Consultation: Pursuant to section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies
is required when there is reason to believe that a species which is on the
list as endangered or threatened (or is proposed to be listed as such) may be
affected by a proposed action.
8. Public Hearings: After the DE1S is released to the public,
hearings are held to obtain comments on it. Oral and written comments are
incorporated into the final EIS (FEIS), which is also made available to the
public.
9. Secretarial Issue Document (SID): The SID is used by the
Secretary to make his decision on whether to hold the sale and, if so, under
what terms and conditions the sale should be held. (This document is confi-
dential and is not available to the public until after the Secretary has made
his decision and the proposed Notice of Sale has been published.)
10. Preliminary Notice of Sale: This notice is published in the
Federal Register at least 90 days before the proposed sale date. It is also
sent to the governors of any affected states, who then have 60 days to submit
comments to the Secretary regarding the size, ti.ing, or location of the
proposed lease sale.
11. Decision and Notice of Sale: After all of the above steps have
been taken, the Secretary makes his final decision on whether to hold the sale
and, if so, on the terms to be included in the final Notice of Sale. The
final notice, published in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the
sale, may be quite different from the preliminary notice; tracts may be dropped,
bidding systems may be altered, or stipulations may be added or amended.
12. Sale/Leases Issued: After the sale is held, the bids are
reviewed by the Secretary and the Attorney General, and the Secretary has 60
days to accept or reject the bids.
2
APPENDIX 0
LEGAL MANDATES AND AUTHORITY
Legal Mandates and Authority
OCS Lands Act: The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1331
et seq.) as amended (P. L. 95-372; 92 Stat. 629), established Federal juris-
diction over submerged lands on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) seaward of
State boundaries (generally 3 geographic miles seaward of the coastline).
Under the OCS Lands Act, the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for the
administration of mineral exploration and development on the OCS. The statute
empowers the Secretary to grant leases to the highest qualified responsible
bidder(s) on the basis of sealed competitive bids and to formulate such regu-
lations as necessary to carry out the provisions of the act.
The act, as amended, provides guidelines for implementing an OCS oil and gas
development program. From a national perspective, the basic purpose of the
act is to expedite exploration and development of the OCS in order to achieve
national economic and energy policy goals, assure national security, reduce
dependence on foreign sources of oil, and maintain a favorable balance of
payments in world trade. With respect to implementing a leasing program, this
goal is constrained by the following considerations: 1) the receipt of fair
and equitable return on oil and gas resources, 2) preservation and maintenance
of competition, and 3) balancing orderly energy resource development with
protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments. The information
presented in this section will focus on the balancing of orderly resource
development and environmental protection.
The Secretary of the Interior has designated BLM as the administrative agency
responsible for the leasing of submerged Federal lands, and USGS for the
supervision of offshore operations after lease issuance. The BLM regulations
which govern the leasing of mineral deposits on the OCS and the granting of
rights-of-way for pipelines on the OCS are contained in 43 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 3300. Regulations administered by USGS which govern
the conduct of mineral operations are contained in 30 CFR Part 250, and are
supplemented by OCS operating orders on an area-specific basis. An analysis
by USGS of the Gulf of Alaska orders are included as appendix C.
Summary of OCS Law: The following discussion summarizes the provisions of the
act and implementing regulations which mitigate some of the possible adverse
impacts resulting from this proposal.
1. The Secretary is authorized to prescribe and amend rules and regula-
tions at any time to provide for the prevention of waste and conservation
of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf and the protec-
tion of the correlative rights therein. As of the effective date, such
new or amended regulations can be applied to all operations conducted
under any lease.
2. The Secretary is authorized to suspend or temporarily prohibit an
operation or activity pursuant to a lease or permit for environmental
reasons.
3. The Secretary is authorized to cancel a lease or permit for environ-
mental reasons.
4. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations for unitization,
pooling, and drilling agreements.
1
5. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations for co~liance with
the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act
to the extent that OCS authorized activities significantly affect the air
quality of any State.
6. The Secretary may administratively cancel a nonproducing lease for
the owner's failure to comply with any of the provisions of the act, the
lease, or regulations under the act.
7. The Secretary may initiate a judicial proceeding to cancel a pro-
ducing lease because of the owner's failure to comply with any of the
provisions of the act, the lease, or regulations under the act.
8. Rights-of-way may be granted under such regulations and upon such
conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary, assuring maximum envi-
ronmental protection by utilization of the best available and safest
technologies.
9. Exploration must be undertaken pursuant to an approved exploration
plan. No permit for drilling may be issued until all affected states
with approved coastal zone management programs have concurred or have
presumed to concur with the consistency determination provided by the
lessee.
10. Geological explorations on unleased areas of the OCS shall be allowed
only if such exploration will not be unduly harmful to aquatic life in
the area, result in pollution, create hazardous or unsafe conditions,
unreasonably interfere with other uses of the area, or disturb any site,
structure, or object of historical or archeological significance.
11. Governors of affected states may subait recommendations to the
Secretary regarding the size, timing, or location of a proposed lease
sale, or with respect to a proposed development and production plan.
12. The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements
with affected states for several purposes, including but not limited to,
sharing of information, joint utilization of available expertise, the
facilitating of permit procedures, joint planning and review, and the
formation of joint surveillance and monitoring arrangements relevant to
OCS operations, both onshore and offshore.
13. The Secretary shall conduct a study of any area or region included
in any oil and gas lease sale in order to establish information needed
for assessment and management of environmental impacts on the human,
marine, and coastal environments of the OCS and the coastal areas which
may be affected by oil and gas development in such area or region.
14. Subsequent to the leasing and developing of any area or region, the
Secretary may conduct additional studies to establish environmental
information and may monitor the human, marine, and coastal environments
of such area or region.
15. The Secretary shall consider relevant environmental information in
making decisions, in developing appropriate regulations and lease condi-
tions, and in issuing operating orders.
2
16. In exercising their respective responsibilities, the Secretary and
the Coast Guard shall require, on all new drilling and production opera-
tions and, wherever practicable, on existing operations, the use of the
best available and safest technologies which the Secretary determines to
be economically feasible, wherever failure of equipment would have a
significant effect on safety, health, or the environment except where the
Secretary determines that the incremental benefits are clearly insuffi-
cient to justify the incremental costs of utilizing such technologies.
17. The holder of a lease or permit shall maintain all operations within
such lease area or within the area covered by such permit in compliance
with regulations intended to protect persons, property, and the environ-
ment on the OCS.
18. The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Department in
which the Coast Guard is operating, and the Secretary of the Army shall
enforce safety and environmental regulations promulgated under the act.
The Secretary and the Coast Guard shall promulgate regulations for onsite
inspections of OCS facilities.
19. Any person having a valid legal interest which is or may be adverse-
ly affected may commence a civil action to compel compliance with the OCS
Lands Act against any person, including the United States, for any alleged
violation of any provision of the OCS Lands Act, or regulation promulgated
thereunder, or terms of any permit or lease issued under the OCS Lands
Act.
20. The Attorney General or a U.S. Attorney may institute a civil action
for a temporary restraining order, injunction, or other appropriate
remedy to enforce any provision of the OCS Lands Act, regulation or order
issued under the act or any term of a lease, license, or permit issued
under the act. Penalties available include:
a. A civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each day of non-
compliance.
b. A fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for not more
than 10 years, for any person who knowingly and willfully 1)
violates any provision of the act, any term of a lease, license,
or permit issued pursuant to the act, or any regulation or
order issued under the authority of the act designed to protect
health, safety, or the environment or conserve natural resources,
2) makes any false statement, representation, or certification
in any application, record, report, or other document filed or
required to be maintained under this act, 3) falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method of
record required to be maintained under this act, or 4) reveals
any data or information required to be kept confidential by
this act.
21. Prior to development and production of an oil and gas lease, the
lessee shall submit a development and production plan to the Secretary
for approval. The Secretary will determine whether or not the plan is a
major Federal action requiring the preparation of an environmental impact
3
statement. At least once, the Secretary shall declare the approval of a
development and production plan in any area or region of the OCS, other
than the Gulf of Mexico, to be a major Federal action.
22. The Secretary shall disapprove a development and production plan if:
a. the lessee fails to demonstrate he can comply with requirements
of the OCS Lands Act or other applicable Federal law;
b. activities described do not receive a consistency concurrence
by a state with an approved CZM plan and the Secretary of Com-
merce does not make the findings authorized by 307(c)(3)(B)(iii)
of the Coastal Zone Management Act;
c. operations threaten national security or defense; or
d. because of exceptional geologic conditions, exceptional value
in the marine or coastal environment, or other exceptional
conditions exist, that 1) implementation of the plan would
probably cause serious harm or damage to life, to property, to
any mineral deposits, or to the marine, coastal, or human
environments; 2) the threat of harm or damage will not disap-
pear or decrease to an acceptable extent within a reasonable
period of time; and 3) the advantages of disapproving a plan
outweigh the advantages of development and production.
23. The Secretary shall not grant a license or permit for any activity
in such a plan affecting any land or water use in the coastal zone of a
state with an approved Coastal Zone Management plan, unless the state
concurs or is presumed to concur with the consistency ~ertification
accompanying such plan.
24. The Secretary shall, from time to time, review each development and
production plan. If the review indicates that the plan should be revised
to meet the requirements of section 25 of the OCS Lands Act, the Secretary
shall require such revision.
25. The Secretary shall provide affected states with information to
assist them in planning for the onshore impacts of possible oil and gas
development and production.
26. The Secretary of the Department of Transportation shall administer
the Offshore Oil Spill Pollution Fund establishing compensation for
injuries caused by oil discharges from an offshore facility or vessel.
27. The Secretary of the Department of Commerce shall administer the
Fishermen's Contingency Fund which provides compensation for damage to
fishermen's gear or vessels resulting from oil and gas exploration,
development, and production.
Federal/State Coordination: The OCS Lands Act, as amended, provides a statu-
tory foundation for the Department's policy of coordination of OCS activities
with affected states and, to a more limited extent, local governments. At
each step of the procedures that leads to lease issuance, participation from
4
affected States and other interested parties is encouraged and sought. Set
out below is a detailed discussion of coordination mechanisms required by the
OCS Lands Act.
The Secretary of the Interior is required to invite and consider suggestions
from the governors of any affected state during preparation of any proposed
leasing program. Each such governor also receives a copy of the proposed
leasing program for review and comment prior to its publication in the Federal
Register. The Secretary is required to provide a written response to any
request from a governor for modification of a proposed leasing program. State
and local governments may comment directly on a proposed leasing program in
its published form. The Secretary is obligated to establish procedures for
review of proposed leasing plans and periodic consultation with state and
local governments (section 18).
Within 60 days after notice of a proposed lease sale or receipt of a develop-
ment and production plan, the governor of any affected state may make recom-
mendations to the Secretary with regard to the size, timing, or location of
the proposed lease sale or development and production plan. If the Secretary
determines that any such recommendations provide for a reasonable balance
between the well-being of the citizens of the affected state and the national
interest, he must accept them. The Secretary must also respond to the governor
in writing, giving his reasons for accepting, rejecting, or modifying the
governor's recommendations. The Secretary may enter into cooperative agree-
ments with affected states, for purposes consistent with the act and other
applicable Federal law (section 19).
When soliciting nominations for the leasing of lands within 3 miles of the
seaward boundary of any coastal state, additional information is to be pro-
vided to the governor of those states. The governor must be informed of the
identity of and schedule for the area proposed for leasing; the geographical,
geological, and ecological characteristics of the area within 3 miles of the
seaward boundary; an estimate of oil and gas reserves in these areas; and any
field, trap, or geologic structure in these areas. After the close of the
call period, the governor is informed of any area which merits further consid-
eration for leasing (section 8(g)); he is further consulted on oil and gas
pools underlying the Federal and state areas and on the opportunity to enter
an agreement concerning the disposition of revenues which may be generated by
a Federal lease in such area.
Under section 25 of the act, the Secretary must submit copies of development
and production plans to the governor of any affected state for review. The
state then has 60 days to provide comments and recommendations to the Secre-
tary. Section 11 of the act and the regulations contained in 30 CFR 250.34
also require that any exploration plans submitted to the Secretary must be
approved or disapproved within 30 days. Written comments from the governor of
an affected state will be considered prior to approval action if they are
timely.
Under section 26 of the act, the Secretary must make available to affected
States a summary of data to aid them in anticipating possible onshore effects
of OCS development and production. The summary includes estimates of oil and
gas reserves in areas leased or to be leased, estimated size and timing of
development, pipeline location, and the general location and nature of onshore
facilities.
The act also requires preparation and transmittal to each affected state of an
index of all relevant actual or proposed programs, plans, reports, environ-
mental impact state•ents, tract nominations, and other lease sale information.
On request, the Secretary must send copies to the affected state.
Establishment of Compensatory Funds:
1. Title III of the OCS Lands Act, as amended, establishes in the U.S. Treasury
an Offshore Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, to be administered by the Secretary
of the Department of Transportation and the Secretary of the Treasury._ .This
fund provides compensation for cleanup costs and pollution damages resulting
from an oilspill discharged in connection with OCS activities. Compensation
from this fund may be sought by any person suffering any direct or actual
injury caused by the discharge of oil from an offshore facility or vessel.
The fund is maintained by a fee of 3 cents per barrel of oil levied upon
owners of oil produced on the OCS. The law establishes procedures to modify
the fees to maintain the fund at a level between $100 and $200 million. The
Department of Transportation has published final regulations implementing the
Offshore Oil Pollution Compensation Fund effective March 17, 1979 (44 FR 16860,
March 19, 1979), included as appendix F of the DEIS.
Claims for economic loss arising out of oil pollution may be asserted for
damage to or destruction of property or natural resources, loss of income
resulting from damage to or destruction of property or natural resources, and
loss of use of property or natural resources. Any U.S. citizen who owns or
leases property or uses natural resources involved in an oil pollution inci-
dent may present a claim to the fund. This includes subsistence users of
natural resources, except that compensation is not allowed to the extent that
reasonable alternatives to the affected activities were available but not
utilized. In order to claim compensation for loss of income, a person •ust
show he or she derives at least 25 percent of annual earnings fro. activities
which use the property or natural resources. Compensation is limited to the
reduction or loss of earnings or profits suffered, but is not allowed for lost
employment or business when appropriate substitute employment was available
but not undertaken. A claim may be made by the Federal goveruaent for loss of
natural resources over which it exercises sovereign rights or exclusive manage-
ment authority, or by the State of Alaska for natural resources owned or
managed by the State. Compensation is allowed for the cost to restore, reha-
bilitate, or acquire the equivalent of the natural resources and any additional
economic losses actually suffered. Federal, state, and local goveroaents may
also assert claims for tax revenues lost due to property damages. A member of
a group of U.S. citizens who would be more adequately represented as a class
in asserting their claims may maintain a class action to recover damages on
behalf of that group.
Owners, operators, and guarantors of offshore facilities and vessels are held
strictly liable for all loss attributable to oil pollution fro• their facili-
ties. Except in cases of gross negligence, willful misconduct, or violation
of safety regulations, liability is limited in the case of vessels to the
greater of $250,000 or $300 per gross ton, and for offshore facilities, to the
total cleanup and removal costs plus $35 million in damages for each incident.
Evidence of financial responsibility for each offshore facility or vessel
adequate to satisfy the maximum liability must be established and maintained
with the Federal government. Compensation from the fund is available without
6
limitations to the extent that losses are not compensated by other sources,
such as liability insurance held by the owners, operators, and guarantors of
offshore facilities and vessels.
2. Title IV of the act establishes a Fishermen's Contingency Fund to com-
pensate commercial fishermen for damages, including loss of profits for up to
6 months, due to the damage of fishing gear and vessels stemming from OCS
activities. The fund establishes area accounts from which compensation is
drawn; all of the Federal OCS waters off Alaska are covered by one area account.
The monies for the Alaska area account derive from fees assessed against the
holders of a lease, exploration permit, easement or right-of-way on the Alaska
OCS in amounts determined by the Secretary of the Interior. Each area account
can be funded to a maximum of $100,000 and the law specifies procedures for
replenishing the account when depleted to less than $50,000.
Compensation for gear damage is limited to repair costs or the amount of
replacement cost less salvage value, whichever is least. Claims are presumed
valid upon filing a report within 5 days after the date when the damage or
loss is discovered. The report must specify a number of items which establish
the vessel was used in commercial fishing activity and was located in an area
affected by OCS operations, and that no record existed on nautical charts or
Notice to Mariners of the obstruction causing damage and no marker or lighted
buoy spotted the location of the obstruction. A more extensive claim report
must be filed no later than 60 days after the date the claimant discovers the
damage.
As with the Offshore Oil Pollution Contingency Fund, the Fishermen's Contin-
gency Fund shall not provide compensation if compensation is available from
another source, such as a financially responsible party or insurance. Also,
both funds become subrogated to all rights of any claimant against any person
found responsible for damaging the claimant, upon payment of compensation.
Final regulations implementing the Fishermen's Contingency Fund were issued by
the National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, on January 24, 1980 (45 FR 6062) effective January 24 and February 25,
1980, and are included as appendix G of the DEIS.
3. A National Contingency Fund for cleanup and other removal costs of spills
of oil or hazardous substances is authorized by section 311(k), the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. This revolving fund provides only for cleanup
costs; damages to private citizens, such as loss of earnings, are not covered.
Environmental Studies Program: The OCS Lands Act, as amended, authorizes the
Secretary to conduct studies in areas or regions of lease sales to assess and
manage the "environmental impacts on the human, marine, and coastal environ-
ments of the Outer Continental Shelf and the coastal areas which may be af-
fected by oil and gas development" (43 U.S.C. 1346). Studies in the Cook
Inlet/Shelikof Strait area are described in section III.G.
The act specifies that studies will be conducted in a proposed lease area at
least 6 months prior to the conduct of a lease sale. The act also emphasizes
studies which develop information necessary for "assessment and management of
environmental impacts," and studies designed to predict impacts on the marine
biota resulting from chronic low-level pollution or large spills, from the
7
introduction of drill cuttings and muds, and from the laying of pipelines.
Subsequent to leasing, the Secretary shall conduct such additional studies as
necessary to identify any significant changes in the quality and productivity
of such envirou.ents, to establish trends in the areas studied and monitored,
and to design experiments for identifying the causes of such changes.
The National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Advisory Board and the Intergovern•
mental Planning Program: The National OCS Advisory Board has been reorganized
into a policy committee, a scientific committee, and six regional technical
working group committees. The policy committee will perform the board's
historic function of advising the Secretary of the Interior on OCS policy
matters. The scientific committee will make reca.aendations to the Department
concerning the scope and direction of the Bureau of Land Kanage.ent's Environ-
mental Studies Program.
The technical working groups participate in a new progra. that has been esta-
blished to provide a formal mechanism for regional coordination and planning
of three elements of the OCS program administered by the BLK: 1) the leasing
process, 2) the Envirou.ental Studies Progra., and 3) OCS oil and gas trans-
portation planning. Called the Intergoveroaental Planning Progra. (IPP) for
OCS Oil and Gas Leasing, Transportation, and Related Facilities, the program
has been initiated in Alaska by the Alaska Regional Technical Working Group.
The committee's membership has the requisite expertise to advise the Director,
Bureau of Land Management, on detailed, technical issues throughout the OCS
program.
The IPP constitutes a cooperative advisory planning process among Federal and
state agencies, private interests, and the petroleu. industry. The program is
designed to coordinate working group activities with the major steps and
decision points in the OCS leasing and develop.ent process. To accomplish
this, meeting agendas are developed around four phases, each with specific
objectives, beginning prior to the Call for Nominations and Comments for a
lease sale, and continuing up to the time develop.ent plans are submitted for
the sale area. There will be an initial period during which the phases in the
program must be modified since the OCS program in each region is now beyond
the point of the Call for Nominations for the first sale. The following
paragraphs summarize the major issues and the intended r-esults of each phase.
During Phase I, which begins prior to the Call for Nominations, the Alaska
Group will: 1) identify regional OCS issues and data needs, 2) make tract
selection recommendations, 3) advise BLK on environmental statement develop-
ment scenarios and lease stipulations, and 4) preliminarily identify potential
pipeline corridors for future study. This phase could last about 2 years and
will be completed by the time of a sale decision.
Phase II will be implemented at the time of the sale decision. The Alaska
working group will reca.aend transportation-related studies for inclusion in
BLH's Regional Studies Plan. Other proposed studies may also be identified to
be funded and conducted by other Federal or state agencies. These regional
studies should be completed prior to completion of Phase II, which could
extend over a 2-or 3-year period, and·end with the first ca.aercial discovery
in the proposed sale area.
8
At this point, a sub-state working group will be formed to continue refining
potential pipeline corridors that would affect specific areas in Alaska. The
state working group would include all Federal and private members in addition
to ad hoc members of affected areas. Phase III will begin with the first
marketable discovery in the region and will involve the design and implementa-
tion of a site-specific studies plan. These studies will be based upon the
results of the regional studies and will provide the data needed to develop a
·Transportation Management Plan (THP).
Phase IV begins with the completion of the site-specific studies and consists
of preparation of a THP. The THP will include the identification and analysis
of alternative pipeline corridors, the description of onshore areas suitable
for the location of pipeline support facilities, an evaluation of surface
vessel transportation alternatives, and identification of stipulations or use
restrictions for applications to pipeline rights-of-way.
BLH will use the THP in developing policies for granting pipeline rights-of-way.
The THP should be completed prior to submission of the first development and
production plan for the region in order to provide information to the company
preparing the transportation component of the plan and to BLK for reviewing
pipeline rights-of-way applications.
9
APPENDIX P
FEDERAL REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
Federal Regulatory Responsibilities
Department of the Interior: BLM and USGS are departmental agencies with
direct OCS regulatory and enforcement authority. BLM implements the OCS
leasing regulations under 43 CFR Part 3300 and cooperates with USGS and other
Federal agencies to develop special stipulations that apply to either specific
leases or all leases within the proposed lease area. These stipulations
address such matters as cultural and biological resources, pipeline rights-of-way,
disposition of drilling wastes, and equipment identification. In addition to
issuing leases, BLM issues rights-of-way for common carrier pipelines on the
OCS. BLM also issues permits and designates an authorized officer to manage
each permit relative to protection of coral in the vicinity of proposed OCS
operations.
USGS administers regulations governing mineral o6erations and development of
the OCS under 30 CFR Part 250. These regulations are the basis for OCS oper-
ating orders which apply to operations in the proposed lease area. See ap-
pendix C for a discussion of USGS Gulf of Alaska operating orders for this
proposal. Additionally, USGS maintains jurisdiction over producer-owned
gathering lines and flowlines on the OCS.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) shares responsibilities with other
agencies for protection of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, and
acts in an advisory capacity in the formulation of OCS leasing stipulations.
It also provides recommendations to the Corps of Engineers in the issuance of
Federal permits to industry for construction in navigable waters. FWS is also
responsible for the protection and stewardship of certain species covered
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: The OCS Lands Act provides authority to the
Secretary of the Army to prevent obstruction to navigation in U.S. navigable
waters, and to prevent obstructions caused by structures located on the OCS.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (30 Stat. 1151) requires that
permits be issued for all offshore construction, including pipelines, in U.S.
navigable waters.
Permits must also be issued for onshore facilities in which dredging and
filling of U.S. navigable waters are involved. Structure permits for explora-
tion drilling vessels and for fixed and mobile platforms are issued by the
Corps. Environmental requirements must be considered prior to issuance of
permits for structures in state waters pursuant to section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977.
Section 404 also delegates regulatory authority to the Secretary of the Army
for discharge of dredged or fill material in wetlands.
Department of Transportation (DOT): The OCS Lands Act grants authority to the
Coast Guard to promulgate and enforce regulations covering lighting and warning
devices, safety equipment, and other safety-related matters pertaining to life
and property on fixed OCS platforms and drilling vessels. Through the Coast
Guard, the Department of Transportation advises the Corps of Engineers on the
issuance of permits and the placement of offshore structures. Under the Port
and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, the Coast Guard bas the authority to establish
1
shipping safety fairways and other ship routing systems in which OCS structures
may be prohibited. The Coast Guard also has jurisdiction to enforce the Clean
Water ~ct of 1977 OQ the OCS.
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Coast Guard approves the
procedures to be followed and the equipment used for the transfer of oil from
vessel to vessel and between onshore and offshore facilities and vessels. The
Coast Guard also conducts pollution surveillance patrols to detect oil dis-
charges within territorial and contiguous waters and has enforcement authority
over violations. Should an oilspill occur, the Coast Guard also has strike
team responsibilities under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, as provided by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977.
The Materials Transportation Bureau is responsible for establishing and en-
forcing design, construction, operation, and maintenance regulations for
pipelines. The Department of Transportation's responsibility and authority is
further defined in a Memorandum of Understanding between it and the Department
of the Interior.
Department of Commerce: The Department of Commerce, through the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is responsible for protection
of marine fisheries resources and their habitats, and for providing recommen-
dations to the Corps of Engineers as the entity which issues permits in navi-
gable waters.
The Department's responsibilities and authorities related to OCS development
include the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Fur Seal Act
of 1966, title II of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 ("Comprehensive Research on Ocean Dumping"), and the National Ocean
Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Act of 1978.
Coastal Zone Management Act: The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464) (CZMA) is administered by NOAA. The CZMA estab-
lishes a procedure for each coastal state to develop a management program for
the sound management of state coastal resources. The act provides Federal
grants for both development and implementation of these programs; in order to
be implemented each program must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce.
The act also creates a grants and loans program for participating states that
must deal with the coastal zone impacts of OCS oil and gas and other energy
development.
Section 307 of the CZMA contains the Federal consistency provisions which
impose certain requirements on Federal agencies to comply with approved state
coastal zone management programs.
Section 307(c)(1) requires Federal agencies conducting or supporting activi-
ties directly affecting the coastal zone to be consistent to the ~aximum
extent practicable with a state's coastal program. This requirement applies
to pre-lease activities which lead up to the actual lease sale. Pursuant to
NOAA's Federal consistency regulations (15 CFR Part 930), prior to a lease
sale the Department must first determine if the pre-lease activities "directly
2
affect" the coastal zone. If so, the Department must prepare a consistency
determination and submit it to the state. If not, the Department makes a
"negative determination."
Section 307(c)(3)(A) prohibits Federal agencies from issuing a license or
permit for any activity that affects a land use or water use in the state's
coastal zone until a state with an approved coastal zone management program
has agreed or can be presumed to agree that the activity subject to the license
or permit is consistent with the approved program, or until the Secretary of
Commerce has overridden the state's objections to the activity.
Section 307(c)(3)(B) of the CZHA consistency provisions is very important to
OCS resource development. This provision requires that no Federal license or
permit for an activity described in detail in an OCS exploration plan or
development and production plan which affects a land use or water use in the
coastal zone may be approved until a state with an approved coastal zone
management plan has concurred in the consistency determination made by the
lessee or until the Secretary of Commerce has overridden the state's objections.
Finally, under Section 307(d), Federal agencies may not provide Federal assis-
tance to a state or local government for proposed projects affecting the
coastal zone that are inconsistent with a State's coastal management program
except upon certain findings by the Secretary of Commerce. These Section 307
provisions will have important implications for any exploration, development,
and production of OCS oil and gas resources and associated onshore development.
Under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuary Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1431-1434), the Secretary of Commerce is empowered to designate areas as
marine sanctuaries "as necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring
such areas for their conservation, recreation, ecological, or esthetic values,"
following consultation with the Secretaries of State, Defense, Interior, and
Transportation, with the Administrator of EPA, and with other interested
agencies. Once an area is designated a marine sanctuary, NOAA's Office of
Coastal Zone Management is required to issue "necessary and reasonable regu-
lations" for control of activities permitted within the marine sanctuary.
Multiple uses (including oil and gas development) could be permitted within a
marine sanctuary, providi~g these uses are consistent with the regulations
governing the sanctuary.
Department of Energy (DOE): With respect to OCS leasing, and in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior, DOE is authorized under the Department of
Energy Organization Act, (91 Stat. 565 1977) to foster increased competition
for leases, to implement authorized systems of bidding, to establish due
diligence requirements for OCS operations, to set rates of production for
leases, to define handling of royalty production, and to determine amounts of
OCS gas purchased and transported. DOE has broad authority over approval,
design, and economies of common carrier gas pipelines.
In addition, DOE provides support to the Leasing Liaison Committee, whose
function is to coordinate leasing policies of the Department of the Interior
with DOE policies. Section 27 of the OCS Lands Act, as amended, requires DO!
consultation with DOE concerning the disposition of Federal royalty oil.
3
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), within DOE, has the authority
under the Natural Gas Act to issue certificates of public convenience and
necessity for proposed projects involving the transportation or sale of natural
gas in interstate commerce. All natural gas produced from the OCS is consid-
ered to be interstate and, therefore, is subject to FERC jurisdiction. The
Natural Gas Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and OCS Lands Act
Amendments of -1978 all grant authority for or require that the FERC investi-
gate the environmental effects of a proposed offshore project, as well as the
potential gas reserves, the need for this gas, and the availability of capital
to develop this resource. Also, the FERC is primarily responsible for admini-
stering and enforcing the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) of 1978 (92 Stat.
3350). As applied to OCS matters, the NGPA provides new wellhead pricing
controls for certain natural gas produced from the OCS.
Environmental Protection Agency: The Federal Clean Water Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1251, et. seq.), provides several authorities applicable to waste-
water discharges from OCS operations. These authorities are administered by
the EPA and include the following:
Section 403(c) of the act requires EPA to promulgate ocean discharge
criteria which consider the effects of pollutants disposed upon multiple
ocean use objectives. These criteria, published October 3, 1980, and
effective November 3, 1980, are used as guidelines in EPA's issuance of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
Section 301(b)(1)(a) of the act requires EPA to issue effluent limita-
tions for existing point sources of wastewater discharge which reflect
the application of "best practicable control technology currently avail-
able" (BPTCA or BPT; 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(a)). The BPTCA standards would
apply to existing OCS exploratory drillships, semisubmersible vessels,
jack-up rigs, etc., used in exploration operations.
Section 301(b)(2)(a) requires EPA to promulgate effluent limitations for
categories and classes of point sources which shall require application
of "best available control technology economically achievable" (BAT).
The limitations regard toxic pollutants identified in the act and would
apply to both exploration and production operations on the OCS.
Section 306(b)(1)(B) of the act requires the EPA to promulgate Federal
standards of performance in pollution control from new sources for cate-
gories and classes of industries designated either in the act or at the
Administrator's discretion.
Section 307(a)(1) of the act requires the EPA to promulgate a list of
toxic pollutants for purposes of pollution control. Section 307(a)(2)
requires the EPA to promulgate effluent limitations for each of the
identified toxic pollutants.
Section 402(a)(1) of the act confers permitting authority upon the EPA to
meet the regulatory responsibilities of several sections of the act, e.g.
sections 301, 306, and 307 mentioned above. The National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) falls under this section of the act;
it applies to all sources of wastewater discharges from exploratory
vessels and production platforms operating on the OCS.
4
Presently, EPA requires drilling fluids to be discharged at a rate less than a
30 bbl/hr along with a dilution ratio of 40:1 bbl seawater to discharge fluid.
This limitation is imposed during the season of commercial crustacea repro-
duction and larval growth. EPA also presently.imposes a limitation on aroma-
tic hydrocarbons of 10 ppm. EPA also imposes a standard of no free oil dis-
charge with deckdrain wastes and an oil and grease standard of 48 mg/1 average
or 78 mg/1 maximum in the oil/water separator discharges.
USGS Operating Orders for its OCS operations in the Gulf of Alaska include an
order No. 7 "Pollution Prevention and Control." Sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.4 of
order No. 7 reference EPA authority over regulation of drilling fluids, deck-
drainage, produced waters, and sanitary wastes (44 FR 76246-47). Refer to
appendix C of this EIS for an analysis of the USGS Operating Orders for the
Gulf of Alaska.
The Clean Water Act (91 Stat. 1566 (1977)), which amended the FWPCA, also
applies to offshore operations and provides that lessees or operators be held
financially liable for damages due to oilspills. It provides for a liability
up to $50.million for actual costs of oil removal and cleanup (except where
without fault of operator or owner), as well as replacement or restoration
costs of natural resources damaged or destroyed by a spill.
EPA is also primarily responsible for facilities not related to transpor-
tation, such as terminal and storage facilities, and permits for any dis-
charges would be issued by EPA or designated states according to established
effluent guidelines. Provisions of the Clean Water Act also apply to onshore
f~cilities and OCS-related activities.
Interstate Commerce Commission: The Interstate Commerce Commission grants
approval of the tariff rates for transportation of oil by common-carrier
pipelines.
5
APPENDIX Q
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMY
a. State and Regional Economy: In the section below the
current local economic situation in Kodiak is described to provide background
for later sections describing significant possible impacts of sale 60 on the
area. State, regional, and some non-Kodiak, non-Kenai local community back-
ground (Seward or Homer) is not presented because of the low impact of sale 60
on the areas. For this State, regional, and non-Kodiak, non-Kenai economic
background information, see University of Alaska, Institute of Social and
Economic Research (1978, 1980), and Alaska Consultants, Inc. (1979). The
description of the local Kodiak economic area is taken from the second study.
b. Local Economy -1, Kodiak Census Division: Kodiak's fu-
ture growth and prosperity is inextricably tied to growth in this community's
primary industry, fishing and fish processing. Other sources of economic
strength include the continued presence of the U.S. Coast Guard in the area
plus some probable expansion in tourism and recteation activities and in wood
products. The investment plans of the regional and village corporations
established under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will
also be a factor in the future growth of both Kodiak and other communities on
the island.
Present fisheries activity in the Kodiak area centers around the exploitation
and processing of king, tanner, and Dungeness crab, shrimp, salmon, and lesser
amounts of other species. Employment in this sector of the area's economy has
grown significantly during the past few years. In large part, this is due to
the growth of the tanner crab fishery which has led to increased employment
during the winter months and, thus, to gains in annual average employment.
See sections III.C.2.b. and c. for more detail.
Continued growth in Kodiak's fishing and fish processing industry is antici-
pated. While some of this growth will come from the recovery and stabiliza-
tion of catches in traditional fisheries, bottomfishing offers the greatest
potential for major increases in employment and population in the Kodiak area.
Some effort toward establishing a bottomfish industry in the Kodiak area has
already been made. After the establishment of a 200-mile offshore territorial
limit, American fishermen and processors became increasingly interested in
exploiting bottomfish resources. Kodiak and/or the Aleutians (Dutch Harbor)
may be the most logical locations for the establishment of a major bottomfish
operation.
The Kodiak Coast Guard station is anticipated to remain at or around current
strength in the future unless major new developments such as the exploitation
of oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Alaska take place. The Coast Guard
base recently increased its complement of personnel following the establish-
ment of a 200-mile offshore U.S. territorial limit and no further expansion is
foreseen except under new conditions such as that mentioned above.
The wood products industry is currently not significant in the Kodiak area.
However, depending on the future status of Afognak Island, i.e., whether or
not it is selectable by Native corporations established under the terms of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, this industry could become a small but
significant element in the economy of the Kodiak area.
Finally, the investment plans of the Native corporations based on Kodiak
Island including Koniag, Inc., the regional corporation, and the various
1
village corporations, promise to play an important role in the economic future
of the Kodiak area. While the status of some of the village corporations is
still subject to litigation, the island's Native residents will ultimately
become.its major private landowners and will control virtually all coastal
lands outside the immediate Kodiak area which are not in Federal ownership.
Given the marine orientation of all communities on Kodiak Island, the Native
corporations will thus be in a good position to influence new economic devel-
opment in this area, including the possible exploration and exploitation of
outer continental shelf oil and gas resources of the western Gulf of Alaska.
Employment: As shown in table III.C.2.b.-l, by far the largest sector of the
Kodiak division's nonagricultural wage and salary employment in 1976 was
manufacturing, almost all of which was associated with seafood processing.
This sector averaged 1,639 employees in 1976 and accounted for 36.5 percent of
the division's total nonagricultural employment. A large proportion of fisher-
men are not included in state nonagricultural wage and salary statistics.
However, it is assumed that essentially all 406 jobs (or 91 of the total)
recorded in the miscellaneous sector in 1976 were held by fishermen. Virtually
all jobs in fishing and fish processing in the Kodiak area can be considered
basic, as only very minor amounts of fish are produced for local consumption.
After manufacturing, government was the largest employment sector in the
Kodiak division in 1976. State and local government employment, as recorded
by the Alaska Department of Labor, was the major subsector with most of this
employment assumed to be in local government. The largest single local govern-
ment employer is the Kodiak Island Borough School District. However, Federal
Government employment is also a very significant element in Kodiak's economy.
The largest Federal employer is the U.S. Coast Guard station which reported
175 civilian employees in 1978. Not included in State statistics, however,
are 1,000 service personnel (and their families) stationed in the community.
All Coast Guard personnel, both civilian and military, can be considered basic
employees. A share of state and other Federal employment in the Kodiak Island
area can also be considered basic.
Of the remaining sectors of the Kodiak division's economy in 1976, the trade
and service sectors were the most heavily represented. Kodiak has well devel-
oped trade and service sectors, with a portion of this employment judged to be
basic since it is derived from providing goods and services to the transient
fishing fleet and processing plant workers. The division had an annual average
of 512 employees in trade and 406 in services in 1976, accounting for 11.4 and
9.0 percent, respectively, of total nonagricultural wage and salary employment.
Contract construction averaged 253 employees in the Kodiak division in 1976.
A large share of these employees were probably basic as the Coast Guard sta-
tion saw a good deal of construction activity after the takeover of this
facility from the Navy in 1972. Other major construction projects in the
Kodiak division in 1976 are unknown but presumably at least some were also
associated with basic activities.
The transportation, communications, and public utilities sectors averaged 213
employees in the Kodiak division in 1976 and accounted for 4.7 percent of
total nonagricultural wage and salary employment. Most employees are probably
secondary.
2
Table III.C.2.b.-l
Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment Distribution
Kodiak Labor Area
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation, Communications,
and Public Facilities
Trade
Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate
Service
Miscellaneous
Government
Federal
State and Local
TOTAL
1970-1976
1976
Number Percent
0
253 5.6
1639 36.5
213 4.7
512 11.4
105 2.3
406 9.0
428 9.5
894 19.9
(278) 6.2
(616) (13.7)
4487 100.0
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979. Table 84, p. 406.
1970 -1976
% Change
450.0
120.6
-1.8
4.0
113.7
95.4
6.7
(-28.2)
(36.6)
68.6
Kodiak functions as a redistribution point for waterborne freight destined for
the Prince William Sound area and the Aleutians. The island is also served by
several airline and air taxi operators. Employees are primarily basic.
Finance, insurance, and real estate averaged 105 employees in 1976, or 2.3
percent of the Kodiak division's total nonagricultural wage and salary employ-
ment. While many of these employees are associated with the operation of
banks, insurance firms, and real estate operations, a significant number are
employees of Native corporations. Employees of Native corporations can be
considered part of the basic employment picture.
Unemployment and Seasonality of Employment: Employment in the Kodiak division
exhibits much less seasonal variation than most Alaska areas with economies
based heavily in fishing and fish processing. In 1976, the most recent year
for which complete figures are available, total nonagricultural wage and
salary employment in the Kodiak division ranged between about 83 percent and
129 percent of the annual average. This degree of seasonality is far less
extreme than the Cordova-McCarthy division, for example, which has a greater
dependence on the salmon fishery than Kodiak. Nevertheless, the Kodiak area
exhibits more employment seasonality than the Anchorage division where total
nonagricultural wage and salary employment ranged between about 92 and 107
percent of the annual average in 1976.
Unemployment in the Kodiak division varies seasonally. In 1976, local unem-
ployment rates ranged between 5 and 6 percent of the total civilian labor
force from July through October and between around 9 to 10 percent for the
remainder of the year. The total civilian labor force peaked in August at
5,359 persons, with an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent recorded for that
month. The "low" unemployment month was October when only 5.3 percent of the
civilian labor force was recorded as unemployed. By October, the transient
salmon fishermen have left the area and the total civilian labor force for
that month in 1976 was down by approximately 1,000 persons from August.
October normally sees a heavy king crab fishing effort before the winter
weather sets in and, thus, a very low proportion of the labor force is re-
corded as unemployed at this time of year.
Recent Employment Trends: As shown in table III.C.2.b.-l, total nonagricul-
tural wage and salary employment in the Kodiak division rose almost 69 percent
between 1970 and 1976, a healthy rate of growth but lower than the approximately
84 percent rate recorded for the state as a whole. However, statewide figures
were severely impacted by pipeline construction while the Kodiak area was
little affected by this activity.
Employment in the manufacturing sector increased slightly more than 120 per-
cent in the Kodiak division between 1970 and 1976. This represents a major
gain in the area's primary basic industry, fishing and fish processing. To a
large degree, this increase is due to a switch by a number of Kodiak area
plants to more of a year-round operation which, aside from increasing total
employment, has also tended to lessen the degree of employment seasonality.
Growth in the miscellaneous sector, whi~h includes some, but by no means all,
of the area's fishermen, also registered a healthy 95-percent rate of increase
between 1970 and 1976.
3
Contract construction accounted for the largest proportional increase (450
percent) in employment in the Kodiak division between 1970 and 1976. However,
apparent gains in this sector are misleading. Construction activity appears
to have been at an abnormally low level in 1970, whereas improvements to the
Coast Guard base after this facility was taken over from the Navy contributed
much to the higher levels of employment in this sector in the mid-1970's.
Employment in the service and trade sectors registered 114 and 48 percent
gains, respectively, between 1970 and 1976, with some of this growth doubtless
taking place in response to growth in basic industry. During this same period,
however, employment in transportation, communication, and public utilities
declined slightly (by almost 2~).
Government employment recorded a modest 6.7 percent rate of increase in the
Kodiak division between 1970 and 1976. State and local government registered
near 37 percent increase during this period, with most of this growth assumed
to have taken place in the local government subsector. Federal Government
employment, on the other band, declined by 28.2 percent during the 1970-1976
period. This decline followed the closure of the Kodiak Navy base in 1971.
Occupational Skills: Comprehensive information on the skills of the workforce
of the Kodiak area is not available, nor are there reliable or current statis-
tics developed for individual communities.
Income Levels: According to the 1970 U.S. Census, the median income of families
in Kodiak and the Kodiak census division in 1969 was $12,854 and $11,166,
respectively. The median income for Kodiak was slightly above that statewide
in 1969 of $12,443, whereas that for the census division were depressed by the
former Kodiak Naval Station where a median 1969 income of only $8,645 was
recorded. Thus, it can generally be said that the civilian population of the
Kodiak area enjoyed incomes comparable or slightly above those statewide in
1969.
A review of average monthly wages by industry sector for nonagricultural
industries in the Kodiak division from 1975 through the third quarter of 1977
indicates that the highest average monthly wages in this area are realized in
the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors. This group includes all
fishermen counted in nonagricultural wage and salary statistics and realized
an average monthly wage of $3,006 during the'tbird quarter of 1977. No com-
parable group was listed statewide.
After agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, the highest average monthly wages
in the Kodiak area during the third quarter of 1977 were registered in contract
construction ($2,588). While this was a healthy average monthly wage, it was
well below average rates recorded for the State during that quarter ($4,041).
Average monthly wages in the Kodiak division for the third quarter of 1977
were above those recorded statewide in the retail trade (($973 versus $960)
and government sectors. In the government sector, the average monthly wage
for the third quarter of 1977 was significantly above statewide averages in
Federal ($1,885 versus $1,357), State ($1,824 versus $1,532) and local ($1,460
versus $1,386) government subsectors in the Kodiak division. In all other
employment sectors, however, the average monthly wage in the Kodiak division
was below State averages during this period.
4
Although unemployment is not generally seen as a problem in the Kodiak area,
welfare payments in the form of general assistance from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and public assistance program payments distributed by the Alaska
Department of Health and Social Services are significant sources of income to
some Kodiak households. The Bureau of Indian Affairs distributed a total of
$23,258 to 22 individual "cases" in the Kodiak area in FY 1977 (table
III.C.2.b.-2). However, the total amount paid under this program in FY 1977
was less than half that paid out in FY 1972.
Statistics provided by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services
Division of Public Assistance indicate that $24,771 was distributed to 113
individual "cases" in Kodiak during a typical month in 1977, for an average
monthly payment of $113 (table III.C.2.b.-3). Almost 80 percent of these
funds involved Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments.
Major Industries
Fishing and Fish Processing Industry: See graphics 3 through 8 and section
III.B.2. for details regarding this subject.
Tourism Industry: Tourism is currently a minor economic activity in the
Kodiak area, but it is an industry which bas some potential for expansion.
Kodiak has traditionally been somewhat "off the beaten track" for tourists.
See sections III.C.4. and III.C.6. for further information on tourism and
transportation.
Kodiak has expressed interest in increased tourist activity. According to
Kramer, Chin, and Mayo (October 5, 1977), the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce has
created a "visitors and convention bureau" for the purpose of seeking conven-
tions and the development of pre-convention tours in conjunction with the city
of Anchorage. In addition, Kramer, Chin, and Mayo repor~ed that tour ship
calls at Kodiak could show further increases in the future.
Military Industry: The military has been a factor in Kodiak's economy since
1941 when the Kodiak Naval Air Station was established. A naval operating
base and submarine base were added in 1974 and Fort Greely, an Army garrison,
was also established here during this period. According to Chaffin (1967),
there were some 2,500 civilian contract workers in Kodiak, an Army garrison of
7,600 and around 773 Navy men at the peak of wartime activities.
Today, military activities play a significant, but much less dominant role in
Kodiak's economy. Fort Greely closed with the cessation of hostilities in
World War II but the naval base remained. Increases in personnel occurred
during the Korean War and again in the early 1960's, but World War II total
military personnel levels were never again reached. According to Development
Research Associates, Inc. (February 27, 1968), there were approximately 2,436
military personnel in the Kodiak area in 1965 but that this bad dropped signifi-
cantly to 1,693 in 1967, plus 313 civilian employees. Naval strength continued
to decline after 1967 and the base was formally closed in 1971, shortly after
which it was taken over by the U.S. Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard has been active in the Kodiak area since the summer of 1947
when an air detachment with 37 men and a couple of planes was stationed here.
By 1957, the air detachment had assumed several other duties and had 12 pilots
5
Table III.C.2.b.-2 1/
General Assistance Payment -
Kodiak, Alaska
FY 1972 -FY 1977
FY 1972 FY 1973 FY 1974 FY 1975 FY 1976 FY 1977
Total Payment $50,067 $60,758 $20,802 $21,796
Number of Cases 55 66 29 39
Average Payment:
Annual $ 910 $ 921 $ 717 $ 559
Monthly $ 76 $ 77 $ 60 $ 47
!/ Payments made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979. Table 89, p. 416.
Old Age
Assistance
Total Payment $ 2,652
Number of Cases 23
Average Payment $ 115
Table III.C.2.b.-3
Public Assistance Program Payments
Kodiak, Alask!J
October 1977 -
Aid to the Aid to the
Blind Disabled
$ 259 $ 2,484
2 19
$ 130 $ 131
$16,859
12
$ 1,405
$ 117
Aid to Families
with Dependent
Children
$19,376
69
$ 281
!/ October is considered to be a representative month for public assistance
payments.
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979. Table 90, p. 416.
$23,258
$
$
22
1,507
88
Total
$24,771
113
$ 219
and 50 enlisted men. In addition, the Coast Guard cutter, Storis, which
currently has a complement of 79 men, was stationed in Kodiak that year.
Coast Guard strength in the Kodiak area continued to increase and, at the time
of its takeover of the the Navy facility in 1972, approximately 500 military
personnel were stationed in the community.
Since 1972, the number of Coast Guard personnel stationed in the Kodiak area
has almost doubled. According to Kodiak Coast Guard planners, there are
currently about 980 active duty military personnel in this area, plus approxi-
mately 175 civilian employees. All but about a half dozen military personnel
live on base, but an estimated half of the civilian employees live in Kodiak
itself. Including dependents, Kodiak has an on-base population of around
2,500 people. This figure includes some other nonmilitary personnel such as
employees of the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Weather Service,
and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Today, the Coast Guard has 10 commands in the Kodiak area. These include the
support center, the air station, the Spruce Cape and Narrow Cape Loran stations.
three homeported cutters (the Storis, the Citrus, and the Confidence), marine
safety, communications, and the Loran monitoring station. In terms of employ-
ment, the support center (with 292 military and 150 civilian employees), the
three cutters (with a combined total of 199 men), the air station (with 351
employees) and communications (with 49 men) are the most significant. However,
three other commands: marine safety (1975), the Narrow Cape Loran station
(1977), and the Loran monitoring station (1977) have only recently been esta-
blished. The tenth command, the Spruce Cape Loran station, is scheduled to be
phased out as of December 31, 1979. However, since this command has only
eight employees, its closure will have only a very minor impact on military
employment in the Kodiak area.
Military-related activities are normally associated with low multiplier factors
in terms of their ability to support secondary employment. To some extent,
this is true in Kodiak since almost all personnel live on base and have post
exchange privileges. Furthermore, except for education and telephone services,
the base makes few demands on local community facilities. Nevertheless, the
Coast Guard does have a significant impact on Kodiak's economy in that it is a
major civilian employer and that it acts as a support for Kodiak's primary
industry, fishing and fish processing. Furthermore, unlike the former Naval
station which had few dependents, the Coast Guard base has a large dependent
population, some of whom work in town.
According to Kodiak Coast Guard planners, current personnel levels in this
area are likely to remain fairly constant in the future. Recent increases in
military strength at Kodiak have been primarily in response to the establish-
ment of a 200-mile offshore U.S. territorial limit and to an upgrading of
Coast Guard communications systems. Even if commercially significant discov-
eries of oil and/or gas should be made offshore in this area, no large in-
creases in military personnel at Kodiak are anticipated. In the opinion of
Kodiak Coast Guard planners, the base has adequate flexibility to handle such
situations without major increases in personnel.
Timber Industry: The wood products industry is not important on Kodiak Island.
However, nearby Afognak Island presently is within the Chugach National Forest
and has a sizable commercial timber resource, estimated by the Forest Service
6
(July 12, 1974) at 4.6 billion board feet of presently operable sawtimber.
Commercial Sitka spruce stands occupy approximately half of Afognak Island's
185350 hectares (458,000 acres) area. If these stands were managed for saw-
timber products, the Forest Service has estimated that they could sustain an
annual cut of approximately 30 million board feet.
A large timber sale on Afognak Island, the 48563.3 hectares (120,000 acres)
Perenosa sale, was held in 1968. Of this area, 8498.6 hectares (21,000 acres)
were to be clearcut. However, no activity on this sale took place until the
fall of 1975. Since that time, approximately 7.5 million board feet are going
to the mill at Jakolof Bay near Seldovia and 5.5 million board feet have been
cut for round log export as the result of an agreement between the Forest
Service and the eventual Native landowners. (Privately owned lands are not
subject to the primary manufacture before export requirement.)
A smaller 6.7 million board feet timber sale at Raspberry Strait was held in
November 1971. The successful bidder was Dalmond Valley who subsequently
third partied it to Southcentral Timber Development Corporation, a Japanese-con-
trolled firm, in February 1973. This sale was closed in February 1977. The
future of the wood products industry on Afognak Island is presently obscured
by uncertainties as to who will ultimately control the island's timber resources.
Koniag, Inc. the regional Native corporation for the Kodiak Island area, has
proposed to select all of Afognak Island except for authorized Native village
selections. At the other extreme, non-village selections, approximately
125455.3 hectares (310,000 acres), are proposed to be transferred to the
National Wildlife Refuge System. If the latter case came to pass, it is assumed
that no logging on refuge lands would take place and the wood products poten-
tial of Afognak Island would thus be greatly reduced, as would its potential
impact on the economy of the Kodiak area.
Cattle Industry: Cattle ranching has been a minor element in the economy of
Kodiak Island for a number of years. Currently, there are 6 or 7 ranches on
the island on lands leased from the Bureau of Land Management, which support a
total of about 2,000 cattle. An approved slaughterhouse facility at Woman's
Bay about 16 kilometers (10 mi) south of Kodiak is cooperatively owned by
Kodiak ranchers and was financed by State revolving loan funds. Although this
slaughterhouse could probably accommodate several thousand animals, only
between 30 and 300 head are slaughtered annually. Carcasses are normally sold
locally on Kodiak Island, although some are occasionally shipped to Anchorage.
The potential for major expansion of cattle ranching on Kodiak Island appears
very limited, at least in the short term.
Local Government Finances: Kodiak's most recent audit was reviewed as were
operating revenue sources for the Kodiak Island Borough school district. In
addition, data developed by the State Assessor on property valuation, local
tax rates, and per capita debt were analyzed.
A review of the full value of property, as determined by the State Assessor
(Alaska Taxable) within Kodiak's corporate limits and the Kodiak Island Borough
boundaries from 1969 through 1977 was undertaken (table III.C.2.b.-4). According
to the State Assessor's records, the full value of property in the city of
Kodiak increased 221.4 percent during this period, while that for the borough
as a whole rose a slightly lower 189.2 percent. The city accounted for 73
7
Table III.C.2.b.-4
City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough
Comparison of Full Value Determination
1976 -1977
(in $000's to nearest $1,000)
Total Kodiak
Year City of Kodiak Island Borough
1969 $ 44,118 $ 60,399
1970 $ 40,749 $ 57,751
1971 $ 51,092 $ 70,069
1972 $ 52,905 $ 75,956
1973 $ 53,729 $ 75,323
1974 $ 72,616 $ 96,246
1975 $ 80,284 $ 112,324
1976 $ 110,316 $ 145,764
1977 $ 141,802 $ 174,702
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979. Table 105, p. 516.
percent of the full value of property in the borough in 1969, wheteas, in
1977, the city's share had risen to 81.2 percent of total property valuation.
Growth in the city's property valuation has generally been more rapid since
1973, with most of this growth believed to have been derived from the continued
expansion of the area's fishing and fish processing industry which is heavily
concentrated within Kodiak's corporate limits.
A review of local and areawide property mil and sales tax rates applicable to
Kodiak since the 1972-73 fiscal year (table III.C.2.b.-S) and a comparison of
these rates with those of other Alaska municipalities indicates that, given
the level of service provided, reaidents of the city of Kodiak are taxed at a
rate which compares favorably with that of most other urban areas in the
State. In 1977-78, property tax rates for the city of Kodiak were set at
16.33 mils, the same as for the previous year. Of this assessment, 9.10 mils
were remitted to the city and the remainder was retained by the borough for
administration (2 mils) and schools (5.23 mils). For the current fiscal year,
the mil rate has been set at 16 mils, with the city share remaining the same
and the borough assessment for schools dropping slightly to 5 mils.
The Kodiak Island Borough does not levy a sales tax. However, a 3-percent
sales tax levied by the city of Kodiak is collected by the borough and remitted
to the city. A portion of these revenues is remitted to the borough by the
city in lieu of personal property taxes which are levied throughout the borough,
except within Kodiak's corporate boundaries.
An analysis of the city of Kodiak's general fund revenues and expenditures for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1977, (table III.C.2.b.-6) was undertaken. A
very high proportion (close to 80%) of Kodiak's general fund revenues is
derived from local sources. Total general fund revenues for FY 1977 amounted
to $3,458,977. Of this, by far the greatest share (52%) was derived from
taxes, with sales taxes alone accounting for 35.8 percent of all general fund
revenues, followed by property taxes (15.8%) plus a minor amount collected in
the form of penalties and interest on delinquent taxes. Aside from taxes,
other major sources of general fund revenues for the city of Kodiak in FY 1977
were inter-fund receipts (23% of the total) and intergovernmental revenues
(12.3%).
Although Kodiak's general government revenues are primarily derived from
locally generated funds, this is not the case with education services provided
by the Kodiak Island Borough. According to figures provided by the Alaska
Department of Education approximately 91 percent of total operating revenue
sources for the borough school syst~m in FY 1977 came from State sources,
compared with slightly less than 8 percent from local (borough) revenues.
A look at Kodiak's general fund expenditures in table III.C.2.b.-7 for the
year ended June 30, 1977, indicates that the largest single area of expendi-
ture, accounting for 34.8 percent of the total, was in a category described as
nondepartmental charges divided among miscellaneous (most of which was taken
up in lieu of tax payments to the borough but with insurance and utilities
payments also significant) debt service and inter-fund transfer (primarily
from the water utility and HUD block grant funds) line items. Other major
areas for city expenditures in FY 1977 were public safety (27.2% of total
general fund expenditures), public works (20.3%), and general government
(10.4%).
8
Table III.C.2.b.-5
City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough
1972/73 -1977/78
Property Tax (mils)
1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78
City 8.20 8.60 8.60 8.60 9.10 9.10
Borough Admistration .40 .40 1.62 2.50 2.00 2.00
Borough Schools 4.48 4.48 4.24 3.30 5.23 5.23
TOTAL 13.08 13.48 14.46 14.40 16.33 16.33
City Sales Tax (percent)
1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78
Administration 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
TOTAL 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979. Table 106, p. 518.
Table III.C.2.b.-6
General Fund
Statement of Expenditures and Encumbrances
City of Kodiak
General Government:
Legislative
Legal
Executive
Clerk
Finance
For the Year Ended June 30, 1977
Total General Government
Public Safety:
Police Department
Fire Department
Total Public Safety
Public Works:
City Engineer
Administration and Buildings
Utilities
Streets and Snow Removal
Garage
Total Public Works
Parks and Recreation
Museum
Library
Non-Departmental Charges:
Miscellaneous
Debt Service
Transfers
Total Non-Departmental Charges
Expenditures
and
Encumbrances
$ 10,353
53,955
39,914
63,012
163,772
$ 331,006
$ 618,148
247,969
$ 866,117
$ 107,693
84,023
131,658
232,607
90,973
$ 646,954
$ 104,257
$ 13,695
$ 114,868
$ 582,690
139,440
384,021
$1,106,151
$3,183,048
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979. Table 107, p. 520.
Table III.C.2.b.-7
Types of Village Employment
Koniag Region
Total
Labor Sw.aer Year-round Nine-month
Force Employment Employment Employment
Akhiok 40 32 80~ 5 12~ 3 7~
Karluk 31 20 64~ 5 16~ 3 19~
Larsen Bay 52 100 100~ 6 11.5~ 6 11.5~
Old Harbor 190 100 100~ 13 7~ 31 16~
Ouzinkie 64 55 86~ 6 9~ 3 5~
Port Lions 166 52 31.3~ 26 15.7~ 88 53~
Source: Kodiak Island 5-Year Health Plan (1979).
A review of Kodiak's overall financial condition indicates that the city's
financial position is generally sound. According to the State Assessor's
records, the city has a higher per capita property valuation compared with
most other Alaska communities.
In addition to outstanding general obligation bonds, Kodiak also has a total
of $5,093,000 in revenue bonds outstanding as of June 30, 1977. While these
are a long-term financial obligation of the city, they are not classed as a
debt since their repayment is theoretically covered by incoming revenues.
Village Economies: Table III.C.2.b.-7 is a detailed summary of types of
employment within the Koniag Region Villages. Refer to section III.C.1. for
further information regarding Kodiak Island villages.
The six villages on Kodiak Island lack stabilized employment opportunities.
The majority of the village residents are still dependent upon salmon fishing
during the summer months. With the exception of a couple of villages, it
appears that village residents will not move toward diversified fisheries,
crab, shrimp, etc., for sometime due to lack of capital to purchase larger
boats as a result of the decline of salmon runs. Lack of water and sewage
treatment facilities also contributes to the limited economic base. Boat
harbors are non-existent as are airports.
Primarily, the bulk of the people living within the villages in the Koniag
Region are employed in the fisheries industry. They are employed in the
harvest phase as fishermen or in the processing phase as cannery or cold
storage workers. The employment is highly seasonal and competitive, due to
the economic conditions in the continental United States forcing people to
find work away from their homes (college students seeking summer employment)
and the fact that the fisheries have in the past years been over-harvested.
In the past years, fishing limitations have been imposed aRd harvesting has
only been allowed 2 or 3 days per week during the summer fishing season. The
Koniag Region does have fledgling tourist and forestry industries--neither of
these industries employs a significant number of Alaska Natives. As a result
of the above conditions, the greatest bulk of the people, particularly in the
villages, are employed only for a few weeks out of each year and compensation
they receive for their work only allows for meager existence.
The overall unemployment rate for the service area has been 9.6 percent for
the past 2 years. This high unemployment is due to the fisheries industry,
which is totally seasonal. In support of this fact, the 1974 borough census
reports a total of 282 individuals employed in the private sector. An addi-
tional 27 individuals are employed by State, Federal, and local government
programs. The average income for a family of four in the villages ranges from
$3,000 to $6,000 annually.
The greatest employment needs in the service area includes legal services,
health and educational services, administrative services, secretarial, book-
keeping, and public service.
A summary of the reliance upon subsistence is presented in table III.C.2.b.-8.
Refer to section III.C.1.d. for more information regarding subsistence.
9
Table III.C.2.b.-8
Reliance Upon Subsistence
The lifestyle of the coastline area depends on a subsistence way of life. The subsistence
species consist of: salmon, crab, shrimp, clams, deer, rabbits, ducks, seal, and ptarmigan.
Percentage of
dependence on
subsistence
Akhiok
60~
Karluk
80%
Larsen Bay Old Harbor
53% *
* No figures available, but a significant dependence on subsistence. ** Heavy dependence on subsistence.
Ouzinkie Port Lions
** 60~
Source: Kodiak Area Native Association, CETA Title VI -Public Service Employment
Proposal, July 1977.
b. Local Economy -2, Kenai Census Division: The analysis of
the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division below is taken from Alaska Consultants,
Inc. (1980). The economic base of the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division of the
Kenai Peninsula Borough is built primarily upon the oil and gas industry,
fishing and fish processing, and the tourism and recreational industries.
Over the past two decades, the expansion of these basic industries has greatly
broadened the region's economic base, although the course of expansion has not
been smooth. In particular, the labor intensive character of the construction
of key industrial facilities has made the Kenai-Nikiski area prone to repeated
boom-bust cycles through successive stages of economic expansion.
Between 1970 and 1977, Alaska Department of Labor nonagricultural wage and
salary employment data indicate that employment in the Kenai-Cook Inlet Labor
Area doubled from 3,640 to 7,332. Within the Kenai-Cook Inlet Labor Area, the
Department of Labor collects insured employment data for local subareas, three
of which (the Kenai labor area, the Soldotna labor area, and the Homer labor
area) are important for this baseline analysis.
Over recent years, the geographic distribution of employment in the region has
become steadily more concentrated in the Kenai-Nikiski industrial area.
Composition of Employment: The composition of employment in the Kenai-Cook
Inlet Census Division reflects the strong role that the oil and gas industry,
petrochemicals, and fish processing play in the region's economic base. In
1977, the most recent year for which complete nonagricultural wage and salary
employment data are available, about 721 jobs or 9.8 percent of the total were
in mining, mostly in oil and gas extraction; and another 1,015 jobs or 13.5
percent were in the maufacturing sector. For comparison, mining provided only
3.0 percent of statewide employment and maufacturing only 6.6 percent. Thus,
the prominence of extractive and manufacturing activities lends a decidedly
industrial quality to the Kenai-Cook Inlet region's. economy which is uncharac-
teristic of most regions in the state.
The largest single economic sector in 1977 was contract construction, in which
1,808 jobs, or 24.7 percent of total nonagricultural wage and salary employment
here were reported. However, 1977 set an all-time high for construction
activity in the region as the Union Oil Company's Collier Carbon and Chemical
Corporation's ammonia-urea plant, Alaska's first and largest petrochemical
plant, undertook a major expansion program during this period. Other private
and public construction activities were also abnormally high. As a result,
the 1977 job level was not at all representative of historic or expected
future levels of employment in the region's construction industry. For example,
data for the first three quarters of 1978 show that average monthly employment
in contract construction fell to 481 jobs or about one quarter of the previous
year's average. This precipitous decline in construction employment upon
completion of a major project is typical of the pattern of boom-bust cycles to
which the region's economy has proven susceptible.
The exaggerated expansion-contraction cycle and the high job turnover it
causes is probably an important factor in the high unemployment rate which has
afflicted the region, without regard for permanent employment gains. Thus, in
1978, the unemployment rate was substantially higher than in 1970.
10
Within the recent timeframe of 1977-78, spanning the construction of the
addition to the Union Oil Company petrochemical plant, available economic data
reveals a sharp recessionary trend. This trend is evident in the parallel
movements of employment levels and payrolls. In the six months between the
third quarter peak of 1977 and the first quarter of 1978, employment declined
by 31 percent from 8,370 jobs to 5,789. As might be expected, the bulk of
this decline took place in the construction sector which fell from 2,243 jobs
to 364, a decline of 84 percent.
Sector Analysis: The Cook Inlet commercial fishery can be dated back to the
late 1800's and for many years fishing was the chief basic industry for the
small coastal towns of the western Kenai Peninsula. That changed after the
mid-1950's. First the completion of the Sterling Highway opened the area's
varied recreational assets to Anchorage area residents. Then, the discovery
of commercial oil and gas resources in the Cook Inlet Basin transformed the
Kenai-Nikiski area into the center of a major oil and gas producing and pro-
cessing industry.
As the process of economic diversification progressed, a definite geographic
differentiation in economic functions among the main towns in the western
peninsula has evolved. The City of Kenai and its neighboring Nikiski-North
Kenai area have become the heart of oil and gas related industries and a
center of trade and commerce for the western peninsula. Soldotna, the seat of
the Kenai Peninsula Borough, has become the center for government and educa-
tional services, as well as a bedroom community for other employment centers
within the commuting distance. In the lower Cook Inlet area, Homer and Seldovia
have remained strongly tied to the fishing industry, with Homer also becoming
a popular destination for recreational visitors and tourists.
Oil and Gas: When the Richfield Oil Corporation discovered natural gas in the
Swanson River area in 1957, the Kenai area was launched upon the path to its
singular role as the center of Alaska's oil and gas industry. The Prudhoe Bay
fields now produce far more oil and have far greater natural gas reserves than
the Cook Inlet Basin. The Valdez terminal for the trans-Alaska pipeline ships
more crude oil and Anchorage has become the managerial headquarters for the
oil industry in Alaska and for its counterpart governmental bureaucracy. But
no region of Alaska has achieved the diversity of oil-and gas-related devel-
opment that the Kenai-Nikiski area has attained.
The Kenai oil and gas region has grown to become the focus of a mature oil and
gas industrial complex. It hosts a full range of oil field service and supply
industries. It is at the heart of a far-flung network of pipelines for collec-
tion of crude oil and natural gas production. It harbors treatment facilities,
refineries, a petrochemical plant, an LNG plant and marine facilities for
transfer of crude oil and LNG and for support of offshore oil operations. It
is the source of product pipelines to Anchorage area utilities and consumers
of Cook Inlet hydrocarbon energy production.
In short, the Kenai vicinity possesses a representative array of oil and gas
industrial facilities. The cumulative production of hydrocarbons in the Cook
Inlet basin through 1976 amounted to 755 MMbbls of oil, over 2 Bcf of casing-
head and dry gas and over 5 MMbbls of natural gas liquids. Annual oil produc-
tion peaked in 1970 at 84 MMbbls. Annual natural gas production first exceeded
200 MHcf in 1970 and has continued to rise, attaining a new peak in 1976 of
11
271 MMcf. Despite the decline in oil production, the oil and gas industry and
federal and state landlords are optimistic that the Kenai region still has a
solid future in production and processing of oil and gas reserves imputed to
tracts recently leased and to those anticipated to be soon leased for exploration.
Since 1957, the Kenai-Cook Inlet area's economy has moved in response to oil
and gas development decisions. Development and production of the onshore and
offshore oil and gas fields represented, of course, a major addition to the
region's previously slight economic base. However, far more consequential
than mere oil and gas production was a series of entrepreneurial choices about
product processing and marketing that fostered Kenai's emergence as an indus-
trial center.
In the case of oil, the significant choice was the decision to retain some
crude oil for refinement into products for Alaskan markets. In the case of
natural gas, it was the decision to convert gas in excess of the region's
needs into exportable products. The outcome of these choices led to the
construction of four major industrial plants in the Nikiski area in a brief
few years. The construction of these plants and subsequent plant additions
imposed on Kenai the cycle of boom growth and faltering readjustment that it
has repeatedly undergone in the past 15 years.
The first major hydrocarbon facility to be completed was the SOCAL (now Chevron)
oil refinery completed in 1963 at Nikiski. This plant produced asphalt,
heating, and diesel oil, jet fuels, and other products for Alaska consumption,
with a processing capacity of 22,000 barrels of oil per day. At present, the
plant has 21 full-time employees.
The Drift River crude oil storage and loading facility on the west shore of
Cook Inlet was completed in 1967, along with oil treatment facilities at
Trading Bay and a network of gathering pipelines and stations. These facilities
collect offshore production for export. The Drift River terminal currently
employs about 17 workers and the Trading Bay treatment facility about 60
persons. Because these facilities are at remote sites on the west shore,
their construction and operation have had relatively little direct impact on
the Kenai area.
Limited amounts of Cook Inlet basin natural gas production are consumed in the
region for power production and other purposes. However, natural gas production
potential is far in excess of Southcentral Alaska demand. Since the remoteness
and scale of the Cook Inlet gas fields precluded the economic feasibility of
delivery to markets by a conventional pipeline, producing companies adopted
two other alternatives for realizing the economic value of Cook Inlet gas
finds. The Collier Carbon and Chemical Corporation, a subsidiary of Union Oil
Company, built a petrochemical complex designed to use natural gas to manufac-
ture ammonia-urea fertilizers which, unlike natural gas, could be economically
transported in bulk carriers to distant markets. Phillips Petroleum Company
and Marathon Oil Company, on the other hand, jointly built and operate a plant
to liquefy natural gas for shipment by LNG tanker to Japan.
Upon its completion in 1968, the Collier ammonia-urea plant at Nikiski was
Alaska's largest petrochemical plant and one of'the largest of its type in the
world. In 1977, two additional plants units were added which doubled the
plant.'s capacity and employment. The facility now is able to produce 725,624
12
metric tons (800,000 tons) of urea and 997,732 metric tons (1,100,000 tons) of
ammonia fertilizers annually. Reportedly, most of the output is destined for
West Coast markets. The plant now has about 315 full-time employees.
The Phillips-Marathon LNG plant was built and on strea. by 1969. This plant
liquefies natural gas by chilling it to -162°C (-260°F). Liquefaction reduces
the product volume by a factor of 600. The liquefied natural gas is then
shipped by specially designed LNG carriers to Japan. Plant operation employs
41 persons.
Also completed in 1969 was the Tesoro-Alaska refinery. This plant has a
capacity of 45,000 barrels a day and produces gasoline, diesel oil, jet fuels,
and a variety of other end products for Alaska consumption. Its current
employment is 48 persons.
Cumulatively, the above industrial facilities directly account for over 500
permanent, non-seasonal manufacturing jobs in the Kenai-Cook Inlet region,
mostly in the Nikiski area. This does not include employ.ent in oil and gas
exploration, development and production activities. As of 1978, these activi-
ties accounted for an estimated further 750-800 jobs in the region in the
mining sector. This is up by about one hundred jobs over 1977, possibly due
to new offshore exploration efforts following the federal Lower Cook Inlet OCS
lease sale in October 1977. The first exploratory well in that lease area was
spudded in July 1978 by Marathon Oil Company's drill ship, Diamond M. Dragon
on the premier tract for which Marathon and its partners bid $77 million.
That well has since been abandoned as a dry hole but a nu.ber of additional
wells have been started or are in the planning stage.
Oil field service and supply industries also contribute a significant share of
employment to the transportation, service and other economic sectors. A
review of telephone listings for the Kenai-Nikiski-North Kenai-Soldotna area
indicates that there are between 65 to 75 local firms engaged in a wide range
of oil and gas industry support functions, but there is no count of the number
of individuals these firms employ.
Fishing and Fish Processing: See graphics 3 through 8 and discussions on the
back of graphics 5 through 8 for details regarding this subject.
Tourism and Recreation: After oil and gas and fishing and fish processing,
the tourism and recreation industry has grown to be, the most important compo-
nent of the Kenai-Cook Inlet region's economic base. The coastal strip of the
western Kenai Peninsula between Kenai and Homer is reported by the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, to be the most intensively
used outdoor recreational area in the state. Refer to section III.C.4. for a
more detailed description of the area's recreation resources.
The economic impact of the visitor industry is highly concentrated at Homer on
the Homer Spit and, also at Kenai, the point of access to the recreational
areas of the northwest section of the peninsula. Otherwise, the economic
impact is scattered at points along the Sterling Highway where service stations,
road houses, and other highway oriented·businesses catering to visitors are
located. These local commercial impacts can be distinguished fro• the recrea-
tional user impacts which tend to concentrate at public campgrounds, clamming
beaches, creeksides, lake fronts, trails, and other points or corridors with
13
exceptional public recreational value. Only at certain spots, as on the
intensely used Homer Spit, do the focus of recreational activity and commer-
cial impact coincide.
Although the specific findings of past surveys differ, they are consistent in
the theme that the primary pursuit of visitors to the Kenai Peninsula is an
outdoor recreational experience of a sort that does not entail, and may even
be adverse to, expenditure of large sums for local goods and services.
Regardless of average expenditures, the volume of visitors to the Kenai is
such that its quantitative contribution to trade and services in the region's
basic economy is impressive. According to a 1972 study of the economic impact
of visitors published by the OEDP Committee, a sample survey of businessmen
estimated that the visitor industry accounted for about 31 percent of all
retail trade in the Kenai Peninsula. If this is accepted as a valid ratio, a
rough estimate might be that about 582 of the average annual figure of 1,876
persons employed in trade and services in the Kenai-Cook Inlet area in 1977
could be attributed to the visitor industry.
Another important feature of the visitor industry in the Kenai Peninsula is
that it is highly seasonal. Since outdoor recreational activities are the
prime attraction, summer is the time of peak activity. This seasonal cycle
comes through clearly in employment data for the Homer Labor Area, the area
proportionately most impacted by the visitor industry. Trade and services are
the two economic sectors which best show the effect of the visitor industry.
In 1978, Homer area employment in trade in the high summer was SO percent
above the low winter month; in the services industry, the spread was nearly
150 percent. Besides the seasonal cycle, summertime visitor traffic from the
Anchorage area is heavily skewed toward weekends, when people are most often
free for recreat.ional pursuits.
Other: Apart from the oil and gas, fishing and fish processing, and visitor
industries, a variety of other economic activities make minor contributions to
the Kenai-Cook Inlet area's basic economy.
In the years since the western Peninsula was made accessible by the completion
of the Sterling Highway, the agricultural potential of the region has been
tested by extensive homesteading. While the~e are tracts which are physically
suitable for agriculture and livestock, particularly in the Homer area, economic
conditions have not proven favorable enough to promote any extensive agricul-
tural development. Also, the economic feasibility of agricultural enterprises
has been adversely affected by the effect of competing uses on land values and
land use patterns. Consequently, agriculture has remained a marginal economic
endeavor and can perhaps most realistically be considered as a transitional
land use.
The timber resources of the Kenai-Cook Inlet area are currently supporting a
commercial harvest. The major milling operations are at Tyonek on the west
shore of Cook Inlet and at Jakolof Bay on the south side of Kachemak Bay.
(However, most timber processed at Jakolof Bay presently comes from Icy Bay,
outside the Kenai Peninsula Borough region.) Small mills are also in occa-
sional operation at Soldotna, Anchor Point, and Homer producing sawtimber for
local use. Of the three latter towns, Homer is best situated to serve as a
14
yarding, milling, and shipping point for wood products. However, the poten-
tial competition for space, especially for waterfront industrial use, and
available labor between the wood products industry and the economically more
important fishing industry, have inclined the city of Homer to downplay devel-
opment of a local wood products industry in favor of continued emphasis on
fisheries development and the visitor industry.
Until the early 1970's, the military was a significant element in the popula-
tion and economy of the city of Kenai vicinity. As of 1970, there were 750
military personnel, including dependents, stationed at Wildwood Station, just
north of the city. However, now that the station bas been closed and the
facilities transferred to the Kenai Native Association, the economic role of
the military is negligible.
c. Local Kenai, North Kenai Economy:
Employment: In 1970, the Kenai labor area which includes Nikisbka, Nikiski,
Red Mountain, Swanson River, and Wildwood Station was already the p·rimary
employment center in the Kenai-Cook Inlet region with 47.3 percent of the
region's total employment. The Kenai labor area bas since become increasingly
dominant. By 1977, it provided 56.6 percent of the region's jobs.
Because of the impact of two large industrial construction projects in the
Nikiski area, 1977 was not a "typical" employment year for the Kenai labor
area. Indeed, no single year can be typical in such a volatile local economy.
Nevertheless, the 1977 data do illustrate to an exaggerated degree the dis-
tinctive features of the local and regional economy. It was previously noted
that the construction, mining, and manufacturing sectors employ a larger share
of the work force in the Kenai-Cook Inlet region than they do in the state as
a whole. In the smaller Kenai labor area, a subunit of the Kenai-Cook Inlet
Census Division, the concentration of employment in these· three sectors was
even more intense. In 1977, the Kenai labor area provided 84.9 percent of the
region's mining employment and 84.3 percent of its construction employment.
Within the Kenai labor area, these same three sectors, construction (37.01),
mining (14.7%), and manufacturing (14.21) accounted for almost two-thirds of
total insured employment in 1977 (table III.C.2.c.-1). On the other band,
there was an unusually low percentage of government workers (9.11) and transpor-
tation, communications, and public utilities employees (5.0%). Keeping in
mind that the Kenai labor area's 1977 employment pattern was highly distorted
by heavy industrial construction, the 1977 data reflect the extraordinary
impact upon the local workforce of periodic industrial development projects, a
tendency which will continue until the area's employment base becomes larger
and more diverse.
The Anchorage Urban Observatory conducted a sample survey of adult employment
by economic sector in the city of Kenai (table III.C.2.c.-2). A comparison of
these figures with 1976 Department of Labor employment data for the entire
Kenai labor area, suggests that employment patterns in the city of Kenai are
not radically different from the Kenai labor area as a whole, including the
unincorporated North Kenai area to the north of the city.
Since many commercial fishermen are self-employed persons, nonagricultural
wage and salary employment data published by the Alaska Department of Labor
15
Table III.C.2.c.-1
Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Emp}~yment Distribution
Kenai Labor Area -
1970-1977
1970 1977 1970-1977
Number " Number " " Change
Agriculture, Forestry,
and Fisheries ?:.I y
Mining 455 26.4 612 14.7 34.5
Contract Construction 282 16.4 1,535 37.0 444.3
Manufacturing 271 15.7 588 14.2 117.0
Transportation,
Communications and
Public Utilities 134 7.8 206 5.0 53.7
Trade 271 15.7 584 14.1 115.5
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate 46 2.7 92 2.2 100.0
Service 190 11.0 430 10.4 12~.3
Miscellaneous 0 ?:.I
Government 70 4.1 2/
Federal 2/ 2;
State & Local ~I ~I
TOTAL 1, 723 100.0 4,150 100.0 140.9
!/ Includes Nikishka, Nikiski, Red Mountain, Swanson River, and Wildwood
Station.
?:_1 Employment figures withheld to comply with disclosure regulations.
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 7, p. 24.
Table III.C.2.c.-2
Distribution of Total Adult EmP-loyment
By Economic Sector
City of Kenai
1976
Percent
Agriculture and Commercial Fishing 4.2
Mining, Oil and Gas Production 20.5
Construction 14.0
Manufacturing (lumber and fish processing, oil and gas refining) 11.6
Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities 4.7
Wholesale, Retail Trade 10.7
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1.9
Services: Medicine, Law, Hotel, etc. 16.3
Government 16.3
Other
TOTAL 100.0
N = (215)
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 31, p. 89.
fail to reflect fully the economic contribution of this industry. However,
some indication of the extent to which Kenai area residents participate in the
Cook Inlet commercial fishery can be obtained from the records of the Commer-
cial Fisheries Entry Commission. Based upon the addresses given on permit
applications, 272 persons resident in the Kenai-north Kenai area obtained a
total of 309 commercial fishing permits in 1975. The number of permit holders
does not include additional crew members on fishing boats and also because
permit holders operating out of the Kenai-north Kenai area do not necessarily
list this area as their residence. On the other band, given the concentration
on the salmon fishery in upper Cook Inlet, fishing is an extremely seasonal
source of employment in this area. However, if the count of permit holders is
accepted as approximately representing the number of active resident fishermen,
then commercial fishermen increased the cited employment figures for the Kenai
labor area in 1975 by about 10 percent.
In weighing the local importance of the commercial fisheries, it should be
kept in mind that most (230 of 309) permits issued to Kenai area residents
were for set nets (127) and drift nets (103) the small scale gear. Thus, the
Kenai-based fishing industry is strongly oriented to the highly seasonal Cook
Inlet commercial salmon fishery. In effect, commercial fishing is a part-time
livelihood for many if not most participants, often supplemented by sources of
income from other occupations.
Recent Trends and Changes: The Kenai labor area bas effectively become the
bellwether for economic trends in the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division.
Following the Collier Carbon and Chemical Corporation's Plant expansion pro-
ject in late 1977, the Kenai-north Kenai area (and the Kenai-Cook Inlet region)
experienced a sudden steep slide in employment. In the Kenai labor area,
employment fell from the 1977 annual average of 4,150 workers to an annual
average of 3,169 over the first 9 months of 1978. It is important to note
that this was not an across-the-board decline. It was almost solely attri-
butable to the dropoff in construction employment from 1,525 jobs in 1977 to a
mere 197 in 1978, an almost instantaneous loss of 1,338 jobs. Many of these
construction workers undoubtedly left the Kenai-north Kenai area, while other
economic sectors showed strength and took up some of the overall employment
slack. Host notably, manufacturing employment rose significantly with the
addition of new jobs at the Collier plant to the permanent local workforce.
Mining employment bas also risen recently, probably due to ongoing oil and gas
exploration in the Cook Inlet basin following the Lower Cook Inlet OCS sale.
Other sectors of the economy have been holding fairly steady after 1977,
suggesting that the period of post-construction project adjustment is over and
that the local economy bas temporarily stabilized in wait for the next surge
of growth.
Income Levels: Various income measures consistently indicate that employees
in the Kenai labor area enjoy comparatively high incomes. As early as 1969,
according to the U.S. Census, the mean household income in the city of Kenai
was $15,927, well above the mark of $14,150 for the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census
Division and $13,856 for the state as a whole. A more recent sample survey of
household incomes conducted by the Anchorage Urban Observatory found that city
of Kenai families had a mean income of $31,771 in 1975. This was highest of
the five major cities (Kenai, Soldotna, Seldovia, Seward, and Homer) in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough and was well above the borougbwide (excluding Homer)
mean of $28,946.
16
Also tending to support the conclusion that family incoaes are above average
in the Kenai-north Kenai area is the finding that the Kenai labor area employ-
ment mix includes a high proportion of workers in the better paid industrial
sectors of mining and construction.
Public assistance programs appear to make a minor, though critical, contribu-
tion to the economic well-being of some Kenai area residents. In the month of
March 1979, the various public assistance programs administered by the Alaska
Department of Health and Social Services paid a total of $33,024 to 129 aid
recipients in Kenai, with the bulk of the cases and funds being in the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children category. In addition, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' general assistance program, which is administered by the Cook Inlet
Native Association in this area, distributed a total of $21,118 in assistance
payments in 1978. Considering the high unemployment rates which prevail in
the Kenai ·region, the amount of income provided through public assistance pro-
grams appears modest for a community of Kenai's size.
Local Government Finances: Fiscal data from the city of Kenai's financial
report for the fiscal year ending June 20, 1978, and other municipal financial
data compiled and published by the State Assessor's Office were analyzed to
evaluate the city's financial circumstances.
Property taxes are the leading source of general fund revenues for the city of
Kenai. Property tax revenue yields depend directly on the value of the local
property tax base. The city's equalized assessed valuation was reported at
$109,700,000 in 1978 (table III.C.2.c.-3). This represents an increase of 175
percent over the assessed valuation of 1969, with most of the increase occur-
ring in the most recent 2 years. During the same decade-long period, Kenai
population increased by about one-quarter, so the property tax base has grown
at a much faster rate than population, although a good share of the rise in
assessed value can be dismissed as merely reflecting inflation rather than a
real increase.
The ratio of assessed valuation to population is a good index of the revenue
capacity of a locality. As of 1978, the city of Kenai's valuation was reported
as $20,451 per capita. This ratio is far below the statewide average of
$50,398 per capita. However, if the extraordinary effect of the trans-Alaska
pipeline and related property on a few local jurisdictions is taken into
consideration, then Kenai's per capita valuation begins to approach the nor..
As of June 1978, the city of Kenai had outstanding general obligation bonds in
the amount of $4,425,000 and total general obligation debt service requirements
of $6,527,817 through 1998 (tables III.C.2.c.-4 and -5). In per capita terms,
this equalled a direct general obligation debt to the city of $825 per person,
a figure well below the statewide municipal average of $1,421. Not included
in this figure, however, is the city of Kenai's share of the Kenai Peninsula
Borough's bonded debt. Prorating to the city of Kenai a share of the Borough's
debt proportionate to the city's share of the boroughwide property tax base
adds an additional $3,397,223 to the debt burden effectively restiL~ upon the
city's property tax base.
Compared to nationwide debt ratio indexes for cities of its size, Kenai is
within satisfactory limits. By the key index of the ratio of bonded debt to
assessed valuation, Kenai, at 4.03 percent, is in a superior position to the
17
Year
1970
1975
1976
1977
1978
Table III.C.2.c.-3
City of Kenai
Comparison of Full Value Determination
1970 -1978
(in $000's to nearest $1,000)
Full Value Determination
$ 48,179
$ 54,687
$ 62,934
$ 85,178
$109,700
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 54, p. 162.
Table III.C.2.c.-4
Indicators of Financial Condition
City of Kenai, Alaska
Population
Full Value Determination
Full Value Per Capita
General Obligation Debt
Total Debt~/
Per Capita Debt
General Obligation
Total
FY 1978
Debt as Percent of Full Value
General Obligation
Total
Guidelines for Per Capita Debt
Direct
Overall
Percent of Full Valu~/
$109,699,805.00
$ 20,451.00
$ 4,425,000.00
$ 7,822,223.00
$ 825.00
$ 1,458.00
$
$
618.48
733.93
4.03%
7.13%
5.50%
!/Kenai's July 1977 population as accepted by the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs for State Revenue Sharing Purposes.
~/Total debt equals Kenai's G.O. bonded debt plus a prorated share
($3,397,223) of the Kenai Peninsula Borough's G.O. bonded debt based on the
city of Kenai's accounting for 7 percent of the borough's 1977 full value
determination.
~/ Median value for selected places of under 10,000 population used by
Moody's Investors Services, Inc.
Sources: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 55, p. 163.
Table III.C.2.c.-5
City of Kenai
General Bonded Debt
Schedule of Future Dept Service Requirements
JUNE 30, 1978
Fiscal Year PrinciEal Interest Total Reguirement
1979 $ 280,000 $ 239,070 $ 519,070
1980 290,000 223,520 513,520
1981 295,000 207,382 512,382
1982 265,000 190,520 455,520
1983 215,000 177,875 392,875
1984 230,000 166,393 396,393
1985 235,000 154,070 389,070
1986 255,000 141,230 396,230
1987 265,000 127,350 392,350
1988 280,000 112,605 396,605
1989 300,000 96,838 396,838
1990 310,000 79,885 389,885
1991 310,000 61,975 371,975
1992 .310,000 44,362 354,362
1993 195,000 26,212 221,212
1994 70,000 18,815 88,815
1995 75,000 14,973 89,973
1996 80,000 10,865 90,865
1997 80,000 6,625 86,625
1998 85,000 2,252 87,252
~4 1 425 1 000 ~2 1 102 1 817 $6 1 527 1 817
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 56, p. 164.
guidelines figure of 5.5 percent developed by Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
for cities of under 10,000 population. However, if Kenai's share of the
borough's debt included, the city has a less favorable 7.13 percent ratio of
bonded debt to local assessed valuation. Nevertheless, the city's debt ser-
vice capacity has improved substantially since 1976 when its local debt to
valuation ratio was a very high 12.01 percent.
The city has also issued revenue bonds to finance its airport terminal building
(outstanding balance of $467,500) and the Kenai City Light Utility (outstanding
balance of $1,173,679), whose assets and debts were conveyed to the Homer
Electric Association in August 1971.
The city's general fund expenditures in fiscal year 1978 amounted to $2,167,650
or better than $400 per resident. The major category of expense was public
safety which commanded 39.8 percent of the budget, followed by general govern-
ment (29.4%), public works (26.4%), and parks and recreation (4.4%). In
Kenai's organizational structure, public safety includes both city police and
fire protection services (table III.C.2.c.-6).
For general fund revenues, the City relies very heavily upon locally raised
funds. The city property tax was the leading revenue contributor and provided
42.2 percent of general fund revenues. The city sales tax yielded 26.5 percent
of revenues whild fees, licenses, and other miscellaneous sources provided 7.7
percent. Kenai obtained only 23.6 percent or less than a quarter of its
operating revenues from intergovernmental transfers.
Property tax rates in the city of Kenai rose sharply between 1972 and 1975,
from 7 to 16.75 mils, but have since declined slightly. The 1978 mil rate of
13.4 was about average for Kenai over this recent period and was in the middle
of the range for cities in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. In additon to the
city mil levy, the Kenai Peninsula Borough also assesses a 4.7 mil tax in the
city for school support (4.035 mils), borough administration (0.465 mils), and
hospitals (0.2 mils). It should be noted that boroughwide administration of
the local public education system relieves the city of direct responsibility
for one of the major fiscal and service burdens of local government. The city
sales tax levy was 3 percent in 1978, with an added 2 percent collected by the
borough and allocated to school support (table III.C.2.c.-7).
In the broad picture of local government finance in the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
the city of Kenai is adversely affected by the peculiar geography of residents
and high value properties in the Kenai-north Kenai area. Kenai is the largest
city in the borough, in part because of its function as a bedroom community
for employees of the industrial plants in the Nikiski area. However, its real
property tax base consists mostly of relatively low-valued residential, com-
mercial, and light industrial properties. Kenai is home to roughly 20 percent
of the borough's residents but only about 7 percent of its property tax base.
On the other hand, the less populous but heavily industrialized Nikiski-north
Kenai area immediately adjacent to Kenai encompasses about 75 percent of the
borough tax base, a difference of tenfold over the city of Kenai. In effect,
the city of Kenai supports city services for residents who commute to the
Nikiski industrial plants, but it does not have tax access to the property tax
base of the firms which benefit from Kenai's role as a residential community.
In years past, the city of Kenai has pursued changes in State statutes which
would entitle it to a share of property tax income from the nearby highly
capitalized industrial plants, but its efforts have not yet met wit~ success.
18
Table III.C.2.c.-6
General Fund
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
City of Kenai
Year Ended June 30, 1978
Revenues
Real and Personal Property Taxes
Sales Tax
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental Revenue
Charges for Services
Fires and Forfeits
Rents and Leases
Miscellaneous Revenue
Transfers from Other Funds
TOTAL REVENUES
Expenditures
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Parks and Recreation
Other
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Actual
$1,320,336
828,054
31,539
735,972
31,199
17,607
22,589
44,720
94,143
$2,167,653
Expenditures
$ 637,429
863,399
570,773
96,052
0
$2,167,653
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 57, p. 167.
City of Kenai
Borough -
Administration
Borough -
Schools
Borough -
Hospitals (South)
TOTAL
City of Kenai
Borough -
Schools
TOTAL
Table III.C.2.c.-7
City of Kenai
Property and Sales Tax Rates
FY 1977 -FY 1978
Property Tax (mils)
1977 1978
15.00 13.400
0.465
5.00 4.035
0.20 0.200
20.20 18.100
Sales Tax (;2ercent)
1977 1978
4.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
6.00 5.00
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 58, p. 168.
Despite the city's above-noted imbalance of service burdens and revenue poten-
tial, the city of Kenai's general financial condition seems to have improved
in the past few years. Mil rates, per capita debt, and the ratio of debt to
assessed valuation have all declined while assessed valuation has climbed.
d. Local Soldotna Economy:
Employment: A 1979 employment count (Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980) totalled
361 government sector employees in Soldotna. This included 293 borough,
school district, and city of Soldotna employees; 58 State employees, most of
whom were associated with the Kenai Peninsula Community College; and 10 Federal
Government employees. It is assumed that government employment was a slightly
lower 350 in 1977. The government sector is the largest single employer in
Soldotna and represents about one-quarter of all the city's employment. In
this respect Soldotna is closer to statewide norms than either the Kenai-Cook
Inlet Census Division or the Kenai labor area where construction was the
dominant sector in 1977.
State Department of Labor data indicate that, next to government employment,
Soldotna is most heavily dependent upon the trade and service sectors. In
1977, the latest year for which complete data are available, trade (25.6~) and
services (22.3~) accounted for 459 jobs or nearly half (47.9~) of insured
employment. This is a much heavier concentration of employment in these two
sectors than occurred in the state as a whole (33.9~) or the Kenai-Cook Inlet
Census Division (25.6~) in 1977.
After government, trade, and services, most rema1n1ng employment in Soldotna
is in transportation, communications and public utilities (20~), and construc-
tion (16.5~).
Recent Trends and Changes: The trend in employment in Soldotna during the
past decade has been one of rapid growth. Employment rose from 374 in 1970 to
958 by 1977, an increase of 156 percent (table III.C.2.d.-1).
Due to non-disclosure regulations and changes in the reporting requirements
for local government employment, published Department of Labor data do not
fully reflect growth trends in the public sector. However, Department of
Labor data, considered together with the,1978 Alaska Consultants, Inc. employ-
ment count, do support the conclusion that the government sector has grown to
become the most important employer in Soldotna.
After government, the strongest growth occurred in the contract construction
industry where employment expanded fivefold during the seven year period.
Host of this growth took place from 1975 to 1977, concomitant with the Collier
Carbon and Chemical Corporation's plant expansion and involved primarily
residential development.
After construction, the most dynamic element of Soldotna's economy was the
service sector where employment more than tripled from 1970 to 1977. While
some of this increase undoubtedly resulted from tourism, it also reflects the
growing importance of Soldotna as a regional service center.
Because of disclosure regulations, data on employment in the transportation,
communications, and public utilities sector are not available for the early
19
Table III.C.2.d.-1
Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment Distribution
Soldotna Labor Area
1970-1977
1970 1977 1970-1977
Number ex Number ex ex
Agriculture, Forestry,
and Fisheries 0 0
Mining 31 8.3 51 5.3
Contract Construction 23 6.1 158 16.5
Manufacturing ~I ~I
Transportation,
Communications and
Public Utilities ~I 192 20.0
Trade 135 36.1 245 28.6
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate ~I 42 4.4
Service 48 12.8 214 82.3
Miscellaneous 0 ~I
Government 17 4.5 *I
Federal (*/) <*n
State & Local (~/) (~/)
TOTAL 374 100.0 958 100.0
~/ Employment figures withheld to comply with disclosure regulations.
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. p. 184.
•
Change
64.5
587.0
81.5
345.8
156.1
years of the decade. However, employment in this sector rose from 62 in 1972
to 192 in 1977, an increase of 210 percent.
Discounting borough employees, Soldotna labor area employment appears to have
undergone modest growth during the first three quarters of 1978, despite the
decline in employment in the region as a whole during this period. Although
employment in the construction and transportation, communications and public
utilities sectors declined, gains in all other sectors of the economy, most
notably in trade and services, more than made up for the loss.
Income Levels: Soldotna households enjoy higher incomes than those in most
other Kenai Peninsula Bor~ugh communities. A survey conducted by the Anchorage
Urban Observatory found that of the five major cities (Soldotna, Kenai, Seldovia,
Homer, and Seward) in the borough, city of Soldotna households had a mean
income of $29,659 in 1975, second only to Kenai. For the larger Soldotna area
(including Sports Lake and Big Eddy Road), mean household incomes were a
somewhat higher $30,870, but were still slightly lower than those in Kenai.
Local Government Finances: In order to evaluate the fiscal condition of the
city of Soldotna, the most recent city financial statement for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1978, was reviewed, along with data on assessed valuations,
municipal debt and real property, and sales tax rates published by the State
Assessor's Office.
A review of the full value of property, as determined by the State Assessor
(Alaska Taxable), within Soldotna's corporate limits from 1969 through 1978
was undertaken (table III.C.2.d.-2). According to the State Assessor's records,
the full value of property in Soldotna increased by about 414 percent during
this period, with most of the increase occurring since 1976. This was a more
rapid rate of growth than was experienced in other incorporated communities in
the borough with the exception of Homer. However, the full value of property
in the borough as a whole increased at a faster rate than in Soldotna during
the same period, with the largest share of growth in valuation taking place
outside the borough's incorporated communities, primarily due to oil and
gas-related construction activity in the north Kenai area.
Total general fund revenues for Soldotna in FY 1978 amounted to $1,605,664.
Of this, almost 60 percent was derived from.property and local sales taxes.
State revenue sharing funds were also significant, accounting for about 8
percent of Soldotna's general fund revenues in FY 1978.
The city's general fund expenditures in FY 1978 amounted to $1,365,716, or
about $575 per capita. The major category of expense was the Police Depart-
ment which accounted for 20.6 percent of general fund expenditures followed by
administration (14.1%), streets and roads (10.8%), the city shop (9.5%), and
the fire department (9.2%) (table III.C.2.d.-3).
A review of Soldotna's overall financial condition indicates that the city's
financial position is basically sound but, in order to maintain this position,
Soldotna residents have had to pay relatively high property and sales taxes.
In the Kenai-Soldotna area, this is due in large part to the location of the
Nikiski industrial area in north Kenai, outside the corporate limits of these
communities although many workers live in either Kenai or Soldotna and use
municipal facilities and services.
20
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Table III.C.2.d.-2
City of Soldotna
Comparison of Full Value Dete~ination
1970 -1978
(in $000's to nearest $1,000)
Full Value Dete~ination
$13,330
$14,217
$14,761
$16,495
$18,085
$19,658
$22,841
$30,948
$43,356
$68,502
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 74, p. 228.
Table III.C.2.d.-3
General Fund
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
City of Soldotna
Revenues
Property Tax
Sales Taxes
Franchises
Year Ended June 30, 1978
Licenses and Building Permits
Airport Income
Shared Revenue -State
Anit-recessionary
Transfer from Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Business Licenses
Liquor Licenses
Telephone and Electric Cooperative
Amusement Devices
Fines
Park Fees
Charges for Services
Rental of Municipal Property
Shop Revenue and Equipment Rental
Motor Vehicle License Commission
Dispatch Revenue
Interest Earned
Sale of Municipal Property
Airport Gas Tax
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Animal Control
CETA
Transfer from Capital Projects
Miscellaneous Revenue
TOTAL REVENUES
Revenues
Actual
$ 459,801
488,415
6,409
37,451
18,867
131,472
63,129
53,250
89,580
4,875
10,799
714
9,858
5,881
12,407
18,053
73,148
23,058
20,700
19,197
5, 735
3,248
1,182
17,636
25,495
5,304
$ 1,605,664
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 76, p. 232.
According to the State Assessor's records, Soldotna's per capita valuation was
$28,965 per capita in FY 1978 (table III.C.2.d.-4). This was well below the
statewide per capita valuation of $50,398 for that year. However, the statewide
average was seriously distorted by the inclusion of the trans-Alaska pipeline
and related taxable real property and Soldotna's per capita valuation exceeded
that of most Alaska communities of a similar size.
As reported by the State Assessor, the city of Soldotna had an outstanding
general obligation bonded indebtedness of $1,579,000 as of June 1978 (table
III.C.2.d.-4). Nearly all of this debt is serviced through various special
assessment funds established for specific public improvements rather than
through general property tax revenues or general fund expenditures. The
direct per capita debt averaged $668, which was well below the statewide
municipal average ($1,421) but slightly above the average used by Moody's
Investors Services. Not included in Soldotna's direct debt, however, is its
share of the Kenai Peninsula Borough's general bonded indebtedness. Using a
prorated share of the Kenai Peninsula Borough's general bonded debt based on
the city of Soldotna's accounting for 4.4 percent of the borough's 1978 full
value determination, a $2,135,398 indirect debt has been added to the city's
general bonded debt to arrive at a total debt of $3,714,398. This total debt
figure translates into a much larger per capita debt of $1,571 which is above
the 1978 statewide municipal average and significantly exceeds the guidelines
used by Moody's Investors Services. It also exceeds that of all other Kenai
Peninsula Borough communities except Homer. Nevertheless, Soldotna's overall
debt in terms of percentage of full value (5.4%) is within Moody's Investors
Services' recommended guidelines (5.5%).
e. Local Homer Economy:
Composition of Employment: The 1978 Special Census counted 2,054 residents in
the city of Homer. Another 3,027 persons lived at Anchor Point, Diamond
Ridge, Fritz Creek, and Kachemak, which comprise the rest of the Homer labor
area. Thus, nearly 60 percent of the residents of the Homer labor area appear
to live in the surrounding area outside the city of Homer proper. Still,
Homer itself is the focus of most employment in this area and, therefore, it
is assumed that labor area data area fairly representative of Homer's own
employment structure.
A field survey found that the fishing industry was the largest single employer
here in 1979 (Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980). Commercial fishing accounted
for about 400 direct jobs or about one-quarter of the total of 1,621 jobs
tallied. Since the Homer-based fishery is essentially an export industry
sending its products outside the region, nearly all fishermen can be considered
basic workers, making the fishing industry the source of nearly half of all
basic employment.
This survey's count of the number of fishermen in the Homer area was checked
against permit application data compiled by the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission. In 1975, Commission records show that 196 permit applicants had a
Homer mailing address and another 95 had an Anchor Point address. If allowance
is made for a likely excess in the actual number of fishermen over the number
of gear permits issued, this measure of fishing employment is broadly consis-
tent with the results of the 1979 field survey.
21
Table III.C.2.d.-4
Indicators of Financial Condition
City of Soldotna, Alaska
FY 1978
Population!/
Full Value Determination
Full Value Per Capita
General Obligation Debt
Total Debt~/
Per Capita Debt
General Obligation
Total
Debt as Percent of Full Value
General Obligation
Total
Guidelines for Per Capita Debt
Direct
Overall
Percent of Full Valu~/
2,365
$
$
$68,502,128.00
$ 28,965.00
$ 1,579,000.00
$ 3,714,398.00
$
$
668.00
1 ,571. 00
618.48
733.93
2.31\
5.42\
5.50\
!/ Soldotna's July 1977. population as accepted by the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs for State Revenue Sharing Purposes.
~/ Total debt equals Soldotna's G.O. bonded debt plus a prorated share ($2,135,398)
of the Kenai Peninsula Borough's G.O. bonded debt based on the city of Soldotna's
accounting for 4.4 percent of the borough's 1978 full value determination.
~/ Median value for selected places of under 10,000 population used by Moody's
Investors Services, Inc.
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 77, p. 234.
Department of Labor employment data indicate that, omitting direct employment
in the fishing industry, the Homer area is heavily dependent upon the trade
and service sectors for employment. In 1977, the most recent year for which
complete data are available, trade (21.9\) and services (14.4\) together
accounted for 267 jobs or better than one-third of insured employment. In
part, this reflects the strong contribution of the tourism and recreation
industry to Homer's economy. For example, the Alaska Consultants, Inc. survey
found that between a quarter and a third of trade and service jobs were basic,
catering to tourists and other visitors rather than to strictly local markets.
The industrial sector of transportation, communications, and public utilities
were reportedly the largest single category of insured employment (table
III.C.2.e.-1), with 162 workers or 22.0 percent of the total. The public
sector employed about 14.1 percent of the workforce, while the construction
industry, a major employer in the Kenai area of the borough, engaged a rela-
tively small share (9.9\) of Homer's workforce. Because of disclosure restric-
tions, an exact tabulation of manufacturing employment is not available, but
it is estimated at about 10 percent of total employment, most of it in the
fish and shellfish processing industry. These manufacturing jobs and other
secondary employment engendered by the fishing industry should be considered
in weighing the full economic importance of the fisheries industry to Homer.
The trend for Homer's economy in the current decade has been expansionist.
Employment has grown from 417 in 1970 to 735 as of 1977, an increase of 76
percent. The most dynamic elements of the economy have been those sectors
oriented to the visitor industries. Thus, between 1970 and 1977, employment
in trade tripled and service employment increased by 140 percent, in each case
a rate of growth well above the overall rate for Homer's economy.
However, local impressions and interviews indicate that the summer of 1979 is
expected to bring a temporary reversal in this growth trend. The vitality of
Homer's visitor industry is closely tied to the growth and prosperity of the
Anchorage area it largely serves and the current post-pipeline economic de-
celeration in the Anchorage area will likely be reflected in this sector of
Homer's economy.
On the other hand, the fishing and fish processing industry appears to have
consolidated and stabilized its role in Homer's economy. This has come about
through improvements in the management regime for fisheries, added investment
in the fish processing industry and the Homer-based fishing fleet, and better
fleet services. It appears likely that continuing efforts to improve port
facilities and to develop and explore the groundfish resources of the region
will further enhance the economic development of Homer's fisheries industry.
Income Levels: The most pertinent data for estimating incomes at Homer is the
income data previously cited for the Kenai-Cook Inlet region as a whole.
According to the Alaska Department of Labor, the average wage in the Kenai-Cook
Inlet region in 1977 was $23,386, nearly 10 percent above the statewide average.
Other things being equal, Homer wage earners would, by inference, also have
above average earnings. While there is no specific income data to support a
different conclusion, there are circumstantial factors which suggest that
Homer incomes may be somewhat below regional averages. This hypothesis is
based on the composition of employment at Homer. There are relatively few
jobs in construction and mining, the two best paying sectors (table III.C.2.e.-2).
22
Table III.C.2.e.-1
Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Emplyyment Distribution
Homer Labor Area -
Agriculture, Forestry,
and Fisheries
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation,
Communications and
Public Utilities
Trade
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
Service
Miscellaneous
Government
Federal
State & Local
TOTAL
1970-1977
1970
Number %
?:_I
?:_I
?:_I
?:_I
98
40
17
44
0
45
(2/)
(~/)
417
22.8
9.6
4.1
10.6
10.8
100.0
1970-1977
% Change
74.2
300.0
105.8
140.9
131.1
76.3
11 Includes Anchor Point, Diamond Ridge, Fritz Creek, and Kachemak.
~I Employment figures withheld to comply with disclosure regulations.
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 81, p. 246.
Average
Table III.C.2.e.-2 l/
Annual Full-Time ~}oyment -
Homer Labor Area -
1979
Industry Basic Secondary
Classification Number Percent % Basic NUilber Number
Agriculture, Forestry, 400~/ and Fishing 24.7 98 392 8
Mining o~l 0.0 0 0
Contract
Construction 49 3.0 12 6 43
Manufacturing 151 9.3 95 143 8
Transportation,
Communication, &
Public Utilities 139 8.6 46 64 75
Trade 311 19.2 37 115 196
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate 77 4.7 31 24 53
Service 198 12.2 24 53 145
Government 296 18.3 42 125 171
Federal ( 78) ( 4.8) (80) ( 62) ( 16)
State ( 71) ( 4.4) (48) ( 34) ( 37)
Local (147) ( 9.1) (20) ( 29) (118)
TOTAL 1,621 100.0 57 922 699
1/ Includes self-employed and military personnel.
~/ The Homer labor area is defined as the Homer Precinct, Anchor Point, Fritz
Creek, Diamond Ridge, and Kachemak.
3/ Number of fishermen employed on an average annual year-round basis estimated
by-using yearly registration ~ata, length of fishing season, and normal "crew"
sizes for various types of fishing vessels.
~/ Minor employment in sand and gravel considered with contract construction
and transportation.
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 7, p. 31.
On the other hand, a disproportionate share of Homer's employment is concen-
trated in trade and services and fish processing, each of which tends to pay
low average wages on a seasonal basis.
Data on income assistance program disbursements reveal that the financial
assistance distributed through such programs in Homer is not large.
Local Government Finances: In order to evaluate the fiscal condition of the
city of Homer, the most recent city financial statement for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1978, was reviewed, along with data on assessed valuations,
municipal debt and real property and sales tax rates published by the State
Assessor's Office.
' As of 1978, Homer's assessed valuation per capital stood at $32,553 (table
III.C.2.e.-3). This was well below the statewide per capita valuation of
$50,398 for that year. However, the statewide average is seriously distorted
by the inclusion of the trans-Alaska pipeline and related taxable real property.
If the pipeline-related property tax base is omitted, then the resulting
average statewide per capita figure would approximate Homer's per capita
valuation.
An examination of the trend in Homer's equalized assessed valuation over the
past decade shows that the assessed value of Homer's real property tax base
has risen from $10,913,000 in 1960 to $66,896,000 by 1978, an increase of 513
percent. The great bulk of this increase accrued in the last 3 years, coinci-
dent with the spurt of economic and population growth which Homer experienced
during this period. Those years were also a time of rapid inflation in property
values (table III.C.2.e.-4).
The city of Homer's debt situation as of June 30, 1978 included $2,348,000 in
outstanding general obligation bonds for water and sewer improvements and for
the recently built public safety building and $1,168,000 in revenue bonds for
water utility improvements and port facilities. (Table III.C.2.e.-5 does not
reflect the full amount of the city's bonded debt because the 1970 sewer
general obligation bonds are recorded in the Sewer Utility Fund and are being
repaid from sewer special assessments.) This debt does not consider the
burden on Homer's taxpayers of their share of the Kenai Peninsula Borough's
general obligation indebtedness. If a portion of the borough's debt is appor-
tioned to the city of Homer based on its prorated share of the borough's
assessed valuation, then another $2,086,866 in debt can be tallied against the
city of Homer's property tax base.
Compared to other small cities across the nation, Homer's ratio of direct
general obligation bonded debt to its assessed valuation is 3.52 percent which
compares favorably with the median value of 5.5 percent reported by Moody's
Investors Service, Inc. for selected cities under 10,000 population. However,
if Homer's share of the borough's debt is included, the city has a less favor-
able 6.64 percent ratio of bonded debt to local assessed valuation. Neverthe-
less, the city's overall financial position has improved measureably in the
last couple of years due to increases in assessed valuations and to retirement
of a portion of the city's outstanding bonds.
The greater part of the city of Homer's direct debt was incurred for bonds for
water utility improvements and the public safety building. These bonds are
being retired by means of a city sales tax levied and pledged for those projects.
23
Table III.C.2.e.-3
Indicators of Financial Condition
City of Homer, Alaska
Population
Full Value Determination
Full Value Per Capita
General Obligation Debt
. 2/ Total Debt-
Per Capita Debt
General Obligation
Total
FY 1978
Debt as Percent of Full Value
General Obligation
Total
Guidelines for Per Capita Debt
Direct
Overall
Percent of Full Valu~/
2,055.!/
$66,896,480.00
$ 32,553.00
$ 2,357,812.00
$ 4,444,678.00
$
$
$
$
1,147.00
2,163.00
3.52~
6.64~
618.48
733.93
5.50~
!/ Homer's July 1977 population as accepted by the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs for State Revenue Sharing Purposes.
2/ Total debt equals Homer's G.O. bonded debt plus a pro-rated share ($2,086,866)
of-the Kenai Peninsula Borough's G.O. bonded debt based on the city of Homer's
accounting for 4.3 percent of the borough's 1978 full value determination.
~/ Median value for selected places of under 10,000 population used by Moody's
Investors Services, Inc.
Sources: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 98, p. 311.
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Table III.C.2.e.-4
City of Homer
Comparison of Full Value Determination
1969 -1978
(in $000's to nearest $1,000)
Full Value Determination
$10,913
$11,450
$12,969
$12,552
$17,616
$22,789
$25,406
$32,129
$42,918
$66,896
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 99, p. 312.
Table III.C.2.e.-5
City of Homer
General Bonded Debt
Schedule of Debt Service Requirements to Maturity
JUNE 30, 1978
Total
Fiscal Year Principal Interest Annual Reguirement
1979 $ 54,000 $ 90,124 $ 144,124
1980 60,000 86,488 146,488
1985 84,000 68,156 152,156
1990 43,000 52,701 95,701
1995 52,000 52,570 94,570
2000 30,000 33,750 63,750
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 100, p. 313.
City general fund expenditures in 1978 totalled $1,048,415. The most heavily
supported local government functions were police protection ($263,997), general
government administration $168,630) and public works administration ($167,687)
(table III.C.2.e.-6). These three functions absorbed well over half of the
city's general fund budget. Not included in this account of general fund
expenditures were a variety of other enterprise fund and debt service funds
whose outlays were financed by special assessments, user charges, and other
non-general fund sources.
The primary source of general fund revenues was property tax levies which
yielded $500,758 or 55.1 percent of all general fund revenues. Intergovern-
mental revenues from the State and federal governments contributed another
36.2 percent, while miscellaneous fees, etc., provided the remainder.
The property tax rate for Homer in 1978 was 12 mils, a rate the city has
maintained since 1972 except for 1975 when it rose to 14 mils (see table
III.C.2.e.-7). This property tax rate is slightly lower than the average for
the four other major settlements in the borough where 1978 rates ranged from a
low of 11.0 mils at Soldotna to a high of 16.5 mils at Seldovia. Above the
local city property tax, Homer real property owners are also assessed an
additional 6.5 mils by the Kenai Peninsula Borough for purposes of school
support (4.035 mils), hospitals (2.0 mils), and borough administration (0.465
mils).
Homer residents also pay a 5-percent sales tax composed of a 3-percent city
sales tax earaarked for debt service and a 2-percent borough sales tax al-
lotted to finance the school system.
Overall, the city of Homer appears to be in generally sound fiscal health,
especially with the improvement shown in its debt situation in the last few
years. Assessed valuations are about average for Alaska municipalities and
property tax and sales tax rates are comparable to other cities in the region,
although they are above State averages.
24
Table III.C.2.e.-6
General Fund
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
City of Homer
Year Ended June 30, 1978
Revenues
General Property Taxes
Less: Uncollectable Taxes
Total Taxes
Penalties and Interest on Taxes
State of Alaska:
Shared Revenue:
Public Utilities
Business License
Alcohol Beverage Licenses
Gaming Devices
Fish Tax
Shared Revenue
Other Appropriations:
Roads and Trails
Street Signs
Other
Grants and Interfund Transfers:
CETA Program Grant
Interfund Transfers:
Anti-recession Funds
Federal Shared Revenue
Public Works Services
Other Revenue:
Public Safety Building Use/Services:
Rent Revenue
Dispatcher Services
Other Services
Municipal Fees:
Permits and Licenses
Fines and Forfeitures
Animal Licenses
Revenues
Actual
$ 507,516
(11 ,389)
496,127
4,631
500,758
14,459
62,044
12,600
706
6,475
74,775
10,889
4,445
4,117
190,510
113,013
7,992
17,546
138,551
2,210
19,250
4,200
1,808
9,730
2,475
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 101, p. 316.
City of Homer
Borough -
Administration
Borough -
Schools
Borough -
Hospitals (South)
TOTAL
City of Homer
Borough -
Schools
TOTAL
Table III.C.2.e.-7
City of Homer
Property and Sales Tax Rates
1972 -1978
Property Tax (mills)
1972 1978
12.00 12.000
0.465
5.00 4.035
2.000
17.00 18.500
Sales Tax (Eercent)
1972 1978
3.00
3.00 2.00
3.00 5.00
Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980. Table 102, p. 318.
APPENDIX R
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
LAND STATUS AND LAND USE
5. Land Status and Land Use:
a. Land Status: Land ownership patterns in the uplands and
coastal areas near the proposed sale area are complex and changing. More than
90 percent of the land is in public ownership. The public ownership pattern
is being determined by two major issues: Federal emergency actions under the
Antiquities Act (16 USC 431; 43 FR 57009) and the Federal Land Management and
Policy Act (FLMPA) of 1976 (43 USC 1714(e); PLO 5643, 5644; 43 FR 59756), and
proposed Federal legislation variously referred to as "D-2," "National Interest
Lands," or "Alaska Lands" legislation. Additionally, the prerogatives of the
State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act (PL 85-508), the indigenous
peoples of Alaska under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA; 43 USC
1601); and local governments of Alaska under State Enabling Acts (AS 29.18; AS
38.04; Ch. 180-182, SLA 1978; Ch. 85 SLA 1979), complicate any mapped configura-
tion of land ownership.
The following description of current land status references other detailed
sources of land status information which are not presented in depth here
(Environmental Consultants, 1979; DOI, BLM, 1979; DOI, 1979; Alaska DNR, 1979;
U.S. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 1976). The land status
description does not include the Shelikof Strait portion of the proposed sale
area; this was presented in the DEIS on the now cancelled OCS sale 46-Western
Gulf of Alaska (DOI, BLM, 1979). Graphic 16 depicts current land status with
the degree of resolution possible at a scale of 1:3,000,000.
Federal Lands: Existing major Federal land holdings include the Kenai National
Moose Range and the Chugach National Forest on the Kenai Peninsula. The Kenai
National Moose Range (1,330,000 acres), and the Chugach National Forest
(1,006,000 acres within the borough) occupy most of the Kenai Peninsula north-
west and west of the Kenai Mountains.
On the west side of Cook Inlet, lies the Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) which is located on Chisik Island. This refuge functions to protect
colonial nesting birds. On the Aleutian Range south of Kamishak Bay, lies the
Katmai National Monument, which is administered by the U.S. National Park
Service (NPS). The existing portions of the monument include the coastline of
the Shelikof Strait extending from Cape Douglas to Kashvik Bay.
Under authority of the Antiquities Act and FLMPA, the U.S. Administration
created new land management designations for several major locations, either
west of Cook Inlet, west of Shelikof Strait, or situated on the Kenai Peninsula.
These lands were already in the public domain. Following is a listing of the
new management units:
Monument Actions (16 USC 1431; 43 FR 57009)
Additions to the Katmai Monument: The monument is located on the interior of
the Alaska Peninsula between Lake Iliamna and Lake Becharof. The monument is
intended for national park and national wilderness designation, pending D-2
legislation.
Creation of a Becharof National Monument: This monument includes portions of
the coastline of the Alaska Peninsula from Kashvik Bay in Shelikof Strait to
Cape Igyak south of the strait. The monument is intended for a National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) designation, pending D-2 legislation.
I
Creation of a Lake Clark National Monument: The monument includes roughly 100
miles of the Chignik Mountains, west of Cook Inlet. Coastal portions of the
monument extend from north of the Tuxedni Bay to south of Chinitna Bay. The
monument is intended for national park designation, pending D-2 legislation.
Creation of a Kenai Fjords National Monument Along the Gulf of Alaska Side of
the Kenai Peninsula: The monument comprises portions of the Kenai Mountains
and extends to the coastline from Nuka Pass at its south, up to Resurrection
Bay at the north. The monument is intended for national park designation,
pending D-2 legislation.
FLPHA Withdrawals (43 USC 1714 (e); PLO 5653, 5654; 43 FR 58756)
Withdrawal of Lands in the Kenai Mountains and the Head of Kachemak Bay: This
withdrawal is intended for NWR designation, pending D-2 legislation. Sub-
sequent to the FLHPA section 204(e) withdrawal, the DOl created an NWR for
this area under authority of FLHPA section 204(c) (43 USC 1714(c); PLO 5698;
45 FR 9578). This FLHPA withdrawal has a 30-year duration, but is likely to
be changed under pending D-2 legislation. The Wildlife Refuge status in the
area conflicts with some Native corporation and State land selections.
Withdrawal of Lands Surrounding Lake Iliamna in the Interior of the Aleutian
Range: The withdrawal also includes the coastline of lower Cook Inlet from
Iliamna Bay to Chinuna Bay. This area is also referred to as the Iniskin
Peninsula. The withdrawal is intended for NWR designation, pending D-2 legis-
lation (FWS, 1980). However, the lniskin Peninsula portion of the withdrawal
may be excluded from future NWR designation under pending D-2 legislation; the
peninsula area has been the subject of Native corporation land selections
under the terms of the Cook Inlet Exchange, and the peninsular ecosystem is
different from that predominating in the FLHPA withdrawal.
Withdrawal of Unappropriated Islands, Rocks, Headlands, Spires, and Shoals
Which are Significant for Marine Mammals and Migratory Water Fowl: The FLHPA
withdrawal includes locations in Cook Inlet, Kamishak Bay, Shelikof Strait,
and the Gulf of Alaska side of the Kenai Peninsula. The DOl more recently
created a 30-year NWR for the withdrawn marine resources area under authority
of FLHPA section 204(c)(43 USC 1714 (c); PLO 5710; 45 FR 9704). The with-
drawal intended for an NWR designation under D-2 legislation.
State Lands
The State of Alaska has several major land holdings near the proposed sale
area. It is additionally requesting lands due to it under provisions of the
Statehood Act and the Cook Inlet Land Exchange. Refer to graphic 16 for
identification of the State selected lands.
The Beluga River Drainage-Tyonek Area with 830,000 Acres: This area is rich
in coal deposits, potential oil and gas reserves, and has timber-range land
potential.
Kamishak Bay Area with 256,000 Acres: The State should receive additional
acreage from the U.S. under terms of the Cook Inlet Land Exchange in this
area. The Kamishak Bay area State land holdings include the McNeil River
State Game Sanctuary.
2
Kenai Peninsula Lowlands with 541,000 Acres: This area includes most of the
Kenai Peninsula to the west of the Kenai Moose Range boundary. The State
ownership near the Sterling Highway corridor is limited, however.
Kenai Peninsula East of the Kachemak Bay with Some 320,000 Acres: The State
land holdings are in State game, park, and critical habitat management units.
Kenai Peninsula-Diverse State Parks, Campgrounds, and Waysides with Some
33,000 Acres: These land management units are in several locations on the
peninsula. Refer to section III.C.4. of this EIS regarding recreation, and
graphic 15 which depicts recreational facilities and use areas on the Kenai
Peninsula.
Much of the State lands within the Kenai Peninsula Borough boundaries, with
the exception of the Tyonek-Beluga mineral lands, have been obtained to pro-
tect important fisheries, waterfowl, and big game habitat. Table III.C.5.a-1
lists the major State sanctuaries, refuges, and critical habitats in the Kenai
Peninsula area. All of these areas include coastal lands and some of the
habitat areas include tidelands or submerged lands. These areas are adminis-
tered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), but management guidelines
and development approval are provided by the Department of Fish and Game.
The State-owned lands in the Kenai Peninsula lowlands area have been the
subject of study and planning by the Alaska DNR (Alaska DNR, 1979). In 1979,
the State identified which of the vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved State
lands should be retained in State ownership as "public interest" lands. The
State identified these lands in response to competing claims on the Kenai
Peninsula by the Cook Inlet Regional Corporation (CIRI), the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, and individual cities.
The State selected approximately 100,000 acres of land from its unappropriated
holdings of 416,000 acres. The public interest selections considered various
resource management values; agriculture, recreation, scenic values, fish and
wildlife habitat, extractive materials, forestry, and watershed. Figure
III.C.5.a.-1 shows the location of the public interest lands to be retained in
State ownership. The Alaska DNR is presently classifying these lands for
appropriate uses and management.
Borough, City, and Private Lands: Nearly all of the current borough, city,
and private lands (except Native corporation lands) in lower Cook Inlet near
the proposed sale area are located on the Kenai Peninsula lowlands. The
majority of these lands are located along the Sterling State Highway corridor
from Homer to Soldotna, on the Kenai Spur Road from Kenai northward, and along
the northern shores of Kachemak Bay. Most borough, city, and private lands
are in close proximity (less than 10 mi) to the coastal waters of either Cook
Inlet, Kachemak Bay, or Resurrection Bay. The borough, city, and private land
holdings are in parcel sizes of one section (1 sq mi) or less in the Public
Land Survey system. As such, detailed mapping of the configuration of borough,
city, and privately held lands on graphic 16 is not possible.
Native Corporation Lands: Under provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settle-
ment Act (ANCSA, 43 USC 1601, as amended), the indigenous Natives of Alaska
are entitled to real property allotments among other provisions as a settlement
for all aboriginal claims against the United States. The Act required Natives
3
Table III.C.5.a.-1
State Sanctuaries, Refuges, and Critical Habitats
in the Lower Cook Inlet Area
Location and Name
Existing
McNeil River State Game
Sanctuary
Trading Bay State Game
Refuge
Clam Gulch Critical Habitat
Fox River Flats Critical
Habitat Area
Kachemak Bay Critical
Habitat Area
Kalgin Island Critical
Habitat Area
Proposed
Redoubt Bay State Refuge
Kamishak-Chinitna Bay
Critical Habitat Area
Approximate
Acreage
95,760
168,993
30,080
6, 720
215,000
2,880
205,208
Established to Protect
and Perpetuate:
Brown bear and other
big game
Waterfowl and big game
habitat and hunting
Razor clam habitat area
Waterfowl habitat
Productive habitat for
fisheries stocks, and
spawning, rearing, and
breeding for shellfish,
crab, shrimp, and fish
Unique tidal marsh used
by migrating waterfowl
Waterfowl and big game
habitat
Spawning, feeding,
rearing, and breeding
habitats for salmon and
shellfish
FIGURE Ill. C. 5. a-1
STATE PUBLIC INTEREST LANO
KENAI PENINSULA LOWLANDS
• AREAS LARGER THAN 320 ACRES
A AREAS SMALLER THAN 320 ACRES
0 J 10 15 Miles
0
v
Source: State of Alaska,Department of Natural Resources, 1979
/
/
/
./
\
\
/
\
/
/
\
./'
to create village and regional for-profit corporations in order to receive
their land entitlements. In the proposed lease sale region, there are three
regional Native corporations: the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), Koniag, and
Chugach Natives, Inc. Refer to graphic 16 for delineation of ANCSA regional
corporation boundaries.
ANCSA village corporations in the vicinity of the proposed lease sale include
Ninilchik, Seldovia, Salamatof, Point Possession, English Bay, and Port Grahaa.
Salamatof and Point Possession have yet to be certified as eligible villages
under the enrollment procedures of ANCSA. The Native village of Tyonek is
located on the west side of Cook Inlet in the Beluga area. Several Native
village corporations are located on the Kodiak Archipelago, with some present
in the Shelikof Strait. Refer to the DEIS on the now cancelled sale 46 for
discussion of land status affected by the Shelikof Strait portion of proposed
sale 60.
Graphic 16 depicts Native corporation lands as either selected, interim con-
veyed, or conflicting selections with the State of Alaska and/or its political
subdivisions. Table III.C.5.a.-2 summarizes the land status in acreage amounts
for the above-mentioned villages. The current land status of village corpora-
tions belonging to CIRI, as well as CIRI itself, is rather complicated. The
villages and regional corporations were unable to procedurally satisfy their
land entitlement options under terms of ANCSA because much of the land in the
region was unavailable, already conveyed, or tentatively approved for con-
veyance to the State and its political subdivisions.
The Cook Inlet Land Exchange was authorized as an amendment to ANCSA which
would make available satisfactory land allotments to village corporations and
CIRI within the boundaries of CIRI itself (PL 94-456; U.S. House Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, 1976). Under terms of the exchange, the State
has conveyed approximately 450,000 acres of land within the CIRI boundaries to
the regional corporation. The lands conveyed come under selection "pools"
located on the Kenai Peninsula lowlands (Kenai Pool), the Beluga area townships
(Beluga Pool), and the Knik-Willow area (Knik Pool).
Under the exchange, 138,000 additional acres are authorized for CIRI selection
from State lands. Some of these selections will occur in the CIRI boundaries,
and other selections will be located in other parts of the State. In return
for the State lands made available to the CIRI through the exchange, the State
will receive from the U.S. equal acreages of land located in other regions of
the State.
Village corporations affected by the Cook Inlet Land Exchange, and located in
the coastal zone Cook Inlet area, will be entitled to roughly 262,000 acres of
land. The village corporation involved includes Alexander Creek, Chickaloon,
Knik, Ninilchik, Seldovia, Tyonek, and Salamatof. In the event that Sala.atof
and Alexander Creek are determined to be eligible under ANCSA provisions, they
will participate in this entitlement.
Apart from the Cook Inlet land exchange, a major area of Native land selec-
tions outstanding is the Tuxedni-Iniskin area. CIRI has selected approxi-
mately 262,000 acres of land which would be reconveyed to village corporations
to satisfy their entitlements under ANCSA.
4
Village
Table III.C.S.a.-2
Native Village Corporation Land Status in
Vicinity of Cook Inlet Area
(Acres)
Land 3
Entitlement
Land
Selection 4
Outstanding
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI)
Ninilchik
Seldovia
Tyonek
Salamatof2
Pt. Possession2
Chugach Natives, Inc.
English Bay
Port Graham
NA -Not available
115,200
115,200
115,200
92,160
69,120
74,369
106,205
78,681
84,297
76,213
NA
NA
85,267
177,350
Interim
Conveyance
66,737
55,220
64,541
0
0
44,702
65,832
1 Villages included in this table do not represent all Native village corporations within
the boundaries of Cook Inlet Region, Inc., and Chugach Natives, Inc. Instead, the villages
included represented those which are situated on or near the coastline of Cook Inlet and
which are in the vicinity of the proposed lease sale area discussed in the DEIS on the now
cancelled OCS sale 46 (DOl, BLH, 1979).
2 The eligibility of the villages of Salamatof and Pt. Possession has yet to be determined
under ANCSA provisions. The village of Pt. Possession has been determined to be ineligible
but it is challenging this determination.
3 Land entitlement represents the amount of acreage entitled to the villages under ANCSA
provisions.
4 Land selection outstanding represents the amount of acreage which the villages have
selected, but which has yet to be disposed. Villages typically "overselect" the amount of
acreage entitled to them. Hence, the sum of "Selections Outstanding," "Interim Conveyance,"
and "Patented Lands," will not equal "Land Entitlements."
Patented
Lands
3,837
745
10
0
0
0
12
b. Existin! Land Use: Developed land use in the Cook Inlet
portion of the proposed sa e area is located primarily on the lowlands of the
Kenai Peninsula. Graphic 16 shows incorporated and unincorporated Kenai
Peninsula communities and established settlements. Urban land use, i.e.,
residential, commercial, and industrial uses, are restricted to the communi-
ties identified as shown on graphic 16. Some limited agricultural land use
occurs on large parcels on the Kenai lowlands near the Sterling Highway corridor.
Oil and gas development occurs on the Kenai Peninsula and in the territorial
waters of upper Cook Inlet. The Swanson River oilfield is located within the
Kenai National Moose Range boundaries northeast of Kenai. Offshore producing
oilfields also exist in the territorial waters of Cook Inlet at the Middle
Ground Shoal area and offshore between west Foreland and Granite Point.
Producing gas fields are present in upper Cook Inlet and in specific points
along the Kenai Peninsula: Kenai, Beaver Creek Inlet, False Creek, and Anchor
Point. Industrial facilities serving the known Cook Inlet hydrocarbon fields
are located in the coastal area of Nikiski and north Kenai. Refer to figure
III.C.5.b.-l for a depiction of these facilities and the adjacent land uses.
On the west side of Cook Inlet, developed land uses are restricted to oil and
gas onshore facilities at Drift River and Trading Bay and a Native village
located at Tyonek. Other Native villages exist at the head of the inlet in
the Knik Arm area; however, this area is beyond an area of consideration for
the proposed lease sale. The Tyonek-Beluga townships area is proposed for
extensive coal development although no extraction is occurring there presently
(Placer Amex, Inc., 1977; DOE, 1979). Refer to section IV.A.2.h. of this EIS
regarding other major development actions.
The developed land uses in the Shelikof Strait portion of the proposed sale
area are restricted to Native village settlements and fishing camps. Graphic 16
depicts the location of these villages. Refer to sections III.C.l.b. and
III.C.l.d. regarding local infrastructure and subsistence for further discus-
sion of these villages and settlements.
Aside from settlements in the coastal zone of the proposed sale area, land
uses are restricted to resource conservation and recreational utilization
generally. Much of the coastal and uplands terrain surrounding Cook Inlet is
in Federally managed National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, and National
Resource areas. Refer to III.C.5.a. regarding land status. Graphic 16 depicts
these management units for their coastal boundaries. Refer also to graphic 15
and section III.C.4. on recreation, visual, and wilderness resources regarding
these management units.
The management status and land use activities allowed on these Federal units
is summarized below with the exception of that portion of the Katmai National
Monument which existed before the 1978 enlargement, and the Kenai National
Moose Range. These management units have authorized master plans which are
discussed below in III.C.5.c.
Enlargement of the Katmai National Monument: The addition to the national
monument created by executive proclamation of 1978 has been the subject of
emergency regulations of the National Park Service (NPS) (36 CFR 1.2(g), 7.87;
43 FR 60254). The NPS has proposed general management regulations for the
monument additions (36 CFR Part 13 (new); 44 FR 37732). However, permanent
5
0
0
0
"'
FIGURE Ill. C.5. b -1
STANDARD REFINERY
AND CHUGACH PLANT
EXISTING LAND USE AND
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR NORTH KENAI -NIKISKI AREA
LEGEND
·INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT
HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL &
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
• PRIVATE RESIDENCE
SCALE ( APPROX.) 1" = 1800'
Source: Alaska State Housing Authority 1970; Dames & Moore, 1979
regulations have yet to be adopted. The monument enlargement, as well as the
existing monument, are proposed as a national park under pending D-2 legisla-
tion.
Lake Clark National Monument, Kenai Fjords National Monument: These monuments
were created by executive proclamation of 1978 (43 FR 57079; 43 FR 57067).
They are presently being managed by the NPS pending D-2 legislation. The
monuments are managed under the same regulations mentioned above pertaining to
the enlargement of the Katmai National Monument. The interim emergency regula-
tions issued for the NPS-managed monuments are different from the NPS aanag~nt
objectives and requirements for parklands throughout the United States. These
regulations will allow land uses of non-motorized recreation, subsistence
hunting, fishing and trapping, sportfishing, firearms possession and use, and
limited forms of motorized access. Sport hunting, siting of permanent struc-
tures, and new mining claims are prohibited land uses of monument lands.
Existing mining claims in the newly created monuments are subject of the
Mining in the Parks Law (PL 94-429).
Becharof National Wildlife Monument: This new monument was created by presi-
dential proclamation and is presently being managed by the FWS (43 FR 57025).
Interim emergency regulations were issued by the FWS (44 FR 60257), and general
management regulations have been proposed (50 CFR Subchapter H: Parts 96-107
(new); 44 FR 37755). Land uses allowed in the Becharof National Wildlife
Monument are similar to those allowed in the Kenai National Hoose Range.
Refer to section III.C.5.c.
FLHPA Withdrawals: Kenai Fjords and Alaska Marine Resources Refuges: These
areas are managed by the FWS under existing general management regulations of
the National Wildlife Refuge System (50 CFR Subchapter C: Part 25).
The FWS intends to issue interim regulations on these lands which would gener-
ally keep them open to public access. Land uses allowed would be similar to
those allowed on the Kenai National Hoose Range. Refer to section III.5.c.
regarding the Kenai National Hoose Range.
c. Approved Land Use Kaster Plans: Because land use is
considered to be a significant issue in· this DEIS, and recognizing the CEQ
guidance on consideration of approved plans of general purpose governments (40
CFR 1502.16(c), 1506.2(d)), this section briefly summarizes the provisions of
applicable plans in the lease sale area. In all instances, these plans are
approved by the local government or Federal agency involved. Other local
communities, either on the Kodiak Archipelago, Kenai Peninsula, or the upper
Cook Inlet have adopted plans. However, these areas would not be affected by
the leasing proposal, and hence are excluded here.
Kenai Peninsula Borough-Unincorporated Central Peninsula: For the unincorpor-
ated areas of the borough, the borough uses as planning guidance "Comprehensive
Planning Program Recommendations" (Alaska State Housing Authority, 1970), and
"Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives" (Kenai Peninsula Borough, 1973).
The area studied in the Comprehensive Planning Program extended froa Kasilof-
Clam Gulch on the south to Nikiski-Nikishka Bay on the north.
The 1970 plan recognized the role of hydrocarbon extraction and petroleum
industry operations in preparing for future land use and development. The
6
plan stated that future petroleum industry operations, within the analysis
area mentioned above, should be concentrated in the north Kenai/Nikiski area.
The plan sets aside for industrial land use at least 25 square miles of lands
with 12 miles of coastal shoreline in the Nikiski area. This is the location
of the existing oil and gas facilities and terminals. Refer to figure
III.C.S.b.-1 for a depiction of the existing facilities in the Nikiski area.
The borough's 1970 plan also recognizes the possibility of oil and gas devel-
opment in lower Cook Inlet, but the borough chose not to plan for the onshore
manifestations:
"Over the long run, anticipation of future [hydrocarbon] production
assumptions adopted in this plan are that the petrochemical industry
based in the Cook Inlet basin would continue to expand its level of
operations although at a pace slower than that of the past decade ....
The next stage of petroleum development is likely to occur offshore
in the lower Cook Inlet basin, southwest of Kalgin Island .... It is
unsettled to what extent development of the lower Cook Inlet basins
will rely on support services and facilities already existing in the
[Nikiski-Kenai-Soldotna] area, and to what new support services and
facilities would be needed in the southwestern part of the peninsula
area of Homer .... When it is clear that new petroleum developments
are impending, the affected communities together with the borough
government should be prepared to guide development and its conse-
quences in an orderly manner and to the benefit to the communities
and the borough (Alaska State Housing Authority, 1970)."
The policies of the 1970 plan for the unincorporated central peninsula region
could be summarized as follows: Low density rural residential development is
desirable in locations with existing road access and development. Rural resi-
dential development is planned along the Sterling Highway from Cohoe Lake and
Kasilof up to Soldotna and along the Kenai Spur Road up to Daniels Lake,
approximately. Rural residential development would receive only limited
public services and utilities.
Urban residential development would be concentrated in the incorporated com-
munities of Soldotna and Kenai with a small urban area at Nikishka Station
Number 2.
Commercial development should be concentrated in areas of convenience to
users; random strip commercial development along the Sterling Highway network
is discouraged. Necessary highway-oriented commercial uses would be allowed.
Industrial development should be concentrated in the existing north Kenai-
Nikiski area which has clearly become the industrial center of the region (see
discussion above regarding oil and gas facilities).
Agricultural land use should be encouraged on lands with prime soils and on
lands with large parcel ownership.
Figure III.C.S.c.-1
peninsula borough.
designations in the
uses of that area.
shows the planned land use for the unincorporated central
Figure III.C.S.b.-1 overlays the borough plan land use
north Kenai-Nikiski area on the existing industrial land
7
EAST
FORE
LAND USE PLAN
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
. UNINCORPORATED CENTRAL PENINSULA
fl:i:l:l:l:l:l:l:lJ AGRICULTURAL & RECREATIONAL
EM RESIDENTIAL
~ COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
-INDUSTRIAL
---HIGHWAYS & ROADWAYS
012345
SCALE:
10 Miles
Kenai National Moose Range: The Moose Range has an established Range Master
Plan (FWS, 1970) which is currently being updated. The principal land use of
the Moose Range is to protect the moose and other wildlife habitat. Other
land uses which are not detrimental to this primary land use objective of the
range are allowed; recreation, boating, hiking, sport fishing, and motorized
access are permitted in designated areas of the range. Oil and gas operations
are also permitted on the refuge under regulated conditions. The Swanson
River oilfield and the Beaver Creek unit gasfield are presently producing
hydrocarbons and are located within the boundaries of the Moose Range. New
trapping cabins and other permanent residential structures are not permitted
land uses on the Moose Range.
The FWS is sponsoring a study of petroleum development operations on Federal
natural resources lands (FWS, 1979) with particular attention to oil and gas
operations on the Moose Range. The results of this study are expected to be
incorporated into the new Refuge Master Plan when it is completed and adopted.
City of Kenai: The city of Kenai has recently adopted a comprehensive plan
which has been approved by the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly (R.W. Thorpe
and Associates, 1980). The comprehensive plan does not specifically consider
energy development facilities or the possibility of a gas transmission line
traversing the city limits. The plan, however, is predicated upon an economic
and demographic projection which incorporates "moderate" discoveries of hydro-
carbons from OCS leasing in Cook Inlet.
The plan provides for three residential land use districts, a public and
quasi-public district, a parks, recreation, and conservation district, two
commercial districts, and two industrial districts. Figure III.C.5.c.-2
schematically displays the plan. The plan diagram shows major portions of the
undeveloped area being in the "Conservation," "Low Density Residential," and
"Medium Density Residential," districts.
Planned industrial land use for the city of Kenai is located principally off
the Beaver Loop Road on the Kenai River. This area consists of sport and
fishing industry activities as well as some oil industry buildings. Future
light industrial land use will be accommodated by an Office/Manufacturing Park
District, which is situated east of the city airport, and at the city's bound-
aries of the North Kenai Road.
The Kenai Comprehensive Plan gives special attention to a Conservation District.
A conservancy zone has been applied to much of the publicly owned lands (7,950
acres). A conservancy overlay with building performance standards has been
applied to private lands (2,050 acres). The purposes of the conservancy
designation, according to the city's plan, are: 1) to recognize building con-
straints caused by wetland areas and soil limitations, 2) to recognize the
importance of wetland areas in terms of aquifer recharge to the water supply
of the city of Kenai and local industries, 3) to recognize the importance of
the Kenai River and its ecology as an economic asset to the viability of the
fishing industry, and 4) to encourage development in areas where there are few
building constraints in order to accommodate the projected growth of the
community as expressed in its economic projections.
The plan sets forth a schedule of permitted, conditionally permitted, and not
permitted uses in the conservation district. "Mining," "Transportation," and
8
FIGURE Ill . C. 5. c-2
....
PLANS & PROPOSAL AFFECTING
KENAI LOWLANDS & RIVER FLATS
!··. ,:,·.: .•... "
l!!lll!lb
c-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.J
____ ,_
LEGEND :
Wetlands Protection Zone (COE )
Navigable Water Body Regulation (COE )
Conservation District ( City of Kenai )
AMSA Conservation Zone ( FWS )
Heavy Industrial District (City of Kenai)
AMSA Exterior Boundary ( FWS )
Kenai City Limits
AMSA Natural Area Zone ( This zone is the balance of
the enclosed AMSA )
Scale: (A ) 1" = 3500 ft.
"Utilities," land uses which are coastal dependent would be conditionally
permitted in the Conservation District. However, the plan would not permit
industrial uses which are not oriented to the water, which are not coastal
dependent, and which pose adverse effects to wetlands in the Conservation
District. In its evaluation of wetlands land use compatibility, the plan does
not specifically consider energy or oil and gas facilities.
Corps Of Engineers-Kenai River Review: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Alaska District, has developed a program for management of navigable waters
and wetlands along the Kenai River (U.S. Department of the Army, 1978). The
management program derives from COE authority to regulate navigable waters
under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and wetlands under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended.
The program involves the navigable boundaries of the Kenai River system,
adjacent wetland areas subject of COE authority, and contiguous flood plains
which, however, are not subject of COE authority. These areas are shown for
the coastal portion of the Kenai River and lowlands in figure III.C.S.c.-2.
The COE program includes a land and water use permitting system for the navi-
gable waterways and wetlands. Allowable land and water uses within the regu-
lated areas must be compatible with policies established for management of
navigable waterways and wetlands. The policies derive from COE authorities
(33 CFR 320-329), other Federal regulations, and the findings of the Kenai
River Review.
In the Kenai River or its tributaries, proposals for groins, revetments, dams,
gravel removal, canals, navigation channels, and the discharge of dredged or
filled material would ordinarily be denied under COE authority. Proposals for
the same type of activities in wetland areas adjacent to the river may be
denied by the COE, if important wetland values and resources would be damaged
greater than the value of the benefits realized of the proposal (33 CFR 320.
4(b)(4)).
Cities of Anchor Point and Ninilchik: The Kenai Peninsula Borough prepared a
comprehensive plan for the second class cities of Anchor Point and Ninilchik
(Alaska State Housing Authority, 1970). The borough land use plans for these
communities include limited rural residential, tourist-related commercial,
small scale agricultural, timber harvesting, fishery industries, and public-
community land use districts. For the community of Anchor Point, the plan
does not contemplate any industrial development. Future growth in Anchor
Point is related to the economic development of Homer according to the plan.
Light industrial land use demand at Anchor Point could be accommodated in the
"Highway" and "Tourist Oriented Commercial" districts in the town core.
For the community of Ninilchik, the plan anticipates industrial land use needs
associated with the commercial fishing industry. However, the plan questions
the suitability of development on the spit or at the mouth of the Ninilchik
River because of natural hazards, tsunami run-up, erosion, and flood plain
problems. No other types of industrial land uses are contemplated in the land
use plan for Ninilchik.
City of Homer: The city of Homer has adopted a comprehensive plan which is a
revision of an earlier plan (City of Homer, 1978). The city's adopted plan-
ning policies regarding OCS development include the following:
9
1. A port development policy is not articulated presently. This should
ensue from studies on potential harbor demand which identify the type and
level of port activity desired by the city (see below).
2. The city should closely monitor the exploratory phase of OCS acti-
vity and be prepared to deal effectively with rapidly escalating land values
and land rents, increased traffic congestion, a demand for temporary housing,
and congestion in campgrounds.
The city's official land use plan map includes six categories. None of the
categories mentions OCS exploration and development activities as being com-
patible land uses. During the OCS exploratory phase, certain onshore facili-
ties, could, however, be inferred to be compatible with the city's plan.
These could include offices, warehouses, open storage areas, helicopter landing
sites, and water front docks for movement of goods. These OCS-related land
uses during the exploration phase would be accommodated by the city's "Commer-
cial," "Light Industrial," and "Water Dependent Industrial," land use Districts.
The city's plan includes a section entitled "OCS Development Energy Effects on
Homer." This section acknowledges the uncertainties and difficulties of plan-
ning for OCS development in advance:
"The absolute magnitude of the effects [of major intensive industrial
development] is impossible to determine until information is avail-
able on the amount of oil and gas found and on the location and type
of facilities planned by industry. Obtaining timely and accurate
information from the industries involved may be a difficult or an
impossible task, due to the competition between these corporate
entities for land, facilities, services, and other unknown corporate
factors. It is essential for the city to work with the companies to
develop a means of obtaining timely data on their plans in order to
develop city plans for increasing the benefits of any activities
generated by OCS development in lower Cook Inlet (City of Homer,
1978)."
The city has separately sponsored a Port of Homer Development Plan (TAMS
Engineers, 1980). This plan has been prepared subsequent to the adoption of
the city's comprehensive development plan. The policies in it can be consid-
ered to be a more current statement of the city's views regarding siting of
onshore OCS-related facilities; the proposed part development plan has not,
however, been officially adopted by the city of Homer. This plan would include
improvements beyond the Army Corps of Engineers' proposed expansion to the
city's small boat harbor (U.S. Department of the Army, 1979). Refer to figure
III.C.5.c.-3 for a depiction of the draft plan diagram. The plan consists of
four phases.
A first phase would improve the existing commercial fishing dock by adding a
new 230-foot dock and redeveloping the existing 160-foot dock. This phase
would more than double the berthing capacity of the existing commercial fishing
dock.
The second phase would expand the existing small boat harbor and create a
surface berm area northeast of the boat harbor basin. The boat harbor would
be expanded from 100 berths to 1,525 berths. The port development plan differs
10
PORT OF HOMER
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LEGEND :
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
RECREATIONAL
SEMI-PUBLIC
Source : Tippetts-Abbett -McCarthy -Stratton, Engineers, 1980
from the COE boat harbor plan in that the berm width northeast of the basin
would be enlarged from 225 to 585 feet. The port plan would use a level
portion of the berm as a 30.5 acre staging area, cargo storage area, cargo
marshalling area, and an auto parking area. The open end of the berm would
access the phase III and IV improvements of the proposed port plans.
Phase III improvements would include a new ocean dock constructed at a 40-foot
water depth (MMLW). A 600-foot trestle connecting the berm staging area with
the ocean berth dock would be aligned in an easterly direction. The ocean
berth dock would be 700 feet long and aligned northward, which is parallel to
the 40-foot HMLW isobath and also aligned with the tidal flux. The ocean
berth would include handling equipment for containerized as well as general
cargo. The berth will accommodate major oceangoing vessels, large fishing
vessels, the largest class OCS support boats, and rig tenders.
An optional Phase IV is planned if commercial marine traffic warrants the port
development to this phase. This phase would add an additional 700-foot ocean
berth to one end of the Phase III ocean berth dock. Also, a barge roll-on/
roll-off and berth trestle would be constructed to accommodate the largest
class of barges and oceangoing ferries of the Alaska Marine Highway system,
i.e., 400-foot plus vessel lengths.
The development plan contemplates the first three phases of the improve•ents
being constructed and completed in 4 years. The plan is predicated upon
accommodating various types of marine transportation activity and goods move-
ment needs of the city .. The plan is specifically designed for OCS support
base needs: The ocean berth dock would berth large support boats without
interferences to commercial fishing operations which would be handled at a
separate commercial fishing dock. The plan also sets aside an approximately
30-acre staging area for temporary storage and forwarding of all types of
goods. Additionally, the plan establishes a 12-acre support yard and a relo-
cation site for the existing petroleum product storage tanks.
City of Seldovia: The city of Seldovia recently revised its comprehensive
master plan (Pacific Rim Planners, 1980). This plan was sub•itted to and
adopted by the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly. Land use policies of the
plan are to strengthen the waterfront commercial area, distinguish the water-
front-related commercial land use needs from other development needs, and
siting residential and other land use development in suitable areas given the
scarcity of lands not subject to building constraints.
The economic development policies of the plan are reflected in the types of
industrial and commercial land uses allowed. The Seldovia Plan stresses
bottomfishing capability and fish processing facilities, availability of
additional sites for industrial land use, strengthening commercial activities,
and providing a marine service function for offshore development. The plan
indicates that OCS support and supply functions should not interfere with the
existing economic base and community values. The city's land use plan diagram
does not specifically identify industrial land use districts which are suitable
for OCS support/supply functions.
Katmai National Monument: Both the existing and enlarged portions of the
Katmai National Monument are the subject of an approved master plan (DOl, NPS,
1973). The plan sets forth a land use classification and a general development
11
scheme which are based on NPS policy, landscape features, and proposed resource
conservation of the area. Figure III.C.S.c.-4 reproduces the land classifica-
tion diagram for the monument master plan. The primary objective for the plan
is to "preserve the ecosystem in its natural state, and to provide the public
with a rewarding park and wilderness experience" (DOl, NPS, 1973). Refer to
section III.C.S.c. regarding NPS regulation of land uses in the enlarged
portion of the monument. The plan generally allows recreation activity which
preserves the wilderness and primitive character of the monument. Aircraft
landing, motor boating, and sportfishing are regulated, allowed seasonally,
and restricted to specific locations (30 CFR 7.46).
City of Port Lions: The city of Port Lions has adopted a comprehensive plan
in 1975 (Galliett and Silides, 1975) for the incorporated area of the city.
The plan evolved from earlier assistance in relocating the community of Afognak
which was substantially damaged in the 1964 earthquake. The plan provides for
residential, commercial, and industrial development. A schematic version of
the Port Lions comprehensive plan is shown in figure III.C.S.c.-5. There are
three subdivisions of land with vacant residential parcels available in Port
Lions; the Port Lions townsite, the Wakefield subdivision, and the Port Lions
subdivision-first addition. At the time of plan preparation, there were
approximately 95 vacant and 50 improved residential parcels. Additional resi-
dential land has been identified and reserved in the General Plan (Wakefield
Subdivision and Port Lions Subdivision-first addition.
Commercial land uses in Port Lions consist of relatively small parcels (approxi-
mately 1 acre) in the townsite and fronting on Settler Cove. The Peregrebni
Peninsula includes a large area (approximately 60 acres) on the Kizhuyak Bay
side which is designated for industrial land use. Other potential industrial
land uses could be located along Airport Road and facing Settler Cove (per-
sonal communication, 1980).
The city plan does not include any official statement of goals or development
objectives. Moreover, the plan does not indicate what types of land uses
would be allowed in the respective land use districts. It has been informally
determined that the Kizhuyak Bay side of the Peregrebni Peninsula is suitable
for OCS port activity and a support and supply base (personal communication,
1980). However, the plan neither officially provides for nor precludes this
type of industrial land use.
The city's plan has been amended a few times, and a zoning ordinance has been
adopted to fix the types of land uses allowed. The Kodiak Island Borough has
been requested by the city to update and revise its plan. The borough has
submitted an application to the Alaska Department of Community and Regional
Affairs for funding assistance for this purpose (personal communication,
1980).
12
50
KATMAI NATIONAL MONUMENT
MASTER PLAN
LAND CLASSIFICATION :
FIGURE Ill. C. S.c -4
JIIIIIIJI II CLASS II-GENERAL OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS
:::::-:::: CLASS Ill-NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AREAS
~:;~.:<~~:.~ CLASS IV-O UTSTANDING NATURAL AREAS
~ CLASS V-PRIMITIVE AREAS
A CLASS VI-HISTORICAL &
CULTURAL SITES
----
PLAN AREA BOUNDARY
AREA OF EC OLOGICAL
CONCERN
EXISTING MO NUMENT
BOUNDARY
dt(
®
0
acele in mile•
50
Source: U.S. National Park Service , 1973
FIGURE ill . C. 5. c -5
FUTURE I,..AND USE OF THE
CITY OF PORT LIONS, ALASKA
~
PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL
[:{{:}]
COMMERCIAL
t1i1lbl11M
INDUSTRIAL -
F:·:· •• : ·J
RESIDENTIAL
PEREGREBNI
POINT
LANDS
APPENDIX S
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
TRANSPORTATION
6. Transportation Systems: This section describes the transporta-
tion systems that could be affected by the proposed lease sale. The section
will be divided into three parts. The first division will deal with the land,
air, and water transport systems of potentially affected towns and cities
located on the Kodiak Archipelago. The second division will treat the trans-
port characteristics of the city of Anchorage. The third part will portray
the existing state of the transportation systems in the Cook Inlet area.
a. Kodiak Archipelago: Port Lions, a major area considered
for onshore development, lies some 26 air kilometers (17 mi) northwest of the
city of Kodiak. The town has no overland communications with any other part
of Kodiak and relies entirely on air and water transport for resupply and
passenger movement.
Land Mode: The road system of Port Lions consists of 6.75 kilometers (4.19
mi) of improved dirt road and connects the town with both Port Wakefield and
the airport.
Vehicle densities in Port Lions are extremely low. The State of Alaska has
estimated that the average annual daily traffic for this roadway is approxi-
mately 20 vehicles. This figure is subject to extreme seasonal variations and
is expected to be low as there appears to be a much higher degree of automo-
bile ownership than is usually found among the citizens of isolated Alaskan
towns.
Air Mode: Port Lions is serviced by a State-maintained 808 meters (2,650 ft)
gravel runway which could be extended another 762 meters (2500 ft). However,
some 305 to 457 meters (1,000-1,500 ft) of the extension would have to built
into Kizhuyak Bay. The township receives scheduled flights by Kodiak-Western
Airlines. Although Kodiak-Western attempts to maintain scheduled service, bad
weather and low passenger numbers frequently cause flight cancellations.
During 1976/1977, Kodiak-Western dispatched some 443 planes, 711 passengers,
and one metric ton (1.12 tons) of freight to Port Lions.
Ground facilities at the Port Lions Airfield, including navigational aids, are
entirely lacking. The· airport, however, is surrounded by terrain which is
flat enough to construct some hangers and a small supply yard.
Water Mode: The town of Port Lions is served by two docks. The largest pier
(the former Wakefield Cannery dock) is an L-shaped structure which extends
some 305 meters (1,000 ft) into Port Wakefield before assuming a right angle.
The outer face of the cannery dock is some 122 meters (400 ft) in length while
the length of the inner face is some 91 meters (300 ft). The maximum water
depth along the cannery dock is some 22 meters (72 ft) at MLLW and occurs off
th~ southern face. The cannery dock has about 1,487 square meters (16,000
ft ) of usable working2 surface. It also contains a 2,500 lb hoist and a 167
square meter (1,800 ft ) freezer storage room.
The second pier is a floating dock which is joined to the cannery dock. The
floating dock provides 22 berths for fishing vessels with a total of 244
meters (800 linear ft) available for docking space.
Transient fishing vessels visiting Port Lions during the year may number as
many as 127. Some 52 fishing vessels make the harbor a permanent home (Corps
of Engineers, June 1977).
1
The town of Port Lions is also a scheduled stop on the route of the M/V Tusta-
mina, a ferry of Alaska Marine Highway System. The M/V Tustamina provides
passenger and freight connections between Port Lions, Kodiak City, and the
Alaska mainland.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has planned to expand the s.all boat harbor
of Port Lions to provide more berths for fishing vessels and to take some of
the vessel traffic pressure off of the Kodiak small boat harbor. For a more
detailed discussion of this proposed action, the reader is directed to the
appropriate portions of section IV.A.1.f.
Talnik Point is situated about 4 kilometers (2.4 •i) north of Port Lions. The
point is located on Kizhuyak Bay, a tributary to the larger Marmot Bay region.
Water depth immediately off Talnik Point falls to 18.3 meters (60 ft). Two
kilometers (1.2 mi) east of Talnik Point, water depth is 91.4 meters (300ft).
The water depth continues to increase toward the mouth of Marmot Bay, eventually
reaching 183 meters (600 ft). South of Talnik Point, water depth is 18.3
meters (60 ft) until Peregrebni Point. There depths are 9 to 12 meters (30-40 ft).
Kizhuyak Bay is some 8 kilometers (5 mi) wide near its •outh and narrows to
2.4 kilometers (1.5 mi) near Peregrebni Point. Navigation from the Marmot Bay
entrance to Talnik Point is free of .ajor su~rine hazards; however, rocky
shoals are in abundance along the eastern side of Kizhuyak Bay.
Whale Passage and Kupreanof Strait are two ajoined bodies of water which func-
tion as the primary marine route for fishing vessels traveling between Mar.ot
Bay and the Shelikof Strait. Tidal currents in Whale Passage (near Bird
Point) run between a flood tide of 4.4 knots and an ebb tide of 5.2 knots.
For Kupreanof Strait (off Chernoff Point), the tidal currents vary between a
flood tide of 2.2 knots and an ebb tide of 1.5 knots.
The Coast Pilot 9 (U.S. Department of Comaerce, 1979) urges caution for all
mariners using Whale Passage, even if favorable climatic conditions exist.
Transiting Whale Passage during periods of maximum current is to be avoided as
floating aids to navigation could be dragged off station. Navigation within
the Kupreanof Strait is not as difficult as it is in Whale Passage. The
Strait is between 2.9 and 4.9 kilometers (1.8-3 mi) wide. The mid-channel of
Kupreanof Strait is more than 18 meters (60 ft) deep and is free of hazards.
However, there are several shoal areas along the shores and movement within
the strait should be avoided during stor.s.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers set up an anemometer at Port Lions in 1971,
which collected wind data until 1975. Some of this data has been interpreted.
Peak wind gust observed during the monitoring period was 91 kilometers per
hour (57 mph) at 090° in February of 1975. Maximum sustained wind velocity
was observed during January of 1974. The wind registered 64 kilometers per
hour (40 mph) at 100° for 16 days (Eckert, 1980). The bulk of the data,
however, has been stored by the Corps and is awaiting the funding necessary
for interpretation.
In regard to wind and wave actions around Talnik Point, local individuals
queried indicated that the point was far more exposed to northern wtather than
Port Lions and that wind and wave action was such that a major facility built
near Talnik Point would require a breakwater.
2
Ouzinkie: The fishing village of Ouzinkie is located on Spruce Island along
Narrow Strait. Ouzinkie has only a rudimentary transportation infrastructure.
The road system of the village consists of about 5 kilometers (3 •i) of borough-
maintained, improved dirt road. The village has no airstrip. Passengers and
freight enter and leave the village via Kodiak-Western seaplanes.
Ouzinkie's small dock is about 34 meters (104 ft) long and has 90 meters (280
ft) in depth along the face. Nearshore bathymetry indicates that the facili-
ties at Ouzinkie could be expanded to accommodate deep draft vessels. But the
confined nature of Narrow Strait would hinder the moveaent of large tankers.
Kodiak City: For further information about the transport systems of the
subject area the reader is directed to graphic 9 of the DEIS released for the
OCS lease sale 46 which was to occur in December 1980. For another discussion
of the issue, attention is directed to the initial sale 46 DEIS published in
1977.
b. Anchorage: The city of Anchorage is the primary transpor-
tation center in Alaska. It is an important stop for the Alaska Railroad; it
has access to a major north-south, year-round highway; it is serviced by an
international airport; it has the State's most extensive dock facilities; and
it has the largest market area in the State. Any development activity that
occurs within Alaska will probably affect the social, economic, and transpor-
tation systeas of the city of Anchorage.
Land Mode: The road sy~tem of the city of Anchorage contains about 1256
kilometers (780 mi) of municipal and State maintained roads and is suffi-
ciently viable to allow an average volume of traffic to flow without diffi-
culty. However, once beyond the metropolitan area, truck and automobile
traffic travelling south may be subject to man-•ade and natural events which
can result in considerable time delays.
Due to the rising volume of traffic passing between the Kenai Peninsula and
the city of Anchorage, the State of Alaska has been attempting to improve the
carrying capacity of the Seward Highway, particularly that section of roadway
between Girdwood and the edge of metropolitan Anchorage. In 1978, the State
began an extensive construction effort to improve the Seward Highway between
miles 111 and 115. This construction project will be completed in July 1980.
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) figures for the Seward Highway at mile 115
(just as it enters metropolitan Anchorage) have risen from 1,929 in 1970 to
3,340 in 1979. AADT figures for this traffic point are seasonally variable
and range from a July (1979) high of 5,896 vehicles to a January (1979) low of
1,989 vehicles. Truck and bus traffic constitute only 6 percent.
Apart from the delays which would arise during periods of peak summer recrea-
tional use, east and west bound truck and bus traffic using the Anchorage-
Girdwood link encounter few obstacles to the maintenance of timely schedule.
However, this section of road is prone to avalanches which may close the road
during spring for over a week at a time.
Air Mode: The Anchorage International airport handled 236,000 operations
(landings and take-offs) in 1976 which is 77 percent of the capacity estimated
in the 1971 Master Plan. The primary purpose of the new north-south runway,
presently under construction, is to provide a runway capable of accomaodating
3
larger jets in cross-wind conditions and to alleviate aircraft noise east of
the airport by placing the majority of aircraft operations over water. The
completed runway will also raise the airport operational capacity to 334,000
operations, a 9 percent increase. The runway will be used for air carrier
arrivals and one of the east-west runways will be used for air carrier depar-
tures. The three existing asphalt runways include two that are greater than
3,048 meters (10,000 ft) in length.
The facility serves an important role in moving freight and passengers to,
from, and within Alaska. In 1976, throughput tonnage of the airport amounted
to 107.8 thousand metric tons (118.8 thousand tons). This was 11.1 percent of
the Port of Anchorage's throughput for general cargo in that year. Transship-
ment by Wien, and to a lesser extent, Northern Air Cargo, Alaska International
Air, and Great Northern of goods arriving in Anchorage by the water mode to
remote Alaskan communities accounts for outbound tonnage being 50 percent
greater than inbound tonnage at the airport.
Water Mode: The Port of Anchorage consists of four terminals owned and operated
by the Municipality. These terminals serve deep-draft ships and six private
docks which serve specialized barge shipments.
Handling equipment available for the general cargo terminals includes two 24.9
metric ton (27.5 ton) container-handling cranes and four level-luffing gantries
with 36.3 metric ton (40 ton) capacities. Two portable transfer ramps for
roll-on/roll-off operations are also available.
Scheduled for construction in 1980 by York Steel Company on land leased from
the Alaska Railroad is a port facility that will provide a transfer dock for
rail barges, rail spurs, warehouses for carge storage, and a repair facility
for large boats. As part of the project, a rail-barge facility might also be
built north of Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula.
The dock face of the public terminals is maintained to a depth of 10.7 meters
(35 ft) mean lower low water (MLLW) by the Corps of Engineers. Statutory
responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers usually are limited to channel
dredging near ports, but the Port of Anchorage benefits from special Congres-
sional legislation which enables dredging by the Corps alongside the dock.
During 1978, three separate dredging operations were necessary to maintain
adequate depth for deep-draft vessels. The private docks are limited to ships
having a draft of 6.1 meters (21ft) or less.
The extreme tidal range of 12.7 meters (40.7 ft) creates high mid-stream
velocities and eddy currents along shore, but these conditions have little
effect on deep-draft vessels. Shoaling occurs west of Point Woronzof near
Fire Island and limits the channel width for deep-draft vessels to 610 meters
(2,000 ft). Four groundings occurred in this general area during the late
1960's. None produced serious consequences.
A review of table III.C.6.b.-1 indicates that both in terms of vessel arrivals
and cargo throughput, activity at the port of Anchorage has declined during
the last 4 years. In 1976, arrivals from the port of Anchorage numbered 792
vessels. By 1979, vessel arrivals had declined to 410, largely due to the
cooling of the Alaskan economy and by the construction of a 36,000 barrels/day
pipeline from the Nikiski Tesoro refinery to the city of Anchorage.
4
Table III.C.6.b.-1
Port of Anchorage-Historical Summary
Year Metric Tons (Tons) Year Metric Tons (Tons)
1969 1,639,642 (1 ' 80 7 '405) 1975 2,663,625 (2,936,159)
1970 1,757,186 (1,936,976) 1976 2,660,276 (2,932,468)
1971 1,616,653 (1 '782 '064) 1977 2,040,300 (2,267,000)
1972 1,867,157 (2,058,199) 1978 1,866,145 (2,073,498)
1973 2,381,132 (2,624,763) 1979 1,504,007 (1 ,671 '719)
1974 2,122,965 (2,340,181)
Source: U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1980.
Navigation in upper Cook Inlet during the winter is complicated by the absence
of buoys, which are removed by the Coast Guard when ice conditions commence.
Except for liquid bulk commodities and bulk cement, no single commodity stands
out. Shipments that can be contained make up 42 percent of the inbound tonnage
and 73 percent of the outbound tonnage. The Port of Anchorage is the State's
major port of entry for containerized freight. The large ships that carry
containers and trailer vans are able to operate to the port throughout the
year unlike tugs and barges.
The Port of Anchorage's ability to attract frequent year-round service by two
carrier handling containers and vans that can be efficiently loaded and unloaded
has made it Alaska's premier port of entry. In 1976, it handled over three
times as much tonnage as Whittier, over five times as.much as Valdez, and over
13 times as much as Seward, despite weather and shoaling constraints. The
port has adequate staging areas at present, but geographical constraints
prevent a major site expansion. The additional 6.9 hectares (17 acres) which
is available will require expensive site improvements because of drainage
problems.
c. Cook Inlet:
Land Mode: Primary vehicle routes serve the major centers of the Kenai Penin-
sula and connect thea with southcentral Alaska. Unlike the western shore of
the inlet, which has no roads, potential oil and gas facility sites on the
Cook Inlet portion of the Kenai Peninsula are all located near primary vehicle
routes.
Much of the existing highway of the Kenai is currently being used to near
capacity and should be upgraded. Table III.C.6.c.-1 shows that some 60 per-
cent of the principal routes operate at between 65 and 73 percent of capacity.
Additionally, those links operating at high capacity levels are in need of
improvement along 70 percent of their length.
In the 5-year period ending in 1978, annual average daily traffic (AADT)
figures for the Kenai Peninsula road system have shown a sharp increase, with
the largest increase occurring from Soldotna to the Sterling Highway junction.
Truck and bus traffic are an important component of the Kenai Peninsula traffic.
Truck and bus traffic entering the Kenai-Nikiski area equal approximately 10
percent of all vehicular traffic.
As would be expected, seasonal traffic variations are pronounced. Summer AADT
are 150 to 200 percent of the yearly mean AADT. Winter AADT volumes are 9 to 65
percent of the yearly mean AADT estimates.
Kenai Peninsula traffic should, over the short-term, continue to increase.
The proposed expansion of Homer's fishing industries, the construction of the
Pacific LNG Plant, the traffic resulting from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
project, as well as the peninsula's continued attraction to recreationalists,
will ensure the accelerated use of the Kenai roadways despite any pending
energy problems.
Homer Air Mode: The Homer airport runway, which measures 2256 meters (7,400
ft) long by 45.7 meters (150ft) wide, parallels the shoreline and allows
5
Capacity
Table III.C.6.c.-1
Traffic and Road Conditions For 11
Kenai Peninsula Primary Routes-
1977
30th Peak
Distance Vehicl~'/ Highest Hour 3 Volume/ 4 Deficie~~
Km (Mi) Hour-Hour Factor-/ Capacity_/ Miles-
Homer-
Ninilchik
Ninilchik-
Soldotna
Soldotna-
Sterling High-
way Junction
56.6 (35.2)
60.0 (37.3)
94.3 (58.6)
Sterling High-84.7 (52.6)
way Juntion-
Girdwood
730
766
484
495
268 0.21 0.37
268 0.21 0.35
316 0.13 0.65
149 0.25 0.73
!~ Traffic figures from fixed traffic recorder stations within or near route segments.
J/ Capacity derived from "1972 Sufficiency Rating Report," Alaska Department of Highways.
4/ Peak hour factor = (30th highest hour)/AADT.
Ot,
Ot,
70%
72%
Five Year
Summary69f
AADT-
1974 1,130
1975 1,215
1976 1,325
1977 1,453
1978 1 400
1974 1,095
1975 1,179
1976 1,285
1977 1,278
1978 1 698
1974 1,484
1975 1 '723
1976 2,155
1977 2,519
1978 2 537
1974 1,422
1975 1,594
1976 1,552
1977 1,453
1978 1 719
S/ Volume/capacity= (30th highest hour)/capacity.
~/ Deficiency is the rating valve established by the State as the point at which improvements should be considered.
AADT = Average annual daily traffic.
Source: Peter Eakland and Associates, 1978.
overwater approaches from both directions. (The airport is owned and operated
by the State of Alaska; the Federal Aviation Adainistration owns adjacent land
that would have to be acquired for expansion to take place.) An adjacent
float plane facility at Beluga Lake has a 914-meter (3,000 ft) runway (tables
III.C.6.c.-2 and -3).
Two scheduled carriers serve Homer. The community is an inter.ediate stop for
Wien's 737 jet flights between Kodiak and Anchorage. During the year ending
June 30, 1977, Wien completed only 76.9 percent of its scheduled flights to
Homer. It is also the southernmost destination of Alaska Aeronautical Indus-
try's (AAI) commuter route from Anchorage that serves Soldotna and Kenai. The
airport is also served by both fixed-wing and rotary-wing air taxi operators.
Several additional rotary-wing operators provide services on contract to
offshore oil operators.
The Alaska Department of Transportation has forecast a steady 7-percent annual
growth in operations at the facility for the next 20 years. A draft airport
development plan bas been prepared to address existing and future problems.
Presently, the terminal facilities and adjacent parking are inadequate but
they cannot be expanded at the present location. The terminal is closer to
the runway than FAA regulations perait, and height restrictions are also
violated. The existing terminal, which is owned by Wien Air Alaska, has
seating capacity for only ten persons. These circumstances make it difficult
to provide adequate security. Parking is limited to 28 vehicles. The recom-
mended plan is to move the terminal and air carrier operations to the north
side of the runway. Facilities on that side would include a perpendicular
taxiway to an apron, a heliport for large helicopters, and parking for 50
vehicles.
Kenai: Landing facilities at the Kenai Airport consist of an asphalt runway,
which i~ 2286 meters (7,500 ft) lengby 45.7 meters (150 ft) wide, and a
parallel float plane basin 762 meters (2,500 ft) long (tables III.C.6.c.-2 and
-3). The airport has adequate approach and landing aids to handle foreseeable
operations, including a control tower and a glide slope. The practical annual
capacity is 210,800 operations.
The Kenai facility currently receives two scheduled carriers with permanent
operating authority, AAI and Wien. AAI is a co .. uter airline and offered 30
flights per day to Kenai in the summer of 1979, three of which were exclu-
sively for freight. Commuter airline flights have increased from 9 in 1971,
to 19 in 1976, and finally, to the present 30. The fish processing industries
of Kenai combined with large salmon catches in Western Alaska produced, in
1979, the frequent landings of large cargo aircraft. Whether this situation
continues in the future is open to debate; however, local officials have
requested the FAA to design five tie-down spaces for C-130 aircraft.
Kenai will continue to be an active market for commuter airline services. The
construction of the Pacific LNG plant; as well as the city's existing oil and
gas industry, should produce a volume of passengers sufficient to sustain a
high frequency of scheduled commuter airline service.
Soldotna: Soldotna Airport, a general utility airport, is located on the
southeast corner of the town (tables III.C.6.c.-2 and -3). It has a 1,524-meter
6
Table III.C.6.c.-2
Lover Cook Inlet Principal Airports -Runways and Ground F~cilities
Runway Length Width Surface Ten~inal Hain-
Co.nutitf Location Owner Readi~ (1) Meters {ft~ Meters (ft) rue Heli~ort (2) Buildio~anaers Fuel tenance
H011er 2\ Hi. east State of 3-21 (7,400) (150) Asphalt No Yea Yea Yea Yrs
of downtown Alaska 3-21 (3,000) (600) Water
H011er
ltenai \ •i. north City of 1-19 (7,498) (159) Asphalt lfo Yea Yes Yes Yea
of downtown ltenai
Kenai
Soldotna 2 •L south City of 7-25 (5,000) (150) Asphalt No Yes Yea Yes Yea
of downtown Soldotna
Soldotna
Drift River Cook Inlet 5-23 (4,300) (150) Gravel Yea Yes Yes No No
Pipeline
C011pany
Notes: (1) Headings are expressed in true co.paas readings. For exa~le, runway 3-21 has a beading of 30° or 210° depending upon the direction
of a plane when landing or takin& off.
(2) Although not all airports listed bave designated heliports, each has at least one operator wbo uses helicopters and who has a private
area for operating th~ fra..
Source: FAA, 1977, and Peter Eakland sod Associates, 1980.
Table III.C.6.c.-3
Lower Cook Inlet Principal Airports -Operations and Aids
Service Design Total Based
Ca..unity Level (1) Type (2) ~erations Aircraft
H()lll('r AC AC
Kenai cs GT
Soldotna GS GU
Drift RivPr Private Private
37' 198
(1977)
36,760
(1978)
89,96S
(1977)
87,425
(1978)
66,000
(1978 est.)
Fixed Wing -
750
(1977 eat.)
Rotary Wing -
1,600
(1977 est.)
Notes: (1) Service Level
AC = Air Carrier (Certified Service)
AL = Air Carrier (Intrastate Qualifications)
GS = Ca..uter Service
GA = General Aviation
6S
110
12S
3
SclteJuled
(3) Airlines
2
2(S)
3
0
Based
Air Taxis
3
s
No
0
Control
Tower
No
Ye11
Ye11
No
~vigll!.!~nf.~~~!!Jg_A~_d_!!_ill_ __
Runway
Taxiw~~a_d_i_!ls____!.i_&!!!!_n&_ R_a_!fj.o __ _Q!~e_!
Yes
3 HAI.S
3/21 VASI
21 REIL
Yes
19 HAts
I REIL
I VAS I
------
No Rotating
Jkoacon
VORTAC
DF, FSS,
NOB
LOC/DttE
DF, FSS,
NOB, VOR/
DtfE
RCAG
GS, I.OC Pttf, Oft
SFO
(2) Design Type
AC = Air Carrier (Certificated Service)
AL = Air Carrier (Intrastate Qualifications)
GU = General Utility
BT = Basic Transport
SP = Sea~lane Base
(3) FW = Fixed Wing; RW = Rotary Wing.
Table III.C.6.c.-3--Contiaued
(4) Lighting: HALSR = Kediu. intensity approach lights with RAIL: REIL = Runway end identification ligbta; RVR = Runway visual range;
VASI = Visual approach slope indicator.
Radio:
Other:
ASR = Airport aurveillance radar; Df = Direction finder; OM! = Diatance .eaauring equip.ent; GS = Glide alope; LOC = Localizer;
NDB = Non-directional radio beacon; PAR = Precision approach radar; SfO = Single frequency outlet; VORTAC = Co.bined VOR and
TACAH (TACR).
ATCT = Air traffic control tower; FSS = Flight service station; HH = Hiddle .. rker; OH = Outer .. rker; RCAG = Re.ote control
air ground facility; RCO = R~te caa.unications outlet (FSS).
(5) A third carrier, Polar Airlines, was granted an e8ergency exe.ption to provide Aochorage-lenai service for 120 days fra. Hay 29 -
Septeaber 26, 1979.
Source(s): FAA, 1977; DOTPF, 1978; Peter Eakland and Associates 1980.
(5,000-ft) by 46-meter (150-ft) asphalt paved runway with an estimated pavement
strength of 32000 kilograms (70,000 lbs) gross weight. AAI now makes three
daily round trips between Soldotna and Anchorage with an intermediate stop in
Kenai except for Saturday and Sunday.
The computed annual capacity of the airport is 150,000 operations, and the
computed hourly capacity is 110 operations. The city of Soldotna records 125
aircraft being based at the airport in 1978, a 71 percent increase from the 73
planes recorded in 1973. During the winter, one runway is left unplowed which
allows for the use of planes fitted with skis. During 1978, an estimated
103546 kilograms (228,277 lbs) of cargo was handled at the airport and an
additional 36511 kilograms (80,491 lbs) of mail.
The 10-year National Aviation System Plan (FAA, 1977) includes recommendations
to expand and pave an existing apron and runway, construct and pave a new
apron, add new approach aids such as VASI and REIL, and improve existing
buildings.
Homer Water Mode: Existing port facilities are located toward the end of the
Homer Spit on the Kachemak Bay (north) side. The Homer City pier, which
extends 140.2 meters (460 ft) from shore, serves deep-draft vessels. It has
three docking faces. The largest face is 125 meters (410 ft) long and has
water depth alongside of 7.6 meters (25 ft). Its northwest section is 8.8
meters (32 ft) wide and the southwest section 18.3 meters (60 ft) wide. The
M.V. Tustemena, of the Alaska Marine Highway System, has preferential berthing
privileges at this facility. It is also used for shipment of fish products,
occasional freight barges, and the receipt of petroleum products from the
Standard Oil tanker, Alaska Standard. Supply boats serving offshore drilling
activities have used the facility to load fuel and water. Water is available
at the pier, but diesel fuel and gasoline supplies must be delivered by truck.
A truck-mounted crane is available from a local contractor for onloading and
offloading heavy cargo.
The northwest face, which is 42.7 meters (140ft) long and 8.8 meters (32ft)
wide, is used for mooring the Coast Guard buoy tender, CGC Sedge. It has a
4.0-meter (13-ft) draft. The southeast face, 18.3 meters (60 ft) long, has a
draft of 3.7 meters (12ft) and is used principally by fishing boats.
The access channel receives annual maintenance dredging but no dredging has
taken place within the basin since 1964.
The 42.7-meter (410-ft) face of the city pier, with its 7.6 meters (25ft) of
water, can handle ocean-going barges and small tankers, but dredging would be
required for ships of the size operated by TOTE and Sea-Land into Anchorage to
use the facility. Supply boats would be unable to use facilities in the s.all
boat harbor basin because of water depth and inadequate room for turning
maneuvers. The industrial park will primarily serve fishing vessels, as
indicated by the design depth of the access channel.
The entrance to Kacheaak Bay is rich in seafood resources, and a conflict
between marine shipping and fishing interests exists. This area must be
crossed by ships picking up and discharging pilots. Increased vessel traffic
in Cook Inlet brought a corresponding increase in damage to fishing gear. The
Coast Guard cooperated with the pilots and the fishermen in establishing a
7
voluntary vessel separation scheme, which has been in operation since 1976
(fig. III.C.6.c.-1.). Lanes from both the north and the south are pro-
vided. A move to make the vessel separation scheme permanent has been urged
by some fishermen. Crabbers have suggested the use of only a single lane in
order to expand their crabbing area. The Coast Guard feels that the voluntary
system has worked well and that it is preferable to a permanent system due .to
its flexibility.
Ice does not present a major problem to vessel operations in the Homer area,
but ice floes can interfere with operations at the Homer City pier from January
to March. If the floes are particularly heavy, cargo barges can use a wharf
in the small boat harbor.
The histori~al figures for throughput tonnages, as shown on table III.C.6.c.-4
for the years 1966 to 1977, show an erratic pattern of tonnage handled. This
is because in some years large shipments of a particular product such as sand,
gravel, crushed rock, lumber, nitrogenous chemical fertilizer, or gasoline
dominated the tonnage. If these large tonnages of particular products are
removed, it is seen that Homer consistently handles 15,000 metric tons (16,500
tons) or less of goods per year through its port.
Drift River -Nikiski: Imports from foreign ports, mainly petroleum products,
accounted for 64 percent of total inbound tonnage in 1977. Valdez shipped 28
percent of total petroleum and coal products imported. Tonnage from Kodiak to
Homer consists of diverse products and accounts for 5 percent of tonnage
imported into Homer. Of the outbound tonnage reported, 97 percent is shipped
to foreign ports and consists mainly of lumber and chemicals and allied products.
The remainder of outbound shipments in 1977 had diverse destinations such as
Seattle, Kodiak, Sitka, and the Alaska Peninsula.
Three separate groupings of facilities are discussed in this section--Kenai,
Drift River, and Nikiski. Only those in Kenai are available for public use.
Geographically, the ports of Kenai-Nikiski and Drift River are separate, but
the Corps of Engineers' waterborne commerce statistics treat them as a single
reporting unit. Drift River is located north of Kenai on the west side of
Cook Inlet and Nikiski is located on the east side, north of Kenai. Kenai
facilities include five wharves on the Kenai River, three of which are owned
and operated by seafood companies.
The two facilities on the Kenai River which receive general freight are the
city dock, owned by the city of Kenai, and the Port of Kenai wharf, which is
privately owned. The city dock consists of a single 30.4-meter (100-ft) long
bulkhead (concrete wall) which has been backfilled. The draft at this port is
only 0.3 meters (1 ft) at low tide, which limits its use to barges. Principal
products received include drilling mud and other petroleum industry supplies.
Winter ice conditions limit use of the facility to approximately 318 days
(Federic Harris, 1978). The Port of Kenai wharf is located 403 meters (550
yds) from the city dock. It has a Ill-meter (365-ft) face and receives con-
struction materials and general cargo.
Nikiski and Drift River are specialized ports serving the oil and gas indus-
try. Nikiski bas three deep-draft loading docks and one shallow-draft faci-
lity. In addition to these, there is the Arness dock which consists of three
World War II liberty ships sunk in low water so as to provide a breakwater and
mooring surfaces for barges supporting offshore drilling operations.
8
.1
VOLUNTEER MARINE
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
KACHEMAK BAY
Note: All distances •re given In nautical miles •nd superimposed
upon U.S.C.G. and G.S. chart No. 8531.
APPRO)t ,.,. .. ' E 1:800 000
Source: 1976
FIGURE Ill. C. 6. c.-1
TURNING AREA
0
Year
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1975
1976
1977
Notes: (1)
rock.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Table III.C.6.c.-4
Vessel Trips, Passengers and Throughput Tonnage -Homer
Vessels Passengers Metric Tons
676 2,328 12,529
586 3,123 15,807
2,337 5,074 172,136(1)
2,871 7,052 154,567(2)
142 10,511 10,831
1,217 11,215 35,633(3 )
138 10,869 27,906(4)(6 )
162 9,559 107,564(5 )(6 )
150,773 metric tons (166,200 tons) =sand, gravel, and crushed
36,903 metric tons (40,679 tons)= logs; 97,182 metric tons (107,126
tons) = rafted logs.
21,452 metric tons (23,647
13,564 metric tons (14,952
52,009 metric tons (57,331
26,922 metric tons (29,677
(11,760 tons) = logs.
tons)
tons)
tons)
tons)
= gasoline.
= nitrogenous chemical fertilizer.
= nitrogenous chemical fertilizer;
= kerosene; 10,587 metric tons
Chemical fertilizer, although included in totals for Homer, ori-
ginated at Nikiski. Homer is listed because it was the last port-
of-call before a vessel sailed to a foreign port.
To obtain short tons, multiply metric tons by 1.1.
Source: Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1966-1977.
The rig tender's dock (Port Nikiski) consists of a backfilled concrete bulk-
head and is designed primarily to handle barges and small offshore platfor.
service vessels. It has a 182.9-meter (600-ft) face with a 3.04-aeter (10-ft)
draft alongside. The two side faces of the dock are 137.2 meters (450ft)
long, and draft ranges from zero at the shore side to 3.0 meters (10 ft) at
the inlet side.
Eight acres of landside storage area are available. Shore facilities include
crawler cranes with 136 metric tons (150 tons) capacity, storage stations for
bulk mud and bulk cement, and machine shops. Also, there are five fuel and
water transfer stations designed for use by supply boats. The facility receives
inbound barge freight, accommodates loading of supply boats, and is used by
Tesoro for the loading of refined petroleum products into barges. The Tesoro
traffic has diminished with the construction of the petroleum products pipeline
to Anchorage. The rig tender's dock was built by Crowley Maritime for the
dedicated use of the oil industry. Conversion to a public use facility would
not occur without the concurrence of current users.
The three offshore loading docks are the Standard Oil of California (also
known as Kenai-Pipe Line Company dock), the Phillips-Marathon, and the Collier
docks. The Standard dock (Nikiski Wharf) is of steel pile and concrete con-
struction. It has berthing space of 399.1 meters (1,310 ft) with draft along-
side of 14.6 meters (48 ft). It is connected to the shore by one 61-centimeter
(24-in) pipeline to an 800,000-barrel storage facility; one 50.8-centimeter
(20-in) and two 35.6-centimeter (14-in) pipelines to another 800,000-barrel
storage facility; and o~e 50.8-centimeter (20-in) pipeline to 323,000-barrel
storage facility. Tankers supplying oil to the Standard Oil and Tesoro refi-
neries dock at this facility.
The Phillips-Marathon dock (LNG Dock) located south of the Standard Oil dock
is constructed of sheet piles and concrete and has a length of 320 meters
(1,050 ft). It serves ships taking on LNG shipments. The draft alongside
this dock is 12.2 meters (40ft). It is connected to the shore with one
61-centimeter (24-in) LNG line to 225,000-barrel storage capacity and one
50.8-centimeter (20-in) and one 4016-centimeter (16-in) petroleum line to a
450,000-barrel storage facility.
The Collier Company dock (Collier Chemical Dock) is constructed of steel piles
and concrete and the berth has a length of 333.8 meters (1,095 ft). The draft
alongside the berth is 12.2 meters (40 ft). There is a 113,397-metric ton
(125,000-ton) capacity for storing bulk urea. This dock is connected by
pipeline (one 30.5 em (12 in) connecting to two 15.2 em (6 in)) to a facility
for storing anhydrous ammonia, whose capacity is 54,431 metric tons (60,000
tons) at -33.3° C (-28° F). Further, there are two pipelines, 25.4 centimeters
(10 in) and 20.3 centimeters (8 in), which feed petroleum to a 171,000-barrel
storage facility.
The Drift River Terminal, built in 1966 on the west side of Cook Inlet, has an
offshore loading platform equipped with breasting and mooring dolphins.
Dolphins are groups of piles, placed to both sides of the end of a pier for
either fastening mooring lines or for resting the ship itself (breasting
dolphins). Alongside the platform it has a draft of 18.2 meters (60ft) and
is capable of handling tankers up to 149685 dead weight metric tons (150,000
dead weight tons). There are two 76.2-centimeter (30-in) pipelines leading to
an onshore tank farm for storing crude oil.
9
Two dock facilities will be constructed as part of the Pacific-Alaska LNG
project, which will be located south of the existing Collier property. First,
a construction dock will be built with 152.4 meters (500 ft) of berthing area
to accommodate large ocean-going barges carrying plant modules. Interest has
been expressed by Kenai in later using this facility for receiving general
cargo. To serve LNG ships, a pier 671 meters (2,200 ft) long will be con-
structed to a mooring facility consisting of six dolphins (Federal Power
Commission, 1976). Some dredging will be required on the south side of the
docking area.
Table III.C.6.c.-5 shows the high and low capacity available at the ports of
Kenai-Nikiski-Drift River by handling categories. The table also shows 1977
inbound, outbound, and throughput tonnages through these ports. From these
figures it can be seen that considerable additional capacity exists for handling
oil and gas products at these ports. During 1977, some 578 oil tankers and
barges arrived in the Port of Nikiski-Drift River.
Water depth at the Port of Kenai is only 1 foot deep at low tide. Water depth
at Nikiski and Drift River facilities is sufficient to handle medium-size
tankers.
Freezing occurs in the Kenai River from mid-December to the first of April.
Because of tidal currents and numerous shoal areas in Cook Inlet, pilots are
required for deep draft ships destined for Nikiski, as well as other ports
north of Homer. The annual average number of days available for shipping is
300 at Nikiski, Drift River Terminal, and the Arness dock, and 318 on the
Kenai River (Harris, 1978).
An area extending from 40 yards to several hundred yards north of Nikiski dock
has rocks. A shoal area about 5 miles in extent is 3.2 kilometers (2 mi) off
the dock and is marked by a buoy.
Navigational difficulties and hazards to vessels in the Kenai-Nikiski area are
due more to current and ice than storms and water depth. High tidal fluctu-
ations produce strong currents which reach 8 to 11 knots in Cook Inlet and up to
6 knots at Nikiski docking areas. Drift River is adequately protected by the
West Forelands from ice and current on the ebb tide. Deep water, wide shipping
lanes, the required use of pilots on vessels above 272 gross metric tons (300
gross tons), and the relatively small level of vessel traffic make navigation
safe enroute to Nikiski. The principal safety issue relates to vessels ap-
proached or moored during the winter at Nikiski facilities, where they are
exposed to strong flood tide currents containing heavy ice. Loading delays up
to six hours due to such conditions have occurred at the existing LNG dock.
Non-continuous ice floes up to 0.8 kilometers (\ mi) in diameter and up to 1.2
meters (4 ft) accumulate on the east shore of Cook Inlet during flood tides.
The resulting forces on ships are sufficient to break mooring lines. In such
cases, damage can occur to drifting vessels, as well as other vessels in the
area. The danger, thus, does not relate solely to traffic levels at a given
facility but to the extent adjacent facilities are in use at the same time.
Construction of the proposed Pacific-Alaska LNG dock facility could increase
this hazard.
To reduce the likelihood of damage, the Nikiski Marine Terminal Safety Com-
mittee has established voluntary procedures which include the following:
10
/
Table III.C.6.c.-5
Ports of Kenai-Nikiski-Drift River-1977 Tonnages (short tons), Barrels and Capacities
H" h(l, IH Berth Occu2anci
Low(l' (Short Tons) 1g
V/C(3 ) Handling Categori Inbound Outbound Through2ut Ca2aciti
Containerizable
RO/RO
Special 28,553 28,533
Neobulk 765 765 1,744,200 .04'1
Dry Bulk (4) (4) 720,000
Liquid Bulk 5,527,681 5,527,681 34,948,250 15.8'1
LNG 16,875,000
(Bbls)
Anhydrous Ammonia 12,825,000
(Bbls)
Bulk Cement 979,200
Total 29,553 5,527,681 5,556,999
Notes: (1) Based on 318 available days in Kenai and 300 available days at Nikiski-Drift River.
(2) Port capacity is not a sum of capacities for each handling category.
Each capacity assumes berths will be used only for that handling category.
(3) V/C = Volume (total throughput)/Capcity
Cal!aciti
1,324,800
345,600
19,775,000
8,100,000
(Bbls)
6,156,000
(Bbls)
806,400
(4) Chemical fertilizer output reported for Homer but originating in Nikiski is not included.
Source: Frederic R; Harris, 1978; Peter Eakland and Associates.
2)
V/C(3 )
.06'1
28.0\
mooring with the bow facing flood tides, providing adequate mooring lines,
providing necessary engine room and bridge watches, and maintaining the capa-
bility to immediately suspend cargo operations and to cast off mooring lines
(Federal Power Commission, 1976).
In 1977, over 99 percent of the total throughput tonnage handled at Kenai,
Nikiski, and Drift River Terminal consisted of petroleum products. Most were
exports of crude oil from Nikiski and Drift River Terminal. Inbound, com-
modities handled were special items (32~ of total inbound tonnage), chemical
products (16~), lumber products (7~), stone and allied products (4~), and
primary metal products (3~). All tonnage is considered to be neobulk or
special (Harris, 1978). The remaining inbound commodity types amounted to one
percent or less of the total inbound tonnage. Inbound shipments of liquid
bulk are limited because the two local refineries supply most local needs.
The Tesoro refinery, which receives the State of Alaska's royalty oil, recently
has been unable to operate at design levels because of lower production in
Cook Inlet fields. To fill the gap in supply, oil from the Trans-Alaska
pipeline is now being shipped to the refinery. The high sulphur content of
Prudhoe Bay crude oil limits the percentage that can be used from this source.
11
APPENDIX T
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
D. Coastal Zone Management
1. State Coastal Management Program: The Alaska Coastal Manage-
ment Program (ACHP) was initiated in 1974, in response to the opportunity for
coastal planning provided by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZHA) of
1972 (Alaska Office of Coastal Management and U.S. DOC, 1979). The Ala·ska
Legislature adopted an Alaska Coastal Management Act (ACHA) in 1977, as enabling
legislation for submittal and adoption of the ACMP (AS 46.40.010, et. seq.).
The ACHA establishes an Alaska Coastal Policy Council for policy guidance in
administration of the ACMP. The Act requires borough and first class cities
to prepare district Coastal Management Programs (CHP). It also establishes
procedures for the development of the CMP in the Unorganized Borough and
designates State lead agency's responsibilities for administration of the
ACHP.
The Alaska Coastal Policy Council has adopted guidelines and standards for the
use of coastal resources. These guidelines and standards are the principle
regulatory component of ACHP. The Coastal Policy Council uses these guidelines
and standards for evaluating the acceptability of the district CHP and Coastal
Resource Service Area Programs. In the absence of an approved district CMP
for incorporated areas or a Coastal Resource Service Area Plan for an area in
the unorganized borough, the State must refer to the Council's guidelines and
standards along with other provisions of its approved ACMP to evaluate the
suitability of proposed actions in the coastal zone.
The ACMP is not in itself a land and water use plan for geographically speci-
fic areas; the ACHP does not categorically allow and disallow specific types
of actions in designated reaches of a coastal zone. Instead, the ACHP is a
management process.
2. Energy Facilities Siting Process and Uses of State Concern: Of
significance to this leasing proposal are provisions in the ACHP regarding the
siting of energy facilities and the accommodation of land and water uses of
State concern. The guidelines and standards of the Coastal Policy Council
state in part that "sites suitable for the development of major onshore,
nearshore, offshore, ·and outer continental shelf energy facilities must be
identified by the State in conjunction with districts (6 AAC 80.070)." The
approved State ACHP includes an "Energy Facilities Planning Process" as gui-
dance for district coastal management programs in satisfying the above re-
quirement (Alaska Office of Coastal Hgmt. and DOC, 1979).
The ACHA has separate requirements on uses of State concern of which energy
facilities are an identified category (AS 46.40.210 (6); AS 46.40.060(a);
AS 46.40.070 (c)). The ACHA requires a district CHP to, "not arbitrarily
restrict or exclude uses of State concern (AS 46.40.060(a))." The Act sets
forth three tests which must be met if a district program can reasonably
restrict or exclude a use of State concern (AS 46.40.070(c)). These provi-
sions in the ACHA, together with the Energy Facilities Planning Process of the
ACHP, assure that siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone will be the
subject of a rational planning process.
3. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program:
a. District Program Development: Host of the coastal area
surrounding the proposed lease sale are a part of the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
1
As such, coastal zone management authority under the Federal CZHA and the
Alaska ACHP will eventually be exercised by the Borough. The Borough presently
does not have an approved district CHP.
The Borough has completed the first year of a three-year funding assistance
program for development, approval, and imple.entation of a district CHP. The
Borough's first year efforts have resulted in an enviroa.ental atlas and
resources inventory of the Borough's coastal zone (EnviroDBental Services,
1979), a phase 1 background report (Environmental Services, 1979), and a phase
1 draft coastal management plan (Environmental Services, 1980).
The Borough does not intend to adopt or distribute for view the consultant's
draft coastal management program tmmediately. Instead, the Borough will use
its second year of funding assistance to solicit community opinion on coastal
management policies. The Borough plans to conduct meetings in ten communities
of its coastal zone. The citizens will be asked to evaluate the consultant's
district CHP recommendations in addition to offering their own. The Borough
Planning Department will then formulate a district CKP based upon the input
which it receives from the public meetings and hearings. The second year of
district CKP development for the Borough is scheduled to run from April, 1980
to March, 1981.
The calendar dates for the third funding year of the Borough's CKP have yet to
be established. The Borough would be eligible for implementation assistance
of its CHP once its program is approved by the State legislature and it is
incorporated into the State ACKP. The Borough's Planning Department presently
intends to get a district CKP adopted by the Borough's Assembly in the fall of
1981. State review of the district program would occur in the fall of 1981
with legislative approval hoped for in January 1982.
b. Areas Meriting Special Attention: Kenai River Flats
Proposal: Under provisions of ACKP, State agencies, or coastal resource
districts may prepare an Area Meriting Special Attention proposal (AKSA)(AS
46.40.210(1); AS 46.40.040(1)(f); 6 AAC 80.160). The AKSA provisions in the
ACHP provide for special consideration, in terms of planning and aanage.ent,
for discrete areas with specified characteristics. Once an AKSA is approved
by the Coastal Policy Council or the District Coastal Management Plan is
adopted by the legislature, then the specific management practices would be in
effect.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 1980) has proposed an AKSA for the
Kenai River Flats area to the State Office of Coastal Manage.ent and the Kenai
Peninsula Borough. The AMSA was proposed to protect wetland areas of the
lower Kenai River drainage. These wetlands are significant for several reasons
according to FWS (spring migration routes for snow geese, anadromous sa!.on
spawning and nursery habitat, coastal flood plains and hydrologic recharge
area, coastal geomorphic units which accommodate wave action, erosion, and
storm damage, and an outdoor recreation and aesthetic appreciation area.
The FWS AMSA proposal would have the Kenai Peninsula Borough manage the Kenai
River Flats area through the district CHP. The river flats would be divided
into two land use categories--a "Conservation Zone" and a "Natural Areas
Zone." The "Conservation Zone" would allow water dependent or water related
land uses consistent with a district CHP for the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The
2
"Natural Area Zone" would e.phasize activities which do not disturb or alter
the natural environment. Development activity which disturbs or alters the
wetlands habitat and water quality of an anadromous fish stream would not be
allowed. The FWS additionally proposes that sa.e lands be publically acquired
in the Kenai River area in order to preclude disturbances.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Ga.e has proposed an AMSA for a portion of
the Kenai River Flats area. This portion concerns State owned lands only
(ADF&G, 1979). The State ADF&G proposal is coaparable in land use management
concepts to the FWS proposal.
c. Areas Heritin S ecial Attention: Homer Spit Coastal
Development Program: The Kenai Peninsula Borough KPB) has applied for CZH
grant assistance from the State Department of Community and Regional Affairs
to develop a AMSA proposal for the Homer Spit (Kenai Peninsula Borough, 1980).
According to the borough, the Homer Spit is a natural site for port and harbor
facilities which are needed to attract and support the expanding fishing
industry and to meet marine transportation needs. The spit is also located in
a State designated critical habitat area; Kachemak Bay is highly productive
for commercial shellfish species.
The AHSA proposal would provide a management scheme to m1n1m1ze conflicts
between marine transportation, port activities, and .aintenance of the pelagic
and benthic communities of Kachemak Bay. The AMSA product is expected to
be a Homer Spit Coastal Development Program which would regulate land and
water uses of the spit: The program, when coapleted, would be incorporated
into the KPB district CMP.
The Homer Spit Coastal Development Program will draw upon work of the KPB
Ports and Harbors Study (Woodward/Clyde Consultants, 1980), as well as the
city of Homer's Port Development Plan (TAMS Engineers, 1980), to identify land
and water use needs of the spit. Refer to section III.C.7.b. of the EIS
regarding land use for a discussion of the Port of Homer Development Plan.
d. Energy Facility Siting Analysis: Mention was made in
section III.D.2. of the energy facility siting requirements in the ACMP.
The KPB coastal management program will have to respond to the ACMP require-
ments. The borough has yet to adopt any official policies pursuant to these
ACHP provisions. However, in the absence of official policies on energy
facility siting, some guidance on possible policies as well as suitable sites
in the borough's coastal zone can be obtained from studies sponsored by the
borough.
Following OCS sale CI, the borough sponsored a study of the implications of
OCS development for the Kenai Peninsula (CH2H-Hill, 1978). Although the
analysis was directed to onshore impacts ensuing from OCS sale CI, the same
types and locations of effects may be assumed for the proposed OCS sale 60,
given the proximity of the lease tracts involved. The FEIS on OCS sale CI
identified the following sites for a possible onshore facility locations (BLH,
1977):
Support Sites: Nikiski, Homer, Seldovia, English Bay-Port
Graham
3
Terminal Sites:
Treatment Facilities Sites:
LNG Terminal Sites:
Drift River, Nikiski, Cape Starichkof, and
Cape Douglas
Tuxedni Bay, Cape Starichkof, Seldovia,
English Bay-Port Graham
Nikiski, Cape Starichkof
The KPB study analyzed all of these sites in terms of environmental impacts,
infrastructure requirements, cost considerations, industry preferences, and
concerns of local and State officials. The study findings on siting onshore
OCS related facilities include the following:
Support Base Activity:
During exploration and development phases of OCS activity: dock facili-
ties at Nikiski, Homer, and Seldovia would be used to some extent.
Sufficient staging and storage facilities exist in the Kenai and Nikiski
area to support exploration and initial development activities.
Some of the OCS support facilities would ~e moved to Homer in order to be
closer to the lease area. Suitable industrial sites are available in the
city of Homer, although acreage is presently not available on the Homer
Spit and the City Dock.
Construction of new suppport facilities at Cape Starichkof may occur in
conjunction with an oil terminal or processing facility being sited
there.
Oil Terminals and Treatment Facilities:
Existing facilities at Drift River and Trading Bay might be expanded to
treat and transport oil from the lower Cook Inlet.
On the east side of the Inlet, only two sites appear to be feasible;
Nikiski and Cape Starichkof.
Any new oil terminal or treatment facility not located proximate to the
Sterling Highway on the Kenai Peninsula would be dependent upon marine
transportation. Hence, construction supplies and equipment would have to
shipped from existing terminals and staging areas to such a new terminal.
Processing Facilities:
Both construction and operations of processing facilities--LNG plants and
oil refineries--require ready access to labor and supplies. They will,
therefore, probably be located on the east side of the Cook Inlet--where
highway, marine, and air transportation facilities are available.
Nikiski is the most likely location for processing facilities, where at
least a portion of the existing facilities could be used. The other
potential site for processing facilities is the Cape Starichkof area.
4 /'
Construction of proce~sing facilities in the Homer-Kache.ak Bay area
would probably cause considerable public opposition.
Aside from the above findings, the KPB study recommended the following in
regard to onshore facility siting:
Develop borough and city policies on locating new or expanded industrial
facilities in Nikiski, Stariski-Cape Starichkof, Homer, and Seldovia.
The policies should, in particular, consider limited dock and harbor
resources, and conflicts between OCS, recreation, and fishing activities.
Adopt zoning controls or facility siting permit procedures for large
scale industrial projects.
Review borough and city land leasing procedures to encourage stipulations
on industrial uses.
The borough is currently sponsoring a Ports and Harbors Demand and Feasibility
Study (Woodward/ Clyde Consultants, 1979). An objective of the overall project
is to prepare a short range action plan and a long range master plan for ports
and harbors development on the Kenai Peninsula. A key element in the project
is the incorporation of OCS and energy demands into the borough's port and
harbor planning. This project, when adopted by the borough, could be useful
in its development of a district CMP; the analysis of future OCS development
possibilities for purposes of port and harbor planning could be used to satisfy
the energy facility siting requirements of the ACMP (personal communication,
1980).
An interim report of the project provides a schedule of possible improvement
and new facilities to various port and harbor locations of the borough. OCS
related improvements to these locations include the following:
Construction support base for new Pacific-Alaska LNG facility to be
located at Nikiski.
Expansion to the existing Nikiski Rig Tenders dock with development of a
new small, protected harbor north of the existing rig tenders dock.
These improvements would partially serve offshore oil and gas operations
in both the State and OCS (Federal) waters.
Construction of a new deep water port at Cape Starichkof, if a commercial
find of hydrocarbons is made from either OCS sale Cl or proposed sale 60.
At least one mile of ocean frontage, extending landward to the Sterling
Highway, should be zoned and reserved for oil related industrial develop-
ment.
Expansion to the port of Homer to include a 30-acre industrial staging
and storage yard to the north of the existing boat harbor. One of the
functions served by this facility will be to provide a staging area for
OCS support goods movement and storage.
Suggested improvements to other Kenai Peninsula ports do not include any
facilities for OCS support purposes.
5
The schedule of harbor and port improvement does not imply a recommended
program for KPB port and harbor development. The interim study instead con-
sidened three different combinations of improvements and changes to the various
port and harbor facilities. These combinations reflect different levels of
investment and policy assumptions on the borough and incorporated communities
towards ports and harbors development. Only when the Ports and Harbors Master
Plan is completed and adopted will the borough's policy on port improvements
for oil and gas operations be officially expressed.
4. Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program:
a. Program Development: The Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) has
recently commenced a district CHP through receipt of grant assistance from the
State Department of Community and Regional Affairs. The first phase of the
borough's CHP will result in a plan to be conceptually approved by the Borough
Assembly in the spring of 1981. Under its proposed schedule of coastal program
development, the KIB would submit its district CHP to the State for review and
approval in the fall of 1981, and for approval by the legislature in January
of 1982.
b. Energy Facility Siting Analysis: Analysis of energy
facility siting policies of the KIB-CHP is similar to that of the KPB. In the
absence of offical CMP policies on energy facility siting, some guidance on
possible policies, as well as suitable sites in the borough's coastal zone,
can be obtained from studies sponsored by the borough.
The major difficulty with formulating hypothetical KIB energy facility siting
policies, for purposes of ca.parison with the proposal's development scenario,
is that the KIB sponsored studies are all predicated on a Western Gulf of
Alaska lease sale rather than a Shelikof Strait lease sale. The KIB studies
are useful to the extent that policy recommendations on OCS related industrial
siting procedures can be identified.
In 1977, the borough sponsored an OCS impact study which was subsequently
approved by the Borough Assembly as a "planning document" (Simpson, Usher,
Jones, 1977; Personal Communication, 1980). This study produced findings and
recommendations. Subsequent to this study, the KIB sponsored a regional plan
and development strategy (Kramer, Chin, and Mayo, 1978), which incorporated
the analysis from the earlier OCS impact study. This subsequent report has
not been officially adopted by the Borough Assembly. However, the "Community
Goals and Objectives" portion of the study has been officially adopted as
borough policy. The goals and objectives pertinent to OCS facility siting on
KIB lands are reproduced below:
Land Use Goal: To work towards eliminating existing conflicts in the land use
patterns within the KIB, and to plan for low intensity development that pre-
serves the land use integrity of residential areas, and concentrates com-
mercial and industrial developments and strategic locations.
Objective: Develop a capability for stronger, more effective zoning
enforcement.
Objective: Assure, in establishing zoning patterns, that land use cate-
gory separations are located along natural and man-made boundaries that
6
effectively buffer potentially conflicting land use districts from each
other.
OCS Development Goal: To discourage the development of OCS related facilities
in or around the population centers on Kodiak Island, and if OCS facili-
ties are located anywhere on the Island, to require that they be concen-'
trated in a limited number of locations as well as be self-sustained at
their remote sites.
Objective: To prepare land use regulations that can effectively control
the location of OCS related facilities including indirect and ancillary
uses.
Objective: To prepare and adopt detailed OCS facility location policies
and a fiscal planning process.
Objective: To encourage the oil industry to participate in funding
efforts to mitigate the adverse impacts of their activites in the Kodiak
Shelf.
Objective: To establish borough-wide environmental impact review and
control procedures applicable to OCS related facilities in order to
assure that the natural environment is preserved and enhanced throughout
any future period of OCS development.
Objective: To investigate the feasibility of local government develop-
ment and ownership of onshore OCS related facilities to be leased to the
oil industry (Kramer, Chin, and Mayo, 1978).
The borough sponsored regional plan also analyzed OCS related industry activity.
Findings and recommendations from this section of the regional plan include:
Enough feasible, environmentally acceptable, sites appear to be available
that the borough can greatly influence the choice of a site. This finding
derives from an oil terminal siting study done in anticipation of a
Western Gulf of Alaska lease sale only (Woodward/ Clyde Consultants,
1977).
OCS related onshore development should be kept out of the urban area and
villages. If possible, one of the Native corporations should receive
some of the benefits associated with the provisions of onshore facilities.
However, the door should be left open for possible joint development of a
service base near the Kodiak urban area in view of the problems posed by
the Pillar Mountain landslide and its proximity to the inner harbor.
The recommended strategy for dealing with OCS facilities revolves around
two major points; 1) the borough, in cooperation with other local juris-
dictions and groups, such as Koniag, can and should designate the feasible
sites; and 2) the zoning ordinance should be amended to encourage devel-
opment only on these sites, and in any case, under carefully designed
conditional use procedures. The regional plan goes on to detail suggested
revisions to the borough's zoning ordinance in order to accomplish these
purposes.
7
A third study sponsored by the KIB examined candidate oil ter.inals sites on
the Kodiak Archipelago in context of a Western Gulf of Alaska lease sale
(Woodward/Clyde Consultants, 1977). This is the only facility aiting study
actually sponaored by the borough. This study was adopted aa a planning
document by the Borough Assembly (personal communications, 1980). However,
the study finding• do not constitute an official land use or energy facility
siting plan for the KIB. The array of candidate oil ter.inal and OCS service
base sites studied are shown schematically in figure III.A.-1. The siting
study ranked the candidate sites baaed on various criteria.
Significant policy assu.ptions were entailed in the oil ter.inal and OCS
support base site evaluation. These policies assumptions include the following:
Avoidance of existing community and harbor facilities. Ter.inal loca-
tions sited near such areas were presumed to adversely affect them and
were scored negatively.
Avoidance of overland pipeline routes or m1n~ overland pipeline dis-
tance. Ter.inal locations using overland pipeline corridors were pre-
sumed to adversely affect terrestrial biological features and habitat;
these were acored negatively.
Minimizing pipeline distance, either onshore or offshore. Ter.inal
locations which were closeat to the hypothesized producing fields (Western
Gulf of Alaaka) were presumed to beneficially effect the econo.ic cost of
petroleum development infrastructure. Such locations were scored posi-
tively.
Avoidance of critical marine habitat and pelagic/benthic communities for
the bay(s) in which the marine terminal and pipeline landfall would be
located. Marine species and habitat (through specific indicators) were
presumed to be sensitive to and adversely affected by OCS marine terminal
facilities siting. Site locations with these adverse impacts were scored
negatively.
The KIB recognizes that its 1977 study on facility siting done for a proposed
Western Gulf of Alaska leaae sale must be updated to include the Shelikof
Strait and Chiniak Bay areas. The borough has submitted applications for
funding assistance under the Coastal Energy Impact Program for new facility
siting studies in the Shelikof Strait and Chiniak Bay areas (Kodiak Island
Borough, 1980).
8
APPENDIX U
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
WATER QUALITY
E. Water Quality
1. Marine Water Quality Criteria: The management objectives for
water quality of the U.S. oceans are set forth in the Clean Water Act as
amended (33 USC 1251, et. seq.). The U.S. EPA has promulgated water quality
criteria by type of receiving water, beneficial use, and water quality consti-
tuent pursuant to this act (33 USC 1312). The water quality criteria used in
this section draw upon those promulgated by the EPA (EPA, 1976), as well as
recommendations of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1972).
Under the Clean Water Act amendments of 1977, EPA was given authority to
promulgate ocean discharge criteria based upon water quality considerations
for marine receiving waters (33 USC 1343(c)). EPA published proposed rules
for ocean discharge criteria; however, these are under review and have yet to
be officially promulgated (40 CFR 125, Subpart M (new); 45 FR 9548). Under
the proposed rules, EPA would not specify numerical marine receiving water
limitations for various pollutants. Instead, the EPA rules would require
permit applicants to show that the concentration and type of contaminants in
discharges would not adversely affect the marine environment.
The discussion of marine water quality in the proposed lease area involves a
comparison of reported baseline concentrations against established or putative
Federal water quality criteria and the State of Alaska water quality standards.
Both Federal and State water quality management does not require evaluation of
marine sediment quality or bioaccumulation of marine biota as indicators of
marine water quality. Clearly, pollutant species move between these receptor
types in the water column. Other sections of this DEIS acknowledge this
interaction and its significance on marine and terrestrial biota. Sections
IV.A.2.a. through g. consider bioaccumulation of contaminants in marine and
terrestrial biota.
2. Trace Metal Concentrations: The following elements are con-
sidered to be the most toxic of the trace metals: chromium, copper, nickel,
cadmium, mercury, lead, and barium (Clark, 1978; Ketchum, 1973). However,
there is disagreement on the exact order or relative importance of toxic
metals because of presently limited understanding of marine pollutant con-
centrations and processes (Burrell, 1977). The above cited elements are
either naturally occurring in crude oil or formation waters or are present in
drilling fluid discharges in concentrations greater than the established
marine water quality criteria.
Table III.A.2.c.-1 summarizes the water quality data for selected trace metals
in comparison with established Federal receiving water quality criteria. The
baseline concentrations of the trace metals constituents were sampled along
transects in the lower Cook Inlet and the Shelikof Strait waters extending out
to the Kodiak shelf. Refer to figure III.A.2.c.-1. Data in the table show
that the highest reported concentrations for cadmium, lead, copper, selenium,
and chromium are below the applicable Federal water quality criteria. Some of
the reported concentrations of zinc were close to the Federal criterion of one
part per billion (ppb).
Concentrations of vanadium are included in the table, even though this is not
considered to be a toxic substance by U.S. EPA pursuant to section 307(a)(1)
of the Clean Water Act as amended. Additionally, EPA has not promulgated a
1
water quality criterion for this trace metal. However, vanadium is naturally
found in petroleum and, hence, is of interest as a possible indicator con-
stituent in water column chemistry and monitoring of marine water quality.
OCSEAP sampling of trace metals did not include barium or nickel in the tran-
sects shown in figure III.A.2.c.-1. The background concentration of these
elements in seawater is on the order of micrograms per liter (ug/1) or parts
per billion (Clark, 1978; Bowen, 1966).
3. Hydrocarbon Concentrations: Evaluation of the existing marine
water quality for hydrocarbon constituents is complicated by the several types
of hydrocarbons present, their relative toxicity to pelagic communities, and
the difficulties in separating out toxic hydrocarbon groups through analytical
tests (National Academy of Sciences, 1973; Halins, 1977; Trasky, 1977; and
Alaska DEC, 1979). The State of Alaska has commented on this issue in its
rationale for ~ hydrocarbon limitation in territorial receiving waters:
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends using a safety
factor of 0.01 of the lowest LD50 of the most sensitive fresh water
or marine species of life stages tested in establishing allowable
hydrocarbon levels in the aquatic environment (EPA, 1976). Given an
average lethal value of 1.0 ppm for sensitive Alaskan organisms, a
standard of 0.01 ppm (10 ug/1) was established by ADEC for total
aromatic hydrcarbons ... [T)otal hydrocarbon (TH) concentrations in
the water soluble phase are generally proportional to total aromatic
hydrocarbons (TAB) concentrations in the same test solution (Anderson,
1977; R."ce, Short, and Karinen in Wolfe, 1977). This toxicity ratio
(TH:TAB) is roughly 1.5:1 for crude oil using various fish species
as test organisms. Applying this average ratio, an allowable level
of 15 ppb (ug/1) total hydrocarbons (using infrared analysis) was
adopted for the aquatic environment [by AEDC).
The rationale for setting both a TH and TAB standard is partially
based on available comparable data: The laboratory data base for
acute and sublethal levels is primarily reported at TH (using infra-
red analysis), while TAB has recently been recognized as more closely
characterizing the toxic water soluable fraction of petroleum hydro-
carbon solutions. As the field and laboratory data base for TAB
expands, it anticipated that the TH standard will be revised or
possibly dropped (ADEC, 1979)."
Table III.E.3.-1 summarizes observations of dissolved hydrocarbon concentra-
tions in Cook Inlet waters. The table reports the hydrocarbon material anal-
yzed in two groups, referred to as "Fraction 1" and "Fraction 2". The first
fraction consists of saturated and olefinic hydrocarbons. The second fraction
contains larger and more extensively unsaturated hydrocarbons, aromatic hydro-
carbons (if present), and some non-hydrocarbon organic compounds. These two
fractions could be added to estimate total hydrocarbon concentrations. However,
the additive concentrations of Fractions 1 and 2, as measured, could signifi-
cantly underestimate the dissolved TH concentration which has been established
as a State water quality standard.
The data in table III.E.3.-1 show that the individual hydrocarbon fractions
were all below 1 ppb, with the exception of one observation. If the reported
Fraction 1 and Fraction 2 concentrations are added at each of the sampling
2
~.
0 10
I I
Kilometers
I
I
"
151040'W
Source: Cline, Bates & Katz, 1980
I ,'
I
I
I
I
I
,,
I
I
I
FIGURE Ill. E. 3.-1
1S0040'W
y.... ,.~..,--,,
,,./
,,.,.~ I ,--"' C.' c--::o .,-...... ) _______ Jtf ___ ,
,,. ... -::t , .,. ,.J c.:;--------"" , ,;
I ---I / ~ Jll1k:
J I f "',r,_ l,rlf.
1 I I ,(-0 't..q
( I l"'M-19~,-""~<
; '-' ,..,/.s'L, """'~1\1.1'> I'~ ,.• ·r-t..q v SURFACE DISTRIBUTION OF DISSOLVED BENZENE
',· / IN UPPER COOK INLET IN MAY 1979
I ,',' -'
L/,/
0
I
/
151 w
':J)
< "' ':J)
0
LEGEND:
EXISTING PETROLEUM
PRODUCTION PLATFORMS
WATER QUALITY
SAMPLING STATIONS
-GO-INTERPOLATED ISOPLETH
OF DISSOLVED BENZENE
CONC . IN PPT .
•••• ----BATHYMETRIC CONTOURS
40'W 1~20'W
Station Position
Latitude
59°03.1'N
59°03.25'N
59°03.1'N
59°17.7. 'N
59°17.2'N
59°17.2'N
59°42.7'N
59°34.2'N
59°33.2'N
59°35.4'N
59°35.3'N
59°35.25'N
59°35.25'N
59°35.2'N
59°46.2'N
59°46.3'N
60°01.2'N
60°01.2'N
60°01.3'N
60°01.2'N
Table III.E.3.-1
Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Water From
Cook Inlet, Alaska, 1976
ug/Kg (ppb)
Longitude Fraction 1
151°52.4'W 0.17*
152°41.2 'W 0. 11*
153°23.4'W 0.46*
152°07.7'W 0.14*
152°41.1. 'W 0.02*
153°14.1'W 0.12* NB
151°07.4'W 0.33*
151°25.4'W 0.50*
151°36.4'W 0.25*
151°49.7'W 0.52*
152°09.8'W 0.30*
152°29.8'W 0.38*
152.49.8'W L
153°16.7'W 1.02*
152°08.7'W 0.76*
152°45.3'W 0.41*
151°53.2'W 0.11*
152°01.9 'W 0.15* NB
152°21.1'W 0.20*
151°31.4'W L
L = Lost during sample prepartion
ug/Kg = ug of sample detected per Kg surface water extracted
NB = Niskin bottle extraction was performed
ug/Kg (ppb)
Fraction 2
0.05
0.41
0.21
0.04
0.29
0.10 NB
0.04
0.61
L
0.20
0.39
0.26
L
0.44
ND
0.13
0.91
0.16 NB
0.15
L
* = Adjusted from 61.5.2% recovery of PHR spike addes, standard deviation 18.24
ND = None detectable
Source: Shaw, D., 1977.
stations, the 1resulting concentration would still be at least an order of
magnitude (10 ) less than the State standard for TH. However, hydrocarbon
groups not measured in the Fractions 1 and 2 sampling could raise the true
concentrations of dissolved TH at these sampling stations closer to the State
water quality standard.
The dissolved aromatic fraction of hydrocarbons is considered to be more
significant for purposes of water quality management (Alaska DEC, 1979; Shaw,
1977). Although the "Fraction 2" measurement of hydrocarbons could incor-
porate dissolved aromatic hydrocarbons, this measurement is not precise with
the technique used (Shaw, 1977). Better methods for measuring toxic aromatic
hydrocarbons involve gas chromatographs of individual toxic compounds. Inves-
tigators have recognized that two aromatic hydrocarbon compounds are expected
to play a significant role in overall toxicity--benzene and toluene (National
Academy of Sciences, 1973; Caldwell, Caldarone, and Mallon in Wolfe, 1977).
Table III.A.2.c.-4 summarizes observations on specific aromatic hydrocarbon
compounds for sampling stations in Cook Inlet waters. The data in table
III.A.2.c.-4 show that the values for benzene, toluene, and c2 benzenes were
in the range of low nanograms/liter (ng/1) or parts per trill1on (ppt).
Figure III.E.3.-l shows the location of the sampling stations and the inter-
polated dissolved benzene concentration intervals in upper Cook Inlet waters.
This sampling of aromatic hydrocarbons is significant for purposes of assess-
ing the level of some toxic hydrocarbon contaminants in Cook Inlet waters
because the sampling grid was located in the vicinity of existing petroleum
production platforms. Figure III.E.3.-l superimposes the location of existing
production platforms in Trading Bay and between the western East Forelands.
No State water quality standards or Federal water quality criteria have been
established for benzene or toluene hydrocarbon compounds. However, available
toxicity studies of these two compounds show LDSO responses of test species to
be in the low ppm (National Academy of Sciences, 1973; Caldwell, Caldarone,
and Mallon, 1977). Assuming an LDSO effect at 1 ppm, and a water quality
standard of 0.01 of this value (or 1 ppb), the reported range of be~ene
values in table III.A.2.e.-4 is at least two orders of magnitude (10 ) less
than this hypothetical standard/criterion for benzene. The same finding on
marine water quality of toluene as a dissolved aromatic hydrocarbon in Cook
Inlet can be made assuming a LDSO value for test species in the low ppm range
(National Academy of Sciences, 1973).
4. Synthetic Organic Chemical Concentrations: No baseline data
are available for Cook Inlet waters for various synthetic, organic chemicals
which are toxic to pelagic communities and/or man. Included in this group of
compounds are pesticides, herbicides, chemical additives for industrial pro-
cesses, etc. The EPA has announced a list of 65 toxic substances, most of
which are synthetic/organic compounds for which separate affluent limitations
or prohibitions will be prepared under the Clean Water Act, as amended (EPA,
1978; 33 USC 1317(a)(1); 44 FR 4108).
Existing concentrations of synthetic, organic constituents in the water column
of Cook Inlet are presumed to be low because of the absence of major point and
non-point sources. According to NAS, the toxic thresholds for mammals and
aqgatic organisms are in the order of parts per million in concentration, or
10 or more times the known level in the marine environment (National Academy
of Sciences, 1973).
3
5. Existing Wastewater Discharges in Cook Inlet: Major sources of
wastewater discharges exist in the Cook Inlet: aunicipal waste, discharges of
petroleum production platforas operating in territorial waters of upper Cook
Inlet, discharges from commercial fishing vessels, ocean-going vessels, and
hydrocarbon carriers. The stationary sources of discharge are regulated by
the· EPA under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
pursuant to the Clean Water Act requireaents. EPA stipulates numerical l~i
tations on discharge constituents, flow rates, and discharge locations in
order to minimize adverse effects upon beneficial uses of receiving waters.
Discharges of sanitary wastes from commercial vessels and petroleum ballast
waters from tankers is regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard. Refer to section
IV.A.2.o. regarding the impacts of the proposal on marine water quality for
discussion of the magnitude of wastewater releases, the regulated contaminants
involved, and compliance with State and Federal water quality aanagement pro-
grams.
4
APPENDIX V
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AIR QUALITY
F. Air Quality
1. Air Quality Management Programs: Pursuant to requirements of
the Clean Air Act as amended, the State of Alaska has prepared a State Air
Quality Control Plan (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1980).
This plan divides the State into Intrastate Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR),
reports on air emissions and air monitoring trends, projects future conditions,
and includes control strategies for attainment and maintenance of State and
Federal ambient standards.
The proposal is situated within the Cook Inlet Intrastate AQCR, as well as the
Southcentral Alaska AQCR. State ambient air quality standards are summarized
in table III.F.1.-1. The Federal ambient standards are not shown because the
State standards are more stringent and air monitoring analysis shows compli-
ance with State's standards for the most part.
Under provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act as amended, AQCRs within the
State must be classified as to ambient air quality for those regions with
ambient air quality superior to that required by the primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Class III areas are those in which the NAAQS
are exceeded; these are "non-attainment" areas. Classes I and II areas are
those in which ambient air quality is superior to the NAAQS, and in which
maximum allowable increments above baseline concentrations are established.
Class I areas include certain national parks, national wilderness areas, and
national wildlife refuges which meet specified criteria (PL 95-95, Sections
160-164).
2. Air Monitoring Analysis and Compliance with State Standards:
Ambient air quality in the Cook Inlet AQCR was reported by the U.S. EPA to be
in compliance with all NAAQS with the exception of TSP (U.S. EPA, 1978) and
carbon monoxide (CO) in the Anchorage area only. However, this finding was
not predicated upon a review of monitoring data. Instead, EPA interpreted
that area emissions inventory with known meteorological conditions.
Monitoring data on TSP for three Kenai Peninsula locations is summarized in
table III.F.2.-1. This is the only published air monitoring data available
for coastal regions in the vicinity of the proposed sale area. Additionally,
air monitoring was done for a brief period in the coastal area between Kenai
and Nikiski as part ~f the Pacific-Alaska LNG Facility site selection analysis
(Dames and Moore, 1978). Ambient air quality observations for so 2 , TSP, CO,
and nitrogen dioxide (NOX) at this site are displayed in table III.F.3.-1.
The TSP annual geometric mean values monitored at Kenai and Nikiski for th§
years 1975-1978 were in the range of background values for TSP (30-40 ug/m )
suggested by U.S. EPA (EPA,1978). The 3TSP annual mean values monitored at
Homer were slightly higher (60-70 ug/m ) and violated the State standard for
TSP. Table III.F.2.-1 also shows that the State TSP standard for 24-hour
exposure was exceeded eleven times in 1978 at the Kenai and Homer monitoring
stations while only once at the Nikiski LNG plant location.
An inspection of tables III.F.1.-1 and I~I.F.2.-1 shows that the air monitoring
done at the coastal site north of Kenai yields low values in comparison to the
State air quality standards: the mean values for so 2 , NOX, TSP, and CO were
all fractions of the State standards. However, it should be recognized that
these observations reflect air monitoring done only from September to December.
1
Criteria
Pollutant
Total Suspended
Particulftes
Class II
Class I
Carbon Monoxide
Ozone
Nitrogen Dioxide
Lead
Sulfur Oxi~e
Class II
Class I
Table III.F.l.-1
State of Alaska Ambient Air Qu~lity Standards
Measured in ug/•
Averasins Time
Annual c 24-hr 8 hr 3 hr
60a 150
19a 37
5a 10
10,000
100
1.5
80 365 1300
20 91 512
2 5 25
1 hr
:40,000
235
Source: 78 AAC 50.020; Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation. 1980;
40 CFR 52.21 (43 FR 26388).
a = Annual geometric mean. - = No standard for exposure interval indicated.
b = Measured as sulfur dioxide.
c = Annual arithmetic mean.
d = The State's ozone standard compares with U.S. EPA standards for photo-
chemical oxidant(s) which ~ measured as ozone.
e = Quarterly arithmetic mean instead of annual.
f = The standards for Class I and Class II areas refer to the EPA Preven-
tion of Significant Deterioration Program. The standards express
maximum allowable increments in air quality attributable to proposed
emission sources above baseline (existing) air quality conditions.
Table III~F.2.-1
Sw.ary of Kenai Peninsula Air
Monitoring for Total Suspended Particulates8
Monitoring ----------------------~E~xp~o~s~u~re~~--~~-=In~t~e~rv~a~l~
Locations No. of 24 Hour Obse~ations
Annual
Geometric
Mean
Hoaer Fire Department
1975 190
1976 61
1977 68
1978 69
Nikiski Phillips
1975
1976
1977
1978
LNG Plant
36
41
23
19
Kenai Fire Stations
1975
1976
1977
1978
48
35
34
33
14
5
5
11
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
11
Exceeding
3 c 260 ug/m '
12
2
1
3
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
a All observations are measure in micrograms per cubic meters (ug/m3 ).
b State ambient standard.
c Federal primary ambient standard.
Source: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1980.
3. PSD Area Designations: Under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program (PSD) of the Federal Clean Air Act, a Class I area has
been designated on the west side of Cook Inlet. The Tuxedni National Wildlife
Refuge on Chisik Island was considered by U.S. EPA to be suitable for a PSD
Class I area designation. It should be noted that the proposed additions to
the Tuxedni NWR along the western coast of Cook Inlet are presently not a part
of the U.S. EPA designated Class I PSD area. Refer to section III.C.S. No air
quality monitoring exists in the uninhabitated reaches of the western shorelines
of Cook Inlet to establish baseline ambient air quality conditions near the
Tuxedni NWR.
Other Federally managed lands near the proposed sale area may be suitable for
PSD Class I designation. Until Alaskan national interest lands legislation is
enacted, and the discrete management status and boundary units are known, air
quality PSD Class I designations would be speculative for purposes of environ-
mental assessment in this impact statement.
2
Table III.F.3.-1
Summary of Nikiski Air Quality Monitoring Program
Concentrations ~us/m3)a
1-hour 24-hour
Pollutant Monitorins Period Maximum Maximum Ave rase
Sulfur Dioxide 10/05/78 to 12/15/78 26 0
Particulates 09/05/78 to 03/28/79b 253 10c
Nitrogen Dioxide 10/05/78 to 12/15/78 60 20
Carbon Monoxide 09/23/78 to 12/15/78 6850 1000
a. Based on measurements made in parts per million and rounded to the
nearest whole number.
b. A total of 65 24-hour samples were taken at two separate locations.
c. Geometric Mean based on 65 samples.
Source: Dames and Moore, 1979.
APPENDIX W
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
FUTURE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT THE
PROPOSAL
H. Future Environment Without the Proposal
1. Social Factors: The following discussion is a forecast through
the year 2000 of anticipated growth in Kenai, Soldotna, Homer, Kodiak, and
Port Lions without the proposed lease sale. Sources of information for this
discussion include: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980, Technical Report Number 46,
Volume 2; Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979, Technical Report Number 40;
Kodiak Native Association, 1980, Overall Economic Development Program 1980;
Kodiak Area Native Association, 1979, Five Year Regional Health Plan 1981-1985.
Kenai: Under the base case, growth impacts at Kenai are expected to stem from
consolidation of its position in the economic functions that now support the
community. Continuing economic growth is forecast, but with no noteworthy
sudden departures from recent economic trends. The Kenai area will maintain
its oil and gas and petrochemical base, drawing upon existing and yet-to-be
proven hydrocarbon reserves anticipated from new State leases and sale CI.
An additional LNG plant will be constructed, beginning in 1981. Expanded com-
mercial fisheries and fish processing and tourism industries are expected to
support some growth.
The pace of population growth, estimated to average just over 2 percent an-
nually, is even slower than during the post-1970 period and is quite different
from the explosive growth pattern of the 1960-70 decade. In sum, the base
case projection envisions a diminished rate of economic and population growth
for the City of Kenai. The population is forecast to rise from an estimated
4,755 in 1980 to 7,000 in 2000.
The projected base case growth is not expected to generate any exceptional
growth-related burdens on Kenai's municipal facilities and services. The
relatively easy pace of town growth since 1970 has enabled Kenai to catch up
with the backlog of municipal needs that accumulated during the hectic expan-
sion of the 1960's. Now, Kenai is generally better positioned to absorb
without disruption such growth impacts as may occur in conjuction with another
LNG plant project, sale CI, and other anticipated developments. On the whole,
the forecast gradual growth is expected to generate demand for such routine
improvements as expanded water supply, minor improvements and corrections to
the sanitary waste system, a new landfill site, and additional fire station
and recreational facilities.
Soldotna: Soldotna is estimated to grow at an annual average rate of about 4
percent under the base case forecast. This growth rate is slower than in the
previous decade and much slower than the decade before that. Soldotna's
growth is linked to its role as a residential community and commercial and
service center for the Central Peninsula area upon whose overall economic
vitality its own prosperity depends. It is not anticipated that any major new
industrial employers will locate within Soldotna, although the city is expected
to capture a part of the region's resident offshore work force for sale CI.
As Soldotna's population is estimated to increase by about 81 percent over the
forecast period, the city should experience a trend toward a more urbanized
community. The population of Soldotna is forecast to grow from an estimated
2,572 in 1980 to 4,667 in 2000. The major growth impact issues at Soldotna
will likely be related to relatively routine matters such as the town's water
supply problem, the already scheduled waste treatment plant improvements,
1
development of a new sanitary landfill site, and construction of additional
fire-stations to service new development. In comparision to Soldotna's recent
history, the forecast imposes only moderate physical growth management demands
upon the city.
Homer: The economic base analysis indicates that the city of Homer's growth
will be stimulated by a continuing dynamic economy during the forecast period.
Strong growth in a number of different sectors is expected to contribute.
Development of a groundfish industry in lower Cook Inlet waters will likely be
based at Homer's port, which will also benefit from improved economic condi-
tions in the traditional fisheries. Homer is also advantageously located to
serve as the home community for some of the permanent offshore work force
operating the fields developed in sale CI lease areas. Finally, Homer's
continuing appeal as a tourism and recreation center can support further
expansion in the trade and services sectors of its economy.
The net result of these factors is that Homer is projected to average growth
at about 7.5 percent annually, for a cumulative increase of 153 percent over
the forecast period. Homer's population is forecast to increase from an
estimated 2,148 in 1980 to 5,429 in 2000. For a community of Homer's size,
this is a high rate of sustained growth.
Homer's projected rapid growth, especially in comparison to its present size,
can be expected to place some heavy demands upon the city for maintenaace of
community infrastructure and services. Particular issues of potential concern
are residential land development, including the extension of utility services;
additional water treatment capacity (the basic water supply appears adequate
for the base forecast); major expansion of the sanitary waste treatment facility;
development of a new sanitary landfill site; and expanded police and fire
protection services, including additional jail facilities and fire stations.
Also, growth in the fishing fleet end local fish processing industry is likely
to necessitate further port development.
Kodiak: The base case forecast is for steady population growth in the Kodiak
urban area at an average rate of over 5 percent annually and a cuaulative
increase of over 120 percent over the forecast period. The key econo.ic
activities in Kodiak's future will remain the fishing and seafood processing
industries. Kodiak is well situated to expand into the bottomfishing industry
as that new resource for Alaska's fishing fleet and processing industry begins
to realize its potential. Also, the trend toward a more diversified year-round
fishery is expected to continue.
Due to the existing locational pattern of harbor and processing plant facilities,
the city of Kodiak is forecast to strengthen its preeminent role as the center
of the island's fishing industry. Thus, about two-thirds of the Kodiak area's
population growth and most of the employment growth is expected to take place
within the city. Kodiak is forecast to grow from an estimated 4,818 in 1980
to 10,229 in 2000.
Overall, the Kodiak urban area is estimated to more than double in population
during the forecast period and, thus, about double in its general requirements
for community infrastructure. According to the economic forecast, the growth
trend will be steadily upward, without big population swings which would
complicate community planning and development programs. On the other hand,
2
there are a couple of elements in the community infrastructure which have
historically been in short supply or may be costly to expand much beyond
present capacities.
Despite recent residential construction activity, the Kodiak urban area con-
tinues to experience a general housing shortage. Housing accommodation~ are
particularly short for seasonal and transient workers. This situation, unless
alleviated, may inhibit the projected expansion of the seafood processing
industry and detract from Kodiak's economic base growth.
Also critically related to Kodiak's economic growth are the cost and reli-
ability of two basic utilities--water and power supply. At times, industrial
water use, mainly for seafood processing, accounts for up to 95 percent of the
city of Kodiak's water consuaption. As the city water supply is even now
sometimes overtaxed at periods of peak plant operation, it is clear that a
major water development project is a prerequisite for Kodiak to achieve its
full economic potential as a base for seafood processing.
Electric power costs are high in Kodiak for industrial and residential con-
sumers alike. Power requirements are forecast to nearly triple. If the
Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) is unable to develop a lower cost alterna-
tive to its existing diesel generated supply, then the price of power may
prove to be another brake on Kodiak's economic gowth potential.
Finally, the Kodiak area can expect to face a steady stream of the public
works projects routinely required to service its growing urban residential
area, such as the construction of new school facilities and the extension of
water and sewer systems to escape the pollution potential of poor subsoils and
drainage.
In quantitive terms, the base case growth forecast projects that Kodiak's
population will increase by an estimated 112 percent by 2000. The physical
impact of this growth upon Kodiak's community infrastructure will clearly be
substantial and will tend toward a more urban physical development pattern and
lifestyle than is currently the case. The basic orientation of the town's
economic base toward the fishing and fish processin industry is expected to
persist. However, with the successful entry into large scale bottomfishing,
the local fishing and fish processing industry should be characterized by high
year-round levels of activity, essentially eliminating the seasonality normally
associated with this industry.
Because the employment and population projections anticipate more rapid growth
in the first half of the forecast period, the demand for additonal housing,
community facilities and utilities, plus attendant pressures on local financial
resources, should be felt most strongly during the next ten years. Although
the city of Kodiak's fiscal position is now stronger than that of most Alaska
municipalities, if it commits itself to major new public works projects to
accommodate growth, the added debt service demands could compel it to tap new
revenue sources.
Port Lions: Port Lions is estimated to grow at an annual rate of 3 percent
under the base case forecast. This growth rate is slightly higher than other
Kodiak Island villages and stems primarily from the community's expressed
desire to attract new industry and the expanded housing availability which
3
will encourage a larger proportion of the younger populace to remain in the
community, rather than emigrate as has been the case in the past. The popu-
lation of Port Lions is forecast to grow from an estimated 266 in 1980 to 481
in 2000. Even this moderate 3 percent annual growth rate is substantial on a
community the size of Port Lions.
The most significant problem which the community faces during this period is a
continuing housing shortage. While the 35 new housing units will provide
substantial relief in the near future, this supply is not expected to sustain
growth and by the early 1990's, the community will experience the same housing
shortage it now has. Unless a means for increasing the housing supply is
found, the shortage will become severe by the end of the forecast period.
Concurrent with the need to expand housing supply will be the need to expand
other services such as water, sewer, electrical power, and police and fire
protection. Without an expanded tax base, this could prove problematic for
the community; however, the community has proven itself quite capable of
attracting financial resources to meet its needs and this pattern can be
expected to continue.
2. Economy:
a. State and Regional Economies: The future of the Alaskan
State and regional economies in the no sale case is described in the following
publications: University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research
(1980), Technical Memoranda 1 and 2 and Technical Report Number 42; U.S.
Department of the Interior (1979), The Western Gulf of Alaska DEIS, OCS Lease
Sale 46, and (1976) The Lower Cook Inlet EIS, OCS Sale CI. The State and
regional impacts of the proposal are relatively minor, and the reader is
referred to the above document for the State and regional "no sale" situation.
b. Local Economies:
Kodiak
The local Kodiak no sale case is described below and is derived from Alaska
Consultants, Inc., Technical Report Number 40, 1979.
Industries: Historically, fishing and fish processing have been the founda-
tion of Kodiak's economy. At first, the Kodiak fishery concentrated on the
salmon harvest. Over recent decades, however, the trend has been toward use
of other available stocks of fish and shellfish. Now, halibut, herring and
herring roe, king crab, tanner crab, dungeness crab, shrimp, and other species
are all harvested. Kodiak's fishing industry has thus steadily evolved from a
seasonal salmon fishery to a more diversified year-round industry with suitably
diversified fishing fleets and processing plants.
The no sale case economic forecast assumes that this trend toward diversifica-
tion will continue. Most notably, the. forecast assumes that Kodiak will lead
an expansion of fishing effort and processing capability for bottomfish that
will make Kodiak the center of bottomfishing and processing across the Gulf of
Alaska. A 1979 study done for the State of Alaska by Denconsult estimated a
potential annual domestic harvest of 149000 metric tons of groundfish in the
Kodiak and Chirikof sectors of the Gulf of Alaska. Kodiak, already the region's
4
premier fishing port, is advantageously located in relation to the Kodiak
grounds and the grounds off the Alaska Peninsula and the Gulf of Alaska.
Compared to competing ports, Kodiak is a large settlement with an existing
community infrastructure and a relatively large labor force. These various
factors favor Kodiak's emergence as the region's leading port for the bottom-
fishing fleet and for bottomfish processing.
It is also expected that the traditional established fishing industry will
gradually increase and prosper during the forecast period. In particular, it
is anticipated that better scientific understanding and iaproved resource
management practices will enhance and stabilize yields, allowing .ore efficient
use of gear, plant, and labor force.
Another resource-based industry, which is expected to prosper, is the wood
products industry. Under terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
extensive timber lands will be transferred to private ownership of Native
corporations and, presumably, harvested for revenue purposes.
The tourism and recreation industry is expected to show .odest growth. Pro.o-
tion of Kodiak's historical and recreational assets and improved visitor
facilities should attract increased numbers of tourists, conventioneers, and
vacationers to the Kodiak area.
The Kodiak Coast Guard station, currently a major military installation with
about 980 military per~onnel and an on-base population of about 2,500 people,
is forecast to remain at about its current strength. However, a .odest in-
crease is foreseen in civilian employment at the base.
Kodiak already has an unusually well-balanced trade and services sector for a
town of its size, and it is anticipated that expansion of tourist and bottom-
fishing industries will reinforce the basic component of these sectors.
Employment: The no sale case future employment forecast for the Kodiak area
estimates that employment will grow from 5,937 in 1978 to 10,628 by 2000
(Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979). This is an overall increase of about 79
percent of equivalent to an average annual 'growth rate of about 2.7 percent.
With the exceptions noted below, the structure of Kodiak's economy is expected
to persist relatively unchanged.
The basic employment categories of manufacturing (largely logging and fish
processing) and agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (largely fishing) are
projected to grow by about 75 percent, accounting for about 40 percent of all
employment growth in the forecast period and setting the pace for the secondary
economy .. Trade and services exhibit the fastest growth rate, together generat-
ing about 36 percent of all new jobs. Together, these four economic sectors
provide about three-quarters of the Kodiak area's economic growth.
Mainly because the Coast Guard station, the chief public employer, is not
expected to expand its operations, the overall role of public sector employ-
ment will decline from 33 percent to 23 percent of total employment by the
year 2000. In fact, government is the slowest growing economic sector.
5
The re.aining sectors of contract construction, transportation, finance,
insurance and real estate, and mining comprise a minor, if essential, share of
about 10 percent of the baseline employment and maintain that share through
the forecast period.
The employment forecast is for the Kodiak area as a whole and does not yield a
separate breakdown for the city of Kodiak and the rest of the road-connected
area. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that 80st of the employment
growth under the base case will be concentrated in or very close to the city
itself, as that is where the seafood industry is already established.
Local Government Finances: In fiscal year 1977, the city of Kodiak obtained
80St of its general fund revenues from local sources. Sales taxes (36~),
property taxes (16~), and a variety of service charges and miscellaneous other
sources (26~) prov1ded over three-fourths of the city's general fund income.
Intergovernmental transfers, mainly Federal and State revenue-sharing, accounted
for the remaining 22 percent.
For the future, it is assumed that the city's revenues will grow at the same
rate as its population grow. By this standard, the city's 1978 general fund
income of about $3,500,000 annually is forecast to climb to about $8,300,000
by 2000 (Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979).
As for base case operating expenditures, it is assumed that the city will
continue to maintain about the same level of services for the same level of
per capita cost as it does at present. About two-thirds of the projected
growth in the base case is allotted to the city of Kodiak, so the brunt of the
fiscal t.pact from growth will land upon the city. However, this t.pact will
be tempered by the fact that the borough government administers and finances
the local share of educational services as well as certain other areawide
services (Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1979). Also, certain utility services in
Kodiak, such as power and telephone, are financed and supplied through inde-
pendent public and private utilities.
At present, the city's general financial position, in terms of its per capita
debt, ratio of debt to valuation, property tax rates, and other indexes of
fiscal soundness, is roughly equal or superior to the average of other Alaskan
municipalities. However, if the city commits itself to major new public works
projects to accommodate growth, then its added debt service demands may compel
the city to tap new revenue sources.
Kodiak Villages
Without the proposed sale, the future of the six Kodiak villages is likely to
bring little, or at least relatively 80dest, change within the forseeable
future. Village employment is principally in commercial fishing which offers
a high degree of flexibility and freedom in pursuit of subsistence lifestyles.
Seasonality of employment is distinct, further reflecting a preference toward
the rural, subsistence lifestyle. Employment in the commercial salmon industry
is evidenced by the seasonality levels shown in table III.H.2.b.-1.
Of the six villages, all but Port Lions (built in 1964) are over 100 years old
and at least two have been reported as being 2,000 years old. Rates of growth
are of little significance given the small populations, and the length of
6
Village
Akhiok
Karluk
Larsen Bay
Old Harbor
Ouzinkie
Port Lions
Table III.H.2.b.-1
Village Employment
Workforce Estimate Summer EmEloyment
40 32
31 20
52 100
190 100
64 55
166 52
Year-Round
Employment
5
5
6
13
6
26
Source: Kodiak Area Native Association, 1979. Five-Year Regional Health Plan.
occupancy for all villages except Port Lions. The estimated rate of growth
for Port Lions is 3 percent per year, and 2 percent per year for the other
five villages.
The higher rate of growth for Port Lions is due to the apparent desire of
residents to encourage community growth. The growth oriented attitude is
evidenced by project proposals in the Overall Economic Development Plan (KANA,
1978-80), the response of local residents to questions posed during the BLM/OCS
scoping process, and the orientation of local government towards providing
services and infrastructure for prospective business.
Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division
The following forecast of the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census division and the city's
future without the proposal is taken from Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980,
Technical Report Number 46. The reader is referred to this docuaent for
details not contained in this text.
The base case forecast of employment and population growth for the cities of
Kenai, Soldotna, and Homer was derived from an overall analysis of the economy
of the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division, which comprises the western half of
the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
For the forecast period, anticipated trends in the region's economic base were
assessed and, upon this assessment, sector-by-sector growth rates were pro-
jected for future employment in the Kenai-Cook Inlet labor area and the Homer
labor area.
Two events were segregated and treated as separate incremental contributors to
the region's economic growth, apart from the economic base analysis: the
first-generation OCS sale CI, and construction and operation of the proposed
Pacific-Alaska LNG plant at North Kenai. The employment attributable to these
two projects was individually estimated and then incorporated into the employ-
ment forecasts for the Kenai-Cook Inlet and Homer labor areas. Next, by use
of a population/employment ratio, population estimates were calculated for the
Kenai-Cook Inlet and Homer labor areas. Finally, each labor area's population
estimate was subdivided among the cities and their respective hinterlands.
Thus, this base case forecast is not a non-OCS forecast. It does include a
level of OCS activity corresponding to a medium level of exploration success
in sale CI as well as a strong base level of oil and gas-related industrial
facilities developed for earlier leases in Cook Inlet. This aspect of the
base case assumes significance in the impact assessment of the petroleua
scenarios since it presents a situation in which many sale 60 activities can
draw upon industrial facilities with excess capacity due to the decline of
earlier producing fields.
The sector-by-sector analysis of regional economic trends follows.
Oil and Gas: An inelastic demand for petroleum will exist throughout the
planning period from 1980 through 2000 for Cook Inlet petroleum resources.
Although petroleum production from existing upper Cook Inlet oil and gas
fields will be declining throughout the planning period, strong demand for
7
domestic oil and gas production will result in tertiary recovery from these
fields through the year 2000. In addition, new petroleum production is assumed
from State leases in the Cook Inlet area (and from offshore leases in OCS
lease sale CI). It is also assumed that the existing and forecast natural gas
reserves are sufficient to maintain current levels of production throughout
the forecast.
Any shortfall in crude oil production from Cook Inlet fields supplying Cook
Inlet refineries is assumed to be offset by crude oil t.portation from other
areas of Alaska or elsewhere. Thus, these facilities are assumed to operate
at or above current levels throughout the planning period. However, substan-
tial additions to processing capacity are not seen to occur during the period
of forecast.
Possible declines in petroleum-related employment due to production from upper
Cook Inlet platforms ceasing are assumed to be more than compensated for by
increases in oil service industry employ.ent resulting from servicing oil
developments in other areas of the state.
Fishing and Seafood Processing: Growth in fishing and seafood processing
employment is assumed to result from increased yields in the traditional
fisheries of the Kenai-Cook Inlet area and successful entry and exploitation
of deep sea fishing resources.
The harvesting and processing of deep sea fishery resources (or so called
groundfish or bottomfish) are assumed to take place in the southern Kenai
Peninsula area, particularly Homer. Also, sa.e supply of bottomfish to off-
shore processing vessels by fishing boats based in this area is foreseen.
Although involvement in deep sea fisheries is forecast to result in substantial
employment increases, the sum of the increase in employment in the fishing and
fish processing sector is assumed to be even greater since the base which is
vested in the traditional fisheriee also is forecast to increase. These
increases are based in part upon increased knowledge and experience by the
State of Alaska in the management of traditional species such as salmon, king
crab, tanner crab, and other species taken in this area. This more capable
management will enable the regulatory authorities to stabilize the production
of these fisheries and permit catches approaching optimum yields.
It is also assumed that further diversification of fisheries products with the
addition of bottomfish as an example and the fisheries product mix in Cook
Inlet plants, especially the southern Kenai Peninsula plants, will result in a
substantial year-round operation with a .are stable resident labor force in
the fishing and fish processing sector.
Improved management and greater yields in Alaska's fisheries districts will
continue to result in part from the 200-mile offshore limit t.posed by the
United States, and the recently agreed upon U.S./Japan treaty which limits
Japanese salmon catches beyond the 200-mile limit.
Overall, it is assumed that the improved management of Alaska fishery resources
gained through law, treaty, knowledge, and experience will result in a more
dependable and larger harvest of fisheries resources during the period of this
forecast.
8
Tourism and Recreation: The tourism and recreation industry is forecast to
become a more significant factor in the economic growth to the Kenai-Cook
Inlet area. General population growth, as forecast for the south-central
region by the Institute of Social and Economic Research for a "moderate base
case," together with increased visitor traffic to the Kenai Peninsula Borough
originating outside the state, are expected to intensify use of the area's
tourism and recreational assets. The tourism and recreation sector within the
Kenai-Cook Inlet area is seen responding to this increased potential by providing
the facilities and services necessary to support increased tourism and recreation.
The Kenai-Cook Inlet area will continue to attract a large share of the total
visitor traffic originating from the Anchorage area. Especially important in
attracting and accommodating visitor traffic will be the Homer area although
all areas within the Kenai-Cook Inlet area will realize visitation increases.
Logging and Wood Products: Although the Kenai-Cook Inlet area contains sub-
stantial timber resources with major wood processing plants located at Jakolof
Bay and Tyonek, conflicts with the fishing and fish processing industry and
the tourist and recreation industry are seen as inhibiting factors to further
growth.
Logging and wood processing currently occupy a small position in the economy
and basic employment of the Kenai-Cook Inlet area and, despite the potential
of this industry to expand, it is assumed to remain at current levels through-
out the forecast period, for reasons noted in the preceding paragraph.
Government: A modest rate of growth is assumed to take place in basic govern-
ment employment during the forecast period. Increases in resident population
and visitors, especially those engaged in tourism and recreation, are assumed
to result in the need for more intensive management in areas of fish and
wildlife. Additional basic Federal employees are seen to be needed to protect
and manage the fish and wildlife within the Kenai Moose Range. Also, additional
basic State employees will be required to protect the productive fish streams,
rivers, and beaches of this area as well as to manage State Parks and recrea-
tional facilities provided to accommodate visitors.
Increased offshore activities in petroleum development and deep sea fishing as
well as increased recreational boating will necessitate increases in U.S.
Coast Guard employment. In the air, increases in fixed wing and helicopter
traffic resulting from offshore development and general economic and popula-
tion growth will result in increased basic Federal and State employment. It
is assumed at the State and local level that substantial intergovernmental
transfers, principally in the form of grant funds, resulting in basic employ-
ment within the Kenai-Cook Inlet area will be maintained roughly in proportion
to increases in population within the area.
In summary, increases in basic employment during the period of the forecast
are assumed to result from the same natural resource-based industries now
supporting basic employment in the area. However, these industries are fore-
cast to range further from the Kenai-Cook Inlet area in providing the products
supporting basic employment. The fishing industry is forecast to range further
into the ocean for bottomfish. The petroleum industry will move further out
on the continental shelf to produce oil and gas and utilize more extensive
methods to realize tertiary recovery from existing fields. And greater numbers
9
of visitors will travel to the area from greater distances to enjoy tourist
and recreation opportunities.on the lands and waters of the Kenai-Cook Inlet
area.
In the principal sectors, basic employment in agriculture, forestry, and
fisheries is forecast to increase in the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division at
4 percent per year from 1979 to 1990 and 2.5 percent per year from 1991 to
2000. This increase is based solely upon growth in the fisheries with bottom-
fishing being a major factor. Since a large portion of the growth is forecast
to take place through bottomfishing and through greater yields in the total
mix of fish catches, the southern Kenai Peninsula area is forecast to exper-
ience greater growth. Homer area basic employ.ent in agriculture, forestry
and fisheries is forecast to increase at a rate of 5 percent per year from
1979 to 1990 and 3 percent per year from 1991 to 2000. On the other hand,
basic employment in this sector in the Kenai-Soldotna area, where salmon
fishing dominates, is forecast to increase steadily at 1.5 percent per year
throughout the planning period.
Basic employment in manufacturing which is vested primarily in petroleum
processing and seafood processing is forecast to increase at a modest 2 per-
cent per year in the non-OCS forecast for the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Divi-
sion. (The inclusion of the OCS sale CI in the base case does not alter this
growth since the same facilities and employment are used to process the petro-
leum production of sale CI. However, it results in maintaining a share of
petroleum employment at current levels.)
Of course, basic employment growth varies for the area under study within the
Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division. The Homer area, whose basic manufacturing
employment is vested in seafood processing, is forecast.to increase at 5 per-
cent per year from 1979 to 1990 and 3 percent per year from 1991 to 2000. In
the Kenai-Soldotna area, where petroleum processing employment dominates,
basic employment is expected to increase at 2 percent per year throughout the
forecast period.
Basic non-OCS employment in m1n1ng in the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division is
located almost exclusively in the Kenai-Soldotna area and is almost exclusively
petroleum industry related employment. This basic employment sector is fore-
cast to increase by 1.0 percent per year in the Kenai-Soldotna area, whereas
no employment is recorded in this sector in the Homer area.
The distributive industry sectors of transportation, communications, and
public utilities, trade and services support basic non-OCS employm~t in the
Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division through prov1s1on of goods and services
primarily to basic industries, visitors, transient fishing vessels and off-
shore petroleum operations.
Basic employment in transportation, communications, and public utilities is
forecast to increase at 3.5 percent per year throughout the planning period in
the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division. The Kenai-Soldotna area where this
sector, especially in transportation, is extensively developed, is forecast to
increase at 3 percent per year from 1979 to 2000. Some economies of scale are
seen in this sector. The Homer area, with a less developed basic economy in
this sector, is forecast to increase at 4 percent per year throughout the
forecast period.
10
Activities in the trade sector and service sector are forecast to result in a
basic employment growth of 3.75 percent per year in the Kenai-Cook Inlet
Census Division. Primarily because of tourism and recreation, basic employ-
ment in the Homer area is forecast to increase at 4 percent per year while
-lesser involvement in the Kenai-Soldotna area will result in an annual growth
of 3.5 percent for the length of the forecast.
Basic employment in the sectors of contract construction and finance, insurance
and real estate facilitate the dev~lopment of basic economic activities such
as petroleum development. The basic employment in the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census
Division is forecast to increase at 3.5 percent per year. Basic employment in
the Homer area is somewhat higher at 4 percent per year in each of these
sectors while in the Kenai-Soldotna area both sectors are forecast to increase
by 3 percent per year throughout the forecast period.
The forecast for basic employment in the Government sector in the Kenai-Cook
Inlet Census Division area as a whole and the Kenai-Soldotna and Homer areas
is forecast at 3 percent per year throughout the period of the forecast.
The overall growth rate in basic employment for all industry sectors in the
Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division is estimated at approximately 2.8 percent per
year, with the Homer area increasing at about 3~8 percent per year, and the
Kenai-Soldotna area increasing roughly at 2.4 percent per year.
Secondary Employment: Since the existence of service employment is dependent
upon expenditures of the basic sector, service employment can be derived
roughly from basic employment through the use of a multiplier to elicit total
employment. Total employment minus basic employment equals service employment.
The 1979 employment estimate by Alaska Consultants, Inc., derived from Alaska
Department of Labor, Employment Security Division statistics for the Kenai-Cook
Inlet labor area totaled 7,795. Estimates of basic and.service employment
were 4,451 and 3,344 respectively. Thus, the multiplier derived is 1.75. The
multiplier appears reasonably representative of an area in which there is a
mixture of stable, year-round industrial employment with high wage rates and
seasonal activities with large transient work forces.
The sum of the basic employment in the industrial sectors for each of the
years forecast multiplied by the multiplier of 1.75 produces the estimate of
total employment for each year. Of course, there are many factors which could
result in the multiplier changing. However, rather than speculating upon
these chang1s, the multiplier is assumed to be constant throughout the fore-
cast period.
Total Employment: Since the multiplier of basic to secondary employment is
assumed to remain constant during the forecast period, the rate of increase in
basic employment is equal to the rate of increase in total employment. There-
fore, the Kenai-Cook Inlet labor area, in which total employment is forecast
to increase from an estimated 7,795 employees in the 1979 base year to 15,794
employees estimated in the year 2000, is forecast to increase by approximately
2.8 percent per year.
The Kenai-Soldotna area is projected to increase from an estimated 5,075
employees in 1979 to 8,246 in 2000, or by about 2.4 percent per year. The
11
Homer area is projected to increase by approximately 3.8 percent annually or
from 1,621 employees in 1979 to 3,619 employees in 2000.
OCS Sale CI
Employment: The sale CI portion of the base case employment and population is
derived from a petroleum scenario which is assumed to be representative of a
medium find scenario for the current OCS lease sale CI medium find scenario.
Since sale CI concludes within the period of the base case forecast, the
annual additions of sale CI employment and population to the non-OCS forecast
result in higher annual averages and intermediate changes in the rates of
growth, but do not alter the long-term growth rates from the 1979 base year to
the end of the forecast period in 2000. However, sale CI is foreseen to
assure the utilization of existing Cook Inlet petroleum facilities at or near
capacity. Although no tertiary recovery is assumed in this scenario, should
the level of production in the forecast result, there is a distinct probability
of tertiary recovery under the assumption for the non-OCS forecast.
A forecast of employment related to the medium find scenario for sale CI is
shown in Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980, Volume II.
Proposed Pacific Alaska LNG Plant
Employment: In order to portray the proposed Pacific Alaska LNG facility as
an element in the base case of employment and population, a scenario involving
only the construction and operations employment was developed. The facility
as currently proposed by the Pacific Alaska LNG Company is assumed to have a
capacity of 400 million cubic feet per day. The timing and direct employment
required in the construction and operation of this facility were obtained from
the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Alaska.
These were used by ISER in the "Lower Cook Inlet, State-wide and Regional
Population and Economic Projections." Construction is forecast to take place
beginning in 1980, and concluding with a finished plant during 1983. Produc-
tion is assumed to begin in 1984 and to extend at full production beyond the
year 2000. (See Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1980 for spatial distribution of
employment.)
Total Base Case Employment
Base Case Total Employment Forecast: This forecast is derived below from the
non-OCS cases plus the CI and pacific LNG effects.
For purposes of forecasting future employment levels, an overall projection
was first developed for the regional economy, that is, for the Kenai-Cook
Inlet Census Division. Then, on the basis of past and anticipated economic
trends, a share of the regional projection was assigned to the Kenai-Soldotna
and Homer labor areas. Individual employment forecasts were not developed for
each city in view of the high work force mobility within the economic subareas
and in view of the fact that resident population, not employment, was the
critical variable for estimating community impacts.
Kenai-Soldotna Labor Area: Base case employment in the Kenai-Soldotna area is
projected to increase from 5,386 jobs in 1980 to 8,336 jobs by 2000. The pace
12
of expansion is generally expected to be steady, with the exception of a
strong surge in construction employment during the building of the proposed
Pacific Alaska LNG plant scheduled for 1981-84. At peak, this project creates
up to 1,323 direct jobs. Many of these short-term construction jobs are
assumed to be filled by a temporary work force residing in ca.p facilities at
the project site. Other noteworthy sectors of basic growth include continuiaa
oil and gas development related to sale CI and to other State leases and the
transportation industry.
Kenai's Local Government Finances: In fiscal year 1978, the city of Kenai
obtained moat of ita revenue from local sources. Property taxes (421), sales
taxes (26\) and a variety of service charges and miscellaneous other sources
(81) provided over three-fourths of the City's general fund inco.e. Intergov-
ernmental transfers, mainly from Federal and State revenue sharing, accounted
for the re.aining 24 percent.
For the future, it is assumed that the city's revenues will grow at the sa.e
rate as its population grows. By this standard, the city's 1982 general
revenue fund inco.e estt.ate of $3,560,000 annually is forecast to clt.b to
about $5,000,000 by 2000.
As for operating expenditures, under the base case, it is assumed that the
city of Kenai will continue to maintain about the sa.e level of services at
about the sa.e level of per capita cost as it does at present. Only about
one-third of the projected growth in the Central Peninsula area under the base
case is allotted to Kenai, so the brunt of the fiscal ~act of growth on the
city will be ao.ewhat mitigated. Fiscal ~act will be further t~red by
the fact that the borough govern.ent administers and funds the local share of
educational services as well as certain other areawide services such as gar-
bage disposal and hospital services. In addition, certain utility services in
Kenai, such as power and telephone, are financed through independent public
and private utilities.
At present, 'the city's general financial position in te~ of ita per capita
debt, ratio of debt to valuation, property valuation per capita, property tax
rates and other indexes of fiscal soundness are about equal to or poorer than
the average of other Alaskan municipalities. This suggests that Kenai may
have some difficulty financing future capital improve.ents within its existing
fiscal fra.ework and may, instead, have to rely on State and Federal grants to
finance new facilities or develop new rev~nue sources.
Kenai's Economic Prospects: Under the base case, growth impacts at Kenai are
expected to stem from consolidation of its position in the econoaic functions
that now support the co.munity. Continuing economic growth is forecast, but
with no noteworthy sudden departures from recent economic trends. The Kenai
area will maintain ita oil and gas and petrochemical base, drawing upon exist-
ing and yet-to-be proven hydrocarbon reserves anticipated froa new State
leases and sale CI. An additional LNG plant will be constructed as scheduled.
Expanded coa.ercial fisheries and fish processing and touriaa industries are
expected to support some growth.
The pace of population growth, estimated to average about 2 percent annually,
is even slower than during the post-1970 period and is quite different froa
the explosive growth pattern of the 1960-70 decade. In summary, the base case
13
projection envisions a diminished rate of economic and population growth for
the city of Kenai.
Soldotna's Local Government Finances: As of 1978, nearly five-sixths of
Soldotna's general fund revenues were raised locally from property taxes
(29%), local sales tax (301), and miscellaneous other local revenue sources
(24%). Only about 17 percent of general fund revenues were derived from
intergovernmental transfers. Since 1974, the city's mil rate has fallen
considerably from 20.20 to 16.10 mils, a trend which is probably related to a
period of rapid expansion in the city's residential and commercial property
tax base.
For the base case forecast, it is assumed that the city's revenues will in-
crease at a rate proportionate to population growth. By this assumptio~, the
city's 1982 estimated general fund revenues of about $1,913,000 will q1imb to
about $3,165,000 by the year 2000, an overall increase of 65 percent./
Under the base case, it is also assuaed that the city will maintain its cus-
tomary mix and quality of municipal services and facilities and that its
general fund expenditures will have to be maintained at about the same per
capita level as prevailed at the outset of the forecast period. Thus, general
fund operating expenditures are estimated to grow by 65 percent from about
$1,618,000 in 1982 to $2,677,000 by 2000. Operating expenditures are projected
to consume about 85 percent of general fund receipts, with the remainder
available for capital improvements and debt service.
At present, the city's overall financial situation seems improved over recent
years. The city's per capita valuation is now typical of middle-sized Alaska
cities, thanks to recent town development. However, it should be noted that
Soldotna's role as a residential community and governmental and coiiiDercial __ _
center for the central peninsula area may help perpetuate an imbalanced and
relatively disadvantageous property tax base structure for Soldotna. The city
must rely heavily on residential and commercial development for revenues,
since it does not have tax access to the highly valued industrial plants in
the north Kenai-Nikiski industrial complex which employs so many of the area's
residents.
The city of Soldotna now experiences a relatively high indebtedness ratio when
the city's own debt is combined with the city's share of borough indebtedness.
This situation, in conjunction with the above-mentioned imbalance in its
property tax base, may place financial strain upon the city's debt capacity,
if major capital impr9vements are ~eeded during the forecast period.
Soldotna's Economic Prospects: Soldotna is estimated to grow at an annual
rate of about 3 percent under the base case forecast. This growth rate is
slower than in the previous decade and much slower than the decade before
that. Soldotna's growth is linked to its role as a residential community and
commercial and service center for the central peninsula area upon whose overall
economic vitality its own prosperity depends. It is not anticipated that any
major new industrial employers will locate within Soldotna, although the city
is expected to capture a part of the region's resident offshore work force for
sale CI.
14
Homer Labor Area: The employ.ent forecast for the Homer area anticipates
rapid, steady growth over the next two decades. Particularly strong advances
are projected for the fishing and fish processing industry, partly as a result
of exploitation of groundfish resources. The trade and services sector of the
economy is expected to exhibit strong growth, due to expansion in Homer's
tourism industry and diversification of the local service economy. Sale CI is
potentially also a major growth factor: the medium find scenario assumed for
that sale is estimated to generate as many as 407 jobs in the Homer area,
about 14 percent of total local employment.
Overall, Homer area employment is forecast to more than double from 1,742 jobs
in 1980 to 3,619 by 2000 (Alaska Consultants Inc., 1980).
Local Government Finances: As of fiscal year 1978, the most recent year for
which data is available, local property taxes were the main source of general
fund revenues for the city of Homer, providing about 55 percent of the city's
general fund income. Various other local revenues account for another 9
percent of general funds while intergovernmental transfers account for the
remaining 36 percent, better than one-third of all general funds.
As a general rule, it is expected that the city's revenues will increase in
proportion to its population growth. By this standard, it is estimated that
the city's general fund income of approximately $910,000 as of fiscal year
1978, will reach about $2,400,000 by the close of the forecast period, or an
increase of about 164 percent.
In the base case forecast, it is also assumed that the city will maintain
essentially the variety and level of public services at about the same rela-
tive level of per capita cost as it does at present. Thus operating expen-
ditures are projected to grow at about the same rate as general fund income.
If this relationship between growth in revenues and expenditures persists,
then the city should receive income in excess of operating needs to apply to
capital expenditures and debt service. Also, if the city maintains its 3
percent sales tax, which is at present earmarked for debt service, those
additional revenues may also be applied to capital improvement needs.
The city of Homer's present financial status appears to be representative of
medium-sized Alaska municipalities in regard to its per capita assessed valua-
tion and better than average in its ratio of bonded debt to valuation. This
last factor is important, since it appears that the city may be called upon to
sponsor public improvements for water supply and waste treatment in the near
future to serve a rapidly growing population.
Homer's Economic Prospects: The economic base analysis indicates that the
city of Homer's growth will be stimulated by a continuing dynamic economy
during the forecast. Strong growth in a number of different sectors is ex-
pected to contribute. Development of a groundfish industry in lower Cook
Inlet waters will likely be based at Homer's port, which will also benefit
from improved economic conditions in the traditional fisheries. Homer is also
advantageously located to serve as the home community for a substantial share
of the permanent offshore work force operating the fields developed in sale CI
lease areas. Finally, Homer's continuing appeal as a tourism and recreation
center can support further expansion in the trade and services sectors of its
economy.
15
The net result of these factors is that Homer, the smallest in population of
the three cities, is projected to grow at the fastest rate, about 4.5 percent
annually, for a cumulative increase of 153 percent over the forecast period.
For a community of Homer's size, this is a high rate of sustained growth.
16
APPENDIX X
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM AGENCIES,
ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS REGARDING
THE DEIS FOR PROPOSED SALE 60
UNI'TED .,....,TQ DK""'"MDfT Of' ACIRICUL ~ --P.O. Box 1628, Juneau, Al~ftt-,~~~: lrf·;~
~s. Esther C. Wunnicke
Manager, Alaska Outer Continental
Shelf Office
USOI Bureau of Land Mana-t
P. 0. Box 1159
LAnchOrage, Alaska 99510
Oear Ms. Wunnicke:
• .. . • • • • t t -~
1!150
Oc1 :r Jl ·a. 1, 1!180 e
We have reviewd the Oraft Enviro-tol IIIPact Stat .. nt relating
to Oil and Gas Sale 160.
Afognak Island 1s affected by the po-oposed sale in several ways, as
you have pointed out. The draft should also indicate that Afognak
ana Ban Islands are currently involved in legislation being
considered by the Congress. Thh legislation would include all
pub11c lands on Afognak and the -11 adjacent islands into the
Kodiak National Wild11fe Refuge.
Two sections of Afognak and Ban Islands were withdr-under
Section Z04(b)(l) of the Federal Land Polley and Managenoent Act
of 1976 (PL 94-579) in Oec-er of 1978 for a period of Z years
pending Congressional action. Extension of this segregation 1s the
subject of the enclosed Oraft Enviro-.>tol IIIPICt Stat_.t
prepared by the Forest Service. As noted in thh draft, two areas
withdrawn are proposed for incorporation into the Wilderness
Preservation Syst.., by the Administration.
The pending actions outlined above could potentially affect the o11
and gas salt, especially as they relate to onshOre devel-ts
which may be needed on Afognak or Ban Islands.
We appreciate the opportunity to c-t on your proposal.
Sincerely,
f-~t~L --Msr.
--Aut. Mor.
--SE Stall l..dr.
--E.' StAll l.dr.
--PIO Enclosure :z:: g::::: ~
--Chioi.MS = --?::CA --:::: ~== ::: =
A·A-
J.Jn/o -"••
t ,:::";\ P'mDALIEN_,. IIIUULATORY COIIM...ON
..... '· ... c, ~. ~· t .
• l\1 1 ~~ t1, I ~~11h
~~ger, Alaaka OCS Offiee
Bureau of Land Manag...nt
p .0. BoK 1159
Aneborage, Alaaka 99510
Dear Sir:
--
OCT 2Z 1!180
We appreeiate the opportunity to eommant on the draft
environmental impaet atat..ent (D!IS) evaluating the propoaed
Alaaka Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Caa Leaae Sale •,,J
in tlte l.ov..r Cook Inlet-!ll'lf•likof !!trait. The Office of Pipeline
and Produeer Regulation of the Federal Energy &eguletory
Commiaaion offer• the following coaaent.
The D!IS indieatea on pas•• 24 and 132 that tanker shipment
of liquefied natural gaa (LRG) vould he the rrohahle 1'10t!e of
tranaportation for any future natural gaa diaeovered in the
proposed Leaae Sale 60 area. However, the D!IS doea not adequately
deacribe the eurrent atatue of LRC reeeiving faeilitiea on the
weet coaat. For inatanee, on September 26, 1979, the FERC
eonditionally approved eonatruetion of an LNG i-rort faeility at
Point Coneaption, California, to reeaive LRC from Indoneaia and
from Cook Inlet in Alaaka. The Point Coneeption facility would
eventually vaporize LNG at an average plant output of 900 million
cubic feet par day (efd), with additional peeking capaeity of 300
million efd. The Alaakan portion of thia project would transPort
gaa by pipeline from produetion fields in Cook Inlet to an LNG
plant in the Hikiaki induatrial eompleK. LNG would then be
trrnaporud by tankar, and after revaporization, would be
de iverad for aala to .. rkata in aoutharn California. Thia
ayat.,. would initially tranaport 200 million efd of gaa, reaching
en eventual project total of 400 million cfd. Aa the DEIS auggeata,
thia facility would have to be ezoanded to handle the additional
gas auppliea result ina f1"0111 the propoaed lease sale. Sueh an
npanaion would be aubjeet to FER.C review and approval. At the
praaant ti•, the Point Coneeption terminal ia baing further
analyzed by both thia eo..iaaion and the California Publie
Utilities Coaadasion an~ if eonatruetad, would be the only LNG
reeeiving facility on the vaat eoaat.
The CO...iaaion ia direeting ita attention end efforta toward
tegulatory actiona to t.prove daa.stie natural gaa auppliea. The
• 2 •
eo-1 .. 1oa ataff ncopbea tbe aat1011el iloportace of OCS
uploratiOD ad davelopact, u well u tbe Deed for effective
envir-tal aafeguarda. Baaed IJIIOil a review of your DIIS,
we believe that the propoaed OCS oil ad pa leaae aale b
in the national intereat.
Very truly youra,
cc: Dinctor (540)
lunau of Land Manaa-t
VaahiJI&tOD, D.C. 211240
-.-• .&laalta ocs Office
--of I..--.-t r.o.-U59
_ ... .._ • .&laalta 99510
!bla la 1a r-to-lett• 17Uf60(542) of....,... 7, ltiO --to
tboo Director, Office of --tal Quality __,.ial • draft -s-1
atat-oo tboo ,..._.. out• CO.t"'-tal Sbalf oU - -leua lala
(OCS lala ... -60), ~ Cook Ialat/lbe11lr<lf Strait, .&laalta.
!be c:oacenM -atial -..utratiooa _. otaff of tboo ~ of ~
...... r.n.-..1 tboo •t•W -""ittad. 11a ....,. .. -· to -aor *' w ....,_ _, objoctiooa co thia atat-.
!be -"UDitY to--thia draft &tat-la --·
1-.ly,
#.e;u v.a. UDa.
Cbiaf, Porto _. llot_,..
P~ Staff
ac•<•:. ~c~ ,,...,..._
~·~··~.' ... =-:.::.:-
lkr z~ i{ ~J 1'11'11
Octaller 23, ltiO
1111. c-ia IIUshot
Dlpe..-nt .r tile Jwterior
........ ., LMd -........t . ocs
P.O. loa 1159
-... ...,. •• t9510
IIHr 1111. llosshllt:
Ill llaft revi-.cl tiiDH sections of tile ~ Coot Jnlet-SM11tof Streit
011 Mil les l.eeM Slle, DEJS, relati"' to tile potential i..-cts of tile
propoMd project 011 tile Air TrewSPOrt&tiGII S)'&t. Mil feel tllat tile areas
are adlquatol1 -red. Tllerefore, w llaft oo additional _,.t,
-
· Sincerel1,
United States Department of the Intlit(;t' ~e_: •''FICE , . • . ~!:'l.t
IIERJTAGECOO:~:,~~a:TIONsnMP 5 B :?!1!'11
"'1 2 I I!BI
'l'cu Diractac, -of r.M --t
-· Director, lar1--..ruf.GD-lacnatf.GD -..
... joct1 -of Draft -tal Ita..._. for rr...-1t10
O.ter Colltu.tal Aalf 011 -c:u leua lala
... 60 c-10/SZ)
Ja-to--of ..... t5,lJIO, .. ----.~----""" folloor1aa -· C!lt•!l .........
'Ill& draft -s-1 •ta-t .... ~y---calhn1 ·--· llo an aLM to--of u-coord1aaU.oo boo-tboo-of
r.M --t O.ter Colltu.tal lbolf Office -tboo .&laelta State
111ator1c ......... -Offica.
,. """---......---...u--.. .... -!awl-locally -oat1oul.ly 1a""" ~ of ~ --..-p~ of oaltuol .__, w ..U boo aLM to -iot 1a tboo
~t of-pr-to-. ,_tiDe of_..,.. ..u.a1
.__, • -~ .. •· zoe. n--t s..u 18ale, .....,._ -tal CGMoaltiq --~t 1a --...,D.C. (54)-7105), or"-""'
--.. """8CII .&laelta ... Offica, (277-1666).
lloc!!!Ua!
11M draft a.._t bM U...ifiad -rol ~ to ncnot1ae -
rafJacu -r:U.U. -diootf.GD at """ loeal, atata _. f-
18ftl. 11M fioal -t .. " --· -r. if ato.tiae 1o ~~-to tboo fou-t.a dioc~ -/or Uf1ctaadee.
-ntaa to tboo .&laalta Di'fiof.GD of Pub otaff, tboo ...-. -
._torr of • ...._ of Portt.c.alar Collcaft (.&laelta P..-!A)" depicteol
1D Grapllic ... 15 1o ~lata -_.. to tboo total -of -ou•eo& !.a Ilia 10 _,
QCTUaD
Director, luna of Lud ~~aaa.--t
ar ... ldn.tlftad 1D the DlYUloo of Parb • reportM referenced by the
draft etat-at. The .ap l•a•d or aarratlYe ahould identify the criteria
uaed 1D Hlectia& tiMMe "ar ... of particular cODCera" prea•ted ia
Graphic lS.
The Keul liver vu appar•tly Oftrlookad aDcl abould be added to the
11at of .,.t bea.tly UMd reenatiOD u.ourcea OD the Kea&i Peata.ula aa
1daa.t1fted 1D tba urrat1Ye (UDd.er lecreatioa laaourcea, Kenai Pav.iuula,
parqraph two) for Craphlc lS.
There appean to be a caa.trMlcUoa 1D tba deacrlptioo of the i.,.ct
uaoclated vlth the propoeed pipaU.De betvan Oleraof Poiot and Taln11r.
Point. OD pap 211, parqrapb tvo, tba diacuaaioa of tbe Upact of
ptpeliDa coutructiaa. aa. tba vlldene .. character of the area iad.icatea
that it would be tnporary while parqrapb a181ber J "Vtaual aad VUdemeaa
leaourcea" oo , ... 281 atataa that there would be aa 1rrann1bla c~tMnt
of vlldaraeaa ia certain locatiou of tiM lodiak Archipel .. o. Alao, the
lut parqrapb of the S..-ry Sheet (paaa iY) 1Ddicatea that a roadway
1D the &rM of Tal.Dlk Point would be oaceaaary to aarvtce the aoahore
plpellDa. The final atata .... t ahould clarify the 111pact, 1f aay, that
v111 be uaoc1atad with tbe p1pelf.De.
htiOG&l htural L&D.-an.
The HcRaU Riwr lrGWD lear lafup, Illta.e Volcaao ad lecloubt Volcaoo
•tiOG&l Natural ~rita are located adjacnt to, or ill cloH pro:ld.aity
of, the project arM aDcl ahould pa:r'bape be id•tlfied ta. the ruourca
iawatory of the Uaal atat-..t. Addit1oaal potea.Ual Natiooal Natural
t.aocm.ru uy be ida.titied I.a. or adjaeftt to the project area by the
oa.aoiDI Pacific IID•taill Syat• Natural Laoa..rlt Th-. Study acheduled
for ca.platloa ta _,...,.ry, 1981. Ve vUl keep the Aachorqa ILM/OCS
office apprlaed of partlaaat n ... St\lllly re~attoaa.
OCS Lease Sale 60 USGS c.....,nts
Page 3 sec. B, ~·· 2 and J. As of June 1980, 74 not 69 of the 76 leases
have b:en r-eltnqushid In the northe,.. Gulf of Aluu, Lease Sale No. 39.
This effo•t resulted In 10 dry holes. For the L-r Cook Inlet Lease
Sale, as of July 1980, eight exploratory wlls and one COST well have
been drilled In the are.a.
~. The production level for natural gas for Alternative V Is
SliiiWi1ls 360 BFC. This Is the ntsult of a t)'II09raph1ca1 error In the
Geologtcal Survey's lnfrastructunt Roport. The figure vas changed to
316 BCF In a corrective _,rand.., dated Nov-r ll, 1979.
~-The production levels of oil and natural gas for Alternative VI
irtlTSted as being 335 -ls and 586 BCF. respectively. Then figures
should be 346 -bls and 608 BCf, as s"-' In the Geological Su.vey•s
lnf•astructure Report.
~e 2~. B.l.a, !!!lr. 2. This should read "In Noveober of 1g7g, the
logical Survey estluted that based on g-ttyslcal data, the 153
blocks ..•. •
Table II.B.l.b-1, line 1. Change "6.70xlo6• to "670xlo6.•
Page 43, l:r. 3. This should re.ad "A s-ry of activities required to
develop t estfNted resources .... •
Table li.B.4.a-1, iteoo l.d. This should read "production and se.vlce
wells.'
Table II.B.>.a-1, It• l.b. This should re.ad •exploration and delineation
wells.'
Table Ill B.>.a-1, !taos l.d. and 3. These leas should read "production
and serv ce wells. 1
Page 44, 5.a. Resource est1Ntes for this alternative should be 360 BCF
of gas, thus reducing the est1Nted recoverable resources by s-813 BCF of
gas.
Page 44, ~·· 1. This should re.ad •exploration h hypothesized to begin
In 1983 an continue through 1985 with a total of five exploration and
delineation wells drilled."
Page 44, par. 6. 011 and gas production 110uld begin In 1987.
Page 44, 1:'· 1. This should read "A s....,ry of activities requl•ed to
develop t estimated •an resources .... "
Pa~e 45 6.a ~r. 2. Resou•ce estiNtes for this alternative should be
34 ltlb~ls ot ~1 and 606 BCF of gu, thus reducing the esti1111ted recove•able
resources by s-324 MMbbls of oil and 567 BCF of gas.
United States Department of thft'o)f11erior ·~::.:1 . I· -~-.
GI:OLOGICAl Sl'RVl-'\' l.1J 1>1,
R>:STON. VA 2ZOO~ r17 '8Q
MelloriiiCio.-
OCT l 3 1980
To: Di.-.ctor, Buntau of Land lllna~t .lA OJ OCT 2 4 1980 Through:~sistent Secretary-Energy and Mhterals~ ~ j
Froot: Director, Geological Survey
Subject: Review of draft envi-tel sta-t ror DCS 011 and Gu
Lease Sale No. 60, L-r Cook lnlet-Shelikof Strait, Alaska
We have revi-d the draft stat-t as requested In your_, ... -
of August 5.
We recmnnd a ..,,... realistic assess...,t of the lllblent air quality for
offshont sources and an evaluation of potenthl 111P4Cts on coastal
aquifers. We also note technical inadequacies In the treatMnt of cultural
resources.
Our specific ce-nts 1re p.....,.tad In the enclosure.
Enclosure
~:~1/~a:ri 2, sentence 4. This should read "By 2,009 on and gas production
Figure lll.c.5.a-1, following p. 75. National lands should be shNt on the up.
Page ll8, 011 and Gas, par. 2, sentence 2. Delete "(and froon offshore leues
In OCS lease Sale Cl)." NiW petrole .. production should not be assllllled when
economic recoverable resou•ces have not been discovered on OCS Sale Cl leases.
Pa~e 120! par. ~ sentence 2. This should read "(The Inclusion of the OCS
Sa e Cln tiH!se case does not alter this growth since the s-facilities
and eq~loy!lll!llt 110uld be used to process any petrole,. production IIIIich 11ight
occur froot OCS Sale Cl leases ... ). •
Pa9e 128 1 Cjr. 2. OCS Order No. 7 now states that the disposal of drilling
mu s Is su ect to EPA pe...,ittlng procedunts.
Page 128, last par. 011-based ..,ds are not allOW<! In the Alaskan ocs.
Page 129, par. 5. ocs Orders set no •lnl-chlorldtr stand<lrd.
Page 1~ bktpar. 3. This should read "For purposes of this analysis, It is
estlmat t t as a result of this proposal there uy be 195 develo~nt and
service wells drilled f..,. 4 platfonns. The Nxi-cue IIOUld Involve the
drilling of 295 production and service wlls froot 6 platfonns."
Page 131, c, far. 2. This should re1d "For purposes of this analysis, It 1s
assumed that 95 production and service wlls 110uld be drilled (•an cue)."
Pa~e 133, lines 5-6. Delete "The unrisked ""an estiNte of resources froon
ex sting leases In Lowr Cook Inlet is 826 lftlbls." This is statistically
incorrect. Unrisked resources for groups of leased tracts cannot be added
together to arrive at 1 total 1101n estiNte.
Page 133! lines 8-10. This should read "For Alte,..ative IV, the unrlskad
mean est Nte was calculated to be 260 -h, for Alternative V, 180 •11-
lion barrels, and Alternative VI. 346 MMbls. •
~Mr ~~h~:· Su~e~~1 s~~ .• Substitute "Deputy eonservat ion Manager" for
Page 150. Lover Cook Inlet Sale. This should read "To date nine dry holes
have been drf lied as a "OSult of OCS Sale Cl."
Page 150, sec. 2. Available infonnation Indicates that aquifers capable of
yielding 10 to 100 gallons per Atinute occur on the Alaska Peninsula and the
mainland alon9 the wst side of Cook Inlet; aquifers capable of yielding
100 to 1 ,000 (and in places onore than 1 ,000) gpon occur on the Kenai Peninsula
along the east side of Cook Inlet. (See Feulner, A. J., Childers, J. M., and
3
llo,..nd, v. II., 1971, lllter ........as .r Aluta: u.s .... lottcal s.r..,
Open-file report.) The ft111l ate~ allollld IIHII till poteoottal for
dtnoct and tndl noct l11pacts an t11111 ~q~~lfera tllet llltllt reault tn.
exploration and production an till propoH11 11111 are~~.
Pap 199, last line. This should ,_. •(t 111Plllf'ltllf'7 w11s t• 3 ,.an). •
Pap 208, !!!r. 2, lines 4-5 Delete "111117 aNU ... alloll IVIdMce .r -· •
2r.Jr.· !!!r. 6, lines 4-5. This ~ Is IIIICCUf'lta and allollld lie
PaS!! 209, lul ,.. EO 11593 and Ita requl~ for F .. ral ..-ctes to
Inventory thi r Ulds do not appear to epply to tile OCS. The requl-t
to avoid cultural resources as put fortll In till OCS Lands Act ~ ts
applicable.
Pap 210. pu. 1, line 1. HCRS Is not a tedlollcal adYisor on--~
operatlans but ~ perf'o,.• except In caaes .r -ran studlu, P'OI,...,
and evaluatlonsCiTtechnlcal proposals r"~Qived In till catelotlnt process,
llllere "shall !!!rtlclpate• Is tile wrdtnt.
Pt£a226~r. 5. Ill llelleve It Is ,.._ture to conc:lude thlt "As It -
s s, Inlet Is due one_.. drllllnt effort llld t111n oil lnduetl'Y
actlan Is expected to CHM. •
Pap 2331;asec. pt Dar. 2. Becauae till date represent only one clr1111nt
-set a one o #ShOre platfo,., tllltr actUil representetl-s should
be discussed. The range of ulsslons lilr pollutlllt tllet can be ~
fn. oparatlans In this area sllould be listed and till bells for tile val-
should be stated.
The DES att.pts to assass till effecta .r tile 11.-d ocs lllfsstoa IMf'C8t 11.1'
uslnt the thJ"H-step procass (I.e., ex.,tlan ICIWII, alr-quall~ -*lint.
and controls) of till OCS air qualley regulatlans (3D CFl 250.57). The air
qualley -*ling usas-t cannot be labeled 11 "'lorst caM' and -ld ROt
~~~!::~• for an air qualley 1111lysls required 11.1' till OCS air qualley
For the scenario assessed (uslnt the ass..ed totel air lllfsslons and dis-),
SO. and NO •tsstans -ld not be -t 11.1' tile utsstoa tllreallold .r tile ,...
ulattans. "Thus, the DES used air qualley -*ling with us..ect •teorelotfcal
condttlans to dete,.lne ..,.ther the •lsstans could strtftcantly t,..n u -
shore area. The •teorolotlcal CGIIdltlons 11.-d (7. .wrt/Mallld wlndspeed
and Class C a-pherlc stabllley) are not rea_.,1e to-tile llllort·U...
(1-24 llour) onshore !~~pacts. If air qualley -*lint Is clone, -allollld at a
•tnt-review the -rolotlcal dete available In tile area and -Ktllll date
that reasonably represent area conditions. For short tt• pertode, near-wrst-
casa •teorolotlcal conditions for thl us..ed -rto lluly will 111 low wlnd-
s-ds with stable a-pherlc stabllley. Because MOx Is tile -t treub1-
po11utant, calculatlnt an -1 average Is l~~p~ratlve so tlllt tile eatl•ted -
shore cant~t~tratlons can lie eo~~pared to till -1 average stptft-lewl
for No_.
5
Col. 1. Mr. lllt'lrt. There are -xplalned 91111 In tile ,.._.,., f,...
41i00 8. C£0 1 . c. and fro. &000 a. c. to 4e00 a. c.
Col. 11/ar. 2liyli"'E!a and p!!r. 3t line 5. OcHn Bay I Is flrat said to 11e
chirac rhid na stone iiid liiii safd to ... charactarlnd lilr slate
""rklng.
Col. lf par. 3f lines 1-2. The ste-t tllet "The Oc-Bay II Jlllau fol-
lows d rectly rooo OCHn Bay I' Is In CGIIntct with tile dlart allolltnt a
1,400-year hiatus.
Col. l&:!!l•·a!; line 2. Is 'Ocean Bay Tredlttan• lletnt used t•tercl~Mteably wtth 1 ean I arid II Phlaes'7
ii!· 1, !!!r. 4, line 21. "-Place •early phlM' 11.1' Old Ktavak (7) or ac.u
II For ctartG.
Col 1 r. 4 lines 21-31. Does •early phlll' (line 21) relate to "Dld
ava se ne fei'IIICIS to -.ore CCIIIPlex• (line Zt) and "little
elaboration' line 3D require expl1111tlan. If 'Late KIICIIIRU' (line 31)
!~,~':'~.!.~ 'Th,.. Saints Bay Phlae' (table I), tile ... terlllaolov
~J;.1!!!!•· 5, lines 2-3. Are 'Konltt l'lllll" and 'Konttt culture• l•tercllutll-
Col. 1& f!•· §(ij:lut 2 lines. The ref-noted here allollld lie added to thi 61 I ograp .
Col z. p!!r. 3. The Aluka ,_Insula should lie Identified on lrl!plllc 13.
Col. Z, !!!!•· 31 lines 12-20. unless one IIIPlatns ..,.t till stllllarlttea and
differences are, alid thi sftnlftc:ance .r tileR, there Is no point to this section.
Col. 21 p1r. 4, line 1. What are till "blo separate archeolotlcal sequMCeS"7
Col. 2, "r. 4, lines 7-8. The Pacific shore should lie Identified on
GraPhic .
Col. 2, par. 7t line 4. Naknek drat,.... h ROt referred to el ......... llllt
Is thi point o bringing It In here?
~J;,2taCf~: 1iliJI1:'salfJt·he~~~ River Iller phlM does ROt occur tn tile
Col. 2. !!!!•· 7, line 22. The Konlag tredltlon h referred to as a piiUI Nrller.
Col. 2, par. 7, line 23. The DuRond ref-ce should lie added to tile
6161 loti'IPhi·
Col. ~·· 1, line 6. It -ld be useful to Include awrage "-" ud June ratures.
Col. 3t p!!r. 5, lines 1-4. The Archllolotlcal llosources Protection Act .r 197t
protiC s all cultural resources, not just Natl0111l ... later sites.
4
The ... lotlcal Sur¥11 has liiPI'IIftd tile Ull-' tile EPA CRSTER -*1 for t..rt
pollutants f,... slntle factlittu, but on 111 tntert• basts only until ., elr
qua tey -*1 RON suited to -tar eppllcatt-Is developed (45 Federal
... !star 37116, "-5, 1 .. ). Ill ~ that till CRSTER -*1 a"iiiiiiir
with liiUIIptlons equivalent to CRSTER, or a -*1 •tch _.. reall;ttcally ==-~tar now (wtth epproprlate ._tatlon) lie used for till
All altemattve to -*lint -ld lie sl~~ply to state tllet air qu~lley -*lint
-ld lie IIICIISiry for till __ _,t pollutlllta llld that CGIItroh -ld be
required for tlllll pollutlllta tllet sttnlflcantly affect 111 onshore .....
'-286. Ill note tllet tile list of preparera doll ROt Include en arclleol-tst ormtart... ....
~bQ= H£!• A-6, I~ l.d udJa llld table ~-7, 1-l.d and 3. s ld read 1 proauct1on aervlce wits. 1
Appendix A. table A-6, lut 2 linn. Change •ydl/111' to •1413. •
Appendix c. OCS Orden. ear. 4. Delete OCS Order llo. 6.
lr~llo. 1. Botta sedl.-t tnes are lllftted froa at least nine arus
ou QJ 60tta sedl-t boalldertes. In tile area •-ltlc'-k ...,
and Ita_. Entrence, syllbols F and M both eppear In the ... area. llest
-' English Bay and nort11 .r ltlolnecbr Entrence are blo s,YIIbols M sepal'lted
11.1' a liowlda..,. The 1111bo1s C wst .r Clu &ulch llld M wst of ltlllfOIISQ
both appMr In till ... area, Sllllllltlnt that till M..,. llelOnt t-.Miataly
wst -' ltlllll lnsteed. A s,YIIbol C Dtst .r Clllnltna Point Is In an area
elSiftre Identified 11.1' threa M s,YIIbols. The s,YIIbol c nortMit of Anchor
Point Is In an area CGIItlnuous with till foregolnt area deslglllted 111 M .,._
boh. On Clllnttna Point till Upper Jurassic rocks are colored u lltddle
Juruslc rocks end till latter are 1'-bl.... In areas near lltde Bay tn
thl ut,... southwst, till Tertla!'Y Volcanic rocks are .,_ without thftlr
proper color. Colora are •lsslnt fro. several areas wst and northwst .r
lredlnt Bay In tile ut,... llllrtllwst. The 119Rnd shows Triassic Ult,...ftc
rocks without color, but t11111 are •'-In color on tile ..,. Yolt~~~lc vents r:. are''-11.1' blo dlf'-t syllbols, both-' ... lch should be In the
lrUI!tc 1!!. 12. The la'll or..,. area should lie Identified tn till legend.
lnp!!lc 1!!. 13:
il!!lrll. Ill are plDtsad that shipwreck data and prelltstortc sites are ""
'1ii'iiii'lletnt treated under one category, cultural resources. The recotnl.
ttan that till blo clusea of ,...l•s are distinct ts a -.jor step I• brtnghog
order to OCS cultural·riSOUf'CI Inventory requt~.
Col. 1. gr. 1. 1~ 5-6. The ........ •nearly &000 ,... ... tnto the pest" Is
iiiit cons s&iit Wf Cilll't llelow, •tch utendi to 6500 I.e.
.~~.'!.'i.... _c.,,,._,..
United Sta~ beP'af:taaent of the Interior ------., ·~ , ~::
FISH ~ND~¥-JN,I.f£'SERVICE
WASHIHOidN!ii/1. -
ocr 3 1 .::. -
11o ----joct -t -feel 1t ...... taly ..t-,.M
-altanatift of tile~~ -· tile DUS ~--tbe
-·-..-latift ~h of lalM llo. 60 aad llo. 61. tben utile -u.al for tile ~ted ~ta of Sale llo. 60 to occoar os-1-
t~J wt.th os.llar ~to t~ by Sale llo. 61 Clllly 18 -
l!tft.
'llae ..-nco -u 11lto to tob tiWI __ .,. to op1a ....-
dalotiaa of t-tncto !.datifl.ed ill oar -14, 1979, .._
to tile call for -doDo folo t111a oale (copy attacbed). l!tf.oMle
for t111a r..-datiDD-a -c:d-.-for a -~· IMaffft -of at l!ut ots _,tical 1111• be-poteati&l oil aad
-ecti<ritiM -obon ar ... oupporti .. .-trau-of biota • .u-. -of tbe !.datifl.ed trecu wn deletod at tba U• of
tract Mlect:l.oll, ....-&1 ,... rec.u...l for llllditloaal •tud7 1D tbe
... , ·-· .. a..u-tllet .... ori&iDal --._..au. -..... a1 tracu are otW <raliAI -•-t tloeJ be ._,.. frooo hrtbK
COMUerat:l.oll for 1au1111. the tnc:t• ill q-..t1oa arer
lal ..... ts 10 5-21 273, 317, :161, 605, 625, -663;
uu-10 5-l• 440, 484, w. 659, -703;
lit. lac-i wo 5-ls 43, 81, Ul, 132, 176, 219, 220, 263,
264, 306-301, 350, 351, 47'9, 410, 522, 523, S65, 566,
607, 651, "'· 7)7, 731, 711, 125.
we -fsta tbe -rtuaitJ to r..U. tile DBJI for OIUI' Colll:!.aaul
IMlf lela llo. 60 -bopa t--u vtll ... iat tba ~oar-of
~ --t ill pr-!tl.oll of tile 1'111111 llavtr-tal lllpact
ltac-t. ... .-.
-----
MAR 14t97S
IINCterL~ flf L .... .....,..._
(lllte: na)
~---. ----
>: . L£ CvPY
lfNCter0 I.S. Ftlll Md IIUdlffe ~a /fCI.ILJ!'n 11. er...wllt = r:r.=.'ft~:;'$,:::, _,Ill LMM Sl1e H00 L-
n. Fflll .,.. llf1dlffe Senfce effers ,._ fo11awfag "'toiiCI_...,.,alttf-fn
........,.. to tile slllljKt c..n for •••u-.
lfo1ogtc:a1-_,possible _1,_..1 anf'ltcts wttll Jlf'CIPOM411
Ot1 and t41S 1NSIIIlJ lft L-Coot ID1et ...th ef C..pe Couglas ..,.
.tt-...t at -1ellfth 110 - -ef Octoller M. 1175, wlotch ws ....,..recr In res-• to ,t._ c..n fllf' llaootftett-for sale tel. In tllet
-. ,. ldellttftect four t.l~lJ -tthe blolOCJICil -s to L-
flll* lalet: Tuedlll Kattonal Vtldllfe Ref"'!!l; tho! ea......, lslaads;
ll:acholoalt 0.,; .... KMolshat ~. V. 411fSClllled tM IUbatllltlal Hlblrd
llld •riM -1 ....,.latl-residing there -tile waluable CCihlerelal
fisheries ""tch occ.r 111 tl:e aru. 11e _,.lldltd tllet 110 leasiii!J t..,e
pl-wtthta 12 nautical •flos eft._ Ia"'" lslallds -wttllta
5 uutiCI1 .tles of other k--bird or .artne -1 rooter, areas.
I• .....,. til swotect Nrlne fhh lftd lh11fhh resotlfaS and to possibly
-1toreta COIIfllcts '-'-" -1a1 fhhtii!J acttwttfes ..., otl
-,.. uP1oretton ....-au-. tracts In 111rlne ftShlll!l concaetretlon
al"'!!s ,.... also r'KIII:IIIIIIde for •1et1011o In an, a total of 94 tNCta
-~ rKDa:~~ll\1ed f• *lett-Flft of tllose tracts uere su~l7
~-d and drilling ..,. ~ .,. one ef than although ~tal
t,Uantftl~ of ~ wn apperutl)' ...... OJICL'UIItered.
Qloilt lto1acl
SELDOVIA 110 5-Z
Qislk la1 ... d
Cull Jolond-cbinitna lay
Dry lay
ILIAIINA NO 5-1
Dry IIDy
Oil lay
Auaustine loland
jqvatiDe loeb
S..blr ..
Seabirdo
S..la
S..lo
Ieala, Ma
ottera
S.. llODO
755, 756, 799,
100, 143, 144
a1, eaa, 931,
6, 7
178, 179, 221,
223, 265. 266
309, 353
396. 440. 414
4311. 439; 480483
479, 522-526,
566-570, 610,
611, 613-615,
657-659, 701-703,
741-747, 715, 129
716-791, 130-135.
174-171. 919-921
r
14illlltf'l'ytllf lft.ttwl6111 tracts for delett• to protect biological
NIOIII'ceS II best ICCIIIIPllshed with those resources which are speclfiC111J
louted relathe to ghen tracts. Bird colonies and -1 rootertes
an w11 suited flit' this t,...'-t· Fllhlng openttons or .. rlne fish
...,.1etl-In ,.......1 are flot, shu they are .. ell •re •bile. In
S'-1ttof Strait, h-wer, and for tho! •st part, L-Cook Inlet,
llllffer zones estlbllshed for bird and -1 rootet"les generally ....,.lap
t'-..,.. tntiiiM _.-clal fishing areu or fish concentration sttes •
. ,_ exceptions to this owerlap exist within t'-area of call. Offshore
lldleMit IIJ, katllll IIJ, Qrak lay and Karl'* Rher. In these four
tllltlftcel, the ~tlon for buffer ~ protactlon Is precllcated
• tile occurrenca of fish resource concentrations •1-since .., IIIJIII'
lllrd or -1 rookeries are located In the l...ttate vicinity.
I• .st cases, a six naut1Cil IItle buffer -(Including the weters
wlthtn the State's three •lle z-) of no leutng Is rec-.led.
111cent studies hawe Indicated that 1 large percetttage of birds fro. •
11-colOIIJ will be found within that. range and .. rtne -1s should
lie •lte dispersed at that distance f,_ their haul out area. While
1...,. -bers of bird colonies and .. rlne -1 use areas exist along
tile shores of L.-r Cook Inlet and Shellkof Strait only those containing
..,.. than 1,000 birds or an estt•tect 25 .. rlne -1s •re Included as
sites for buffer protactton. To Identify senslthe tracts adjacent to •
particular location, a sb •lle dta.ter arc was driWII around the site
• t'-protraction dlagr-Each tract within or touched _. the arc
t11us bee-a candidate for deletion.
Following the coastline south fl'llll kalgtn Island to Vtde Ill and north
,_ C..pe lkollk to Anchor Point, tho! tracts rec-nded for deletion -=
Seals
llr, Dt!IAI 110 5-3
Doualao hef S..lo
ltuikpolik Io land leah
lhakun ltoclt Seals
Sea lions
Cape UaJolt S.. liono
loa Uono
Tracts
"'· 670, 713-
716. 757-750
962-966. 1006-
1010, 1053, 1054
41-43. 86-88.
130-132, 176
174, 175, 2i8-
220, 262-2~
304-308, :lo\9-351
347, 348, 391,
392, 434-436, 480
475, 477-479,
519-523, 564-566
518, 562, 563,
606, 607. ~9-
651, 692-695
736-7311
780, 711, 123·
125, 167-869
4
Cope laY& -1.11 S»-537
laU& lay ... ~.~~ .. 910, 911
111da lay lealll 519, 5110, 623,
1'aU1 loliiAd Ieala, ... 952-954. 994-
624, C67
u-HI
DCASRlX 110 4-6
tcAU.IIK 110 5-5
llide lay S..lo ""· 610, 69.5-
Tali laland Ieala, .... 26-29
691, 652-6.54,
1101\11
7l9-741
Dakovak lay S.alo 22-2.5, 67-70
L\JWll( 110 5-.5
C.pe Ikol!lt Sttala, .... 723-725, 679,
ICatui lay Marine 20, 21, 64-66,
lions 610
flahertea 101, 109
ro.batone Rocke Soala, ... 635-637. 591-.594
.UiDC:hak Joy Seal a 151, 194, 195,
liona
237-239
IUddla Cape IMla, ... 54&-5.50, .505-.507
l'uala lay Sea Ilona, 210-282, 321-
lion•
au otcera 325, 365-361
Karluk Uver Sill-420, 376-378,
llrJ lay S..birdo 364, 408, 409,
333-335
4S2, 453, 496
., ... lay lllorlae 191-293, 247-2SO,
Jute lal--1.11 408, 449-451,
fiobar1ao 204-207, 163, U9
492-495
.......... 164, 120, 121,
C.po llevland to Sbq IaliiiUI 442, 443, 398,
C.po Upt
u ..... 76-7t. 33-35
,, 354-356.
SU-313
IIDioylaland Ieala, --36, 37
Latax lloc:ka lado, ... 268-270, 272,
birda
lion• 224-229, 181-18.5
NT. XA111AI 110 5-3
Sud Ialand lea Ilona, 141-1U, 99, liE
IID1oy blond Ieala, No-1004-1007, 961,
aeabirda
bird a 962
Uahatat lalancl Seals, ... 138-140, 94-96,
laspborry Cape Seals 917-919, 873-876
I tone, aea-SO, Sl, 6, 7
blrdo
Dr1ver lay Seals 830-833
SEIJlOYlA NO 5-2
C.pe Hunlliok Seal a 788, 719. 744-
Uahaaat Island Seals, ooo-1018-1020
746
birds
C.pe PAca~~anof S.. lions 70~. 703, 658-
V.at A.atuU Island Ieala, ... 1024-1026, 979,
660, 615, 616
Ilona, oea-980
blrdo
AFOGIWt 110 5-4
Alll&ator Island S..birdo 529, 485, 486,
IIDrd Ial ... d leablrdo 1021, 1022, 976-
441-443
971, tll-935
Elizabeth Jsfand
Flit Jahnd
Sells, ...
Sea Lions,
.. btrds
'
.,. 982, 936-
131, 891-893,
M7-849, 803-805
758-7&0. 714
715, 670-672,
626-628. 583 • 584
The following tracts ....., Identified for deletion tn our October 24, 1975
sullllsston 1n order to provide greater protection for the h19h quaHt,y
seabird and 111rtne -1 resources of the lllrren Islands md the Intense
c-rcial fhhteres adjacent to KacheNk lily. lie are again roc-ndtng
they be deleted for the s-reasons. They are:
Afognak 110 5-4
Seldovia NO 5-2
93, 49, •
1017. 173-975, 930-932, 1118-890, 669,
625, 581, 582, 537-540, 493-496, 449-453,
405-409, 361, 363-365, 317, 320, 321,
273, 276, 277
The attached chartlot tllustrates tho 460 tracts roc-nded for deletion.
In ,_,., the L....,r Cook lnlot-Shelltof Strait area of Ahsta Is rtch
In urine biological resources. It supports s-of tho •st valuable
cc.erchl fhhortes In the Matton and h the "-of s-of the •st
outstanding Nrtne -1 and seabird popuhttons tn North Aloertca.
Tuxednl Ba.l', the Barren Islands, and both shores of Shelltof Strait are
lands of national Interest {wtldltfe refuges or national .an-nts) wtthtn
IOhtch ecological blhnces are tnttutel.l' assochted wtth natural processes
tn the adjacent Nrtne envtf'OIIMIIt. In order to provide 1 •1n1NI le'"l of
envlromental protection frM develo,..nt 111111Cts for these superlative
resources, the U.S. Fhh and lltldltfo Service _,ds the following tracts
be re.ved frM consideration for oll and gas leasing during sale 1&0 and
IIQ' subsequent sales proposed for the area.
Ucaohik HO 4-6
Ul-121, 151, 163, 194, 195, 204-207,
237·239, 2o\7-2SO, 280-282, 291-293,
321·325, 3'33-335, 364-361, 376~371,
401. 409, 420, 449-453, 492-496, S05-
507, 535·537, 548-550, .579, 510, 591-
594, 623, 624, 635-637, 667, 679,
680, 723-725
609, 610, 652-654, 695-698, 739·7~1
hldovia 110 5-2
Uialma HO 5·1
Afoanak HO 5-4
Kt. Kac-1 HO S-3
Kt. Katui 110 5·3
Karluk NO 5-S
·uaaahik 110 4-6
'· 7, 178, .179, 222, 223, 265, 266,
273. 276, i)7, ·309, n1, 320, 321,
3S3, 361, 363-365, 405-409, U9-453,
493-496, 537-540, 581-584, 625-621,
669-672, 714, 715,_ 758-7&0, 803, 805
84 7-849. 188-893, 930-938, 973-982.
1017-1020, 1'024-1026
396, 438-440, 479-414, 522-526, 566-
570, 610, 611, 613-615, 657-659, 701-
703, 741-747, 715-791, 829-835, '""
878, 919-921, 962-966, 1006-1010,
1053, 1054
6-8, 49·51:. 93-96, 99, 138-U3, 181-
185, ·224-2U, 268-270, 272, 311-313,
954-356, 398, 399, 441-443, 485, 486,
529
41-43, 86-18, 130-132, 174-176, 218-
220, 262-264, 304c308, 347-351, 391,
)92, 434-436, 475, 477-480, 51A-523,
562-566, 606, &07. 615, 616, 649-651,
658-660, 692-6,5, 702, 703, 736-738,
744-746,. 780, 781, 718,. 789, 123-825,
130-833, i67-869, 173-876, 910, 9U,
t17-919. 952-954. 161, 962. 994-991,
1004-1007
6-8, 49-51:. 93-96, 99., 138-143, 181-
185, 224·2~_?. 268-270, 212, 311-n3,
354-356, 398, 399, 441-443, 485, 486,
529
41-43, 86-18, 130-132, 174-176, 218-
220, 262-264, 304-308, 347-351, 391,
392, 434-436, 475, 477-480, 518-523,
562-566, 606, &07, 615, 616, 649-651,
658-660, 692-695, 702, 703, 736-738,
744-746, 710, 781, 788, 789, 823-825,
830-833, 867-869, 873-876, 910, 911,
917-919, 952-954, 961, 962, 994-998,
1004-1007
20-29, 33-37, 64-70, 76-79, 100, 109,
119-121, 151, 163, 194, 195, 204-207,
237-239, 247-250, 280-282, 291-293,
321-325, 333-335, 364-368, 376-378,
408, 409, 420, 44P-453, 492-496, so5-
507, 535-537, 548-550, 579, 510, 591-
594, 623, 624, 635-637, 667. 679,
680, 723-725
609, 610, 652-654, 695-698, 739-741
----------------------
VJFWJ R~.-·
. •TR¥-T 06LITioN~
BLI'Ij«-s SAI.I Ill()
....
• 1
' . .. -..... ....
•
2
SPIICIFIC ~
Paqe 13, Para, 6
D_.IIWIAA.I\otl ~ .liA
a..i. 7-'A• r ~~u r1011.s
a ... &1.,. ••
The laet eantenca 1D thia paraqrapb notae that the u.s.
Fiab and Wildlife Service (PWB) ia raapoaaibla for the
protectioa of cartaiD apaciae covara4 ~ the Jlll4an9ared
Bpaciaa Act of 1973. It alao ebould note that tba PWB ia
raepcaaibla for tba protactioa of cartaia epaciae oovera4
Wider the Mad-a.-1 Protactioa Act of 1972,
Pagee 34-35 (Potential llitipti!!Q -uno wo. 5)
The DBIB notea (Pa98 21) that eeweral potential aitiqatill9
.. aauraa ware idalltified duriD9 tba prapuatioa of the DBIB
and that, vbila theH pctantial .. uurae are deecribad in
the DBIS, they are not part of the propceal and ware not
conaidara4 1D tba anviro-tal 1111>act uaae-nt aiDCa
acceptance b .. not yet occurred. Potantial llitiqati1>9
llaaeura No. 5 (Protectioa of Biological Reaourcae) would
provide a ..cballi• for protacti119 -r~ -1• aad other
biota in Cook Inlet, an4 ebollld be adopta4. BiDCa tba u.s.
Fiab an4 Wildlife Barvica an4 tba Matioaal Marina Fiebariea
Service are reepoaeible, Wider the authority of the Marine
-1 Protactioa Act, for the protactioa of -daa -1•
and their babiteta, the aitiqatiD9 -ur• abould be ravi-
to require that the DCM (Deputy coaeervatioa Manaqar, Field
Oparationa, Alaeka Reqioa, UBGII) coaelllt with raapra-tativae
of the IIIII'S and/or the rws, a• appropriate, to dataraiaa
whether -..iae -1 population• or babitate raquirinq
additioaal protection axiet within the leaH area an4, if
ao, vbat additional ... aurae aiqbt be-to protect
thaee population• or babitata.
Paqae 35-36c Information Oil Bird an4 -1 Protection
Thie eactioa of the DBIB indicate• that bidden will be
advised that& lea ... • ancl their avents, oont.ractora, and
subcontractor& will be aubjact to the provieiona of the
Marine -1 Protection Act, the J1114an9ara4 Spaciae Act,
and unepacitied international treatiaa1 altbouqb diaturbeDCa
of sea birds and -rina -la would be unlikely if ocean
vessela and aircraft -intaina4 at laaat a 1-aile diatance
from sea bird colonie• and marina -1 rookeriee, it ie
impossible to accurately pra41ct bow, and at -t diatancee,
birds and .. rine -le aiqht be affecta4 by vaeHl and
aircraft activitiaa1 and, in the avant that vaeeel and
aircraft activitiee .. y dieturb protecta4 wildlife at dietancea
greater than 1-mile, lea ... a &ad their contractor• ebould be
aware that euch diaturbance could be detarained to coneti tuta
haru_,.t, and thereby be in violation of axiati119 Federal
laws (e ·9., tba Marine -1 Protection Act and the Bndanqara4
Species Act). Pr0111 the information provided, it 1a not
clear whether the notice ie intended to• (1) provide qanaral
. .: .
!Ia. Bather Wunnicke
Malla98J<
Alaeka OCI Office
aunoau of Land Maaaq-Dt
P.O. llox 1159
Ancboraqa, Alaaka 99510
Dear lie. Wunnicka 1
31 OCtober 1910
Tba COaaaiaaioa, in OODellltatioa with ita COaaaittea of
Bciantific Adviaora oa Mar~ -la, hae ravi....S tba
"Draft IIDvi.,.,_tal ~t Bta~t (DBIB) , r.o..r COOk
Jnlet-Bhalikof Strait, Alaaka OUter COatinaDtal Bbalf
Office, Oil and Gee LeaH Bela t60" and offue tba followia9
=-ate and ~tioae with reepact to tba poeeibla
direct an4 indi.reot effecte of the p~ aoti.oD OG .aria.
-le •
GBIIBaAL ~
The DBII, with • f-axcaptloaa ,_ below) I p&'Ori.daa
a raaaoaably tborouqb an4 aoc:urata ..... _t of tba poaau.J.a
direct an4 indi.reot affecta of the p~ aoti.oD 011 -..iDa
-le. It OODCl...S.e, ..,119 other thi119e, that ..,tiviti ..
an4 avaate .. aociata4 with the propoaa4 action are DOt
likaly to haw eiqnific&Dt direct or indirect affacta OG IUIJ'
andanqara4 apaciee or population of -..~ ~, but that
thay could have eiqniticant direct or iDdiract effecta OD
DOD-andaD98ra4 population• of Ha ottare, harbor aaala, -
liODe, beluqa -lea and, parhape, otbar aar~ ~e that
occur iD or aear the propcea4 leaH eala ar ...
The DBIB doae not idaatify or provide a tbolf'OU9b --t
of the apacific .. aauraa that would be taken to uaura that
..,thitiee and avant& .. aociata4 with the propc-eotiOG do
nnt have a aiqaitic&Dt advarH affect on aoa--....,..,ed
epaciae or populatioae of -..~ ~.. ..itbar doaa it
indicate -tbu the Bureau of Land Manaq-t bu OODellltM,
or iatande to coaeult with, the Matioaal liar~ Fiu.riaa
Barvica an4 the o.s. Fieb aad Wildlife Barvioe to 4ataraiaa
===-~t woul\! be -to provide the aaoaaeary
3
quidal~e for tha oparatioa of vaaHle end aircraft ill tba
Yicinity of eaa bird coloniae and-..~~ 1.'00kelriae1
(2) etipulata that no veaHl or aircraft activity will be
paraitta4 within 1 mile of eaa bird coloaiae or -..~
-1 rookad .. , or (3) advi .. 1••-that thay -J' be
cited for violation• of the Nariae ~ ProtactiOD Act or
tba __ ,..., Bpaciaa Act evan tbouqb tbay _, be ooaplyiD9
with quidali-• or etipulatioae ooacai<Dinq tba oparatiOil of
veeeela or aircraft in the viciaity of eea bird ODloaiae or
-rille -1 rookadae.
It the notice 1a iatandad to provide _,.al 911idal~
for the operatioa of veeHla aad aircraft ill the YiciDity of
eaa bird colonie• an4 aarina -1 rookadaa, it aboDld be
racognJ.aed that tbay .. y not be anforoaabla. Tllarafora, it
it haa not already 4oaa ao, tba Bureau ebould OOD&ult with
the Metional Marina Fiahariaa Service aad tba 0.1. Fiab aad
Wildlife Barvica to datarailla -tbar tba propo-quidali.Dea
or etipulatione are eufticiant aad anforceabla. It, u tba
DBIB auqqaete, available iDformatioD ie ineufficiant to
dataraiae the preciH .,..aurae that are -to ~t or
aitiqata diaturbance fraa veeHl or aircraft oparetioaa, the
propo-action abollld be ...Sified to incl...S.• • PI"091'• to
evaluate tba adequacy of tba propc-.. aauraa1 an4 provieioa
for ...Sityi119 tboH .. aaurae if they prove ina4aqullta.
Papa 41-42 (Altaraativa III -Delay the Bale)
Thie eaction notaa, ..0119 other thi119a, that dalayiD9
the eala would provide additioaal U.. and opportuaitJ' •to
fill bioloqical data qape, exiati119 eepacially ill tba Sbalikof
Shalf area, for finfieh and ehallfieb populatioae, aarina
-1• and cataceane, -rine and coaetal bird&, aad vulDarable
coaetal habitat••. It alao abould nota that additioD&l U..
would provide the opportunity to aeHea tbe poeaibla Dead
for, and utility of, additioaal aitigati.Dq ... auraa.
Pasa 181, Bantance 1
Thie HDtenca etatae that• "Bxiatift9 laqielative OODt:raiata
an4 paraitti119 proca4urae ~ Hrva to ailliaiza localized
~eta• (eoapbaeia adda4) • A aite"raiaatioa ebollld be ...Sa
a• to whether exietinq laqialative cont:relnta end par.ittill9
proca4urea would or would not aarva to aiaiaiH local!-
~·;..~ raaulte of thie detaraiaatiOil ebould be raporta4
Page 181, Paragraph 1
This paragraph indicate• that, if exploratory and
production drilling are peraitted in the propoaed laaae aale
area, there would be a significant probablli ty that areaa
inhabited by aea liona would be contacted by apilled oil.
It then concludea that "direct effacta of apilled oil on
.. jor concentration• of aea lion• ae .. relatively unlikely
aa a reault of the propoaat•.
Although it may be true, for reaaona not noted, that
oil contaaination would have little direct effect on aea
lions, the paragraph presents and diacuaaea inforaation
concerning the probability of contact with apilled oil and
it would aeem that the efor8D8ntioned conclusion ahould be
rephrased to read acaethin9 like: •Therefore, it .....
likely that major concentration• of aea liona would be
contacted by apilled oil aa a raault of the propoaal."
Paqe 184, Paraqraph 1
This paragraph indicates, .-ong other things, that
cumulative or chronic oil apilla could affect the behavior
or phyaioloqical condition of harbor aeala or aea liona,
cauainq a decrease in reproductive aucceaa. Chronic disturbance
from aircraft or veaael operations could have the •-
effect and it ahould be 80 noted in paragraph 1 on Page 185.
Pa¥u 185-186 (Direct and Indirect Effecta of Oil and Gaa
Po lutlon)
Tbia eection of the DEIS preaenta and diecu .. aa available
information concerning the poaaible direct and indirect
effects of oil on cetaceans. It doe a not note that the
Bureau • a New York ocs Office ia supporting a atudy to ••••••
the poaaible direct effecta of oil on cetaceana. Data froa
thia atudy may eliminate 80 .. of the uncertaintieo concerning
the posaible effacta of oil and the atudy ahould be identified
and deacribed in the l"EIS.
Page 186, Paragraph 2
Thia paraqraph notes, a.onq other thinqa, that: •of ~e
non-endangered cetaceana, it ia moat likely that Dall and
harbor porpoise could al80 be affected. • Subsequent diacuaaiona
in the DEIS (e.g., paragraph 1 on Page 189) auggeat that
beluga whal .. also could be affected by the propo .. l.
Therefore, it would s ... that the afor ... ntioned atat ... nt
should read: •of the non-endangered cetaceans, it ia .oat
likely that Dall'a porpaiae, harbor porpoiae, and beluga
whales also could be affected. •
6
The National Marine Fisheriea Service an~ the u.s. l"iah
and Wildlife Service are reaponaible, under the authority of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, for the protection of the
marine mammal apaciea and population• that could ~ affected
directly or indirectly by the propaaed action and, for the
reasons noted, the Commiaaion recommends that the Bureau of
Land Manag-nt conault with the NHFS and the FilS, if it baa
not already done ao, to determine the precise measures and
monitoring program(e) that would be needed to provide the
necessary aaaurance that the propoaed action vould not be
contrary to the intents and provisions of the MariDe ,.._.1
Protection Act.
If you or your staff have any question• concerning
these comments or recommendations, Dr. Hofman, the c~aaion•a
Scientific Prog:ram Director, or I vould be please to discuss
th .. with ycu.
cc: Mr. Lynn A. Greenwalt
Mr. Frank Gregg
Mr. Terry L. Leitzel!
5
Pa?!! 187-189 (Bffecta of Noiae and Diaturb&nce)
Thia aection of the D&IS preaenta and diacuaaea information
concerning tbe poaaible effecta of noiae and diaturb&nce on
cetaceana. It does DOt note that tbe Bureau • a New York and
Alaaka OCS Office• currently are aupporting atudiea to
detaraine how ocs-related noiae aight affect the behavior,
.a~t.a, &Dd babitat-uae ,.tterna of certain cetaceans.
Data fr._ theae atudiea -y eliainate ..,.. of the uncertaintiea
concerning the poaaible effecta o~ noiae and the atudiea ahould
be identified and diacuaeed in the l"EIS.
Pap 18 9, Paragraph 3
The firat aentence in thia paragraph atatea that:
"Indirect effect& of exploration, develop-.nt, and production
phaaea of the propoaed .. 1e would be e aajor concern if it
were known that e large or critical partion of an endangered
papulation frequented the propoaed t60 area.• The aummary
of available infor.ation on non-endangered cetaceana, on the
back of Graphic 12, indicatea that approxiaately 500 beluga
wb&lea occur in Cook Inlet ....S that "There ia ..,.. evidence
that the Cook Inlet population ia taxonoaically diatinct
frca other population• ••• • • It would ae-, therefore,
that the l"'!IS ahould include a ..,re complete aaaes-t of
tbe paaaible effecta of the propoaed action on the Cook
Inlet papulation of beluga whalea.
COIICLUSIOIIS AIID IUICOIIMEHDATIONS
Although the DBIS conclude• that activitiea and eventa
aaaociated with the propoaed action could have eignificant
direct end indirect effecta on population• of aea ottera,
harbor aaala, aaa lions, belqa whales &Dd, perhaps, other
-rine ..... 1a that inhabit the propaaed leaae aale area, it
doaa not ideetify or evaluate the adequacy of apecific
.. aaurea that would be taken to prevent or aitigate poaaible
adverae effecta on theae non-endangered populationa. Additionally,
while the D&IB indicate• that the Bureau of Land Manag8D8nt
conaulted with tbe National Marine Fisheries service, pursuant
to Section 7 of the Endangered Speciea Act, to determine
whether tbe propoaed action aight have a aignificant advarae
effect on endangered ceteceana, it doaa not indicate whether
the Bureau ccnaulted with the ••tional Marina Fiahariea
Service and the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine
whether the propoaed action could have a aignificant adverse
effect on non-endangered apeciea of aarine ..... 1e end, if
ao, whet aitigating -eaurea and/or ..,nitoring proqraaa JUY
be needed to provide the eecea .. ry aaaurance that the
propoaed action would not be contrary to the intenta and
proviaiona of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
lla.-C.~ko
llllDafW• Alaaka OC8 Office
aur.a of Land llu&g-.nt
~t of tho Interior
P.O. Boa lU9
Allch<>r-. Alaelc& 99510
-ITAt .. ....,.._ tA CGID PCI n._.__., ... .....,
~DC.20230
'l"bie 1• in ref__.ce to your 4raft enYl~tal illpact et&t~t entitled,
•PropoMd outer OcntiJlent&l Shalf Oil and Gaa Leaae &ale, Lower Cook Inlet/
Sbeliltof Strait. • !'be cclOHd ~u fro. the National Oceanic an4
A~lc AdaiJt.iatration aDd tlMI Maritt-Adainiatration are fonlllrded
for your conaiderat.ioll.
't'buk you f« CJi•iD; u. an opportunity to prod4e t.heae ~u, vhich
we hope will be of auiatanca to you. ... woul4 appr.ciate receiving twlve
cop!" of the f!Aal ata~t.
Bncl~• -.o. froa Kenneth v. rorbea
CCI Director (540)
Office of Shipbu1141nq Coata
Marit.1.. Adainiatration
Michael Glazer
Office of Co&atal ZOna Manag~t
.. uonal Oceanic and
Atao~ic Ad.inhtration
Bureau of Land Manav-at
WaahiDCJt.On, D.C.
:::::.·w~ ~. ----W~DC. 20R30
....,_ FORo lruce R. Barrett
Office of aequletory Policy
Depar-t of co-ree
Subjecto Draft IIDYiro-ntel I~~pact Sta-nt -Propoee<l OUter
CmltiDeDtal Shelf Oil an<l Gaa Leaae Sale· I.ower Cook
Inlet/Shelikof Strait (OCS Sale 110. 60) CCII 8008.20)
In accor<leace with your -r&D4U8 of Auquet 20, 1980, the JlaritiiM
A<lainiatratiOil bu Hri-4 the aubject 4reft enviro-ntal illpACt
ate-at (OBIS) an<l aubaita the follovin9 co..anta for your
r•ri-and ooaai.S.ratiOil.
hderal I!!Wlatory aeaponaibiliti••· !>Cio 14
Diac .. aioDo
It 1a atate4 that un.s.r tbe Fe.S.ral Water Pollutioa COntrol
Act, the CO&et Guard approfta the proce<lurea to be followed
an<l tbe equi~nt uae<l for the transfer of oil fro. vessel
to Yeaeel &D4 between onabore end offshore facilities an<!
,. ... la.
£!!.!!!!!!!.!.
It eboul<l be note<! that aubeectioa (171 of Section 5 of the
Port en<l 'lallker Safety Act requiru the SecHtary of the
.S.pa..-nt in vbich the Coeat G•r<l 1a operatinq to develop
requlati011a for eafety an<l protection of tbe -rine
eDViron.ent for vessel to vesael transfers of oil carqoea
in unite<! States navi9able watera an<l the ~ine enYiron.ent.
DiacuaeioDo
TO:
FIIOII:
It 1a atate<l tbat vbeH surface transportation _,t be -loye<l,
all ,. .. ala Ulled for carryinq hy<lrocsrbons to abore fro. leeee<l
areaa will oonfono with all atanc!src!s establiabe<l for such
Yeeaela, puriiUallt to the Porta and Watervaya Safety Act of 1972.
-IT•,..-••:c:a::•:c:• --------· -DFfU Of COOSTOI. ZON!-
-DC 2111!35
CZ/IIC:GK
OCT17aD
SUBJECT: • · •'!tal IIIIPKt Stat-nt for
>~ 'nlet -Shellkof Strait
Tilts -ranchlo and Its at toe• ... ,
OcNnfc and Atllospllertc Adoofn1str.o. '·· 1
fiiPICt stat-nt (DEIS) prepared by
Outlr Continental Shelf LNse Sale t ...
Straft.
Chlractart zat f on of the Affected E nv
.rn· •• tiM! c-nt• of tiM! National
.~A: on tiM! draft envt..-ntal
. '""" of Land """'9-nt (BUI) for
'n tne L_. Cook Inlet and Shelfkof
The proposed sale wfll IIIPICt a~o ext..-ly productive c-reta!,
recruttonal, and sobststence fishing area as wll IS an fiiiPOrtant Nrfne
-1 habitat and •lgratory pathway. TIN! fo11ow1ng prfncfpal natural regions
NY be affected by actlvftfes resulting f~ tiN! sale:
Klc'-k B&J: The entry of clear, n~~trfent-rfch .. ters f~ the Gulf of
A1aslia, ade variety of habft•ts and relatively •fld winters gtve the
bay prcbably the greatest assO' ... t of btologtcal resources of the entfre
L-r Cook Inlet. An fiiiPOrtan·: c.-rchl and recreational ffshfng and
siH!11f1shfng area! Kachaak 81 has been designated a 'crtttcal habitat•
by the State of A aska. The ' 'ets and wtlands along tiN! southern
shore of tiN! outer bay -.ld <Jffer long-ter. f11pacts f~ an otl spfll.
They are also an fiiiPOrtant subsistence use area.
Ken~ Entrance/Barren Islands: Ne•t tn productivity to Kac-t Bay tn c-r:oot ln1et, this region supports tiN! largest concentrations of colonial
urfne bfrds, sea lfons, harbor seals, and sea otters tn the lower part of
the Inlet. It serves as tiN! prtncfpal pathway for tiN! Gulf of Alaska .. ters
that contribute to Kachaat Bay's high producttvtty and for sal""" .ovtng
between Cook Inlet and tiN! r-•olf of Alaska. It ts also an fiiiPOrtant sobsts-
tence use ,,...
L-Central Regfon: Tilts ,..
aru for TaMer alid k f ng crab
the tracts fr• the October 1'
by 1 relatively flat bott• wt
hfghly variable, tfde-d•fnateo
,., provides tiN! Njor c._rcfal harvest
Lower Cook Inlet. It also Includes all
' '"'<~era! lease sale. It fs characterized
.... lr!IVes 1n the centr1l portion,
.• >, llld considerable turbidity.
C to
'lbe Port 8114 hllker Safety Act of lt71, 'llbicll -de tJoe Porte
8114 llaterwa:re lafety Act, oontaina ·~ 'llbicll teak -la
-t -t. •--ioa 171111) of lectiOG 5 will require a
cl'Udll oil tenlrer Vllicb ia -.•984 1a tbe tranafer of oil frc.
an offeboH 8JIPl01tatiOG or pzoc111ctiOG facility OG tba --
COntiMDtal lbelf of tbe Dllited State&, DOt later tbeD
J-1, ltiO, be aqodppe4 witb 889Z'8fllte<l ballut taDka or
_,operate witb .S.4icate4 clean ballut anan~ta. ftoe
CO&at ~d publiebed 1a tbe F..S.rel Reqiater of *J' 1, 1910,
a notice of propoaed ""-"1119 illp~tin9 tbia .... u.. of
the Act, 'lbe ,.IS &boule! Hflect tbaae requi,_,.ta,
..-K tlu.~
~ "· II'ODIII Cbief, DiYieiOG Of BaYi~tal AatiYitiea
Office of IIMpba114iAq COate
K-'slllt ~: llltll t.tlfd wten IIIII __, wflll:ers, thfs regt• lin
Mli 1-r tolot~fcal llf'OIIooctfwfty IIIII dhwsfty t._ K~t a.,. It
fs, IIOIIetheless, 1 aa,jor ,_,,. 11101 he.-..st area for T-_. tlllf
crab IIIII herrfllf II W11 II I JUtfng 1N1 for waterfowl ad sloonllfrdl
dur1ng sprfng llfgmton. I'Ortf-of tts shore IIIII wtland araes -ld
suffer lont-t-ftspects f,.. 111 on sp111.
Kalp1ft lslllld l!!!!f•: Tur11fdfty alld rapt~. tf...._,Mted carrents tMt
_,. ti; 60ttca ilid tea _,.,,. of ttoe shoralfne contribute to a
relathelylow prf•l7 pt'Odoocthity fft thfs ,...,.,, IIIIWI'fer, ft f~l...,
tile-faportlllt sal-gfllllet ffsllerJ fft L-Caek IRlet. Its
shoreline contains the 1....-st ~mfa. of ralllt" cl-fn the
1-Inlet, 11 w11 11 flllpOrtallt hlbftet for afgratfng waterfowl llld
shortbfrds, pat'tfcalarly Tuadltf a., Natf-1 1111dlffe ltefule, •tell
_,d saff~r lont-'-t~s frca aft en .,m.
Sllalfkof Straft: 1111Jsfca11y Hll, to --· bfologfc:ally df"--t thili (-eOCi l•let, the Straft fs 1 hfgllly prodoocthe ~tal ffslttr
area. The •• deep bqs ., the wstlf'll shore of Kodflk lsl_. alld
sfllflar hlbftet along the Alast• Pant-la ,.,.fda sp~~~~~tng 11111 ~
areas fer the -_,,,, species fOIMd fn L-Caek l•let, bet ttoe
hlrYest 1rae fn Shelfkof Streft fl ..ell 1......-. The ledfat s1tore fs also
an flllpOrtallt •st~ -· Portions of the sltorelfne • botll shies
of the Straft, llllfcll f~lade two national -..ts, two llltf-1 wfldlf~
rafUIH, and 1 llltf-1 '-t, -ld ~fw lont-t-f~s f,.. u
on spt11.
In -Ylw, tile 11£1S cooold hive .,_ •stutfally ,..,...... by the
fnclusfon of aft llllll)'tfcal dasc:rfptfOII of the lilt.,..! Ntfons lfkely to be
f~ed that -ld have ,...,., .... a cl-picture of thefr reletfve produc-
tfwfty and -ftfwfty. Sfllfhrly, tile df-sf-of the species It rht
-ld line "-~ nefwl ff the 1eca1 JIOPIIlltfons fdeoltfffed 11 lftely to
be ftspected b7 ectfwttfes .....,. the 1-11le ..,.. related to tile total
Ahakan popo~htfon of tllose species. lllat, for .,....,,., fl the sfgefff-
of the -11011 IIIII herllor _, )IOplllatf-dfscasled fft the f~ anel,rsfs
., P198S 181-1112 ef the MIS to the Alnkan popoolatfOIIS? T1llt sfgRfff-fs
ext.-ly flllpOrtlllt to 111 eYaluatfOII of the -'t.l' of the lftely f~s.
The descrfptf• of the affected_,.._.. on the baclt of the .....,.fcs !•
..... rd f.-t that w s11911Ht be IYOfded fn the fare) fs too oteufled -
too f,..._llted to proyfde 1 uuful lllf'Specthe f,.. •tell to eYaluata the
,.._.... altematf.,.. IIIII •ttfta\1111 --·
A1t-he Y fie lded
The on apfll tN.IectOf7 anel,rsts fft the 11£1S fndtcatos thet Sllalftof
Straft (partfcalarly the Kod1at shore) Hll l-'shek a., -ld face the M(lllest
rtst of fiiPICt frca an ofl spfll .....,. ,.......t L-sate 110. 10. 111e tilts
1111 fs considered wft~ the ffrst federal 181M 11la fft L-Caek l•let .,..
possible ta'*er rooltes, eddftf-1 llftll rfst areas are fdeoltfffed at Alldler
Pofnt at the Rortherll llltrance of K~t a., and at the ea ...... Is! .a.
l~k 8_, ftMlf f1 I'-IS I low rfst aru.
Deletion of tracts proposod Ullder Lease Sale No. &0 for Lower Cook Inlet
(Alternative Yl) does not stgntftcantly alter these rtsks, given the posstbtltty
of on and gu operations fron the earlter foderal sale. Rut deletion of tracts
proposod for tho Sheltkof Streit (Alternatives IY and Y) reduces tho percentlge
rtsk an of otl sptll t-cttng tho shoreltne wtthtn ten days f,... 94 percent
(under tho proposod luse sale, Alternethe I) to &9 percent (Alternative
IY) or 59 percent (Alternathe Y). In vtw of tho stqntftcant oddtttonal
protection provtdod to Nrfne ltvtng resources under Alternative Y, parttcuhrly
tn the t_.tant Sheltkof Strait area, 110M rec-nds that tt be adoptod by
tho Dep!lrt81nt of tho Interior (DOl).
If Alternative I or Yl Is odoptod, NOM rec.-nds that tracts nearest
tho Alnkan Peninsula shore of Sholtkof Strait (nos. 43, 131, 219, 2&3, 30&,
307, 1511, 479, 521, 5&5, 607, 6n8, &51, 695, 737, 73R, 781, 782 and 825 on
tho llount KatNI llo. 5-3 protraction dtagr .. ) and one tract tn the northeast
sect ton of tho Strait (no. 309 on tho Af09nak llo. 5-4 protract ton dhgra•) be
deletod to provide greater protection for Nrtne resources and coutal hlbftat.
Mtttgattng Moasures
NOAA rec-nds that the following •potential •ttfgattng -•ures•
dlscussod In tho DEIS (pages 29-37) be forNlly adoptod as written for proposod
lease Sale llo. &0:
No. 1 -lloll and Plpeltne Requt-s -to ootntootze loss of ftshtng
gea.-;
No. 2 -Trans~atton of !!Ydrocarbon Products -to protect ptpeltnes
allil provldi flirhi transportation of hydrocaibons by tho ufest and
envt-ntally preferable Nthod;
No. 3 -EnvfroMental Trafntnf PWr ... -to •ke workers aware of
ettv1ro,..nta1. social ana cuT ura valun of the area; and
No. 5 -Protection of lfol09tcal Resources -to protect btol09fcal
populations allil liibltat.
Retulltton of Offshore nrn lfng Otschlrtes
llhtle rec09ntzfng tho neod to avoid dupltcatory reguhtton of the dfsposel
of drtlltng O!Uds, cuttings and forNtton waters, NOAA Is concernod about
two aspects of tho arg-nts presented on Plltts 33-34 against the adoption of
a stipulation for this purpose. We understand that tho EnvtroMental
Protection Agency (EPA) regional personnel responsible for tssut"! NPDE~
pe .. tts for nts operations off Alaska have recently been Issuing letters of
pe,.lsston• basod on voluntlry Cllllflltance wfth spectftod standards tn lteu of
an NPDES pe,.tt. These tnforNl procoduros were presuooably only t-rary
whtle tho gutdeltnes for the Issuance of NPnES pe,.tts under Sect ton 403(c)
of tho Clean Water Act were betng prep!lred. Final gutdeltnes for ocean discharge
crtterta were Issued by EPA October 3, 19Rn. 'EPA should -be able to
toapact on the Kodiak fishing Industry, deletion of these tracts under
Alternative Y would provide the added odvantage of enabling 8LM to assess and
oofttgate the c..,lathe t-cts ~ leasing thts fiOPOrtant area.
II.M should also consider possible c_,lathe tonpacts frooo lease seles
thlt Ill)' be held tn state waters at approxfNtely the s-tt• as LNse
Sale No. &O.
New Data on Sholtkof Straits
Because the Sheltkof Strait area was addod to the proposod Lease Sale
No. &0 area rather recently, s-of tho 110re stgntftcant envt_.tal
studies hue only "'"'been Cllllflleted, too late to be referencod tn tho DEIS.
we rec-that tho FEIS Incorporate data f,... tho Research Planning Institute's
(RPI) 1980 study of the coastal vulnerabtltty of the Alaska Peninsula stde of
tho Strait and tho u.s. Geol09tcal Sul'\'ey's (USGS) 1980 reconnaissance su1'¥ey
of seafloor huards. IIPI's earlier work on the Kodhk shore fndfcated that the
deeply Indented coast wtll act as an "otl trap• wtth floating otl tending to
110ve d-r tnto tho fjords rather than 110vtng out. The IISGS prelt•fnary data
shCOf Njor faults wtthtn tho Sheltkof Strait tracts wtth surface scarps up to
100 Nters hfgh, tndtcat tve of probable active 110v"""'nt. \IItle there ts
ltttle evidence of sodf•nt tnstabtltty, the sedf•nts are soft and sandy ftlds
whtch N)' flfl under loading tf platfol'll foundations are oot properly designed.
Moreover, setSOifc profiles sh001 acoustic a110111o11tes which N)' be related to gas
charging tn the sodt•nts. ~econnatssance su,..eys of volcanic hazards that
NY affect tho Sheltkof Strait lease area wtll not be c-leted tn tf• for
tncluston fn tho HIS, but wtll need to be considered before final leasing
decisions are taken.
Coastal Nanaa-nt IO!Pacts
The OEIS (on page 15) correctly cttes the federal consistency requf,....nts
of Section 307(c)(l) of tho Coastal Zone Nanag-Act, tncludtng tts application
to pre-lease acttvtttes. -ver, tho OE!S does not ade~tely describe the
relationship bet-• tho Alaska Coastal Nanag-t PrCJ9r .. (ACII') and the proposod
lease sale. The FEIS should fully portray the state and borough posttfons
relative to federal consistency wtth pre-lease acttvtttes.
The boroughs, as Pllrt of thotr developiOtnt of dtstrfct coastal Nnag"""'nt
prCJ9r•s under tho AOIP, are tn the process of tdenttfytng areas where they
do not want fOIPacts associated wfth otl and gas lease sales to occur or physical
actfvtty to take place. The DEIS, on page 22R, notes one such aru when ft
discusses tho potent tal confl let between the Kodiak Island Borough's planning
goals and objectives and the possible location of a 111rtne te,.tnol at Talntk
Potnt. Any other areas that N)' be tdenttftod by tho boroughs where they do
not want otl and gas related actfvtttes to occur should be fully dtscussod tn
the FEIS. Thts tnfo,..tton wtll ultfNtely hove a bearing on tho consistency
of pre-lease acttvtttes wtth tho ACII'.
return to tho "forM I procodures that pi'OYtde the opportunity for federal,
state, and local revtw and c-nt cltod tn the D£1S. Ill also note thet
standard discharge rates and levels for effluents hive been establtlhod for
Lowr Cook Inlet but not, apperently, for Sholtkof Strait. The sfgnt•tcance
of thts apparent gap should be addressod tn tho FEIS.
InforNtfon to Lessees on ltrd and "-1 Protection
ttOAA strongly ._rts the Inclusion of an lnf-tton to LesHtS tt•
on wtldltfe protection, and, after consultation wtth the u.s. Ffsh and lltldltfe
Sentce, rec-s thlt the text of tho proposod fnto....tlon ft• ghen..,
Pllles 35-36 of tho OEIS be re-drafted u tndtcatod tn Attac,_nt 1.
Tho -text 010re closely approxf111tes tho pi'OYfsfons of tho relevant acts
and trutfu and wtll be -. tnfo,..ttve to lessees. Thts uterfll should
also s81'\'e as a gutdeltne for that portion of the -froMental trafntng
prCJ9r .. required under •ftfgattng •asure no. 1 thlt dNls wtth haras-nt
of wtldltfe resources. It ts obviously t_.tant thlt tho operators of
aircraft and boats 181'\'tctng offshore rfgs be well brtefod on local wtldltfe
resources requiring such protection.
011 Sptll Response Inad!guately Addressod
Although tho DEIS contains a four-p!lge dfscusston of ofl sptll response
and an appendix gfvtng a detatlod Inventory of clean-up equtr-ent already tn
tho g-ral area, tt does not address the one Issue that ts 010st crfttcal to
OCS operations fn neanhore areu, t.e., the tf• -.led by an operator to respond
to an otl spfll. Nor does tt rropose and evaluate I'll' •fttgattng •asures
fntendod to reduce respoMe tt• to a •tnt-. In correcting thts deffctency tn
the FEIS, II." should tndfcate tho spill equt-t deplo,..nt tt• ltkely to be
prescribed tn the otl sptll contingency plan and what percentage of 1 gtven
season N.l' have wtnd, wve, current and possibly fee conditions that are too
severe for effective dePlO)'IIent of contat-nt and clun-up equfr-ent.
If such an evaluation reveals thlt little or oo protection can be afforded
arus wtth stgntftcant ltvtng 011rtne resources during p!lrtfcularly vulnerable
staves of thofr ltfe cycle, then tho posstbtltty of oddtttonal •ftfgattng •asures
for the tracts placing those resources at greatest rtst should be considered
tn tho FEIS.
c ... httve l!l!l!cts
The c...,fnatfon of Proposed LeiSe Sales Nos. &0 and 61 (tho -sale
schoduled ust of Kodiak follCOffng tho cancellation of Lease Sale llo. 46)
N)' hive a stqntftcant f~t on Kodiak's fiOPOrtant ftshtng Industry, but
tho DEIS (on p!lge 150) states that, because resource esttNtes and tho proposod
ule area are not -k-for Lease Sale No. &1, tho c..,httve t~s of
those two sales cannot be addressod until tho DEIS ts Pr8PIIred on Sale llo. 61.
However, that wtll be too late to affect leasing dectstons under Silo No. &n.
lie belteve 11.11 should have att~od to evaluate the potential cUOIUlattve
t-ct on Kodiak f,... these two sales, drawing on data already available tn
tho DEIS prep!lred for the-cancelled Lease Sale llo. 46. Sfnce tho Sheltkof
Strait port ton of proposod Lease Sale no. 60 wt ll probably have tho greatest
6
110M • s Statutory Res pons tb t1 t t t es
The stat-nt on tho responstbtl tttes of Nllo\o\ at tho hottooo of Pllte 14
of tho DE IS ts too narfCOf. Tho phrase •protect ton of •rtne ftshertes
resources• falls to Include NOAA's responstbtltttes for tho conservation and
... .,_ of Nrtne -1s and the protection of Nrfne endangerod species.
It should therefore be deletod and tho phrase •consel'\'atton and Nnag .... t
of 111rtne ltvtng resources• Inserted tn tts place, followed by the phrase
• ••• and thetr habitats. • The reMinder o• tho sentence should be deleted as
NOAA's OCS role ts not lf•ftod to provtdtng rec-ndattons to the Corps of
Engineers.
The 1 lsttng of NOAA's statutory outhorfttes In the last paragraph on
PIIP 14 should be exp!lnded to Include the Ftsh and lltldltfe Coordination Act
of 1958, Title Ill 11 wll as Title II of tho Nartne Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (tho reference to "cllllflrehoMfve resurch on Ocean
ou.ptng' should accordingly be deletod), the Coastal Zone Nanag-nt Act of
1972, Section 20(f) (Envtro-tal Studies) and Tftle IY (Ffsho...-'s
Contingency Fund) of tho Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act AN-nts of 1978,
and tho Clean Water Act AN....,nts of 1977 (sctentfftc support coordination
for tho National 011 and Hazardous Somstances Pollution Contingency Plan).
Tho p!lr~praph should begtn wtth the phrase "NOM's responstbtltttu• rather
than "The 0ep!lrt81nt's responstbtltttes.•
Attachoents II through Y provide page-spectftc c-s on the OEIS by
tho NOAA COIOPOnents tdenttftod tn each heading. They and the dtscusston tn
thfs letter are tntendod to assist RLM and OOI tn strengthening the •asures
proposed fn the nElS for the protection of Nrfne ltvtng resources lttely to
be affected hy Lease Sale No. 6n.
Attac,..nts:
1 -Oraft lnforNtton to Lessees on Btrd and "-l Protection
II -National Narfne Ffshorfes Stl'\'fce C.-nts
Ill -Outer Continental Shelf Envt-ntal Asses-nt Pr09r101 C-nts
IV. -Pactftc Narfne Envtro-ntal Laboratory C-s
Y -Office of Oceanic and AtiiOsphertc Sel'\'tces c-nts
DRAFT ENVIRONMEIITAI. III'ACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED LEASE SALE 60
LOWER OOOK INLET -SHELIKOF STRAIT
PROPOSED REVISIOII Of IIFORIIATIOII 011 BIRO
AIIO ~ PROTECTIOII
ATTA014EIIT I
lnforllltion on Bird and "--11 Protection: Bidders are ldvlsal that
during tiM! conduct of all acthities related to INses issued as a result of
this lease sale, tiM! lessee and its agents, contractors and slbcontractors
will be subject to the provisions of the Marine "-I Protection Act of 1972,
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as -nded, and applicable international
treaties.
Tllose Acts prohibit harass..nt of urine -Is or endlngeral and
threatened species whetiH!r tiM! haross•nt occurs through an intentiOMl or
nag11gent act or calssion. Harus~~tnt refers to conduct or act 1vities which
disrupt an ani~~al' 5 nor111l behavior or c .. se 1 significant change in the
act 1vity of the affected ani ~~a I. In uny cases the effect of horasslltnt is
readily detectible: 1 whale Ny rapidly dhe or flee fi'OII an intruder; seals
..,. abandon a rookery and dive into the water; or birds ..,. spontaneously
take wing in greot nuars to IYoid tiM! source of disturbance. Other
instances of harass..nt ._,be less noticeable to an observer but will still
have a significant effect on wild11fe.
Leaseholders .. st be prepared to talr.e all reasonably prudent and -essary
•asures to avoid harassing or unnecessarily d1sturbing wildlife. In thh
regard, leaseholders should be part icuhrly alert to the effects of boat aMI
airplane or helicopter traffic on wildlife.
In order to insure that leaseholders •Q derive Nxi-benefits frca
tiH!ir operations at a llini .. • cost to the health and well being of wild11fe,
speal when within 300 yards of wild11fe. In ldd1tion, operators should
check tiM! waters i-dhtely adjacent to a vessel to insure that no
Nrine .,_Is will be injured when tiM! vessel's propellors [or screws]
are engaged.
(4) Slloll boats should not be operated at such a speed as to 111ke
collisions with whales or other Nrine -1s 11kely. llhen weather
conditions r«~uire, such as when visibility drops, vessels should adjust
speed accordingly to noid the 11ke11hood of injury to whales or other
Nrine ••-Is· Slloll boats ..,. not be driven into or through an area
of ... ter upon which large nuars of •i!Tatory sea birds and ... terfowl
are feeding or resting.
When any leaseholder bec .. es aware of the potent hlly harassing effects
of lease operations on w11d11fe, or when any leaseholder 1s unsure of the
best course of action to avoid harus..nt of wild11fe, eoery ..,sure to avoid
further harass•nt should be taken until the DCM i 5 consulted for instruct ions
or directions. Howver, hullon safety will toke precedence n all thoes over
the guide11nes and distances rec .... nded herein for avoidance of disturbance
and hnass..nt of wildlife.
Leueholders are ldvisal that harass•nt of wildlife NY be reportal to
the U.S. Fish and Wild11fe Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service
for further action, including prosecution, under tiM! Marine M-1 Protection
Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
the following guidell-are offend to help avoid ~111 heras-of
wildl1 fe:
(1) (a) Vessels and aircraft should avoid wildlife concentration areas,
such as bird colonies or •rine -1 rookeries. Operators s....,ld, ·~
all ti-. conduct their activities at a aui-distance frca such
wildlife concentration areas. Under no cira~~Stances, other than .,.
-rgency. should aircraft be operated at an altitude lower tMn 1000
feet -within 500 literal yardS of rookeries, bird colonies, or
!TOUPS of ..,ales. Helicopters NY not hover or circle above suc11 ._
or within 500 lateral yards of such areas.
(b) When weather conditions do ftllt allow a 1000-foot flying altiw.le,
such as during severe storas or-cloud cover 1s low, aircraft -be
operated below the 1000-foot altitude stipulatal above. Howver • ....,.
aircraft are operated at altitudes below 1000 feet beuuse of weatller
coMiitiON, the operator .. st avoid known wild11fe concentration a..-s
and should take precautions to avoid flying directly over, or witMn
500 yards of rookeries, bird colonies, or !TOUPI of ..,ales •
(2) llhen a vessel is -atal near a concentration of ""'les or ot11er
urine -Is the" operator .. st take every ~uti on to IYOid hans-
of these aniNls. Therefore, vessels should reduce speed when within 300
yards of ..,ales or Nrine -1s and those vessels capable of ste..-1119
around such !TOUPS should do so. Vessels NY not be operated in such .,
way as to separate -•rs <11 1 !TOUP of whales or ~~arine -1s f,...
other .... ,.. of the group.
(3) Vessel operators should avoid .. ltiple changes in direction aftd
\CIIIEIIT II
eo-nts on the Draft Envi..O-tal Iapect Sta-t
for Lower Cook Inlet-She11kof Stratt, Lease Sale f60
Netional Marine Fisheries Service
Netionol Oceanic and At.ospheric -in1stration
tile teat 1e a-rally w.l.l wrtttea &ll::boqb eben: ..,._.. to M a •ftalre
tread to play don. poteat1a.J. i.,acu M a nault of tM pnpoeal. ta -ro.e
1ut.aacee foUowiaa tile dt.ac-.ioa of pot.ad.&l l~ac:u, a flat ata~t of M
1..-ct 1e ...... lie q_.tioa bow audl a defiaite at.at-at of • Lliltact ~ M
...._ .,.._ couldertq (ill ..a caau) tM lack of la1Hat1oa ....uable _. dae •-n• ..n.ltla tbat ·COM illto play.
We a1eo •ce C!Yt r:llie atat--t doea •t ....,,.tely ..wr... the i...,cu to
flail aDd vUdlife reeoureea u a nalt of aa tacru.e 1a tba ~ ~d.oa.
ror ....,1e, coeethc.tioa of a •...-r or a ten:lu.l fadUty WDU.U rude 1a
.. iacr.ae ia r:llia ..... r of .. _. ia me ..... whic:lt., la tan, ..u reealt .
lD U iac:r .... la dM ..... 1' of t..pacta to fUb lad v11411fe rMCNrcea f.-..
-rt huatiaa oad f1ob1.aa oad ...,_aa -~u.
SPIClrtt f!W!!!
S.Ctioe. II. MY£Mti._
We bellew tbat Altenatiw 9' prni ... .we protecttaa. to 1tiolop.cal rMOIRC:etl
io tbe ana tlaaa tba otber altanau.,.., U..S.r Al.teraad.ft Ill (Del&J' of Sale)
the acat~t ..a.d.o• tbat EM del.ay w.l4 "prcrn.• t:1te oppor~ey to ftU
bioloaical data ..... ezbt.taa .... ctally 1a tile SIM:Ukof Strait ana for
t1Df1ab &ad abellftM populatiou, ..n.• -u . ..n... _. coaeUJ. btna,
ud "Nl.DUable c:ouUJ. babtt.eu."' 'lbi.tl opport-.s.tJ' w.u a1.-be pron-..:
UDder' Altenativt~ V '*1~ WCMild ell..._te tbll port1oa of tile aa1e ta lbel.lkof
Strait. V. bali..,. t:be t_.cu aaiiOd.ated vtdt die propoaal _. vitll. <enatt-
'fl c.umot be accvrately tdeatifiecl •til all exl•tiaa dau ppe ~an. Met~ f1U...
therefore, .,. ... 110 reuoa to 8Ubject dli• 1t1ol~cally 9al-.te en.a (SIMtl.S.Uf
=-~~:! ~~~~ •aociated vidt offaboh otl ill ... uploratioe Md dnlllop-
Ia the March 16, 1979, letter fro. IDbert v. IDecbt to Hr. C:req, tbe •t1oaa1
Oceaaic aDd A~apbertc Alteaia trat1011 prori.cled ~a.u .act r.~
block deletiou for the Cook Ialat/SheUkof Strait Sale J1o. 60. It NCNJA
be aoted tbat tbe propo.al (Altenatift 1) iacludea a aue.r of blocb 1a
ShelUr:of Strait that vue nect-.led for delet1011 ta that letter. It
ta aaaJ.a. rec~ that til_. blocb be •laced fro. tb.e propoeed Nle u
tU dec181oa 18 ude to proceed vtth Altematlvea I, Itt, or VI. 1'be 'blocb
that are rae~dad for delation are u follow.:
llout1t Ea~ llo. 5-3: lloclr.o 43, 131, 219, 263, 306-307, 350, 479, 522,
565, 607-608, 651, 695, 737-738, 781-782, 825.
o\fopalr. llo. 5-4: Block 109
S.CtioD It. l.l.J., S~n of Probable X.act!. pya 38
the atataMDt 1a _.. that "the propoeed aala vould have little or DO effect
oa the IDdiak, lloMr, Port Lioa., S.ld~t.a. aad laaa1 co-rci&l fiebertu
u a whole." tbb aut_.t h repeated n pa&a 170. &ove .. r, there are a-roue
refareocee tb:roupout tbe DIIS ..tl.icb teDCI to coatradiet thle auteMDt. Th••
referaacaa (pap 38, paraarapb 2; paae lS7, paraarapb 5; ,.,. lSI, paraaraph I;
, ... H9, paraarapb 4; paae 161, paraarapb 5; pep 163, paraarapha S ad It
pap 165, paraarapha 3 ud S; ad pa .. 167, ,_raarapb 3) aeural17 1Dil1cata a
potaa.tla1 for deeliae of vartoua fiaberiu atodui ta the neat of aa otl.,tU
or u the raault of other pollut&llta, It h.u beea atated that there t. a likell-
bood for foUl' •jor otl.aptlla u a ruult of the propoaed aale vb.lcb reaulu 1a a
94 parcaa.t ctLaae. ot aa. o11ap1ll t~actiq coutal babitata due to the ralatlwly
cloae aboreliH aurrouadiq the le ... arM. In 8dd1 tioe. to tb.e potential for
t.,acca to 11v1q ruourcea u a reault of ••rioua pollut.aaca there 1a a loaa of
ar ... to c~rctal ftahiq due to rta plac-.at aDil coa.fllctlq uae of vuael
fairvaJ•• V. fail to aee how the propoaed aala vould have little or DO effect oa.
c:~rcial fiahina actiYitlu. ·
Section IV. A.I.b .. Otber Ml.1or Pto1ecta Copaldtred iD Aeal!&1DI Cuaalatlve
Eftec:ta. paaa UO
AD evalu.atton of cu.alative efftcta ia reprd to laue Sah 61 VM DOt 1Dcludad
in thia D!IS. n.e rat10G&le for DOt 1aclud1DI thh eva1u.atioD vu that re110urce
eat1Mtea for Sale 61 are UDitDovD at thie tiM, arau of particular iDtereat to
1Dduatry. ao..-.ra.ent aDd apac:ial tatereat aroupa are u.almowa, aad the aru
•elected for further atu.dy (the propoaal) 1a ~. a..ed n thue ~.
ILH haa cooclu.ded that DO viable ..... a..,.t of the lnterrelatiouhip of the aalu
h poaalble at thia U•. We queation vby the reeource UHae•ata ad uau.ptioa.a
Mde for Sale 46 would oat be valid to uae u a buia for evalu.atiaa c--.lattYe
effecta of the tvo aalu. Vbile the area of call for Sale 61 •1 differ fro. that
of Sale 46, it 1a likely that -.ch of the tllfonu.tion a•aJ.lable fro• the Sale 46
DIIS vould be &•r--to Sale 61.
Graphic No. 2
lbh araphic hadicatea l~rtant razor ela• beda aurrOUDdin& the Ho.er Spit area.
Accordi.Jl& to Jiau.ra E. 7.1:, pqe 162 of the t.o...r Cook Inlet Iatari• Sya.tbaaia
ltaport, razor cl.a• are located oDly on aeavard aide of the apit. AdditioD&llJ,
there are other razor cl .. bacia iad.icatea iu the report tbat have oot ben iDCluded
1D tbia araphic. It ahould alao be DOted that other apeciu of c:la• are foUDd ia
the area and are heavily ut111aed by aport fiaher•n. Thna reaoureea ha" bHa
ollitted fro. thia araphic.
Graphic No. 11
A co..,arhon of thh araphic and araphic No. S froa the locliak (Sale llo. 46)
DEIS indicate• differeDeea in the location of concantrationa of harbor aeala,
"' IAOO£NT II I
C0111110nts on the Draft EnvtroMOntel J•pact Stet-nt
for Lower Cool< lnlet-Shellkof Strolt, Leose Sole 160
Office of Morine Pollution Asess•nt/Outer Continental Shelf Envlron..,tol
AsSHSIII!nt Progr ..
Not tonal Oce1nlc and AtiiOSpherlc Adoolnhtrltlon
No attOIIIpt wos llolde to assess the relative merits of the nrlous develop~~ent
alternothes presented In the OEJS. The docu...,t ... s evelueted prt .. r11y w1th
rHpect' to: 1) adequecy of chorocterlzatlon of the regional envlro-nt;
2) technical occuracy of the sclent1flc lnfo,..tlon presented; 3) cooopleteness
of lnfonnatlon; 1nd 4) orgenlutlon and tnterdiscipllnory Integration of the
infol'llloltion. lie feel this opproach is consistent with OCSEAP's role In the OCS
leasing process, ""ich h to wort cooperatively w1th 8LM in the acquisition of
envtro-ntal dita that servos u irc>ut to DEIS and the other decision docuOO!nts
thot Influence lease sales.
The peragraphs thot follow su-rize the 110re lnoportant CCIMII!nts 1nd
cr1t1chms of several reviewers and are presented 1n the context of major
subject ereos. (The detolled c011ments are attached to this _,.,)
A. hsue: Transport and fate of conta~ntnants
The distillation of relevant lnfo,..tton on circulation 1nd neteorology
presented In the graphics appean to have b<!en characterized by the loss or
ohscurtng of much pertinent tnfonnatton. It should be the other way around to
enable a lay reader quickly to acquire a bas1c understanding of the envh·oNAent.
(See examples In the detailed c...-nts) A further ilnpedil .. nt to c001prehens ton
is the mislocatlon of sentences and paragraphs in the text ICCOIIpanytng the
graphics.
The description of ct rculatlon falls to account for the-ext,..,.. variability
of currents. The reader should not be led to belteve that net currents are
either prers tstent or strong. Much of the transport of material takes place
throu!jll horizontal ••>Y-nt due to tidal currents.
A crucial part of the risk analysis presented in the DEIS volume was wind
patterns and their statistics. A graphic illustrating these pratterns would
convey 1n0re than words do and have 111)1"'1 impact.
There should be a discussion of the dita thlt form the bash for the
trajectory calculatioM (wind statisttc1, net currents, treat~~~ent of ttdes,
etc.). This would enllance tho plausibility of the risk assess•nt. Further,
It would b<! useful to discuss coastline vulnerability and to exphtn why a lond
segment with no probability of Impact can b<! sandwiched betWHn two thot have
"low" probabil tty. With regard to the former, the Reseorch Phnning Institute's
1980 oil spill VOJlnerability results should oppear In the FEIS.
•• Uo• allll ... otten. rtpre 5. 91, paae 246, of tba lodiak Iatert• Sya-
tb.Mia Report alao 1Ddicatu .:t.aor dUfereac:n n na otter coa.ceatrat1ooa vb•
co.,ared to dai.a araphic.
Grab1c!o.U
1be .. ure ar• of COOk llll.et bu Hell colored or-.. bat tiMi lea-d fail.l to
icleDd.fy .... t tla1.a color daaipatM. Ve ua-tb.at it vu lDteDded to l._tify
the occureace of Mlu .. vbaln. Add.ttiou.lly, it tbcNld be DOted tbat naur•
5.1S, pap 229; rtpra 5.16, pqe 230; ..s rtpre 5.87, ,.,. 231 of tbe lolltat
lDtert• SJDtbeeia leport i..U.catu ad41 ttoD&l. ar•J, U.a. _. .tab wbale atlbtiDP
thee u .. DOt NeD included la thia arephtc.
8. Issue: Geological Haun:ts.
The developonent scenorto for gas production (on pege 24) assu'""s plpellnH
fr011 both Shollkof Strait and Lower Cook Inlot to Anchor Point. A direct
route for the fo-r would cross the sind wave flold In Lower Cool< Inlet
where s-sond ""v" reach 12 •ter hel!llts. The hazards along this pipeline
route oro not spectflcolly discussed In the DEIS or are 01ltlgattng .. uures
and alternothe pipeline routes.
Alternative Ill does not consider t~~~pacts of dehylng the salo in the
contexts of notlonol energy needs ond technology. For exa~~ple, 11ight the
costs of develop,..nt and production Increase over • two-year delay to .. ke
the lease orea econ011ic11ly 1Hs attroct lvo, or 11lght technoglochl ldvonces
during the period offset the eco-le disadvantage and possibly reduce the
likelihood of e1111tro-ntal loopacts?
The lack of geologic info,..tion displayed tn the Shellkof Strait protlon
of the graphic -nstrates the p1uc1ty of tnfo,..tlon nailable ot the
writing of the OEIS. The FEIS should Incorporate info,.,atlon recently
obtained by Investigaton such as Kienle, Swanson and Hampton.
The doaolnantly generic lnfo,.atlon prHented on ground failure and ground
shaking (grlphic 1 ond page 145) should be clearly Identified os such.
L lttle Is uld about the specific sedtonent condl tlons in Lower Coot Inlet and
Shellkof Strolt, or the expected behavior of sedl1110nts there under load.
Similarly, the predictive dito presented on ground accelera~ions are .
extrapOl.t1oM frCII otMr areas of Alaska, not support by accelerograms fr0111
She11kof Strait.
C. General C0111110nts
There are ru100rous typographical or other erron in th~ DEIS and grophlcs
that .. Y be •tslea~lng or confusing. Those noted in reading are presented
In the detail eel c....,.nts that follow.
A • !1ill....!!!!.
1) p.tt, 'para. 3, line 11: • •• productivity deloyed for 10 years or 110re, •••• •
"Reduced" wwl d se• 110re opproprtote.
2) p. 24: Altern.lthe Y 9IS esti .. te (360 Bcf) differs fr,. those given in
Table II .B.S.a.-1 and p. 44 (316 Bcf).
3) p. 45, lut paro., p. 46, first para.: the stat ... nts about g.u production
being unecon011tcal oppear to controdtct the stat-nts ibout oil ond 91s
product ion in para. 2 on page 46.
4) p. 49, last paro., line 7: "406" Jobs oppeors erroneous; uppears it
should be "428" as per Table lll.c.2.b,·l, under "Miscellaneous.·
5) p. 53, para. 2, line 3: "1974" appears erroneous. Would this be Jl!!7
6) p. 105, para. 2, line 6: "affluent" should be "effluent."
7) p. 145, para. 5, line 8: "(Plofter, 1971)" should be "(Planer, 1971)."
8) P• 146, line 1: ailtsec" should be ao/sec2• if it's on ecceleratton.
9) p. 153, para. 3, line 5: "(Alaska Petroleua Institute .... • should
be "(AIIIertcon Petroleua Institute ... •
10) p. 159, para. 3, lint 5: "larvae" should replace "larVll. •
11) p. 159, para. 3: While It ts true that ftshtng 110rt1lity wwld confound
estl•tton of effects of oil pollutants on fhh stocks, another major
confound! ng effect that should be •nt toned h the Inherent large natural
varilbtlity induced by 110rtality of pre-recruits due to predation, starvation,
etc.
12) p. 160, para. 3, line 5: "elt•tnate" s .... a pretty strong teno; perhaps
"reduce" wwld be aore approprhte.
13) p. 163, line 3: should it be "volatile" Instead of "voluble"?
14) p. 163, para. 7; line 4: "larval" should reploce "lorvu.•
IS) p. 164, para. 3: c,....nt re p. 159, para. 3 also opplles here.
16) p. 164, para. 5: should make it cleor thot the shriap naturally change
sex during their adult life.
17) p. 165, para. 3, ltne 2: shrtap wwldn't be reduced, shrtap populations
would.
18) p. 166, line 1: wwldn't "side" be preferable to "bank"?
Circulation
a) ~ost of the descriptive 111terial on wlter circulation has been erroneously
t ncl uded under the sect ion on Wt nds and Storas.
b) The description foils to account for the ext,.... variability of the
currents. The reader should not be 1 ed to believe that net currents are
either persistent or strong. P\Jch of the transport of .. ter1al totes place
as a result of horizontal mixing due to strong ttdol currents.
Winds and Stoi'IIIS
a) para. 3, line 10: replace "on• with "ond"
b) para. 4, line 5: "direction" should be "directions.•
c) Since a cruchl plrt of the oil spill risk anolyses WIS based on wind
patterns and statistics, a figure illustrating those patterns would hive been
useful.
Tides
a) para. 2: the last sentence of this paragraph is •isleadtng, as the
central portion of L-r Cook Inlet has 1 10e1ker, not stronger, bott08
current regilllt than areas further up the Inlet. It would hive been better to
say "Althou!ll the tidol (bottoon) currents are less intense In the middle of
L-r Cook Inlet, they retain enough energy to pr...,.e large sand waves ond ridges. •
~
a) p1ra. 1, lines 9 and 11: "free board" should be one word, "proned" should
be •proM!•.
b) para. 3, ltne 1: "structured Icing" should be "structur11 icing.•
Surface TraJectories
a) It Is unclear why the discussion on otl spill trojectory IIOdellng is
included In the text of the DEIS (pages 133-134) and the discussion of drift
bOttle studies ts Included In the graphics. Both should have been together,
preferably tn the DEIS text.
b) The discussion of vulnerable habitats, proonised in the introductory
paragraph of this section tn the graphics, 1s actually given on pages 138-140
of the DEIS text. Thts should have been referenced in the graphics discussion.
Salinity
a) para. 1: salinity should be described In parts per thousand,
not percent.
[g) p. 166, para. 5: it would be desirible to identify species of cl•h) oilll'4.
I
20) p. 166, last line: shouldn't "(• ten years)" be "(10 • 1Mrs)"?
21) p. 169, para. fi: lost sentence is controdtctory.
?.2) p. 172, para. 2, line 3: "euphaussiid" should be "euphausiid."
23) p. 172, paro. 2, lines 7 and R: toight rephrase as "110re persistent of
the aro~~~t ic hydrocarbons. • As now stated, one •ight 1 nfer thit a..-t fes
are 110re persistent thin other co.ponents of oil.
24) p. 175, para. 3, line ll: "proposal" should reploce "p.._.... ••
25) p. 17~, para. 2: h there any evitlence t~at 1 Llll ecctdent
wwld pose a significant threat to birds? Would .... t~e
only threat would be a tanker explosion in the v1cin1ty
of a colony • a re110te possibility.
B. Graphics
The following detailed conoents relate to •PI, figures and text __ ..,
in the graphics occo.panytng the OEIS. The headings cited are those US8d tn
the graphics text:
Graphic 1 • Envi......,tal Geology
1) The illustration of plate convergence (Figure III.A.l b-1) dots not .._fit
fro. the 1 isted features because the locotions are not visible 1n the figure,
Graphic 2 • Circulation and Vulnerable Habltot
Since Table 111. A.2. a-3 (Ant~ual Maxi-Sustained 111nds for Selected Return
Periods) is based on a 8ode1 whose predicted 1-r bound hiS a negative
slope for a retum p·.rtod beyond lOll years, 1t h rec....-thit pred1rttons
beyond thts tine fr-be deleted f,.. the table.
Meteoroglical Conditions
a) To ovoid soJJjecttve teras 11ke "8oderate• end "heavy", it would be
preferable to show a ronge of precipitation in centi~~eters and Inches.
Skyeo .. r (Ytstb111t.Y)
a) $entences are ootsplaced, beqtnning ot 11ne 9 1n the f1rst paragraph. n.e
•tsslng .. terhl eppears to be erroneously included as the lut 3 lines
under Circulation.
b) The description of katabatic winds, erroneously included under Sbeoftr,
should be in section on Winds ond StoriiS or given a separate held1~
better description of katibattc wllids was ghen In the OEIS prepared for
Lease Sale No. 55.
Heavy Metals
a) para. 2 spooks of "suspended part lculote matter along the s-transect, •
but two transects are Identified in the previous paragraph. llhich is the
antecedent, or are both 1 ntended?
b) para. 2 also states thit "these oroas also can be expected to he•e higlltr
concentrations of heavy •tals ... ,• but for the reason noted under (a) above,
the antecedent (and thus the areas) are not cleorly identified. llorecwer, ts
the reader to 1 nfer that becouse no special trends 10ert found (paro. 1) tllat
the area 1s a11011alous? The t~~pltcattons of the discussion of hea•y 8etal
distribution are too vague.
c) para. 3, last oentence: it would have been clearer to the rMder if thfs
sentence had said "sed1101nt saaples fr011 the area hive oor~~~l and quite
unifor8 heavy 11etal content."
Biological Chiractertstlcs .. Yulnerlble Coastal Habitats
Coutline and Littoral Biota
a) para. 1, line 1: the words "description of the" should be deleted frc.
the beginning of the first sentence.
Graphics 5·8 .. Sport and c .... rchl Fishing
Bott08 Fish
a) paro. 6, ltne 6: replace the word "adults" with "ldult f-les.•
Herring
a) paro. 7, line 6: Kukak Boy 1s on the west, not the east, stele of Shelitof
Strait.
Graphics 5-8 • C08111trc1al Shellfish
a) consistent ter~~inology in legends where identical •tertal is depleted
would be helpful. It is not apparent why the king crab graphic shows "18PQrt.t
reproduct ton areas• ""11e the one for Tanner crab shows "reortng ond .. ting
areas" and the one for Dungeness crab co.btnes "vital catch and reproduct10ft
areas. •
T•nner Cnb
a) para. 3, (top of cot. 3), ltne 14: "30-aillton ton li•tt" appeors
incorrect. Shouldn't It he "30·11ill1on J!!!!!!!!! 11toit"?
Graphic 9 .. Terrestill MI-l Resources
Terresttal ll..,.h
a) Para. 1, 11ne 16: ~is spelled with only one "1".
b) Poro. I, I hill !I: "IMIIRIOI!!I" should read ".!!1!!!!!!!1!"-
Gra!!l!lc 10 -!!triM tad Couto! llrd •-!'C!S
Abundaace --Dtstrlbu\IOR
a) Port. 4, liM IS: tllll ref-lllould be to "L.,.Int, et al", not "L-Ing".
Graphic II --!!triM ..... 11
a) Poro. I, liM II: Eetoplas should read Eetoplu.
Graphic 12 --Endai!II!'ICI Sncles 11!!1 l!oot-£Rd!!!ll!'!!! Cet!gtlll
a) TIMI box denoting the area of -t prollllble occurreace for beluga ..,ale ts
not colored oron11 11 It should be.
Endtnt!red Snctn
a) Poro. I, liM 29: the scientific -for the """'*'cit ..,ole ts J!!l!n!!:!
ftOYtet.,IIH.
Grv llhlle
a) Poro. 3, lut sentence: ell.,.. "t~l•" to.,._,. u ....
b) Para. 6: tf the 1979 populottoa estl•ta for fl'rtl ..,ties lllfl'ttlng f'I'GII
the lertng Sea ts Uken frCII llooolrd lrt.,.'s lllllt, hts -should be refe.....cM
I nsteed of ust ng an "oaoov-s • cttot ton.
Blue llhlle
a) Poro. I, liM 17: 1 •to• should be Inserted he-"Aiostt" tllll "YoftCOUYir.•
Rhflt lillie
a) Poro. I, liM 10: ._tern" should be "east.,.•
Nortllllrn lt!!l!t lillie Dolphin
a) Tile hetdtng allll the •terttl 1-..Hotaly tftar tt should c-before, not
after, the •tertol at the top of the col..,,
AnACIIEIIT V
c-nts on the Drift Envt-ol l .... ct Sta~
for l-r Coot lnlet-Sheltkof Strait, L .. se Sole 160
Office of Dcunlc ollll A~pllllrtc Senten
Mottoaal Dceantc tllll A~pllerlc Adlllntstratton
The review by the lleriM Envt-nttl AsHI-Dhtston hes been
lllllted to dncrtptlons of oceanorrophtc ,...._.. and on spill rlst analysts,
Table 111. A.2.b.-2 ghn annual ...,,_ wtnd and ••• for selected
return periods. An acca..,."'tng dtscusstoa IPPN" OR the back of Chert Ill.
The discussion should be aponded to lndlctte the tec:llntq-used tn cc.puttng
return period. The ret.eace (ero.r et. al., 1977) ts not 1-..Hately
ovolhble to us. It ts suspected that Tonp •thod WIS used In those
cCIIIpUtatlons. If thts Is so, the cc.putettons lllgllt be suspect allll could
warrant tddtttoNl wolt using ..,re IJiproprltte tac:llntques.
The ..,., used to cc.pute surface trtjectorln of oil spills Is undoubtedly
stote-of-t.,..art for thot cc.putttton. "-"er, ot • very •Int-. -
dtseussloa should he Included •htc:ll would tftdtctte the expected 1 ... 11 of
cC'neentrattons of otl tn the water. -discussing l..,.cts OR lhtng
resoun:n, dtsponal wtthtn tllll water col..,, or the lack of dtsponal, could
be extroMly IIIPOrtont 11111 could slgntftctntly .oct~~ the ftndtngs.
we also note that wtthln the section on Federal Altncles Contacted (Pill
287) there are two Deotrt•nt of c-n:e .,.ncle listed: lllttoRtl !!triM
Fisheries Sentce (IIIFS) tnd llltl-1 Dcllntc tnd A~phertc Adlllnlstrotton
(NOAA). It h recCIIMnded that oaly IIOAA be listed under tllll lllplrt•nt of
c ... n:e, 11 this wtll laclude IIIFS and a"' other IIOAA cc.ponent that tsststed
t n the priJIIrltt on of the DE IS.
The su~ect sttt-hn been revl...,. wtthtn the areas of the llltt-1
Dcun SunrtJ s (NOS) responsibility 11111 exporttse, tllll In t-of the t..,.ct
of the proposed action on NOS Kthttln alld pi'QjKts. In this conMctton,
we would ltke to edvtse the lureau of LaRd l!tftl....,.t of the lllttonal Dcean
SunrtJ Dce•ROVIPhtC Ctrculttory RIPOrt on L-Coot Inlet by Patchen, lruce,
and Dingle. Tilts sunrtJ report, In pres, should be nolllble tn early 1910 frCII:
Chttf, Circulatory Suneys lrtnc:ll, Gr./C211
Office of Dceanorrap~
lllttontl Ocean Suney
Mattontl Oceanic ond A~pllllrte Adlllntstratton
6001 Eucuthe loulevord
Rockvtl le, l!tryland 208S2
AnACIIENT IV
c-nts on the Drtft Envi~ttl Z..,.Ct Stt~t
for Lower Cook Inlet -Shelikof Strtit, Lease Sole 160
Ptctfic !!trine Envi-nttl Laboratory
lllttOnt 1 Dc .. ntc tftd AtiiOspllllrtc Alillntstratton
Dur review of tiMI circulation section of tllll description of tiMI envt.-t
(gnphtc 2 tftd tnocilted text) was H•tted to tssesslng tiMI eccurecy of tiMI
inf-tion presented tnd its sufficiency for dete ... tning tiMI 1tkt1y !Ntll of otl
tn th8 •rlne envtro-t over porlods of days and -ks. For tllllse purposn
tiMI graphic of tnnual ... n circulttlon is inadequata tnd, for SCIII -tllllr regi-,
NY•tsletd tiMI decision •ker. Furthei'IIOre, the sctle of the gnphtc does IIDt
,.,.it ltc use in choosing bebleen trtcts.
TIMI currents depleted vary considerably on 1 SHSORtl basts. The vector off
Gore Point, for eQ~~~~le, varies fra. 20 to IDO m Ptr second being 1trgar I• tiMI
autt.~. Beyond thts, eddies and wind fields con significantly at~ currents
tn s-areas. Fluctuettons of 2 days to • wek occur throughout the region but
have tllll -t pronounced effect in trets of -ker currents such ts c•tra1 1-
Cook Inlet. Siace ....,h of thts Ylrlttion ctn be attributed to winds tftd they e111
be divided into S lll.lor categories, the task of fully d~ii:ting th• is aot excnstve.
Tllese vtriottons IIUSt be depicted to ovoid •ts1 .. ding the .-..der. Dur resMrcll
tadlcotas the currents on tho north stele of Portlock Btnk are -k tad vtrllll1e,
not conststantly -twtrd as depleted.
Review of Figures IV. A.l.d. 1 to 18 ....,..ls inconststenc:ies which cu be
accounted for only by failure of tiMI ~~ or tnadequtta proofing. For .... le,
c-rtng Figures 12 and 13 we expect iiiPICts in Figul'l! 12 to be ..-1 til or ft'lltar
then fiiPICts tn Figure 13. Tilts ts because IIDre trtcts are 1Msed in Figure 12.
The l .. sed treas, tanker rautas tnd piPfliM routes are otherwfse tclenttctl tn tiMI
two figures. llevertheless Figure 13 s'-5 trettar IIIIPICts in areas 76, n, 78, 79,
83, 84, 85, 86, and 87. Stllflar errors occur In other figures.
Since~ resources occur at set, tNlysts s'-fng tiMI ,.,.,_.,lltty tllllt spfllad
otl IOOU1d cover an area of the sea surface 110uld be valuable. For euoople, otl
passing over the feeding ground of certain birds or -1s could hew 1 stgntfteont
fiiPICt on those populations.
It is tlso suggested that all color graphics be over1tyed with the ltftd s.,...t
grid used in Figures IV. A. 1. d. to assist tn CCIIJIIring the probtbtltty of iiiPICts
wfth the llftvtro-ttl resources present in the tret.
Advlaory
Council Oa
IIJstorlc
Prnervatkm
IWK-NW W......,.._DC_
S.pt.oaber 29, 1980
Bureau or Land *-nage~~ent
Aluka OCS Office
P. 0. Box 1159
Ancbonce. AlaaJta 99510
Dear OCS Superviaor:
.......
'l'be Council hu re•leved your draft envlroaMDtal atat.eMnt (DIS) tor tbe
Oil and G&a Leue Sale 160, Lover Cook Inlet-sbelikot Strait, Alaaka
circulated t'or caaent pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) ot tbe latlooal
Bovlron~~ent&l Polley Act. \le note tbat tbe undertakin& vill &!teet
n~rou• archeological. and hhtoric: ai tea probablJ' eli&ible tor inc:luiOG
in tbe latlonal Res:hter of' Historic Placea. Circulation or a DIS,
however, doea not fulfill rour agencr'• reaponaibilit.iee UD4er Section lo6
or the Jational Hiatoric Preservation Act ot 1966 (16 U.S.C. S.c. iiTOt. u
~ded, 90 Stat. 1320).
Prior to the approval or tbe expenditure or &111 Federal t'uD4a or prior t.o
tbe crantlns or any licenae, penait, or otbilr approYal ror an undertakiq,
Federal agencies must afford the' Council an opportwdt7 to c:~nt on tbe
etrec:t or tbe ur.derta.king on properties included in or elicible tor
inclusion in tb~ Na~ional Register in accordance vitb tbe Council'•
reiJU.].ationa, "Protection of Historic and CUltun.l Propertiea" ( 36 CFil Part
800). Until theae requireaenta are •et, the CoUDcil eoa.ai4era the' DIS
incomplete in its treatment or h.istoric&.1., arc:heolosical, arc:hitectur&l,
and cultural reaourcea. You should obtain the Council's au.Htantin
c~nta through the process outlined in 36 CFR Sec. 8oo. 9· Tbeae c~nta
ahould then be incorporated into Ul)' aubaequent doCWMDta prepared to IIHt
require~tenta under tbe Jlational RnYironaent&l Poliey Act. Ma. MarJorie
In&le u:t be ,contacted at (303) 234·4946, a.n i'T5 nu.ber, tor turther
aaaiatance.
Sineerel.7 •
~
Chief • Wee tern DiYision
ot ProJect Redev
UNITED STATES ENVIRONM~~!i:\ro AGaNCY
WASHINGTON, D.C zo••o 80 NlrdG I so; I'M'
ICT I I ,.., ... tC ... .... _ _.. ....
Mr. l"ranl< Gre99
Director
Bureau of Land Mana-nt
11aahin9ton, D.C. 20240
Dear llr. Gre99 •
The Bnviro.,..ntal Protection A<Jency (BPAI in acoordaaca with
ita reaponaibilitiea under the National Bnviron.antal Policy
Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act baa ravi-the
draft Bnvironaental Impact Sta~t (DBIS) for the Outer
Continental Shelf (DCSI Oil and Gaa propo .. d &apt-r 1911
X.aae Bale 60 Lower Cook Inlet-Shalikof Strait. BPA often the
4qJJsy1pq
.. believe the DSIS containe a ~reheneive evaluation of the
propoaed action, but doaa not adequately diacuaa the aale
alternativea. There needa to ba additional juatification for
particular tract deletion&. In particular, we &U99eat that
the final SIS contain .are apecific infor.ation about the
reaourcaa at riak in each area baiD9 conaidered for deletion
and the extant of envir-.>tal protection that would ba
9ained by auch deletion. Since thie ie an area with 111111y
valuable l1vin9 reeourcea and productive eooeyat-(.,_rcial
fiaberiea and apawnin9 9rounda, eenaitive aarine ..... 1 habitata,
and marina and ccaatal bird colonieal it ia aa .. ntial that
the enviro....ntal characteriatica and potential rieka of all
poaaible aale alternative• ba aa well ~nted aa poaaibla.
Of particular concern to EPA ia the liaited infor.ation
available relative to oil apill eventa. The ext~ 98Ql09ic
and cl1-tolQ9ical hazarda of thie re9ion increa .. the likelihood
of aucb a pollutinq event. Suepectad qeophyeical huerda n-
to ba exaained and add! tional biol09ical reaearch on o~ani
and vulnerable habitata ahould ba conducted. Since a -jor apill
would alao ~ct the ccaatal habitat&, the final &II ahould
addreaa, in aa much detail aa poaaible, the biol09ical
~eta of auch a apill on both the aarine and terreatrial
ayatcaa. In addition, there abould ba a full deacription in
the final EIS on the effectiveneaa of the available teobnol09Y
to adequately clean up an oil epill in thia area.
lis. Esther *'nnlcke, lllln~ger
BUI OCS Office
P .0. Box 1159
Anchorage, AlaskA 99510
October 14, 1980
State J.D. llo. 58 120-8002703ES
Our lis. *'mlcke:
The State of Alaska appreclatH the opportunity to rwt• the draft
Envii'OIWntal IIIPICt Sta-t (EIS) for federal oil 11111 gas lease sale
60 In Lower Coot Inlet and Shellkof Strait. As 1IIU know, liover110r
,_,.. his generally favored this sale, conslder1"1 It to be In both
the lllltlonal and State Interest If lleld dur1"1 the ~~&rled 1980-1915.
CoMistent with thh overell enclors-t of the sale, the State responded
on April 2, 1979 to the Call for Tract blnatlons. At thet t._, tile
State endorsed the Inclusion of a IJUIIber of tracts, lndlcltl"', '-er,
thet those In lower Sllellkof Streit should be deleted. Also ----
for deletion JOere certain -rshore tracts In Upper Shellkof Strait and
tn Lower Cook Inlet. llroo"' the rHsons for our position .. ,.. 1) the
utroordlnarlly high fisheries ollll other wildlife val-, 2) !Nirtlc•larl)'
hlgll geoloq1c heurds in certain !NirtS of the sale lrH and, 3) the
ontlci!Nitlon thet •tar circulation and wind !Nitterns could ~e tooplllft-
Mnt of spilled on on key fish and wildlife populations.
The purpose of thh letter Is to prnent a State position on the draft
EJS thet best reflects the IIOSt recent lnfo-tlon on the sale arH, and
i ntagrates the concerns ollll rec_,ottons of the Depart.nts of
llaturel Resources, Envl...,...ntal CoM..,atlon, c-nley and 111!11-1
Affeln, ond Fish ond S.. as •11 as the 011 11111 Gas CoMervotlon
C...ission.
Ad!CJ!!ICY of Draft EIS
vtthln the scope of ova11oble lnfo-tton, tile State fHh thet •ch of
the droft EIS fs relatlvel)' COIIPreheMive and occurote In Its trea-
of llljor ant1Ci!Nited IIIPicts. There are, '-•r, significant data and
lnfo-tion gaps In portions of the EIS ..,lch Mke It difficult to
adequate!)' assess lapacts and develop effecthe aitlgatlng -sures.
-'"
-2-
Finally, reference to the prcaul9ation
Criteria on pa9ea 16 and 102 abould be
final p...,...lqation on oct-. 30 1910.
affective on lle¥olllloer-r,l910 •
of BPA • a ocean Diec:bar9e
corrected to rerlect
'!'be 9Qidelinea be.-
In ¥1-of our concern• with the aite alternative deacriptioo,
we have rated thie draft eta~rat SR-2, envi.....-ntal ,.... • .......u ....
inaufficierat infor.ation.
lis. Esther !Minlcke ·2· October 14, 1910
Pl!~cal Sci-• Jnf.,..tton. The lnf.,..tlon d.--f..,. the OCS EJOY1.--
• 1 XSses-t Progr• (OCSEAP) appliH ol_.t exc1n1ve17 to Lowr
Coot Inlet, leavl"' the IIIPresslon thet little Is m-of Shellkllf
Strait. It Is true thet the Streit •s not ldefttlf1ed as 1 potentiol
OCS Ipse 1r11 for the flnt f1vt ,_ars of the .,.II'OIWfttll research
progrea, lnd thus •s Ineligible for sl-speclflc studiH. -·
the region Is a geologic ext&Mion of Laootr Coot Inlet and Is port of
the •Jor Inshore Qllf of Aluu Contl-tal Sllelf circulation s)'S-.
As a result, a conslclereble -t of ftry relevant physlcol oc8lfiCignlllotc
and Mteorologlc resPrch hes bean porfoiWII In the region. Altboeqll
this knowledge Is essential to the detlnllnatlon of probable pollJOtaat
dispersion and trojectoriH, little of It Is Incorporated Into the draft
EJS. llroong the significant ~sponsored researcll olreedy .,anable ore
the follow!"' Pl~~&rs:
Hordl"', J.ll. 1976. Ttdal CUrrents and Pollutant Dts~~&rsal Ia the
lleStarn Qllf of Aluu u derived t.... 1 ~red,....tcal·
-rtcal IIOdel, OCSEAP ~ortarl7 llaports, Jolly-Septlllber,
Y. 3, pp. 781-825.
Unclsoy, R.ll. 1980. A Stud,)' of lltsoscale 1111111 Patterns on the
south AlaskAn coast, ...,..lx I to OCSEAI' "'-11 llport of
RU 367 (In prHs; ...-ltted to BUI'l llpr11 1980).
llllcklln, S.A., R.ll. Lindsay, and R.ll. IIQtlolds 1980. Ollservatl-
of Hososcole lllncls In an Orthograplltcally-blnated Estuary:
Coot Inlet, Ainu, llppendtx Ill to OCSEAP ~~ llaport of
RU 367 (In prHs; sut.ltted to BUI 1 Apr11 1980).
Sc..,_cher, J.D., R.l. Chlrnell, S.P. Hayes, H. llofjeld, and
R.D. "'ensch 1978. &.If of AlaskA Stlldy of llososcale Ocea...,......tc
ProcessH, OCSEAI' Annuol llaports, V. 9, pp. 61-Zll.
Sc..,_cher, J.D., R.K. Iliad, II. llriBbJ, and D. DrevH 1979.
Circulation ond ~rography -r Kodiak Island, Sept-.r to
lloveooller 1977, IIOo\A Tech ,._, Eli.-PIIEL 13, 49 p.
S.:....cher, J.D .. R. Slllcoz, D. DrevH, and R.D. "'-dd 1978.
lllnter Circulation ond ~rography over the Contl-tal Sllelf
of the llortlaoest &.If of AlaskA, 110M Tech ,._, ERI. 404-PIIEI.
31, 16 p.
Despite their volue, .. find no Indication In the tazt thet the •thors
of the draft EIS •re -re of these studiH.
lllen Shellkof Streit •s edcltd-to the proposed lease areas, OCSEAI' •de
• considerable effort to fill In Mjor data gaps for the region. These
studies, .-rt ttedly accelereted by tiM constraints, •re dHignall to
produce portlcularl)' iiiPOrtant suppl-ntary lnfo-tlon In t1M to be
incorporeted in the final EJS. llroo"' this ..n Is the coastal nlner-
obllley closslflcatlon by Hayes (RU 59), field 110rk for ..,lch •s c..,...ted
lis. Esther llunnlcke -3-October 14, 1910
In t~e s-r of 1980, with 1 report clue later this 110nth, ond seo floor
hourds studies b7 ._ton (RU 327), with 1 report due on 1 Dec...,.r
1980. Such crltlcol studies should hove been Included In the droft EIS
b7 reference, ot lust, ond ore certelnly opproprlate for the ftnol
stlt-nt.
Btoloalcol lnfo .. tton . Other -lnfo .. tlon •lch should be lncorporeted
orid consldir:ed In t1li onolysts Includes recent tndlcotlons of •Jor
pollock SPI""Ing octfvfty In Shellkof Strolt, ond surveys -nstrotlng
thot 75-85 percent of the Lowr Cook Inlet crob horvest Is token f....,
one oru Hst southeiSt of Augustine lslond. These doto ore ovolloble
In c-rcfol fisheries -rles by the AliSkl Oeport.nt of Fish ond ....
In oddftlon to lddlng -fnfo-tlon, there Is •terfol In the droft
EIS llhfch could be cited -ore occurotely. For Ulllplo, the •Jor Lowr
Cook Inlet hlllbut fishing orus ore octuolly In ICo•tshlk a.y and not In
ICach-k llay IS s"-' In Srophtc 4. Sevorel of the doto sources used In
the droft EIS, such IS the ADF&G Fisheries AtliS, ore olreody ot lust
portlally out of dote ond hove been updoted or superceded by -ore recent
reports.
And ffnolly, there Is voluoble bfologlcol reseorch thlt .--Ins to be
done In Shellkof Strolt. As suggested on pogo 41 of tho droft El5, .ore
fnfo .. tlon Is needed on ffnflsh ond shellfish popullttons, •rfne
•-ls ond cetoc•ns, •nne ond coutol birds, ond vulneroble coutol
hobltots . Specific study needs ore u follows:
I. Birds
•· Surveys to ossess s-r ond winter abundonce ond distri-
bution of seabirds In Shellkof Strait end Kodlok Ishnd
lla)'s.
b. Surveys to assess seuonol obundonce and distribution of
,.terfowl In Shellkof Strait ond Kodiak lsllnd !lays.
c. Studies to Identify seoblrd colonies betwen Puole llay
ond Cope Douglas on the north side of Shollkof Strait
ond be-llillno llay ond Uganlk lslond on Kodlok
Island.
d. Dlte,.lne seuonol obundonce, feeding distribution, ond
food hoblts of sooblrds In 5hellkof Strolt colonies.
e. Conduct studies to dete,.lne sensitivity of nesting,
feeding, ond stlglng ,.terfowl ond seoblrds to nolst
ond dhturbence.
lis. Esther llunnlcke -5-October 14, 1980
4.~
1. Dete,.lne huNn use (recreotlonol ond subsistence) of
fish ond wildlife In the 5hellkof 5trolt region Including
1) .,...s used ond 2) species ond ~antltles horvested.
b. Dete,.lne effect of lncrused populltlon ond co.petltlon
for subsistence and recreatlonol resources resulting
f...., prf•ry ond secondory effects of offshore ofl ond
gos exploration, develo,...t, ond production.
More specific c-nts on the dota and fnfo ... tlon In the droft El5 ore
contained In Enclosure 3.
5tlte Positions on Sole Altornotlves
On the bests of our reviiW of the EIS, the existing level of reseorch
lnfo ... tfon for Shelfkof 5trolt, ond an -reness of the Kodllk lslond
Bo~'s -rglng position, the State tokes the following positions on
leoso solt olternotlves:
Stote's Prf•rx Position on Tract Conff,uratlon. The Stote's preferred
tract configuration 1s a IIOdlflcatlon o Ahernatlvt IV In llhlch the
following deletions and eddltfons ore rec.._ndod (see olso Figure 1):
I. Tracts to be deleted.
92, 131, 317, 361, 405, 484, 527, 615, 625, 659, 669, 703, 713,
ond 757.
2. Tracts to bo edded beck ln.
93, 94, 137, 138, 181, 182, 186, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230,
268, 269, 270, 271, 2n, and 273.
These chonges together with the •ltlgotlng -sures referred to below
would •kt Alternotlve IV consistent with the fnfo ... tlon currently
ovollablt to the Stote. It -ld olso ocknowledge the Kodllk Island
Borough's position (Enclosure 1) thot, secondory to Its preference for 1
sale deloy, It -ld like to see the deletion of all trocts In Shellkof
Strolt as ,.ll as those tracts In Cook Inlet thot pose 1 serious threat
of ldverse l_,octs.
In developing this position, the following considerations have been
tlken tnto account.
I. Very little biological resoorch hu been conducted In Shellkof
Stroft, ond u a result, It -ld be uSiful to hove .ore lnfo .. tfon
upon •tch to bose 1 leasing decision for this oreo.
·~ .. ·
lis. Esther llunntcu Octollef' 14, 1910
t. !!trf!II!Wtls ..
b.
c •
d.
e.
3. !1m ..
b.
c.
d.
..
f.
Conduct surveys to detenofne ••1011111 abutldoiiCe atld
distribution of harbor stals, seo otters, ond 111
lions In She11tof Streit. DltenofM f_...f .. , IIIPPfng,
lnd hlulout ·-··
Dlti,.IM lbuodonce end •fatrfbutfon of •1es fa
Shellkof Strait.
Dlte,.lne HISOIIIl food habitats of s• Ilona, •a1ea,
and harbor s .. ls. Dltenofne rehtlonshlp be-
s•sono1 diMrsal fish conceo~trotfons llld •nne
_, concentrotlons.
Dlte,.lne s•s-1 --ts of •rfne _,, In
She11kof Strolts.
Conduct studies to dete,.fne sensitivity of SH lions,
s .. otters, seols, ond •ales, to noise ond dfsturbence
Including su.,..rfM noises.
Dlte,.fne lbuodonce ond distribution of •-rsal led
pehgfc fish In She11kof Strait.
Dltl,.lne obundance, distribution, llld 11ft history of
Iorge pollock schools found s•sono111 In Shelfkof Strolt.
Dete,.fne souono1 lbuodonce llld •tstrfbutfon of 111l1glc
eggs lorvoe, ond J"'enlles of diMrsol, ond pelagic fish
In Shellkof Strolt.
Oetenofne 1arvo1 crustoc .. a (tf .. , tlllner, .._.. ..
crab, ond shrl_,) release oreu and petterns ot lorvol
drift ond develo,...t In She11tof Strait.
Dltl,.fne •fgrotfonol petterns of edult lnd juvenile
pehgfc diMrsal ond oned.._s fish In She11kof Strait.
Dlte,.fne effects of non-explosive sefSIIfc sources on
juvenile 111hgfc ond oned.._s fish.
Piqure 1. State of Alaaka'•
Priaary Poeition on Tract
COnfiguration for Federal
Lea ... Sale 60. October 1980
• indica tea tract deletion
II>. Esther \Nnnicke October 14, 1gso
2. Substantial new fisheries infoi'Ntfon hu bee-available wilich
indicates that ext..-ly lorge schools of pollock ..... into She11kof
Strait during the fall and winter 110nths . Sonar records indicate
that these schools 111y ••sure fi'Off 30-100 •11es in length and fi'Off
10-15 •11es wide . The size of the schools 1nd tl•lng of the --nts
has led to the rusonable speculation that She11kof Strait -.y be
the 011jor pollock spawning grounds for the entire Gulf of Aluka -
Aleutian Shelf region . Bec1use pollock egg s are peloglc and f101t
at the surface during the early sttges of developilent, tMy are
ext..-ly vulnerable to any eype of surface pollut i on such as an
oil slick. This vulnerab11 lty should be a s ignifi cant factor In tho
decision to leue in She11kof Strait.
3. A substantial number of tracts have been i ncluded In the proposol
(Alternative I) willch the SUte hu asked to be deleted fro. both
sole Cl and sole 60 . These Include Shel l kof Strait tracts g2, 131,
m.rn.~.m.~.3~m.m,m,m,u~w~~.
651, 695 , 737, 738, 781, 782, 825; Augustine Island tracts 484,
527, 615, 659, 703; and ltichll\lk 8ay tracts 186, 2Z9, 230, 273,
317, 361, 405, 625, 669, 713, and 75 7. Oeletlon of those tracts
was prevloosly requosted in the State's April 2, 1g79 response to
the tall for "'-inatlons because of geologic hazards or bocauso
they presented 1 substantial o11 spill threat to State-owned lands
and resoun:es.
4. There is 1trong opposition to the lnclulon of tho She11lof Strait
tracts by both local govo,_nts and fish and wi l dlife re1ource
users .
5. A IIOOCflfled alternative IV would reiSonlbly 1llow exploration of
feder•l tracts in the tape OougliS region wilfle protecting State
interest. in tilt Shel lkof Strait -Kodiak lslond Region.
At such tine u there h 1 110re c011plete btolog f cal f nfo,.tfon blse
upon wilich to develop •Higating MISures in She11tof Str1lt, the Stlte
would consider the area ready to be lused. The Sute continues to
think th1t this is possible during the period 1980-lg85 .
State's Alternate Position on Tract Conffguratfon. If 1 decfston 1s
~n~de that 1t h 1n the Nit1onal 1nte~st to lease tracts 1n Shel1kof
Straft, despite the constder•tfons described above, then the State
rec..,..nds a noodfficatlon of Alternative l in which these additional
tracts are dellted (see also Figure 2):
l. Tracts rec.onnended for deletion because of the substantial ofl
spill threat presented to State resources .
a . She11tof Strait tract• -g2, 131, 21g, 263, 306, 307, 309,
350, 483, 522, 565, 570, 607, 608, 651, 6g5, 737, 738, 781,
782, and 825 .
b. ltich0011k 8ay tracts -31 7, 361, 405, 625, 669, 713, and 757.
Pigure 3. Potential Tracta
Identified by BLH for Federal
Lea-Sale 60. '
Piqure 2. State of AlaUa'a
A.lt.arnate Poaition on Tract
Co<lfiguratioa for Paderal
Leua l!al• 60. October uao
e indicate• tract deletion
11>. Esther Wunnlcke
2. Tracts near Augustine Island recc:..Mnded for deletion because af
substantial goopllysical hlllrd -484, 527, 615, 659 , 1nd 703.
Thou tnct delttions together with the a1tigating Muures referred tG
below ..,..ld bring Altem•the l into approxiute confoi'Nnct with the
State recc.endation on the CJ.ll for Ma~~fnatfons.
Proposed Mfttgatfna Me:uures
The two State positions identified 1bove 1re predicated upon the ldopt1
of •fttgatfng Mtsures described tn Enclosure 2. We consider these
essential ff the State's resources and publ fc interests fn the area of'
the sale are to~ adequately protected. The enclosure contains BUt's
proposed a1tigating •asures, with appropriate onod1f1t1t1ons, and eddlt1oaal
IMISures lillhere the State's interests are not othtntfse protected.
Local Coastal ManagMtnt Pllnntng
l should also point out that one of the State's criteria for supporting
sole 60 during 1980-lg85 has consistently been th1t of c-.nlty p_.rM-
ness. The State continues to feel tMt the Kenat Peninsula Borwgh a.nd
l:odfak Island Bcrough c01st1l Nnag.,..nt pl1ns need to be sufficiently
developed by the sole date that loc1l c...-.nltles will be 1ble to ad...,attl J'
cope with i.pacts resulting fr .. the sale. ln this reg1rd, we'"' ·
encouraged by the fact that both boroughs have been •king progress In
thefr coastal Mnagt~~tnt planning efforts.
~
Once again, the State appreciates thh rtview oppoM:untty, and we wuld
welc-any further chance for lndhidual Stlte agencies or this off1ao
to help Mke the final EJS the thorough doc-nt thlt you aod we both
would like 1t to be. Please do not hesitate to c•ll on us 1n tbe -·
ahead.
EntlOSUP'tS : (3)
cc w/enclosures :
~ly,
Fa~~
r«tor
Mr. Frank Gregg, Dt rector. Bureau of l&nd Maug-nt
~r. Joe Jones, Constrntion Mln•ger, U.S. Geologlc11
Survey, Anchorage
Honorable Oan Ogg, Kodht lsllnd Borough Mlyor
Honorable Oon G11Mn, Kenai Peotnsula Borough ~r
-ers of Allskl Regionll Technical lforl<ing Group
Hr. Ger1ld !lylroi, Office of Coasul Zone 111!1-•t,
U.S. Oepar~nt of to.erce
I!Dcl.omre 1 to Ill. I ...,.. tn.r'a October 14, liBl 1 .tar to Ill. 1!at11ar -ciao
~ o11 IIDd pa :~.-.ua eo.
!31:::
J'.~
ro~...c · 1.
•·--· PDUCIJ '._.. spea:LaUR suu of AlaaU :!!:: of-.. =-=.,_ .. ·~ --· M yeo> an _. or the -Zo2aal ~ -aqte4 \be OCI Mn110rr
a....:u n-U• to ~ altomeu .. UI tolo!Ay of Mltl La XZ&
....., ale NO .., •Uon
1a u•lat t.M n.te 1ft fonbt :la ,..u.t• CCIDOI"-lnt -.;bJ.e ...S.. 1 vlU
-IAI.D -~~orout~:'• -of .,..-,
11 "" eri<l-the IICU *-'Ill a -bp ,.,. rwl--to 111..--
uate ~-.. '-18-lu of tl>ia kaft nlaU" u 111:». • ..,.la-
tl.aouwnaa,.nanl-&.
21 -••• t:11e -roc-,..._ .... opec:Ulco "" the fJ.ohorr
nacn&I"'M la -.UIIDf .V<. llllrlnaa tlw eftn.~ l.aell ot ait.e
opr.Ul~ .... la all altenatl.,.. _. ~·
31 OOnt-t11o oil .,ul trajec"..ory -lo ..,ueaiiUlty ...., to
illt.rod\101 canuary teau-ty oaeeernU., ~ _..la' lMff'iciM.o:lea.
41 ,_,tal of o~lw ~ to .._., IWOCI to •-U•
-uu ... !opacto to ....uu r-r.an lalo KO ...., Nl.
u. is illpon.a:tt rw t.'te St.te be .-n uaa~ ~"we ~ wU1 alao prepue
o o~ _. tit al-U .. Ul ot the ,U.Uc Muiat• !Ilia --oil
wuol.d ,...at .. lett.or. of all tl'ect.a Wltl&.la t..'M ~1•• of th• -.utof
ltl'ait ng&A\ ... tlloH trecta wl'lhia t2ae CooiK llllet. Chit ~ a ~eat of
-'"rM ~· to the sualt. 'ftloM tn.ou haft oot yet brMft atar.~i~le4
......_., aft.er nriw of MUilUta ..UU pbo!;• eM ....,_.,!', will U..
SAent.U:l .. t._ CDol!l: lalet t.net• atefon ~· Marl"' 4a~.
'!ber-eton, 1.11 ·~· tbe IDftutt\ wUl atqi'POI't Alt.N"!latl'ft I'll C'.zo'IIIJh a
~ -.. --· u 1o hopahl -· -...... _ ... -loro"'ll'• pD111tlcm of tM oalo, -1-lo t11o -of fo..,loUav dlo ltoto'o
""''"'"'·
cc: lrlart.M O'c.-t"
State of Ala.U ... ~ ......... ,, .......... ,
Enclosure 2 to lis. Frances UlMr's October 14, 1980 letter to 'Is. Esther
Wunn1cke regord1ng federal o11 and gu lease sole 60.
"ITIGATIIIG IIEASURES PROI'OSED BT THE
STATE OF AlASKA
1. The BI.M-proposed 1111t1gatlon conto1ned 1n the droft EIS 1s supported
by the Stlte, contingent on the following changes:
A. "1t1gat1ng •uures 1n place ""1ch should be adopted:
B.
l. Protection of Cultural Resources. The State feels thlt
thh ••sure shou:d be expanded to Include 1) a provh1on
for locating and protecting cultural resources on ltnd
and 2) the need that 1s ..,has1zed 1n the lllt1onal
Hhtor1c Preser"tlt1on Act for consultotlon with the State
Hhtor1cal Preservet1on Officer. If these •asures
cannot be reflected 1n the final presale EIS and Sale
Notice, thin they should be reflected 1n the lltvelop~~~~nt
EIS.
POtenthl M1t1glt1ng 11tasures ""1ch should be adopted as pert
of tha proposal :
l. l!ltlgatlng 11tasure lbnller 1. llell tnd P1pel1ne Requ1re-
,.nh. Thh Mllure should be adot!ted w1th the following
tdd1t1on: All unburied phMt11nts shall be designed
1nd constn~ctid to allow fOr the frH mov-nt arid
stfe Jf"ale of m1gret11!l! ytbinthlc marine orqtnlsms
1nclu na tna. tenner. an dungeness crab.
There h 1 grHt dul of conce"' that crabs cannot cHIIIh
over tho ..,oth surf1ce of ltrge unburied p1pe11nes, tnd
that the utonshe network of gathering lines ond onshore
p1pe11nes will block or channe11ze essenthl movoments of
crab populations. Thh change will e11m1nate tny potential
probl-.
lie also suggest that the clause and to the United States
coast Guard for not1f1cas1on of iriiriners Di added to the
sentence 6i91nn1ng Wtthlitltude and longitude coordinates
• . • • • The Coast Guerd should be kept 1nfomed of til
potential haz1rds to nav1gat1on ond f1sh1ng Interests 1n
the lease sale .,... end should dhs..,1ntte thh 1nfo,..t1on
to Mr1ners such IS fhhl_, thtt might be offected by
OCS o11 and gu devel oPMnt.
4-f.,·-· lt-..c. -~~" 6cs Advisory ~ouncil
1 ...... (907) -5736 P.O.-U46
Koolol, AWia ""'
At • -~ .. of tho Wlot hloDd ~ ~ly 011
OctoMt lrd. ltr.l, ~. Ju.e S.l~ _.,., t~t tbe (~r.l poc!ttOD
of r!w &Mt•ll: ral ... loY-.,b oo :..u .. Sa!e f61) M Alter.U'" III,
ula7 of tho oal•. oo IT""ed• of:
11 ,..._. •• --...
2) Lack o! alit~••• o! c-la:~v• t...p.Kc
l) '1Ac1L of Tec-lOil<ol tapa~UUy of Oil ~lot to
CDnU1o 1 IPUI.
A-' lD tbe "'""t tbt Mle 11 eon.--.rN ... are .._.tlr oppo ...
ttl ftUl.tDt at tbS. tS.. aov.t'h af tU c.pe !)Dutla•-llrrn lalalldl
llao.
Tille •Uoa wo --" by --fi•U nd -""" b7 • -·-••
fttce wte.
Enclosure 2 page 2
2. 1!1t1gat1ng 11Usure ,.,...,.r 2 •• Trensporttt1on of Hydroctrtlon
Products. Thh ••sure should be tdopted with the following
changes:
•· Thh m1t1gat1ng .. asure stotts: 'In selecting the
meons of tr1nsportatlon, cons 1dertt1on w111 be given
to any roc-ndat1ons of the lntergovennntol
Phnnfng Progr• for assessment and ,.nog-nt of
tr1nsportat1on of ~tor Cont1nenhl Shelf 011 and
Gas with pert1c1pet1on of Federtl, State, and local
goverrnent 1nd Industry. • Following thh stat-nt,
1 new sentence should be odded as follows: The
~ro~n~ ff :l~o p~u;:; ~·;nrll~~s c=~~~!tf:n
e
The v1ows expressed by the Regional Technical Working
Group through the BL"-sponsored lntergovemoenttl
Planning Progr.,, ""11e useful, do not necesur11y
represent the off1c1t1 pos1t1ons of the State
of Aloskl. 8ecause of the State's Interest 1n
petroleun tronsportat1on planning, 1t 1s essenthl
that d1 roct, off1c1al State-federol dhlogue tnd
cooperation tlke place 1f the b.lhnced Interests of
State ogenctes ere to be adequately represented.
b. Add to tho sentence: 'All p1pel1nes, 1nclud1ng hoth
flow lines and gother1ng 11nes for on and gu,
sholl be designed end constn~cted to provide for
adequate protection frCin Wlter currents, stonns,
subfrHz1ng conditions, f1sher1es traw11ng gear, tnd
other hazards,' ond shall provide for free nlllY-nt
and safe pusage of 11lgratorx eplbinthlc orqtnhms.
The rHson for thh prot~osal appears under 8.1.
above.
c. Add tnd the Port tnd Tanker Safety Act of 1978
(336 S.C.l221). to the end of the lut sentence of
the prot~osed stipulation. In 1978, • new piece of
leghhtfon concerning tonk vessels and ports wos
passed by Congress which set up stringent operating
and design standards for tonkers trad1nq 1n the U.S •
Tills law should be referenced 1n thts stipulation
along w1th the Ports and watenoays Safety Act of
1972.
3. Potential "1t1gat1ng Heasure ,.,mber 3. Env1 rornentol
Tre1n1ng Progrom. Thh stipulation should be adopted
with the following add1t1on: 'The progr.,. shall also be
designed to 1ncrene the sens1t1v1ty ond understond1ng
of personnel to c......,n1ty vtlues, cust<>ns, and 11festyles
1n oren 1n which such personnel w111 be opertt1ng,'
1nd fart1cuhr emphuh w111 be placed on avoidance of
conf fcts With cCJ~~nerchl f1sh1ng operations and w1th
stationary cCI'IIIII!rchtl fishing gear.
Enclosure 2 jMte 3
"-s I dents Qf L,_r Cook Inlet 1nd Kodl•k 1re ver')' ciiiiCei'MCI
about dhplac_,t of c..,.rchl fishing opertt1ons f..,.
producthe fishing a,...s by ltist operations, and tnodvertent
or c,.eloss destl'\lctlon of fishing ,..r by support vessel
operations. The Inclusion of thh ciiiiCorn In the EJNI.--ul
Training Progrll'l will help Mitigate ~his probl•.
4. Potonthl 111t1gUing IIHsure .....,.r 4. Dlspoul ttf
Drilling "'ds, Cuttings, end Forwt1on IItten . Althouglt
under cerUin clrcuoostances the dlscharve ttf forwtlon
•tors ond drilling 101ds can be • serious envi.--Ul
prolll.,, I!Higotlng Pleosure .....,.r 4 does not offer •
slgnlflcont degree of relief. The 101jor prolll .. Is
thlt sufficient lnfo~Wtlon Is not IYIIlable to 1ssess
the llllj)lcts of fomttlon •ters ond drilling 101ds on
the dl fforont 11trlno onvl...,.nts found In the proposed
ule oreo, ond thlt the collection of 1111 lddltlonol
lnforwtlon Is solely ot tht discretion of tht District
Coftson1tton lltnogor (DCII). r:,rtht,.re, .. .., If there
oro sufficient diU to Indicate thot a conflict exists
beboeon biological rosourcos ond dlsch1rves of forwtlon
•ters ond drilling •ds, the DCII h not -Ired to
stlpulttt an oltemotlve •1ns of dlspostl. The currtllt
..,rdlng of the altlgotlon says only thlt tht "DCII•y
require tho leueo to reinject foiWtlon •tors.•
Tho wording of llltlgltlng •1suro 4 should be chonged
to:
If tho DC" Is provided with substontlal biological or
phxslcoi evidence that tlii dlscharu of drfinna .,a,
or fol"'lll£1on weters •x idvenelx 1ffect Mr1nt t"Hources.
ho Wfll either: ..
b.
rohlblt the dhchll'l!e of drllllna .. d. or fo .... -
1on waters, or;
reoul ro definitive studies to resolve the Issue.
5. Potentlol 111tlgotlng 11t1suro .....,.r 5. Protection of
Blologlc11 Resources. This •nuro should be tdOIIttd
IS written. The optlontl ..,rdlng, "tho DCII •Y ...,Ire
a survey• should bo rejected.
lnfo,....tlon to Lessees which should be 1d011ttd as pert of tht
proposol :
I.
2.
lnfon~~tton on Bird ond "-' Protection. The
wording of this -sure should be tdopttd as wrlttiM.
lnfo,....t1on concerning Ftl.,.ys. Tho ..,rdlng of this
Measure should bo ooodlfled IS foil-to reflect conslderltlon
of crltlcol fishing oreas .
Encl osuro 2 pege 5
Coast r.u1rd reprosont•ttvo concluded by soylng "In closing "'"·
Cholnoan, I ,..st Siy ~Ito condldly that I do not believe
thoro now exists an In-place c1peblllty to respond to 1 Njor
spill In tho OCS. • Based on our 1n1lysls of current oil spill
contol-nt and cloonup copebllltlts It oppears thlt ALII hos
oll.-d Aloshn OCS aroos to ht loued ond USGS his 1pprovtd
drilling pltns without the lblllty to conuln lnd cletn up a
pollution Incident which lllght result frao Ieese dtvel-t
1nd production. To correct this serious deflcle~~ty we fftl
th1t •Int..., 1ccepUble oil spill contol-..t ond clNnup
porfon~~~nco .tond•rds should bo provided to tht less• 1nd to
USGS In tho leue doc-nt. Tht sundords should be:
I. Sufficient oil spill conul,..nt and cle1nup ~IPNnt
should bo ovollablo In the lust 1roa to conUin 1nd
cloon up tho •ut .. n prolloblo project spill (I.e.,
pipeline brook, wild well, or tonkor occldeftt). This
should occ-oto ot lust IDO,DOO blrreh of on.
2. Tho on spill respomo orgonlzttlon ... t -nstrott •
copoblllty to ,...ch crltlcol fish ond wildlife hobluts
before • spill does. This •1ns thot for noorshore
trocts, tht operttor MUst bo lble to retch tdjoctnt
areu In L,_r Cook Inlet or Shellkof Streit "'thin 6
hours.
3. Tho operotor •st be oblo to conUin or cl.,n-up oil
under the onvl ...-ntol conditions prev11llng In tho
leuo oroo, spoclflcolly Including Icing conditions, SG-
knot winds, 20-foot •ves, Z5-foot tides, ond 5-knot
currents. Jf the lessee or operator cannot dMonstrate
this copeblllty then tho USGS should Insure thtt specific
phases of drilling operotlons, or surf1ce on tronsport
operations "'th • slgnlflcont chance of 1n oil spill, ore
scheduled during periods whttt tho operttor c1n guartntoo
thot ho con protect IMportont fish and wildlife populations
or hobltot fr001 spills.
1. Tho plan should bo oriented towtrd protection of
sensitive fish and "'ldllfo hobltlt tnd populations
sue~ as razor cl.w beaches. sea bird colontes, salt
.,.rshos, ond lntortldtl SilMOn spewnlng areas. Tho
oporotor should bo required to d...,nstr1to thlt ht his
Identified these 1rets and his developed positive aothods
of protecting theM such u exclusion bo001tng or diversion
boCIIIIng. A description of sensitive fish •nd wildlife
~abltat In the Cook Inlet portion of the proposed sole
area is provided In tho ADFlG report entitled,
Qoc....,.ndltlons for ~1ni011Zin the I" acts of roctrbon
nt on ant
Encl""re 2 ,..,. 4
c-rcltl flohlng Is txt,_ly l~ot to the lret --•sed by the ult .,... tnd the proposed folrwey
sut-t should reflect this f1ct, as ft did In tM
Flntl Notice for ule 55. Tht second chonge •• Is the
oddltlon of the refentnc:t to 33 u.s.c. 1224 ..,tch refers
to tht Cout Gutrd hiving to consult with lnttrestld
perttes to tht fotrwey desi~Ntlon process. This "'"
tttsure loco!, 11 well IS Stitt, lftllllt to tht Coest Qllrd
decision regerdlng ftlrwey lout10111.
II. 111tlgttlng -surtS _ _.....bY the Stott of Altsb. In lddftlon
to tht llltlgttlon nee--ad by IIUI, a ....,.r of lddltl-1 llltt,.tl ..
ntiSures ere _ .. ,..,. to -*"•tely prottct the Suu's -bit
resources 1nd resource .. en In the trM of the sole. Thtst oro:
A.
I.
c.
llologlcol Ttsk Foret. A biological ust force should be
esubllshed In tho IHst .,_.t to ldylsa tht District
Conson1t1001 '111119tr tnd the Secretor')' ttf the Interior on tM
lnterpreUtlon 1nd t,.l_tltlon ttf blologlcol stlpulttlons.
This Tuk Foret should be _.ltd after tht laaufort S.. Tosk
Force lnd should be c ..... lstd of the USFIIIS, IIIFS, lUI, US&S,
ADfloG, IIIII, tnd ADEC.
Oevol-nt EIS. It should bo lndlcttld In tht Sole Notice
thot 1 Oevtlo,..wt EIS Is to be wrltte In the tv..,t of I
c-rcltl on discover')' In either Cool Inlet or Shtllkof
Streit •
011 Spill Response. ~ tffecthe on spill respot~~e cope-
blllty •st be 1 prtNqUislte for lddltlonol letslng In
Shellkof Strtlt ond l-r Cool Inlet. A ctrefvl ,...,, .. of the
effectl••-• of -~-on solll conul-t ond cl-
efforts In Altsb 1nd st•tlar _l,_ts arooond the wrld,
ond tht capebllltlts of ulstlng ~t....,t llld cl-...,.nlzatl-
lndlcotts thot • -Jor or atdlllfl on spn I In Alasbn wettrs
no~Wlly could not be coaUintd or cl...,td up before It I-ts
1-rttnt fish tnd wildlife resources or hiiiiUts. The u.s.
Coest Ciutrd dots not yet htvt the copeblllty to CGnUin or
clean up oil In over 6-foot ••es, 15-kllot winds, or fclng
cOftdltiOM. Thtso cOftdltlons ore ucttdtd ot least 50 perceoot
of tht tl• In wost Alubn OCS areu. Tht presont tblllty of
tht Coest Gu1rd, which has prlootr')' responsibility for •riot
oil spills, to conUin 1nd ciHII up oil spills •s the •In
thiN of tht Coest IIIIard's August 26, 1910 ttstiiiOIQ' before
tht House c-ltt• on lltrchont lltrfnt end Flshtrfts where tM
Enclosure Z Pttt 6
D. Protection ttf Crltlcol Fishing Areos. 1\oo trots hlft bttn
tdtntlfltd ,..tch produce the •Jorfty ttf tht kiii!J tnd u-
crtb htnesttd In tht sole 60 ltost lrM. The erea soutiiMst
of Augustine Islond, Including tracts 661, 662, 663, 704, 705,
706, 707, 748, 750, 751, 793, 794. 795, 136, 837, 131, 839,
810, 811, 812, 113, 9U, end 924, products opproal•ttly 75-10
percent ttf the king tnd unner crab htntstld In Lower Cool
Inlet. Sf•llor c:onc-eaht for tht 1-rtoot Shellkof
StroH to-r crib fishing lrM loc1tld so.thtlst ttf C.,.
Douglos. Fhht-n tro CIIIICtrotd thlt oil llld .,_, uplorttlon
1nd dtvtl-nt will not only ldverstly affect creb productloa
but •Y 1lso dhpltca flsht..-ond ststiOntr')' ,.,. f...., these
crltlcol fishing lrMS. Thh dlsploc-t will .--lt In port
frao tht siting of drilling rigs In a h-lly fished lrM, but
prl•rlly fr001 supply tnd support vessels ,..lch offect 1 •ch
ll'!lor 1roa In thtlr •-" 1.--.cl tht drilling platfoN.
This constont •-••rfng con tnda""r fhtd fishing gHr,
such IS crob pots, espoclolly wring tht hours of darklltss
s tnce support wtsstls do not hlft spoeltllztd ll"'ts to spot
fishing boloys llld 11-ond ..,. not dettct tills ge~r. Altlloegll
the 1119nltude ttf this prolllao Is 1-sslblt to ~ontlfy at
this tiM, tht DtperfMnt of Fish ond S.. hts roc--...
thot this Is 1 legltl•t• Stott concern which should be
oddresstd by lUI. 111· hove c1rofully ,...,,..,. tht uhtlng
••suros IYIIItble to •Hig1tt tht problao, lnd find that -
are sotlsfector')'. The .,st tpprOPrhtt llltlgttlon prtse~~tly
In effect Is the Fhht-n's Caopensotlon F•nd; '-'rer, this
fund Is 11•1ttd becoust It oaly lddrtsses tM problao 011 1
CISO•bY•CISO beSIS lnd Cln only Cover I • .,_, lltbtllty ttf
SIDO,ODO. The nlue of tht crib pots olont thtt ore fished by
• single SSOO,DOO Alubn fishing vessel •Y ucttd $250,000.
E. Potentl1l conflicts with c-rcltl fishing. To altlgott
potenthl conflict be-ltllt ..,.rotlons end c-rcltl
fishing, ona of tht following -suros shou14 be ldoptld ••
part of tht lone doc-nt:
I. Esttbltsh a c-.ltteo c-lsed of fls"-and llldontr')'
reprosenutlves to orbltrtte conflicts be-laua
operltlons ond fishing octlvltlos In Sllellkof StroH llld
Lower Cook Inlet. IIIUin 1n 1rbttrotor to settle df"*tts
which c1nnot be settled by tht c-lttft •
2. Schtdvlt explorator')' drilling tnd lttsa -retiOM In
the httvlly fished king llld ~ creb lrM southtlst
of Augustine lslond <luring the closed crab fishing
seoson. Tho crtb fishing oreo Includes trocts 661, 662,
663, 704, 705, 706, 707, 748, 750, 751, 793, 794, 795,
836, 817, 8311, 839, 810, 811, 882, 813, 923, lnd g24
(Tr1cts 704, 750, 794, 831, and 813 were, '-vtr, leostd
In solo Cl.). If oil Is discovered ond pe,...._t tnsUllo-
t Ions 1ro Instilled, or If It Is l_,slhlt to schtdult
oxplorotory drilling operotlons 1round fishing -retlons,
dhpltctd flshe_., should bt CCIIptftSittd for tht dl•lolshed
cotch rosultlriCI frao the oret .....,ed frao fishing.
P. 12
P. 23
P. 27-28
P. 27-35
Enclosure f.,... 7
3. If scllec'-11"1 of leesl"' •ratiOM to IWOid fisheries
• conflicts or coopensatlon for loss of ftshl"' grounds
cannot be ace--sated by U then tile Stata --..ds
deletion of tile followl"' tracts: M1, 612, 663, 705,
706, 707, 748, 751, 793, 795, 136, 137, 138, 810, D1,
182, 923, and 924.
Ellclosure 3 .,... f
llost State agencies are unable to utilize the lntergove,..ntal
Planning Progr• (IPP) as a •cooperetlve planni"' process eeo,.
Federal and State agencies" as stated in tile draft £15. lllera ts
only one State representative on tile IPP, a ....,......tative of ••s
Division of llinerals and £nerv lla~t. 11111 person pr"'ides
tec~nlcal edvlce and assistance and co-eMirs the lllglonal TecMicel
Norkl"' Group along wi~ 1 ...,.r of U. ~ 8 of USOI's ~artar
doc-nt establhhl"' the IPP clearly lndtcates thet ~al.,..rsons
•cannot c...tt t~elr 01"91ftlzations to poltcy.• lltt~t a significant
change in the IPP charter tllet -ld 1) allDW policy as .. 11 techlllcal
Ntters to be negotiated and f) alllllf for _.,.rshlp of otller
Interested State agencies, tile IPP sl11ply cannot serve as a trua
•cooperative planning process -~~~ Federal and Stata agencies. •
'1111 RU. OCS Manager for Alaska lies recognized ~ts situation, and
we request tllet tile IPP be referred to In tile final £15 as an
advisory ratller than a cooperative State-federal fo.,..
The resource estl101tes Include priNry production only. It Is
unrealistic In tM!e tl•s not to also consider secondery rec"'ery.
In regard to envl...,.ntal tralnl"', It lltg~t bo useful to lndlcete
the benefits to tile envi,..,...nt, locel cultures, and the ec-,
that results fr• training expenditures. Past ..,.rlence wi~ ~ts
progr• -ld be Instructive to clta.
lie note wi~ considerable concern that tile stipulation protectl"'
cultural resources Ollkes no ...,tlon of P""'ldl"' for tile locetlon
and protection of cultural resources on land that _, be affected,
nor does It 101ntlon the need, 11 specified and stressed In tile
National Historic Preservation Act, for consultation wi~ the Stata
Historical Preservation Officer. 11le State's review lndlcatas that
•-of the areas suggested In the proposal for i~~pact _, edversely
affect significant cultural resources.
'II tlgatlng •asures -see Enclosure f.
"Groundfls~. halibut, and otller populations of deiOirul fish
species _, be reduced by tile effects of oil spills to •-unquantl-
flable -..nt during tile life of tile proposal In tile Sllellkof
Strait area. Tllh 1s especially true of hiHbut, a species widely
distributed within the Strait and ollose larvae are Mlbject to
pollution rhk for sh 110n~s of the year. •
BU. has not specifically addressed the potential l~~pact tllet tile
proposed lease sale •Y have on the 111"91 s-Ing population of
walleye pollock that occurs In SheHkof Strait. £vidence suggests
that this area _, be the h1"91St single concentration of pollock
In the Gulf of Alaska. 11le aggs, since tlley float at the .. ter
surface, 111uld be highly sensitive to on spills.
'· 1-h
'· 11
P.U
'· 31
'· 44
'· 96
'· 102-105
Ellclosure 3 to Ill. Frances lll•r's October 14, 1980 letter to 111. £stller
lluMicte l"llllrdl"' fedlrel on and gas 11111 sale 60 •
SP£CIHC CIJIKIITS 011 litE liRA" £IS AIID GRAPHICS
I. State AgeiiC)' c......ts on Specific Draft EIS Issues
11le on and Bas Conservation c-lsslon raised s-CJ~estlons
olll~, although ans .. red to s-degree latar In ~e text, point
out ~rll blslc concerns that tile c-lsslon has with respect to
tile adequacy of tile us.
1. Stat.ents su~ as ~e l"llllrdlft!l porcentage probabilities
of recoverable reserves and c-rclal fisheries lllplcts
s~ld bo carefully docUNnted. In otller 111rds, estiMtes
er antlclpeted events s~ld be based on clearly Indicated
fects and IS'""Ptlons and s~ld be sufficiently ~J~allfled
ollon apprGprlate.
2. To tile extent possible, pest experience f.,. Upper Coot
Inlet s~ld be utilized In Mklng futura.l~~pact projections.
3. U s~ld continue Its effort to Identify positive benefits
and enltanc-nts that result f.,. lease sales, as .. n the
potentially edverse effects that are •ntlclpeted.
11le $250,000 total liability or $300 per gross ton liability Halt
for Yllllls Is highly lnldequata. ltost of tile •Jor spills In
recent history lleYI Involved on tankers and berges, and cleanup
costs ~e run IS hllllo IS $30,000,000 for 1 single Incident.
Clllllllfl costs In Alaska will run Into the ~sands of dollan per
ton of oil spn led, and total costs wi 11 probably be 2-3 tl,..s as
great as those for developed areas. Coast !\lard testl.,ny at a
recent on spn 1 conference In Anchorage Indicates ~at thly hive
actually collected less than 30C per dollar of cleanup costs upended
on cleenlng up otl sptlled by vessels In Alasten wtters. lllcause
of ~~ llllttltlons the Offshore Oil Pollution too.pensatlon Fund
c-t be considered adequate altlgetlon for sptlls resulting f.,.
OCS lease operations In Alaska.
'1111 Flslle...,'s Contingency Fund olllch currently his 1 SIIIO,OOO
lhbtllty lllllt, and Halts collectable deiOige to those resulting
f.,. 1 filled -rked object -rely Halts Its usefulnes In
altlgatl"' lapacts In -laskan ,..ters. A sl111l1 Alaskan crab vessel
and gear_, cost In excess of $1,000,000. lddltlonally, 110st
conflicts will not result f.,. bott• obstructions but will occur
as 1 result of conflicts be-support vessels and fixed fishing
gHr, be-support vessels and c-rclal fishing YISSels, or as
a result of dtsplac-t of flslle-n fr• prl• fishing arau or
'arbor spece. To be responsive to Alaskan probl ... tile liability
lllllt should be Increased to 13,000,000, and coverage s~ld be
==·to Include the conflicts Identified In the preceedlng
Enclosure 3 page 3
"11le proposed sale would ~ave little affect on the Kodiak, -r,
Port Ltons, Seldevh, and Kenai c-rclal fisheries as a ollole.
Flsllerles tllpacts that _, occur f.,. ~ronlc and catastrophic otl
spill ~Vents are expected to be localized. "'ltlple-use conflicts
be-on and gas ecthlty and c-rclal fishing should bl
locellzed, of relatively short duration, and subjct to raNdlal
action.•
Tllts sta-nt tends to underrate tile potential risks that on ond
111 exploration and devel~t pose to cc.Nrclal fisheries In
L-r Coot Inlet and Shellkof Strait. 11le draft £IS Itself eddresses
•-rous sc-rlos olllch under certain plausible clrc-tances
could ~e 1 significant tllpact upon c-rclal fishing and flsllerles
resources. C.rtaln "localized" areas within the proposed lease
area Mlpport concentrated fishing activities and fisheries resources
olllc~. if precluded f-use by drilling activities or -ged by
spills, could sl~nificantly affect c-rclal flsllerles over a .,ch
larger area. '1111 State his ~Is lnfo~W~tlon In Its files and -ld
be gled to shire It with the U If requested to do so.
In l"llllrd to the start of production In 19M, .. believe that this
Is an "'erly optllllstlc dete.
lie concur wit~ the projected deta for a fall 1981 COIIIPletlon date
for the Kenai Peninsula lorou,ll's coastal •nag1101nt progr•. A
State At~ General's office opinion Indicates, ~-er, that as
1 result of the A.L.I.V.£. doclslon, district coastal MnageNnt
progr-do not require legislative IPP""'Il. 11le opinion lndlcatas
that for local progr-to be subject to legislative approval,
eltller 1) tile Legislature IIIUld need to -nd tile Alaska Coastal
lls~nt Act to Indicate that legislative lPP""'Il -ld be given
by ect retller tllen by resolution or f) tile State Constitution IIIUld
need to be -ftded to allow laglslatlve approval by resolution.
'1111 l~~pllcatlon Is that If tile Legislature -not -nd tile law
11 described above, tile Kenai progr• could be In place s'""""'at
urlter thin his been antlclpeted.
While on the subject of tile Kenai Peninsula Borough, .. suggest
that the final £IS Include rec--""atlons frao the Borough's Ports
and llarbors stud)' and Factllty Sltl"' study, ass .. l"' that ~ are
IVIIllbll In tiN to do SO.
11le sta-t on page !Of thlt • ••• State wtter CJ~Illty •nag-nt
does not require evaluation of Mrlne sedl...,t CJjallty •.• as
lndlcator(s) of Mrlne .. ter CJ~IHty" Is Incorrect. The State of
Alaska standard for potrol-IIYdrocerbons Includes the following
criterion: "There shill be no concentration of IIYdrocartoon, anl•l
fats or vegetable oils In the sedl...,t ""lch cause deleterious
effects to aquatic life. • This criterion clearly acknDWledges the
l11p0rtance of ~Is receptor IS 1 •s lnlc" for hydrocarbons. Indeed,
tile Departllent of £nvl...,.nta1 Conservation Invariably requires
sediNftt IIYdrocarbon ..,nltorl"' IS 1 condition of ... rshore discharge
.,...Its (IIPD£S on .. st-tar disposal). Euaples olllch ,.. reference
Include: Alyeskl Pipeline Service ~"7 bellast facility, ~P£TCO
refinery disc~arge pe!ll1t, and tile llltarflood Project. DEC requests
tllet thts section acknowledge ~Is requh·-t.
P. 123
P. 175
P. 189
Enclosure 3 pa~e 4
The section on Hydrourt>on Concentrations h generally wll written
and Includes very useful lnfo,..tlon. lit rec-nd tt..t the discussion
on ...,lent benzene and toluene concentrations found ot the bottaoo
of pege 104 bo expanded to Include a stlt-nt to the effect thot
the State of Alas Ita's a.--tic hydrocart>on criterion hes been
applied specifically to continuous discharges, such as U,per Cook
Inlet and Port hldez, to evaluote chronic, potantlolly suhlett..l
levels of hydrocart>ons In these ,.ter bolilos. The Oeparlllent of
Envlro-ntll Conservation does not entlclpoto 'othal tevels being
present. The anolysh of o..-tlc hydrocart>ons In all cues hes
included a 1111surt of the twl1ve .,,t water solub1e 1s_.rs, such
thot, In edditlon to benzene and toluene (both very volatile),
xylene, napthalone, dl•thylnapthalenes, .,.thylnapthalene, ond
trl110thylbenzenes have ..... Included In tho anolysh. Tho Stoto
recognizes the volitlllty of benzene and toluene ond thus has
fiiPhasizod the use of a series of 110re cC>Oplu (ond less volitile)
a.--tics (e.g. napthalen .. ) 11 the 110st useful tracers of ,.tor
ond sedl•nt quality.
Page 105 (top porogreph). The sentence should correctly .-...!:
"AssuMing an LD 50 effect ot 1 Pll'o ••• D.DI of thh value (or
IDppb) •••
The fact tt..t toKiclty of aroNtlcs Is -rally Inversely proportionol
to solubility of the c...pound Is l~~porUnt in the contOKt of the
discussion on benzene ond toluene, boo of the ooore highly soluble
(and consequently, less toxic) arC>Oitlc c001po11nds.
lit recCJIIItnd adding the following por19raph to the lost paragraph
on poge 104.
lnvest1Mtors have also shown thet 010re c0111¥le• monoo..-tlc and
dhroma c cC>O~ulldS ~a~ a laroor rolo in oxic1tx than do
benzene and toUeM aha£ £o~t1c1tr h tnversel y eroport10M1
to so1ubi1Hr. Tills .. ans t~at cC>O~ullds in low concentrations
rnay have sfgntftcant effects on sen'S t1ve oTan1SIIIS. Sfnce these
CO!!!pOURdS •re less volatile aftd, therefore,lve I longer r.sfdence
tliiii; their influence 1s also groater.
Although oil spills usoclated with DCS oil production ore discussed
In the draft EIS, blowouts and operational spills thet occur frC>O
uplorotory octlvlties are not considered. Thh h a •Jar oversight
and should be corrected since the potenthl exists for ext,...ly
llrge oil spills, such u the recent ••ulcan DCS blowout, to occur
In the e•ploratory phase of oil and gas developMtnt. In eddltlon
to blowouts, there is scientific evidence to suggest that the sN11
chronic operational spn h ay create long tenn effects on the
envl roftOitnt. As a result, this type of on spll 1 should also .,.
exa11lned In the draft EIS.
Enc 1 osure 3 poge 6
T~e CUtiUlatlve IMPOcts scenario falls to consider I) the !•poets of
federal leasing in other DCS areas on species ""lch .. y be found In
several ocs areas seasonally, and 2) the fact that on and r.s
produced In other DCS aroas 0111 be transported Into Cook In ot for
processing. '
"Thus It can be concluded thet at least one beluga wintering aroa
I'IIY be vulnereble to effects of spills frC>O the proposal. Hoooevtr,
the extent of ultlate effect of spl11s on beluga ""ales are unclear
but most likely would be related to temporary or long-tem reduction
of food supplies due to ,.,rullty or decreased productivity of fish
which 1111y be present In the area, or possible avoidance by ""ales
of 1ffected aroas. •
There 1s evldonct to suggest that the beluga ""ale population
inhabiting the proposed !use are• lilY .,. Isolated and genetically
distinct fr001 other belugas. A sall, Isolated populitlon such os
thh, ""lch •Y .,. genetlca11y different from other belugas, has
the potential for being severely l•pocted by DCS acthltlos. The
Deporboent of Fish •nd a-fuh th•t w do not have sufficient
lnfo,..tlon on the .,.luga popuhtlon to realhtlc1l1y predict
possible Impacts. DCSEAP has not vigorously pursued basic research
on the Cook Inlet •Juga ""ale population. Thus, w cannot support
the conclusions reached In the draft EIS that OCS activities will
have little l11poct on these ""ales.
II I. r.raphlcs and Captions
Graphic II. Those c....,.nts apply to the reverse side of this graphic,
p. 1 of 5, and are keyed to the droft EIS.
Part III.A.l Thh section, Envlro-ntal Geology,
covers ""ch .. torlal, but In an erratic fashion and with
little .. phuls on the recently edded Shellkof Strait
segnent.
The text appears to heve been assllllbled fr0111 various
~~:;=tr h:r;:::c!., 1 ~s ~~~ ~ ~~~~:~::s p ~~tu~k o~n ~=~til n
proper, but with no .,.ntlon of the active 1Cit:N1 volcanic
c00111lex ""lch borders ..,ch of Shellkof Strait. The
concepts of large scale crustal plote tectonics get good
coverage, but prog,.tlc detail of relevance to petrole..,
uploratfon such as the location and ~ru of activity
of cont.porory shallow faults could be edded to advanUge.
As It heppens, subsUntlal research 1s being done hy
work Is presently .,.lng anolyzed ond should be available
before the final EIS. This research on sea floor hazards
In Shellkof Strait Is by '!onty Himpton of the U.S.
Geological Survey, DCSEAP Research Unit •327.
P. 153
P. 158
P. 169
P. 170
Enclosure 3 P..-5
Althauvh the on spill trajectory anol~ls goes Into -detail
about launch sitos, llopact points and arrival tl•s, the size ~
tho spn 1 Is not defl,... The ... nt of oil spn led cu be tile
dotoNinlng factor In the tl• It takes to roach shoreline a..as
and the IMPOct thet It causes at those locations. Therefore, Ule
spill she should .,. discussed, es~~~tlally ""en the llldlfled
ltoslng proposals (Figs. IV. A.l.d.-lg, 20, 21) ara •sed on cleletl.,
those trocts thet poso significant risks to tho shortll .. of ~r
Cook Inlet -Shelikof Strait. It Is '-rtont thet the trajec~
anol~h ut11ho spill shes thet can roasonobly be -ted to
occur as a result of an offshore accident and .,. based, to the
IIIKI.,,. extant possible, on historical spill dlta frC>O on llld goos
activity on the ocs.
The draft EIS does not cOMect the fact thet the aNis of htgllest
p~ble fiiPICt frao oil spills along the wst coost of the Kocltat
archopologo ore olso the most '-rUnt aroas for herring s_t.,.
The draft EIS doos not note that tho proposed on plpoll .. tll.-gll
ICuproanof Strait troverses an f~~porUnt king crab breeding .,.._
Tracts heve been ldentlflld as provtdfng 75-85 percent of the total
king and tanner crab haNost In laollr Cook Inlet. Bocause of tbe
restricted aroa Involved alld the heavy gear concentrations, slgllfflca•t
conflicts beMan support vosstls and fbod fishing gear could
occur during tho exploration and devol-nt phases of luse -r•tt-.
The conclusion thet "the proposld solo -ld line little or no
effect on the Kodiak, !boer, Port Lions, Stldo.la, and IteM! c-rclal
fisheries" does not fo11ow the lnfo,..tlon provided above ""lch
descrl•s fairly serious IIIPicts on the -rc1a1 fisheries .-,.
s...,. scenorlos.
The arg..ent that •eaporlonce f-other aroas (YakuUt and Coot
Inlet) have shown o.or tl• (2-5 years) these conflicts can be
resolved" does not eccOUIIt for the fact thet there hes been little
DCS exploration and no devtl-nt, production, or transportattOII
In tither of th .. o federel lease salo INIS.
Grephlc 12.
Enclosure 3 -•
Part lll.A.l.a last paragreph. "In the ltat:NI • ....,
••• IIISIIIC activity MS been Identified by Pulpon and
Kienle (1979). • This 11 l'llsleadlng, for those CjeOloghts
havo also recorded conslderablo se1•1c ecthlty tllrouglt-
out the Cook Inlet, Shelikof Strait, and Kodiak a,....s, u
roglon ,..st of KilN I. It -ld be cluror to sloil>ly
charectorlzo tho ontlre lout area as -of CORS1denllle
sel•lclty.
Part lll.A.l.b First porogreph. This section c-.,..
the 1..,...s1on thet there Is a possible pros~~~ttlve
section In the l-r Cook Roglon of .-44,000 feet
(over eight 1111osl. At any given slto In tho area,
h-.er, there dais not appur to .,. helf thh tlllcbtess
of sedl•nts, ""ch of It unprospectlve for oil or gas.
Port lli.A.l.b Second through fourth poregraphs. 1lle
discussion of tectonics 111vos frC>O 10191-to •!era-scale
without ,.ntlonlng a critical point, thet Cook Inlet
proper and Shellkaf Strait are -Jor grabens ""'ch he"
experloncld consldereble subsldonco !......-bly .:'-nled
by 111Jor Nrthquakes) throughout the Tertia.,. end port of
tho llosozolc. There ws significant subsidence In mch
of the area during t"" 1g64 qualtl.
r.raphlc I. Two of the ajor volcanoes of the region,
'Its. llodoubt and Douglas, are C>Oittld. In the legend,
the figure Indicating •syncline" Is lncC>Opleta. 11le
syPibols for bott"' sedlant boundar)', synclhoes, and
anticlines aP!I'Ir Identical on the graphic.
Part lll.A.2 ""h of this soction appurs to havo •-
transposed. Even ""en reordered, -er, tho dis-
cussion could be ,.dt ,..ch clearer. As h, the graphic
shows a roasonoble Interpretation of ...,.rallzod cir-
culation, but the toxt discussion dais not ako c1Nr the
severo 11•1Ut1ons or even tho actual sources of the
lnfol'llltlon. One lllrtlcularly '-rtant point -tl-
ls tho pronounced seasonollty of tho region, doollllltod In
the .-r by the mov-nt of air r•esses f-the Golf of
Alultl, and In the winter by flow fr0111 tho lntarlor. Ia
other 110rds, flushing of the region by wind action Is
accelerated In tho winter, retarded In the ...,.r. 11le
discussion of •sea leo• h conf .. lng and does nat Mkt
clear that most floating Ice 1n Cook Inlet Is actooallJ
freshoattr leo, fo..ed at the NIUtlls of the upper Inlet
rhors, and not true 101 leo. Such Ice Is only a serious
probl• ""en floes build uP as sa~cheS on the tide
flats of tho 1111111r Inlet.
Grl!!l!lc 12.
Enc 1 osure 3 pege 8
Part III.B.I The text does not clntfy the lftfo-tlon
presented In tilt grephlc. Considerable spece Is cleYoted
to the (IIIIPOrtlnt and vulnerable) shallow ,.ter banlcs,
which are not Indicated on tile graphic. There Is no
definition In the text or graphic of the sl~~plfffed
coastal vulnerablll~ classification used.
Razor cl-are found on 1110re IIHches of Kllllshat B1J
than are Illustrated. Althougll no c-rclal scallop
flshei'J presently occurs In L-r Coot Inlet, scallops
tre to be found In notable lllllbers In spectflc areas Df
IC4Ich ... t B17 and In ltuolshat B1J around Augustine Island.
This graphic should be revised to I) Incl .. otller
vulnerable fish and wildlife habitats In addition to
razor cl-and scellops such as salt •rshes, the
waters around bl rd rookeries sea otter concentrations,
and other cl• beaches, or 2) contain all the coastal
classification In HIJtS' Coastal YulnerabllltJ Index.
Vulnerable Habitat and Circulation. The discussion
concerning Graphic llo. 2 (III.A.2. 11eteorologlca1 Conditions
and Oceanography) needs considerable editing.
Parts of tile "Circulation,• 'Winds and StotU," and
"SkYcover• sections wre lnterposid dul'1ng printing, and
tliii'i"ii'i a variety Df 11lscellaneous errors IIIIIch should
be evident during editing. other ~ts Include:
a. stycover (YhlbllltJ): This section starts wttlo the
stat ... nt "Fog Is the prlnclpel c•so of reduced
visibility, and Is 1110st c-.on fron Dec•ber through
Februai'J, and fr011 flovaoller througll 11erch, In tile
Kodiak area, fog 1s IIIOSt C-fi'GI June throu,ll
Septeber ••• •
b.
In the first s111tence, "Dec...,.r thr'OU9h Febniii'J"
Is Included In "lloveoober tllrough ,..rch. • Since the
first sentence presUIOibly applies to both Coot Inlet
and She! ltof Strait, the second sentlllce a-rs
contradiCtoi'J.
~dar the section on Tides, Port Clarence Is used as
1 tidal reference station. lie are not aware of a
Port Clarence et the entrence to Coot Inlet.
\ c. In the description of drift bottle trajectories,
reference Is 111dt to releue stations D,E,R,H, and
N. However, these reletse locations are not speclffctlly
Identified on the IIIP Inset (Figure Ill. A.2.b.-1).
Enclosure 3 page 10
Seaducts do not -e to Dffshore feeding a-s during tile
spring. Seaducts 1110ve 011to breeding qrounds or r.,.ln In
shallow .. tor near the coast.
In the seventh paragraph, It Is stated, "On the Alaska
Peninsula side of Shelltof Strait, no winter bird surveys
have been 111de. • The Departllent has wl ntor bl rd survey
data for a portion of the Alasu Peninsula side of Shel ltof
Strait and can fumhh tills lnfonnatlon to BL~ upon
request. Ill feel that the above stet-nt furtller
underscores BLM's -ltted lack of basic envlro-ntal
data for the Shelfkof Strait. Ill suggest that IlLII
att .. pt to calculate shoreline densities of ,.terfowl
within the Shelfkof lease area during various seasons so
that 1 reasonably sound estl111tl011 Df pot111tlal l11p1cts
can be Nde.
Paragrtph 13 states, "l"""rtant staging areas are located
at IC4Ich.,.k Bay, Doughs River •d flats, 1C41nal Rlvtr •d
flats, Tuxodnl Bay, the Drift River, Chlnltna BIJ, 111-a
Bay, Ursus Cove, and other areas In 1-r Coot Inlet. •
Ak-rvlt BIJ, Fox River Flats, 1C411gln Island, Bruin
Bay, and all Df Redouht Ray nortll of Drift River should
be Indicated as IIIPOrtlnt spring staging areas potllltlally
affected by the proposed lease sale. In addition, the
Rig River orea of Redoubt B1J has recently bien found to
be 1 critical nesting and 11101tlng habitat for tule geese.
Gryl!lc no. Seabird colonies In K41ch ... t B17 should be shown.
The DepartJnent of Fish and Galle considers all of IC4Ich-t
Bay to be a -...jor known winter concentration area• for
waterfowl. lie suggest filling In the d011ut-shaped area on
graphic 10. Ill also suggest desl~natlng IC4Ich.,.k,
Chiniak, Ugak, Uyat, and Kllulda Bays IS .,.,.jor spring/
s...,.r concentration arns. •
Tho "hlgh-uso area• for ,.terfowl should extend through-
out ltuofshak B1J and lnfskln Bay.
Graphic 112. Aleut fan Canade Goose
Graphic 115.
The 1110st recent populatiOII estl•te for Aleutian Canada
goose Is 1,600 birds not 1,150 IS tile caption lllplfts.
Although Graphic 10 shows the IC4Ich-t Ray State Part,
none of the Stete gaone sanctuaries or critical habitat
areas In Lower Cook Inlet are shown. These Include
MeHall River Stete lllrle Sanctuii'J, 1C411gln Island Critical
Habitat Area, IC4Ich.,.t 'lay Critical Habltet Area, Fox
River Flats Area, and Cl111 Gulch Crltlctl Habltet Area.
The McNeil Rlvtr Is probably the 1110st well blown brown
bear viewing area In the world, and the Cl• Gulch Critical
Habltet Aret Is the 1110st heavily usad rec-tlon area and
llrgest sport fishery In the State.
Enclosure 3 page 9
d. The section on Petrol•• Hxdrocart>ons In llater
C!!l-states, 15UI'face tows wro .a, at tiOintJ
rooi'Tnlet stations for the collection of floating
tar. Onl{ -station had •asurlblt -nts of tar
(0.1 ltg).
ADFIG's 1g78 drift bottle study suggested a signi-
ficantly greater -unt of tar In tho Inlet.
Approxl•tely 7 percent Df drift bottle returns
specifically Indicated the bottles ,. .. coated with
tar. Because tills lnfo-tlon ,.s not requested, It
can be anticipated that 1 significantly greater
nlllber of bottles wre coated w1 th tar but the flct
Wlls not reported. This finding •s reported In the
1978 ADFIG report "Drift Bottle Studies In L-r
Coot Inlet -197R, Status Report 11, Jl October
1978 ••
&raphlc 14. The halibut fishing areas depleted 011 IIIP are not the
._jor• halibut fishing areas In Coot Inlet. The •Jor
halibut fishing areas are located In !C41111shat B1J and the
area south southeast of Augustine lsltnd.
Graphic 15. Graphic 5 should highlight the •caapass rose• area south
soutlleast of Augustine Island (tracts 661, 662, 663, 704,
705, 706, 707, 748, 750, 751, 7'13, 7'14, 7'15, a36, 837,
838, 880, 881, 882, 883, 923, and 924) where 75-85 percent
of the Coot Inlet king and tanner crab harvest occurs
anNially,
Grapl!lc 16. A 111jor dungeness crab fishing and reproduction area
off Bluff Point Is not Illustrated.
Grghlc 17. The •Jor tanner creb catch area designation does not
cover the area nortll and ns t of Augus t1 ne Is land to
Its fullest utent.
Gryhlc 19. 1C411gln Island Is not a IIIOOSt concentratiOII area.
Current est1111tes are that there are less tllan 8 oooose
left 011 the Island, Other areas In Chin I tna Bay and
Kllllshat B17 have higher density 11100se population, hut
are not shown on the •P.
Gryhlc 110. In paragraph two, "Uganlshtk Island" should be
Ugalustah Island.
Captions. In the third paragraph, It Is stated "Little lnfor~~~tlon
Is available on bird conc111tratlons In the Shtllkof
Strait; h-ver, I'IUrres, seaducks, and other wintering
birds problbly -• fron the Inner beys to offshore
feeding areas llllllt nesting species congragate In the
beys during spring. •
Enclosure 3 page 11
Ill. Append I CIS
Appendix A
P.2 Production ISSUIIPtlons wre based on all gas being associated.
Gas production Is estiNted to cdntfnue one 711r after oil
production ceased. This would not be possible with associated
gas only.
P.4 The assUP1Ptl011 that two production platfoi'IIS could be In place
by 1986 Ill)' ba optl•htlc.
Appendix D
The on and Gas Constrvttlon Cooialsslon bolleves oil spill proba-
bilities to be unrealistically high. A revhw should Include
recent Coot Inlet data and date fr011 US Gtologlcal Survey reports
on oil spills, especltlly wort done by £1Mr P. Denenberger.
Footnote 4 Table A-5
One service wll per four production wlls Is ass-.!. This Is
too high since secondoi'J recovti'J Is not considered (sH
pege 23).
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ... w c."'·""""
Ms. Esther C. IU!nlclce, Manager
Alaskll OCS Office
Bureau of Lllld ~~ana...,.t
P. 0. Box 1159
Anchorage, AK 99510
Oaa. Ms. llunnlcke: ,_ .....
Herewith h tranSIIItted the Kodiak Island Borough's testl.,y on the
BLM Draft Envl.,.....tal IIIIPICt Sta-t for 011 and Sis Leasa Sale
No. 60, Loooer Cook lnlot-Shellkof Strait. Our testl.,y consists of
three parts.
The first section contains a written copy of our oral testl_.y pre-
•ented 11 -r. Kodiak and Anchorage, Alaska on October 14, 15, and
16 respectively. lie are Including a written copy of thl• testl,.,ny
to also be considered 11 wrlttan testl.,y so that the Issues raised
and c-ts presented during the hurlngs will recalvo written
responses In the Final Envii'OIIIIIfttll IIIIPict State.nt for Lease Sale
No. 60. The second section contains threa position papers that lnclud.
additional doc-ntltlon supporting our oral presentations. The final
section Is 1 page-by-page revlow of the entire draft.
11e hope this testl.,y will assist you In reaching 1 decision regarding
the sale and help you In preparing the final stat-nt wlllch ,. took
forward to receiving as soon as It Is released. Please forward an·
additional copy of the FEIS to:
Dr. David T. Hoopes
R. 11. leek and Associates
T-r Building
7th Avenue at 011 vo Wly
Seattle, IIA 98101
Should you have any questions regarding our tostl.,y, please contact
,. and I shall endeavor to see that they are answered.
OH:cb
Enclosures
GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
David Harrnsteen
Acting Mayor
IN EARLIER PRESENTATIONS, YOU HAVE SEEN THAT lCilOIAK'S COIItERII OWER THE DEIS
FOR LEASE SALE 160 CENTERS ON ITS FAILURE TO ADEQUAffiY CONSIDER OR RECONCILE
ONSHORE IMPACTS, ENVIROIKNTAL EFFECTS AND FISHIIICO llllUSTRY COIIFLICTS. IN MY
CONMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER ELABORATE THOSE CONCERNS, PIIOYIDE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE DRAFT, AND EIUIERATE STUDIES AND MITIGATIIICO
MEASURES THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR A REASONABLE DECISION TO PROCEED WITH THE
SALE.
ONSHORE IMPACTS:
INCLUSION OF THE SHELIKOF STRAIT IN LEASE SALE 160 PlllliiiSES SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
FOR AT LEAST THE CITIES OF KODIAK, PORT LIONS, puz1NKIE, ICARI.UK AND LARSEN BAY
AS WELL AS FOR PERSONS IN THE REGIO!I IIHO LIVE ~SIDE THE IIICORI'ORATED CITIES.
THE DRAFT ACICIIOWLEDGES THAT, WITH D£VELOPMEIIT OF OIL A!IO GAS, SCI'IE DEGREE OF
CHANGE WILL OCCUR AltO IS UIIAYOIOABI.E. HOWEVER, THE DRAFT ODES NOT O£MOIISTRATE
ANY REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING FOR THE PEOPlE IN THESE ENVIRONS, AND THEREFORE
IS NOT SUITABLE FOR ANTICIPATING SUCH CHANGE, ITS CHARACTERISTICS, OR ITS
MAGNfrUDE. SUCH INFORMATION IS CRITICAL IF THIS DRAFT IS TO SERVE ADEQUATELY
AS A TOOL FOR MAKING A DECISION TO CONOUCT THE SALE.
THE FAILURE OF THIS DRAFT TO CONSIDER ANY ASSOCIATION BETWEEN LEASE SALE 160
AND OTHER PROPOSED LEASE SALES IN THE II'MEDIATE AREA, IN SPITE OF ACKNOWLEDGE-
MENT FR<l't THE OIL INDUSTRY THAT DEVELOPMENT OF ALL DISCOVERIES IN THE AREA WILL
' LIKELY SHARE C0!11011 FACILITIES GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATES THE IIIAD£()UACY OF THIS
DOClK!IT AS A DECISION MAKING TOOL. THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVALUATION OF
CllliLATIVE OIL INDUSTRY ACTIYITIES MAKES REASO!WILE PLANNING FOR OIL DEVELOP-
MENT BY LOCAL CCMUITIES YIRTIIALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
THE CURRENT KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH OVERALL ECONONIC D£VELOPICENT PLAN &IVES
PRIORITY TO Fl SHERI ES DEVEL~NT OYER ALL OTHER FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT.
BECAUSE THE DRAFT DOES NOT CONSIDER CIMIAI.TIVE OIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES,
IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ANTICIPATE THE NEEDS OF THE OIL INDUSTRT
A'«< PLAN FOR THEM IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE FISHING INDUSTRY. THE I«<ST DIRECT
MEANS OF PREVENTING ADVERSE INTERACTION IN THE PRESENT INFORMATION VACIJIIII IS
TO RESTRICT OIL AND GAS FACILITIES TO LOCATIONS OFF THE ROAD SYSTEM AND AWAY
FRa4 VILLAGES TO INSULATE THE FISHERIES INFRASTRUCTURE F!IOM UNDUE CQIIPETITIOll.
IF SUCH A POLICY WERE AOOI'TED, IT MIGHT WELL MEANT THAT THE ONLY LAND
ORAL TESTIIOIY
OF
HANK PEIIJIINGTON
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
OCS ADVISORY COUNCIL
Presented at a Public Hearing
on the
DE IS. for OCS 011 and Gas Lease Sale No. 60
held In Kodhk, Alaska
on
October 15, 1980
AVAILABLE TO OIL A.,D GAS DEYELOPMEIIT LIES WITHIN THE KODIAK NATIONAL IIILDLIFE
REFUGE, AN ENTITY THAT IS CURRENTLY RESISTING DEYELOP.IENT OF AN ALTERIIATIYE
ENERGY PROJECT lltiCH OVERLAPS ITS BIJUllllARY I
ENYIROIKNTAL ~:
THE SMELIKOF STRAIT, AS IT IS PORTRAYED IN THE DRAFT, IS MOST NOTABLE FOR
THE DEARTH OF BIOLOGICAL AND OCEAIIOGRAPHIC INFORMATIOII AVAILABLE. BECAUSE THE
AREA WAS OVEIILOOKED EARLY ON I~ THE OCS LEASING PROGlWI, IT HAS NOT BEEN THE
OBJECT OF STUDY UNDER THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ENVIROIKNTAL ASSESSI£NT
P1t06RN1 STUDIES, THE PRIIIARY SOURCE OF FUN~S FOR THE COlLECTION OF BASELI.IIE
DATA FOR REGIONS SCHEDULED FOR POTENTIAL LEASIIICO. IN THE DRAFT, IT IS THE
OBJECT OF BROAD 6ENERALIZATIONS, ASSIJIPTIO!IS, A.'ID NEGLECT I IN FACT. FOR THE
I«<ST PART, EVEN EXISTING DATA AND STATISTICAL SOURCES WERE NOT USED IN
PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT I
IN THE FIRST SCOPING SESSION FOR LEASE SALf #!)(}, THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
OCS ADVISORY COUNCIL EXPRESSED ITS CONCERN FOR THE IMPACT OF RElEASED
DRILLING MUDS, ESPECIALLY THOSE ON EGGS, LARVAE, AND JUVENILES OF COIKRCIAl
AND NONC(HIERCIAL SPECIES IN THE SHELIKOF STRAIT. AT THAT TIME, THE DANGER
' OF THE IIJOS liAS OOWNPLAYED, AND OUR REC!JKNOEO MITIGATING MEASURES WERE
GLOSSED OYER. IT liAS EXPLAINED THAT IT liAS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR THE
OIL INDUSTI!Y TO ELIMINATE DUI1PIN6 ALL TOGETHER AND INSTITUTE SOH£ FORI! OF
ONSHORE DIJIPI'IG.
SUBSEQUENT RESEARq_ BY THE OCS ADVISORY COUNCIL HAS REVEALED THAT DRILL MIJ05
CAN BE SEVERELY TOXIC. THE PUBLICATION "REC!IftNDATIOliS FOR HINIMIZING THE
IHPACTS OF HYDROCARBO!I DEVELOPMENT ON THE FISH, WILDLIFE, AND AQUATIC PlNIT
RESOURCES OF LOWER COOK INLET", PREPARED BY THE MARINE AND COAST, HABITAT
MANAGEMENT DlYISION OF THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REPORTS THAT:
'SIHPLE DRILLIHG MUDS WITHOUT ADDITIVES CAN Bt CLASSIFIE~ AS LOW TO MODERATE
TOXIC CCICPOUIIDS. THE ADVERSE EFFECTS WILL RESULT PRIMARILY Ito! OISCIIARGlNG
MUDS INTO SHALLOW WATERS, KATER BODIES WITH UniTED CIRCULATION OR IIIXING,
OR WATERS CONTAINING HIGH C!JNCENTRATIONS OF EGGS, LARVAE, OR SENSITIVE
JUVENILE ADULT ORGA.~ISKS. DRILLING MUDS WHICH CONTAIN HIGHLY TOXIC ADDITIVES
TO DEAL WITH SPECIFIC DRILLING PROBtEMS ARE TOXIC UNDER ANY CIRCIMSTANC£S. •
THE REPO~T ~ESCRIBES THE MOST CCMQ CCttPONENTS OF WATER-BASED DRILL lUIS
AS BARITE, CAUSTIC SODA, !I£NTONITE CLAYS, AND LIG.'IOSULFATES. ADDITIVES FOR
DEEP WELLS OR SPECIAL ORILLIIIG PROBLEHS HAY INCLUD£ 5001111 PENTACHLOROPHEIIATE,
WHICH IS TOXIC TO PIARINE LIFE AT C~CENTRATIONS OF 0.06 • 0.6 piJII, TRIVAlENT
CHROMIUM SAlTS USED COIICURRENTLY WITH XC POlYMERS, WHICH .\RE TOXIC TO MARINE
LifE IN C~CENTRATIOIIS OF 0 .3 • 1 piJII, AND LUBRICATING AND CLEARI'IG COMPOUNDS
WHICH ARE TOXIC TO MARINE O!!GAIIISMS IN CDIKENTRATIOIIS RANGING FR~ 1C TO 52
PIJII.
INCLUDED FOR REfERENCE IS A TABlE SHOWING THE PI!NTHS OF THE YEAR WHEN IIAJOR
SPECIES IN THE LOWER COOK INLET REG!~ ARE MOST SENSITIVE TO D!l!Ll Pt.JOS AND
CUTTINGS.
AN AREA OF IIAJOR CDIKERN TO THE RESIDENTS OF KODIAK IS THE OCEANOGRAPHY
AND CIRCULATION OF THE SHELIKOF STRAIT AND LOWER COOK INLET, BOTH AS THEY
AFFECT DISTRIBUTIOII OF SPILLED OIL AND AS THEY INFLUENCE THE LifE HISTORIES
OF MANY COit4ERCIAl AND HONCOI94ERCIAI. SPECIES IN THE REGION.
THE MOO£LS USED TO PREDICT THE FATE OF SPlllED.:Oil IN LOWER COOK INLET
ARE PREDICATED ~ INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR COOK INLET, WITH BROAD ASSU)IP-
TIONS HAD£ FOR THE SHELIKOF STRAIT TO FILL A COMPLETE LACK OF DATA FOR THE
REGIOII. WHILE THIS UNDERTAKING WAS IN PROGRESS, A SEPARATE EFFD!lT liAS
MOU:H.ED BY THE !IATIOIIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SERVICE TO USE erHA.~CED
INFRARED PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FROM SATELLITES TO MOIIITOR WATER ~V£l1£NTS
THROUGH THE SHELIKOF STRAIT AND LOWER COO~ INLET. THE RESULTS OF A YEAR
AND A HALF OF 08SERVATIONS HAVE LED THE INVESTIGATORS TO REVISE "--CH OF
THE POPULAR CONCEPTION OF WATER CIRCULATION IN THE ~ORTHERN GULF OF ALAS!<A,
LOWfR COOK INLET, AND SHELIKOF STRAIT . THEY A.~E CURRENTLY PREPARI'IG A
PAPER ON THEIR FINDINGS FOR PUBLICATION IM PROFESSIO"IAL OCEA.~RAPHIC
JOURNALS.
I HAVE INCLUDED WITH THIS TESTIMONY A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE ENHANCED INFRARED
PHOTOGRAPHS FOR YOUR STUDY. IT lllUST!IATES THE CC01PLEXITY OF WATER TRA.~SPORT
IN THE REGION, AND THE INADEQUACY OF THE MODELS GENERATED FOR EVALUATIOII OF
THE FATE OF SPILLED OIL IN THE D!!AFT ENVIRI)Ijii[NTAI. !!!PACT STATE~ENT.
A IIAJOR FINOI'IG OF THE STUDY W~S THE INFLUENCE OF THE ALAS!<A STREA.~ A.~D
ITS SEASO!IAL VARIATIONS ON CIRCULATION IN THE SHEliKDF STRAIT AND LOWER COOK
INLET. IN THE FAll, COINCIDENT WITH THE INCRtASED FRESHWATER RUHOFF FROM
COASTAL ALAS!<A, THE~E IS UD TO A THREEFOLD INCREASE IN WATER VOI.UI1E MOVING
THROUGH THE REGION . IT IS SPECULATED BY MOST OF THE SCIENTISTS FAMILIAR
WITH PHENOMENON AND HITH THE BIOLOGICAL COIIIJIIITIES OF THE REGION, THAT
THE !~CREASED CURRENT !lAY SERVE AS THE IIAJOR· fLUSHING AGENT AND DISPURSAI.
-3-
'
I
I
I
li
I
i
I
I T T
I
.L ·1
I
I
I
i
I
I
Jd
' I I ! I ~ I I
;
I
f i
I I • ~ ;
I • : i ; ; .
I
I II til
I" I
I I
i I I I
I h f I I • 1!1
I t l I i I J I i 11 I
I I l I
MECHANISII FOR LARVAl AND JUVENILE ORGANISIIS.
IN THE CALL FOR N0'41NATIONS FOR THE LOWER CIY.lK INLET/SHELIKOF STRAIT LEASE
SALE, THE ALASKA SHRIMP TRAWLERS ASSOCIATION SUBIIITTED EVIDENCE OF IIAJOR
SPAOINI~G CatiCENTRATIONS OF AlASKA PllUACK AND OTHER C<Ht:RC!AllY III'ORTANT
SPECHS OF BOTTOMFISH IN THE SHFLIKOF STRAIT . THAT INFOR!IATION HAS NOT
BEE~ USE~ IN THE PREPARATIOII OF THIS DRAfT . FOOt YQI.'R C~IDERATION, A COPY
OF A FATHO'IETER RECORDING MADE OYER A PORTION OF THIS SCHOOL IS I:.CLUDED
WITH THIS TESTI!'li<Y. AT THE TIHE THE RECORlliNG WAS HADE, THE SCHOOL Of
POllACK WAS OY£Q 90 ~ILES I~ LENGTH, 10 HILES WIDE, AND OYER 30 FATHOMS
THICK . CCH!ERC!Al CATCHES HERE RECORDED IN EXCESS Of 90,000 PCIJNDS PER
~.ALF HOUR TOll.
SUSSEQUENT TO THE COllECTION OF THAT I~Fa-TION AND ITS SIMMITTAI. I, THE
CALl FOQ N!r-:IHATIONS FOR LF.ASE SALE 160, THE !IATIONAI. MARINE FISHERIES
SERVICE AIID THE AlASKA DEPART'lE~IT OF FlSH AND GAllE CONDUCTED A SURVEY
IN THE SHELIKOF STAAIT. THIS 1980 SURVEY ON THE VESSEL MILLER FREE'1AN
ONCE AGAIN LO:ATED A SPA~l!UNG CONCENTRATIO~ OF POLLACK IN THE AREA, IIVT
THIS YEAR THE SCHOOL HAD DIMINISHED TO ONLY 7~ MILES IN LENGTH AND SEVERAL
HILES IN WIDTH .
TQ VERIFY T!<AT THE COSCENTRATION OF POLLACK WAS INDEED SPAWIIING, THE
SCIENTISTS AS~ARD THE ~l.LQ FREE'IAH LOWERED PLANKTON ~ETS TD TRY AND
RECDVE~ <GGS. IT WAS THEIR OBSERVATI~ THAT THE ~ETS WERE RECOVERED
"LOOKING LIKE BUCKETS OF CAVIAR". A.~YSES Of THOSE DATA ARf NOT C!M'LETE
AT THIS TIME, BUT PREVIOUS SURVEYS IN THE AREA SHOWED EGG CONCENTRATI~ IN
EXCESS OF 10,000 EGGS PER SQUARE Ml'TER OF SURFACE AQEA IN THE SHELIKOF
STAAIT . WHILE BIOKASS ESTIMTES FOR THE SCHOOL Of POlLACK 08SE~VED IN THE
SHELI~OF srRAIT IN THE SPRI~G OF 1980 AqE NOr CD'f'LETED AT THIS TIHE, ROCGH
CAlcULATJO•rs USING THE DATA SHD'I£0 T~AT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN AS MH AS
0'4E HllliO~ ~ETRIC rO~S 0~ OVER TWO BILL lOll POUNOS OF POLLACK PRESENT IN
IN THE SHELIKOF STRAIT FO~ SPA~tl!rlG AT THAT TWE. SINCE THIS !~SS OF
POLLACK IS GRfATE~ THA:l THE TOT~l ESTI'IATED POLLACK BI())IASS FOR THE GULF
OF AI.AS!<A, IT IS liKELY THAT THOSE ROUGH CALCULATIONS ERRED. IT IS HHIRELY
WITH!~ ~EASON TO HYPOTHESIZE, HOWEVER, THAT THE SHELIKOF STRAIT PlAY SERVE
AS OSE OF THE !'CST tnPORTAN! SPA~ING GROUNDS, IF *lT THE MOST I~RTANT
SPA'<'UNG G.~O~~DS FO~ POLLAC < IN THE GULF Of AlASKA . THIS HYPOTHfSIS IS
LENT F~RTHER CREDDCE SY THE OISCOVERY OF THE THREE-FOLD INCQEASE Ill \lATER
VOLU'<< P~SSI~ T>P.OCGH T~E SHELIKOF STRAIT IN THE FAll, WHICH 'IO'JLP SERVE
--
·--. -.--:--_;;.--'""·--
·------
~~AJ' Jat.M~ ~~u
.IOUITIO': "· lt-t-1
A IISOLUTICII CW ':'lit JG:lU :-;:.··::. a.'lt""lt."'::• ; •••.· ''"U
INTUT 1111 ll!tLir?f' nur-: nt: .~-.--.'t~ r~ ~~-·.r: -• ..,,,,...
JL..,... ""·
-.al. &-. -..1a11 lal ........ .,.,... O.ur Cc..ur .. ll.t.ol
I W.lleQ' c:.-c.U ... ...,,_, U. tefN ... _..,Ul-""'""
Ule .....,... o.u.-C.._l ... ul ... u &.e-. S.de ?So. "
..,.1Yl"'f &-. .._11.11•1 Juen ....u •t ,.., .. ,., ... 1'0.-o<>;ll, --'·
., -PU..I. tae O.cet' C.cl'""'ul I.,.H Wvuorr Olo~"-t1.l t-..,• U. ••-._._., 11 U.. .. ..,. l"""f r•""JII fl•-•••• "'ll 1M
1\e ~c •h•UJr •I tlA INhll lll...C toc.ro..,.., •n•: tl"...ot t.._
f:lr•IU.•t ltr•H h ... •I Ute •)or C'Oflui.•"tQn t.o the 1:~1.1111.
~h,al .. __..,.., ..,.,
J
theii.UI ltnU vUI ,,...,, .. t ... Me~ lot the &:I·IO:I:or-.•u. o!
~tM 14.4iM 1•1 ......... ..._t_U1a. , .... "1· ... Uwot ,..._ ~··d·
,_.aul ., • ._ ... •t U. ..._....,U•• fnhlf'1 c-1• awUer rrc..-t"'., t ud .. aM .... &.-.-.ul etraet• or ell h<tt~ury .,.....,!c~-e.u.
.. ~ R IT IUOC.ftD U•t ttle ._.lea f-1~,. .. ~
, •• a.~r ...... ....., •Uelt tM .. ,ropuue •c-uo.-.• o! tlo~ tJJ. a. Dl ... l'tMn •r lllter&•t'• ....... •' ...,_. Nlll.,._..t, ,r. rc....-.... , ..
... u .. r ltt'llt 1.-.. ... l .. l'ltl .. t•r -c•r cet~~Un• .. ul ., .. .,
• ..,...,.._t .. ,." .r w e.c.J. &.eo .. S.l• ... " "•-:•-t~
~e-.el.l/ll.lM •f •11 ~ ..... ,..,.. 11 u .. ....,llllor Jtr•u -t:. t.! t .. SJ' ...-u I•Ut ... , •tU er•r ltll.
•.ug~ A:JQ API'JO;":to ':'1'11~~., -:.t 4~h'•"')'--. nn.
a..,... ....
~lJJYL
Jlonoreblo M.lyor •nd 8orou9h l\aaellbl y
Fobru•ry 20,
Pogo 1 '
lt79
SPECIES TIME TOTl\L MEl\11 l\IINUI\L l\VERI,GE VI\LU£ TO!' AI. <?:::
PERIOD Cl\TCH CIITCH (lbal U971 Dollara) (U71 Dc:~J
(lb•!
Tamar 196t-lt71 53,9,, 791 5,999,977.5 f·299,917 ~.69'.2'-
Crab @SSt/ lbl ~~~c;:.
King lKt-1971 10,111,434 1,:10?,1Z6 1,1Z'J,Z'JJ 19,16J.u:
Crab CHl. 76/lbl
Shrillp U7l-1971 33,151,000 5,597,000 9Z3,505 5,54l,cl:
1916. St/lb)
llolibut lnJ-1977 4,136,000 IH,200 1,170,100 '·lS-I, C« (f$1. 50/lbl
Sol-. 1975-1971 49,982,757 11,495,619 5,571,111 22,312."'
~U>gan<>aa 1Kt-1t71 2,\104,411 m,no 225,!104 2.QJJ.l): Crab Cf"IOC/lb)
I !erring 1975-U71 2,270,000 567,500 1ll,500 454.'-'
lt20C/lb)
AS All III'ORTMT DISPURSING IIECIWIISII FOR DISTRIIUTIOII1lf 1liE JUVEIIU POI..LACit
lACK INTO THE WESTERN &Ut.F OF ALASKA. THIS PIIEliCMEliEII IS IIOT IEIII& STUIIJED
IN THE OCSW STUDIES, NOR IS IT. EWEll COIISIDEIEII Ill THE DRAFT EIS FOR PIO'OSED
LEASE SALE 160.
IN THE INTEREST OF KEEPING "' CIJIOTS BRIEF, I VILL IIOT CIRIENT FUitTIIEil 01
THE E!IYIROIK?ITAI. llt'ACTS OF Tit£ PIIOPOSEll ACTIOIIS. RATHER I IIILL SU!IIIIT TO
YOU ~ LIST OF STUDIES THAT WE FEEL All£ Msa.UTElY ES5£WTIAI. IIEfORE A MTJQML
DECISJa.. CAll BE MADE TO COIIDUCT THIS LEAS[ SALE.
FISHING !!!!!!!E!!! ~:
IN THE TESTIIOIY OF THE KODIAK ISlAIID !IOIIIlU6H 011 TH£ DEIS FOil THE PIIII'OSEi)
FIVE YEAR LEASING SCH£0ULE, 011 THE DEIS FOR PIIOPOSEll LEAS[ SALE 146, Alll 1!1
OUR SUIIIISSIOIIS FOR THE CALL FOR IOIIIIATIOIIS FOR LEASE SALE 160, OUR COEEIIIIS
OYER COIIFLICTS BETWEEN THE FISHING IIIDUSTRY Alll THE OIL IIIDUSTRY HAVE 11EE11
REST~TED Alll ELABORATED REP£ATEil.Y. IIIILE THE LETTER OF THE I.AII DOES IIOT
REQUIRE THAT THOSE COII£NTS AIID COIICERIIS IE IIICliJOED II THE DRAFT EIS FOR
LEASE SALE 160, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THIS INFOIIMTIOII IIOIU SERYE AS A
REASOIIAII.E RESOURCE TO THE AGENCY I'IUOSI!I6 THE LEAS[ SALE. IT IS 11011
ENCI.I43ENT 011 THE COIItJNITY TO REIIA5H THOSE COIICEII!IS AIID INSIST THAT THEY
BE ADDRESSED IN THE FiliAL EIS FOR THE LEASE SALE.
ENCLOSED FOR YOUR COIISIDERATIOR IS A SIIIIMY OF TH£ VALUE OF CIJIIDCIAI.
LAnDINGS IN KODIAK FR04 THE SHELIKOF STRAIT THROUGH 197B. THIS IIIFOAitiiTIOI
liAS ASSE'I!II.ED BY THE OCS ADVISORY COUIICIL AS IACit&IIIMil FOR KODIAK ISIAIIl
BOROUGH RESOlUTION 110. 79-9-R, IIIICH ASKED THE IIUREAU OF LAIIl IIAIIAiiD£IIT TO
DELETE THE SHELIKOF STRAIT FIOI PROPOSED LEAS[ SALE 110. 60. THE I!IFOIIIATION
IS READILY ACCESSIBLE FIOI THE ALASKA DEPART!IEliT OF FISH Alll &ME, YET IT
WAS NOT USED IN THE DRAFT, EITHER IN THE FOAII PIIESEIITED IY THE AI.ASrA
DEPART~ENT OF FISH AliO GAME OR IN THE FIR! PREPAII£D BY THE KODIAII: ISI.NIO
BO'l'JIJGH OCS AilYIS8RY COUNCIL. IN ~y OF TH£ CHART IEFOIIE YOU, TH£
AVERAGE .WIUAI. COOITRIBUTION OF THE SHELIKOF STRAIT FISHERIES TO KODIAK TliROU6I!
1978, EXPRESSED IN 197B EXYESSEL !lOI.LARS, VAS $13,541,100.00. THIS FIGUR£
!IO!:S NOT REFLECT LAST YEAR'S INCREASE IN THE HERRING FISHERIES, THE I.AIIIINGS
OF POLLACK AnD COO IN 1979 Alll 1980, AliD THE IIICR£ASED SAUIOII I.AIIOINGS Ill
~ OO£S IT CONSIDER LATENT POTEIITIAI. FOR EIPAIISIOII OF THE IIOTlUFISH
:'ISHERIES. WH~ THIS TillE II£ All£ NOT LAIIDIIIG IOTTIJIFISH IN KODIAK, TliE
ORIG!:OW. BOTTDVISH OPERATI()R IN GIISOII COY£ HAS IEEN PURCI'.ASED A!ll WILL liE
-~·
A. Bl rds
1. Surveys to usess s.._r and ~tinter abundance 1nd distribution
of seabirds In She11kaf Strait and Kodhk Island Boys.
2. Surveys to assess seuonal abundance and distribution of water-
fowl in Shellkof Strait and Kodiak Jslond Bays.
3. Studies to Identify seoblrd colonies between Puale Bay and C.pe
Douglas an the north side of Shelikof Strait ond bet""" llalina
Bay and Uganlk Island on Kodiak Island.
4. Detenolne seasonal abundance, feeding distribution, ond food
habits of seabirds In Shellkof Strait colonies.
5. Conduct studies to detel"lllne sensitivity of nesting, feeding, and
staging waterfowl and seabirds to noise ond disturbance.
B. Harine l'laonnals
1. Conduct surveys to detenalne seasanol abundance and distribution
of harbor seals, seo otters, and sea lions in Shellkof Strait.
Detennlne feedin9, pupping, and haulout areas.
2. Determine abundance ond distribution of whales In Shelikof Streit.
3. Determine seasonal food habltots of sea lions, whales, and harbor
seals. Determine relationship between seosonal -rsal fish
ccncentrations and urine 111 .... 1 concentrations.
4. Deten~lne seasonal movements of 011rine manmols in Shellkof
Straits.
5. Conduct studies to detenolne sensitivity of sea lions, soa
otters, seals, and whales, to noise and disturbance including
submarine noises.
C. Fish
1. Dete,.lne abundance and distribution of demersol and pelaolc
fish in Shellkof Strait.
2. Determine abundance, 4istrlbutlon, and life history of large
pollock schools found seasonally In Shelikof Strait.
3. Determine seasonal abundance and distribution of pela9ic eggs
larvae, and juveniles of demersal, and pelagic fish in
Shelikof Strait. ·
4. Determine larval crustacean (king, tanner, c1ungeness crab, and
shrimp) release areas and ~atterns of larval drift and develop-
ment in Shelikof Strait.
OPERATED AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. INTERHATIONAL SEAFOODS liAS CONSTRUCTED
WHAT MA~Y CONSIDER TO BE THE KIST ADYANCEO BOTTOIIfiSH PROCESSING PlAIIT IN THE
WESTERN HEMISPHERE IN KODIAK AND PLANS TO C()t1ENCE OPERATIONS ON OR BEFORE THE
FIRST OF THE YEAR. IN ADDITION, AT LEAST THREE PROCESSING FIRMS ARE DEVELOP-
ING PLA.~S FOR MAJOR BOTTONFISH HAND FILLET OPERATIONS IN ICODIA~ IN THE
llt1EDIATE FUTURE. AS IN THE PAST, IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE VAST BULK OF THE
FISH FOR THOSE OP!:P.ATIONS WILL BE HARVESTED IN THE SHELIICOF STRAIT.
AS NOTED ON MAllY OCCASIONS IN THE PAST, ICODIAK IS YERY CONCERNED THAT OIL
AND GAS DEYELOPMHIT CONDUCTED ON ICODIAK AT THIS TIME WOULD LEAS TO ADVERSE
Cl»1PETJTJON BETWEEN THE FISHING INDUSTRY AND THE OIL INDUSTRY FOR SEVERELY
LIHITIED HARBOR A.~D WATERFRONT FACILITIES, THE SHORTAGE OF HOUSING, ANO THE
SHORTAGE OF SKILLED LAROBERS, SUCH AS DIESEL ENGINEERS, MACHINISTS, ELECTRI-
CIANS, PLU!1!ERS, AND ELECTRONIC SPECIALISTS. WE ARE EQUALLY CONCERNED THAT
A.~Y RAPID GROWTH ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT PHAS~ OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
WOULD 111FLATE HOUSING PRICES TO THE POINT THAT PROCESSING WORKERS COULD NOT
C<r1PETE ON THEIR WAGE SCALE FOR ADEQUATE HOUSING.
IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT THE ~OOIAK ISLAND BOROUGH IS
NOT OPPOSED TO OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT AS A MEANS OF DIYERSIFYHtG OUR
ECONI»>IC BASE. WE ARE CONCERNED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH DEYELOMNT, IF
CONDUCTED AS PROPOSED AT THE PRESENT TIME BY THE BUREAU OF LAND HANAGEME!IT
IN AN ABSOLUTE INFORMATION YACUUH, COULD LEAD TO SACRIFICE OF LONG-TERII
ECONI»>IC HEALTH IN FAVOR OF SHORT-TERM GAINS FR!JM A.~ OIL B~. WE REC<Jt!EHO
THAT, DUE TO THE LACK OF REASONABLE nFORMATIOtl ON THE SHELIKOF STRAIT, THE
FAILURE OF Bll1 TO CONSIDER OTHER OIL AND GAS LEASING ACTIVITIES I~ THE ICODIA~
REGIO:I IN ASSOCIATION WITH LEASE SALE NO. 60, THE PROPOSED ACTIOll BE
POSTPONED. IN THE IMTERIM BETWEEN THE PRESENT AND THE RECONSIDERATION
OF LEASE SALE NO. 60, WE RECCJI'IEND THAT TH~ STUDIES CO~TAINED WITHIN THIS
TEST 1110'1Y BE CONDUCTED TO ALLOW ASSEHBLAGE OF REASONABLE INFORMATION ON
WHICH TO BASE A DECISION TO CONDUCT THE SALE. WE FURTHER RECat1END THAT THE
TIME PERIOD SE DEVOTED TO CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAN THOSE
PRESENTED Ill THIS DRAFT, PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO A CtniiNATION OF
LEASING ACTIYITitS AND TO THE INTE~CTION OF INDIVIDUAL LEASE SALES AND
THEIR CUt1ULATIVE EFFECTS.
IF IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE NATIO!tAL INTEREST T~.AT THE SLIGHT RESOURCE
POTENTIAL IN THE AREA PROPDSEa FOR LEA.~ING BE llii!EDIATELY EXPLORED WITHOUT
SUCH A DELAY, ~E HAVE TO INSIST THAT THE SHELIKOF STRAIT BE RE'«lYED FRCJ1
CONSIDERATIO!I FOR SALE. THE AREA TO BE REHOYED FRCJ1 THE SALE SHOULD INCLUDE
-6-
5. Dotenolne •igrational patterns of adult and juvenile pelaqlc,
daerSJl..and_anad......,s fish In Shel lkof Strait.
D. .!l!!!!!!...!!!
1. Dotenolne h-n use c-reational and subsistence) of fish and
wildlife in Shellkof Strait region irocluding;
a. areas used. and
b. species and quantities harvested.
2. Detenoine effect of increased population and competition for
subsistence and recreational resources resulting from primary
and secondary effects of offshore on and gas exploration,
develDplllent, and production.
All SUBMERGED LANDS SOUTH A.~D W£ST OF A LINE ORAll!l BETWEEN THE BARRE~
ISLANDS A/Ill CAPE DOUGLAS, BUT INCLUDING TRACTS 'iORTH AND EAST OF THAT
LINE AND DESIGNATED ON THE PROTRACTIOll DIAGRAMS AS NltiBERS 704, 661, 663,
m.~.~.~.~.m.rn,m.~.m.~.rn.m,m,m,
Bill, 882, 883, 968, 925, 1011, 1012, 1055, 1C56, 43, 14, 88, 48, 131, 132
90, 91, AND 92. FURTHER, IF A C()t1ERCIAL DISCOVERY IS HADE, A DEVELOPMENTAL
EIS MUST BF. PREPARED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT CAN CM1EHCE. III'.ATEYER THE
CONFIGURATIO~ OF THE SALE, liE FEEL THAT IT IS I~ THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
BIOLOGICAL CIJftJNJTIES AND THE 1U1AH CCH«JNITIES THAT THE FOLLOWING
CONDITID'tS AND MITIGATING MEASURES BE IN PLACE BEFORE THE LEASES ARE
OFFERED FOR SALE:
DCE TO THE HIGH CO.~CENTRATIO~ OF EGGS, LARVAE, A.~D JUVENILES OF COK"'E~CI~l
AND !IOHCOIIHERCIAL SPECIES IN THE LOWER COOK IMLET/SHELIKOF STRAIT REGION
FRCJ1 MARCH T~ROUGH OCTOBER, EITHER DRILLING OPERATIONS WILL BE RESTRICTED
TO THE TO THE r«!NTHS OF NOYEM!IER, DECEMBER, JANUA~Y A'O FEBRUARY: OR, All
ORILL JllJD AND CUTTINGS ltJST BE RETAINED FOR DISPOSAL 0~ LA~D OR IN OYER
1000 FATHOO OF WATER DOWN CURRENT A.~D OFFSHORE F~Q!o1 ~ODIAK ISLAND HI THE
MOIITHS EXTE~OING FRCJ1 HARCH THROUGH OCTOBER, INCLUSIVE.
FURTHER MITIGATING HEASURES AS PROPOSED BY THE STATE OF ALASKA APPE~R TO
BE DRAFTED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF KODIAK ANO THE ENVIRO~IENT.
I HAYE ATTACHED THOSE TO MY TESTI 110NY FOR INCLUSIO!l liiTH MY TESTitiONY
A~D RECOOE~D THAT THEY BE AOOPTED A.~D IN PLACE BEFO~E ANY LEASES ARE LET.
The •iti&attna ••••uree referred to above have been deleted hom this u:~~:t,
The re.ter 11 referrtld to the c~ent& of the State of Alaska herein for the
ca.plete text oa. •it isatina ••••ures •o c1 ted.
KODIAK ISLAND BOB.OUGH
ORAL TESTIIIJIIY
Of
LIIIOA l. FREED
CZPI COORDINATOR
KODIAl ISLAND BOROUGii
PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE DEIS FOR
OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE NO. 60
HELD I~ KODIAK, ALASKA
ON
OCTOBER 15, 1980
PAGE 2 TESTIMONY OF l. FREED
SECOHO,IT IS STATED SEVERAl TIMES IH THE OEIS THAT THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED
STUDIES ARE "All PREDICATED ON AIIESTERH GULF OF Al.ASKS LEASE SALE RATHER THAN A
SHELIKOF STRAIT LEASE SALE ". (PAGE 100) UTILE OR NO PLANNING HAS BEEN DONE
BY THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, OR NIT ONE ELSE THAT liE ARE AWARE OF, FOR THE
COASTAL AREAS OF THE SHELIKOF STRAIT. THIS INADEQUACY WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE
DISTRICT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH.
IT IS FOR THESE TliO REASONS,AHO THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN AHO HAVE YET TO BE
PRESENTED,THAT I REITERATE THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH'S SUPPORT FOR THE DELAY OF THE
OCS OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 160. AND THE BELIEF THAT IF THE SALE PROCEEDS THAT
THE SHELIKOF STRAIT PORTION OF THE SALE MUST BE DELETED.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. 11'1 IINIE IS LIIIOA FREED AND I REPRESENT THE KOOIAK ISLAHO IIOI10UGII
AS THEIR COASTAL ZONE IWIAGEIIENT COORDINATOR. IT IS FRa4 THIS VIEVPOINT ~T I
WWI.D ll KE TO ADDRESS THE PANEL.
YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN IWIE AWARE Of THE ICOOIAl ISI.NIO IIOROU6JI'S PDSITIOII 011 LEASE
SALE 160; AOOPTIOII Of THE DELAY OF SALE ALTERNATIVE. I IIOIA.D LIKE TO SUPPORT THIS
PDSITIOII IIITH A FEW ClltiElfTS ON THE COASTAL ZONE IWWiEMEIIT SECTION Of TilE DEJS.
I WWI.D LIKE TO PREFACE 11'1 AElWIKS BY NOTIII& ~T TilE ICOOIAK ISlAND IIOIIDUIII IS
IN THE PROCESS OF AIIIEXIII& lAHOS 011 THE ALASKA PENINSUlA, THE IIEST SIDE Of 111£
SHELIKOF STRAIT. IT IS THE BOROUGH'S CONCERN FOR CONSISTENT AND API'IIOPRIATE
IWIAGEMENT OF THIS IMPORTANT ALASKAN COASTAL A!IEA THAT HAS PIQI>TED THE A:IIID-
ATION PETITION.
AFTER COIISIOERABLE DELAY, THE KODIAl ISLAND BOROUGH IS 11011 P11\JCEEOIII6 IIITH ITS
COASTAL IIAIIAGEMENT ,tLAIIIIII6 EFFORT. OUR CONCERN WITH THE COASTAL ZONE IIAMGEI£1fT
SECTION OF THt OEIS, AND IN FACT LEASE SALE 160, STEMS FROM THIS EFFORT AT
CCM'REHENSIYE COASTAL RESOURCE PLAIIIIII&. OUR CONCERNS ARE TliO-FOLD:
FIRST, THE OEIS INOICATES THAT THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH HAS CCM'LETED
STUDIES IIHICH FORI4 THE BASIS FOR POLICIES RELATING TO OCS OEYELOPMEKT NIO FACILITY
SITING. AI. THOUGH SUCH STUDIES HAVE BEEN CCM'LETED, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN USED BY
THE 80ROUGit AS POLICY OOCI.IIENTS. IT IS INTENDED THAT THE STUDIES CITED IN THt
DEIS lllll BE USED IN THE PREPARATION Of THE BROADER COASTAL IWIAGEIIEIIT Pl.AII.
THIS PLAN WILL ADDRESS NOT ONLY OCS ACTIVITIES, BUT THE COIIPATABILITY Of A
VARIETY Of lAHO USES AND ACTIVITIES IN THE KODIAK ISlAND BOAOOGH'S COASTAL AREAS.
or
~ R. PEriiSa.
CBAIIIWI
lODIM ISLAIGl IIOIOUGII OCS AIIVISOin' COO'ICIL
PIII!SDTED AT A PUBLIC REAIIIIIC 011 THE DIIS POR
OIL AIID CAS !.USE SALE 110. 60
LOWER C001t INLET/SRELIKOP STBAIT
IODIAK, ALASU
OCTOBER lS, 1980
llo\DAII CIIAI~ Allll DISTINGUISHED IIEAIIIIC PAIIIL -liS, UU.O AGAIK.
AS lOU KIIOW,IIII IWIE IS TOM PITIISO!I, AliD I All QL\IIIIWI OF THE IODIAJ: OCS ADVISORY
COOIICIL. I All I!FOIIZ THE PAIIIL THIS AFTI!IQIOOII TO GIYI A DISCRlPTIVE ACCOUNT OF
THE IIOROUGH'S DUAL COIICEPT APPIIOACII IN ADDIESSIIIC OUR POSITION REGAIUll!IC DELATING
LEASE SALE 60 THAT I MENTIONED IRI!nT IN HOliER.
I ADOUSS!D ONE RIASON FOR DELAY OF SALE IT D!SCRlllliG THE FISHEII!S RESOURCE
COIICUKS OF THE ltODIAK CIHMIITY. I WOULD LID! TO HIGHLIGHT !Mllll! ASTOUifl)lNG.
PICOR!S FOR FISH POPULATIONS IN S!W.IItOP STRAIT AS DOCIJI1!HT!D 1Y THE ALASKA
DI!PA&THENT or FISH Allll GAll!. THIS! riGUIES Alii ALSO INCWD!D IN DR. BOOP!S'
POSITION PAPER ON FISHERY RESOURCES AND THI !lARINE l!IIVIJIOIIIIENT TO II SUBMITTED
AS WRITTEN TESTIHONY TO THE OFFICI OF OCS/BUI.
THE PINK SALIIOII FISHERY YIELDS THE LAilCEST SALMON HARVEST IN THE ENTIRE COOK
INL!T-SHELIKOP STRAIT REGION. THE IU.RLUl A.~D RED RIVEIIS IL\D A RUN 01' lllRE
THAN A MILLION FISH THROUGH THOSE WATERS Ul 1978. RUNS OP OVER S,OOO SOCDYE
(RID) SALHOII OCCUR YJWU.Y IN niO RIVI!IS 011 THE ALASKA PENINSUU. SIDE OP SHELIKOP
STRAIT. ON THE SHELIKOF STRAIT SIDE OF THE KODIAK ISLAIID CDIP THERE Alii
THIITE!II STREAIIS SUPPORTING RUNS OP SOCUYE SALIIJR.
Pllllll 1969 TO l97S, THE ANNUAL CATCH 01' KING CRAB Pllllll TH! SHELllOP STRAIT
REGION COtiPRIS!D 14 PERCENT or THI ENTIRE GULP or ALASKA'S RARV!ST. CLOSE TO
22 PERCENT OP THE TOTAL GULP OP ALASKA'S TANNER CUE IWIV!ST WAS CAUGHT IN
THE SH!LIKOF STRAIT. THE AVEIIACE ANNUAL DUNCENESS CUE CATCH Pllllll THE SAllE
REGION YIELDED APPROXIMATELY 18 PERCENT OF THE GULP TOTAL. IN THE YEARS PRO!!
1969 TO 197S, All ANNUAL CATCH OF OVER 2,000 IIITJ.IC TORS 01' PAIIDALID SHUNP
WAS HARVESTED Fllllll THE WATEIS OF THE SHELIKOP STRAIT.
I !lAD II!HTIOl'ED THE FACT, IN MY KOllER TESTllll!IY, THAT THE BOROUGH !lAD IN ITS
POSSESSIO> A NATIONAL !IAR.INE PISH!RIES SERVICE (HOM) CRUISE REPORT (NO. 80-1).
DURING THIS CRUISE -PRO.'! !lARCH 12 to 28, 1980 -II!IFS BIOLOGISTS ABOARD THE
R/V ~ FREE!IAN DISCOVERED A CONTINUOUS CONCENTRATION OF SPAWNING IIALL!YE
POLLOCK VARYING FROM OIIE TO SEVERAL lflLES IN Wllrnl AND SXTENDING FIPTT TO
SEVENTY HILES TNROIJQI THE SHELIKOF STRAIT.
1'0 GIVE THIS PANEL SOIIEWHAT OF All IDEA OF THE COIK!RCIAL VALUE OF THE PISBERY
RESOURCE, I RAVE TAKEN TN! LIBERTY OF APPLYING THE COHIIIN!D WIIOL!SAL! VALUE
OF THE PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE ATTACHED LETTER TO THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ASSE!!BLY PROM THE CNAIIIIWI OF THE OCS COUNCIL. THIS LETTER REQUESTED THE
ASSE!!BLT TO ASK THAT SHELIKOr STRAIT II REIIlVED FIUlll CONSIDERATION lOR OCS
-I-
TO HR. PRANK CREGG, DIRECTOR OF ILM, F!BIWARY 27, 1979 AT T!l! REQUEST OF THE
OCS COUNCIL. THIS LITTER IS ATTACIIED TO MY Tl!:STIIIlNT. I MAY POINT OUT THAT
AT THAT TH!E TN! BOROUGH'S RE~UEST WAS TUIUIED DOWN WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A REPLY
OR EXPLA.,ATIO~ AS TO WHT IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED.
DR. HOOPES WILL CONVEY TO THlS HI!ARING PANEl. A cotiPEHDIUlt OF IIIRECtli.ARITIIS
FO!IliD DURING OUR REVIEW OF THE DEIS. HZ HAS EXPLAINED I~ DETAIL THE REASONS
FOR THE POSITION TAKEN IY THE BOROUGH AND SUPPORTED IY THE OCS COUNCIL. TN!
POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS CASUSED IT OIL Allll CAS DEVELOI'MEliT REPRES!!IIT A
TRE.'1ENDOUS RISK TO THE TOTAL I!fFRASTRUCTURE OP KODIAK JSl.AND.
AS CRAlit'IA.' OF THE OCS ADVISORY COUNCIL, I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE DUAL
CO.~CEPT APPROACH TI!AT DR. HOOPES A.•D I HAVE E~LAIN!D HERE TOllAY. IT IS
CONSISTEJrr Win! THE BOROUGH'S LONG-STANDING CONCERNS OVER THE PATE OF THE
SHELilOF STRAIT AND ITS VULNERABILITY TO OIL Allll CAS DEVELOPMENT.
TIIANl< YOU, lWlAII CHAIRWOMAN AND PANEL HEMII!RS FOR RECEIVING MY ORAL
COI<l!ENTS.
OIL Allll GAS D!VELOPII!IIT IN tillS PIOPOSID LEASE BALE. tillS L!TTEI WAS DATID
PEBIU.ut 20, !ill· DURING THE PIUOD rROII 1969 TO 1978, THE TOTAL I!IIOLESALE
VALUE FOR tiiOS! SPECIES LISTI!Il WAS 227 MILLION D01.LARS. THIS FIGURE, I S110ULD
ADD, 00!5 NOT INCLUDE CROUIIDPISH.
GROVIIDFISH LAIIDIIICS PROM THE SH!LIKOr STRAIT UCION RAVR GIOIIII rR011 ABOUT
6 NITRIC TONS IN 197S TO 2,067 IIETRIC TO!IS tllaolJCII JULY OP 1979. tillS
IIJIIUHiliTAL INCREASE GIVES SOUIID SUPPOIT TO OUR COIITENTION THAT TN! llZVILOI'IIEIIT
OP A CIOUNDPISH INDUSTRY IS A REALITY IN Till': COIHJHITY OF KODIAK.
THE PISHERIIS RESDUICES or THE COOK INL!T/SHELIXOP STRAIT REGION RAISE MAJOR
ISSUES WHEN VII!WED WITH REGARD TO OIL A11D CAS RESOURCE D!V!l.OPME!IT. THE
IIOIOUCH HAS IIECOCIIIZED TNI RISX POTEHTLAL OIL A.~ GAS D!YILOPIIENT CAN ENTAIL.
THE TRADE-OFF IS ROT IN "i"IIE XODIAK COIHJHITT'S . .I!ST IHT!REST.
I IL\D ASKED IN BIIIER"THAT THE DIPAimiENT or THE IKTERIOR, THROUGH ITS OFFICE
Or OCS/BLM, IIECOGHIZE TNI CU11111.\TIVE IMPACT THAT SALES 6D AND 61 WILL RAVE
ON THE KODIAK ARCHIPELAGO. THE COUNCIL Allll IIOROUCB AR! AGAIN REQUESTING THAT
THIS DUAL APPROACH TO EVALUATING THESE niO SALE AREAS BE ADOPTED. SO, PLEASE
RECoGNIZE lT AS A REALISTIC APPROACH, AS WOULD THE OIL ltmUSTRY.
ONE OF THE. MAJOR REASONS THE BOROUQI HAS RE'lU!STI!Il A DILAY IN SALE IS SO
THAT THE CIJ!1ULATIVE IMPACTS OF LEASE SALES 60 AND 61 CAN BE ADDRESSED. THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THE SECRETARY or TN~ INTEIUOR MAY NOT ADOPT THIS ALTERNATIVE
HAS FORCED THE BOROUGH TO PROPOS! A SECOND COIICEPT, AS I MENTIONED AT THE
B!CINNIIIC OF THIS TtSTIIIlNY.
THE BOROUGH, BASED UPON OCS COUNCIL IIECOIIMERDATIONS, PROPOSES THAT THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ltEIIOVE ALL 80 BLOCKS WITHIN THE SHELIXOP STRAIT
AREA F~ THE SALE. AS DR. HOOPES POIHT!D OUT IN H!S DISCUSSION or COIICER.•s
RELATED TO THE OIL SPILL RISK ANALYSIS !'IODILS, THE BOROUGH PllP.LS STRONGLY
THAT D!Pl'JIDING UPON THE !lOW-QUESTIONABLE RISK ANALYSIS IIOD!LS OF OIL SPILL
CONTAIII!<ATION COULD RESULT IN EXTilEIIELT DA.'IACINC EFFECTS TO THE SIIEt.IKOr
STRAIT EIIVIIONHENT. tilE 80 BLOCKS ALL LIE WITH I~ THE SBELUOF STRAIT AREA
AS THE IOROIJCH DEFINES THE STRAIT BOUNDARIES, NOT AS DEFINED IN TN! DRAFT.
THET RAVE BEEN LISTED BY IIUKBER IN WRITTEN TESTD«lN! TO BE SUBMITTED 1Y THE
BORDUCH.
OUR REQUEST FOR THESE BLOCX D!L!TIONS V.ut SOIIEWHAT FIUlll lUI'S ALTERNATIVES
IV Allll V. THIS PRESENT REQUEST RIAPFIRHS A WIITTI!II ONE SENT BY THE IIOROUCII
-2-
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Mr. Frank Greq!:
Director
Bureau of Land Management
Attention: 720
Depart~ent of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240 lcf!/1 " .
Ret
.~,... -5 ,,,.!:)
Kodiak Island Borough Asaembly ,Action v,.(' "•
Requeatinq that the Shelikof s7rait ':'-& p~~ .··~--·~
removed from consideration for. OCS 011 ..... <lr·~ '":t:rvr
Development in Proposed OCS Le3&e Sale ··f~
No. 60, until after 1985
Dear Mr. Greqq:
The Kodiak Island Borouqh Assembly, in conjunction with its
Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Council, haa reviewed the
terms and conditions which surround the proposed Outer ~
continental Shel! Lease Sale No .. 60 involvinq the Sheliko1
Strait north of Xodiak Island Borough. ~he consensus of
our community conveys the view that in the very long range
fisheries will continue to be the economic mainstay of the.
Kodiak Isla~d Borough. rurther, that the Shelikof Strait
will be one of the major contribute=• ~o the developinq
bot~omfish industry within the Ko~iak !ishin; economy.
In the face of the above referenced realities, the Xo~iak
Island Borough Assembly hereby solicits and requests that
the appropriate actions be taken by the u.s. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, to remove the Shelikof
Strait from consideration for Outer Continental Shelf oil
development as part o! the o.c.s. Lease Sale No. 60 through
the process of exclu<linq all aub~erqed lands in the Shelikof
Strait south of 50052' north latitude, until after 1985.
Hr. Frank Gregg, Director
Bureau of Land Manag.-.nt
February 27, 1979
Page 2
A copy of ~odiak Island Borou9h Reaolution Mo. 79-69-R
setting forth the Assembly's actions requesting the ra.oval
of the Shelikof Strait froa consideration ia provided here-
with for your additional inforaation.
Enclosure
cc: Hr. Robert Brock, Acting Manager, Alaska OCS Office,
Anchorage
Mr. Rodney Smith, Area Oil • Gaa Supervisor, o.s.
·ceological Survey, Anchorage
Mr. 9riiC·e·1t;~·auer, Office of the Governor,
State of Alaaka
Hr. Hank Pennington, Chairman, OCS Adviaory Council
Honorable Mayor and 80rOU9h Aaaelably
KocHak Island Borough
P .0. Box l246
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Dear Mayor and Assembly 1
OCS Advisory Council
Pouch 0
February 20, U79
The following actions are requested of the Borough Asseably by
the ocs Advisory Council. These requests resulted froat either the
Council meeting on February 13, or froa the joint 1110etin9 of the
ocs Council and the Dorough Assembly ln the Dorough AsseNly work
session on February 17.
1. By a unanimous vote, the OCS Advisory Counci 1 requests tho
following action of the Borough Assembly;
Th.1t a letter be drafted by the Assembly asking that the Shelikof'
Strait be removed from consideration for OCS oil devC!'lopmcnt in the
proposed OCS Lease Sale No. 60. The oxclusinn would include c1ll
submerged lands in the Shelikof Strait south of 58°52" l~titudc.
We ask thnt this area be delayed frcnn consideration for OCS leasing
until after 1985, the boq1nning of the 198~-1990 schadulinq period.
For b.1ckground on the action ve oCfcr the following: The OCS Council
feels that over the very long range, fisheric• will be the economic
mainstay of the Kodiak Island Borou9h. At present the Sholikof
Strait is one of the major contributors to the Kodiak economy. In
addition, for some years now, foreiqn fishin9 vessels have been for-
bidc.len to trawl for bottomfiah in the Sholikof Strait, effectively
crcatinq a bottomfish sanctuary which will provide the b.:1ckbonc of
the development of Kodiak's bottomfish industry. Due to the dc-
velopmcntoal status of th~1t bottomfish fishery, the OCS Council
felt that it, and the economy of Kodiak, would suffer fr011 compe-
tition with the oil industry at this tiroc.
We httvc accumulated the following fisheries statistics for existing
fishcrie• in tho Sholikof Strait:
IIIOOI.U IJLAI'D IIOWOGQI
•~a&.UttCIIIIo. n-•-•
A JIUCII,UtiC.: Of' TU IIODIU: Ut.Mll ~ ~
IIIG T11U Tilt 511U.IJOI" STMtt II MMQ-.~~ ...... CC.S~
• o.c.1. on DCVILOI'I'Clt.'T n• TU PIIOI'c.tD o.c.s. LU.SC sau ao w
n. """ un.
*Z:IIIU.I. tM a.dj. .. tal&M lo~ OYt.ec ~
u Ad•i-I'J co ... cl.l M• ""'-~ Ue u~ •R-4 ~U . ..1.ca1 -·
,...._..;. • .,:. __._-.. --··"! ut ue propo ... Chn.er COI'Iuroe:~ul -..u '-'-•-.. 1• •· M
..
, ..... -....
a,.h.l.l'lf the ~1Uclf hrdt •nt~ o! aoda.a• hl ... ~. •
...-,.., U.. Ovtet Cr..tl~Ul 5Mlf l.dWI..oQ ~
.... ,. t)'l• vi-tMt 1"' tM .. ry 1-. ~~~ h.,.,.ta.-lnll "'
I "-ece~1e .. lrllt.IJ or the llod~P :•hro~ lcro...., . ..,. u-..t ~
~~"•likof Stra~t 11 Ofte or U'l4l -.)0: ec ... :rn~ .. tota to t.~ -...!~Iii
•tUal'lla, econoa)', ....
ij wuii&AI. u. •dn-n or a t1o1.«*!'J..., ......_...,. ia
~ ~UIIot Jtrau wJ.ll fntv&. .. Uto~ Nck:.o:~e ~., t.M .._l~t 1:!
Ute ..,, .. Ul&M lrN'Ou4h tlot.Uahll'l i..C>;~I'tl"}'• .... t.A.et. Ole ..,_,.
<
:~1.11 llolt.n Ol 1.he bctU~111\ !UMf"}' C'O'ool4 1-.lf•ll' f~ t.:.
~au ...... ••dro-.fltal elhet.a o! eu &.a4 .. t..-,. .. .,.~.
~ _-oM TUJI&toU K n ~\~O uw.t u.. lodi..._ :tl.leol
• ro..,.. ,.. .. .::.11 ,_, !'!entry sohca ':..":• appt"Opu.et.e acc.;;.-.s o: ,.
1. DePif~"' of Jnt.euor. 1\o\r••u o! t.a.at ...._"'..,._.._. J.• ~_..
,.. Pl•l;;.ll:of &trill fro-coauM:•uoa ro:-oster _._~Ul .-~!
oU ••-..l~t •• ,..no! t.hl o.c.s. Leaw 5•1• ao. 110 wa.U u.
.clwio. •r all ,....,.,,., lUiol• ;p Ute Shlhll:of &u·•n . ....u 111
,.,, • •n,_ lat l\u6t, ~~nU 1 aft•r ltU
,~:O""io"'o-.. •• r:":•
1·
.......---------~-~-
M:lyor ond DoroU9h Aasaoob1y
20, 1979
SPECIES -TIME
PERIOD
TOTAL
CATCH
Ubsl
MEAN ANNUAL AVERf,GF. VALUE Tai"AL v~·~-:
CATCII (lbs) (1978 Dollan) (1978 Dol::
Tamar
Crab
~"9
Crab
llolibut
1969-1971 53,999,791
1969-1971 10,188,434
1973-1971 33,852,000
1973-1977 4,236,000
1975-1971 49,982,757
1969-1971 2,904,481
197!>-1971 2,270,000
s,m,9n.5
1.2~.826
5,597,000
847,200
!l,495,689
322,720
567,500
vi9'J.987 29.69'1. Sf'
~~SCI lhl (~~SC/ltl
2.12?.2H 1?,163·'"
1°$1. 7'>/lhl
?23,50~ 5,541.00<
1~16. 5C/lh)
1.270,800 6,35~.00!:
I@S1. 50/lbl
5,578,lll 22,)12,4'>
22~.904 _2,03],1);
1@70C/lb)
113,500 454,000
(f20C/lb)
2. At tne ti-· the Kodiak OCS I•paet Study and the H.:>rine Service
Bolse Study were funded, the OCS Advisory Council was qivcn verbal
assurances by BLM aftd the oil coapanies that the Shelikof Strait vas
not being considered as a potential OCS Lease area. As a result,
tho•o studio• do not consider the potential of OCS impact froa those
areas. Ne request that the Borough .. nager be directed to investi-
gate sources of additional fundin9 to update those studies to include
.. he irapact of the potential lease sale· in the Sholikof Strait.
J. In viewing the combined workload resulting Cro• Lca::oc Sale
No. 46 and Lease Sal(l' No. 60, it is not possible for the! OCS Cmmcil
to fulfill ita co ... itiiOnts without fulltime staff support. of!ice
apo1cc and professional pl.:1nnin9 assist.:~nco tr~ the UOrnuqh. \"k"
havo boon inactivo duo to the delay in Loaso Sale No. 46. With
tho possibility of both lease sale• occurring within the nc.1r
future, plu• the stronq potcntiOJ.l for the rMjor dcv~lOfl"'Cnl of
bottomfish fisheric• Around kodiak, it is i1l'lpcrative th4t tho OCS
Council rcaUIIO it• tcchnl.coll studies, public C(1uc:ttion efforts .:~nd
advisory function with tho Borouqh P.sse:nbly immcdi4tely.
l'able Mayor and Borough Asaembl)'
runry ZO, 1979
10 l
4 Tho ocs council h .. recoived a preliminary propoul for • a~ud of DeveloPMnt of llottOIIfish Induatry from o Danhh consul-tant~ Faroo Fishcon. Since the future of Kodiak will include both
botto•fiah and QCS oil developaent, the strong potential for con-
flict between the two industries auat be ovaluotart and plannac\ fnr.
If tho two are handled correctly' there 1a CJOOd potential that b they
can be C:Oiftpatible on ahore. we feel that such a study should a
authorized but that the su~itted propoaal 1• weak. We roco~mend
that an an~ouncemont be prepared, askin9 for si•ilar proposal•
from other coapanlos with experti•• in tho davelo~nt ot bottom-
fish fhheri ...
~ At thia tiiM the National Marine Fisheries Service is conductin9
; aeries of public hearings regarding a proposed ~~·~~~";en~~ C~~;8 tin9cncy Fund for OCS-relatcd gear losses, as out ne n a .
ocs Lands Act Alnoncbaanta. No have reviewed tho propoaed regutat1ona,
and find tham not to be in tho be.t. intereata of tho Kodiak fishing
industry and thorofora, the ocono•ic health of xocHnk. Wo rec:ommend
that the' Aaaombly draft a letter to the Nation,ol M11rino Fishoru!:a
service commentin9 on tho proposed action. As backqround. wo.sub.it
n copy of tho fo<lorAl re9ister outlinin9 tho propose~\ r~1Jt1loH.l'Jn:J,
ond 4 letter from tho Al48ka Shrimp Trawlers cor.uncnt1n9 on those
re9 ulo.tiona. After rovieving the regulc:-tions we recommend tlhlt tho
norou9 h support tho position of tho Shr1mp Trolwlers.
on bC!half of tho OCS Adviaory Council and tho onth·c Kodi.,k T!lJ,.,nrJ
Dorough connunity, we thank you for your undcratandinq olnt\ r.:f)r:t~mit
JRCntu to theae vary important reaourcc developMnt iasuea and
programs.
Sincer,~y, ~ _
_;:;e~
llolnk Pennin9ton, Chair~~an
ocs Advisory Council
Enclosurc::a
IWW1 CHAIIIIIOIWI AND IIEIII£R5 OF THE HEARING PANEL, 6000 AfTEAIIOO!I.
MY !lAME IS TCI'I PETERSON. I Nl CHAIAIWI Of THE KOO!Ait ISI.AIIO II'JROUGH'S OCS
ADVISORY COUNCIL. I Nl HEM TO REIIDER ORAL TESTIIIONIAL SUPPORT TO THE
BOROUGH'S POSITION CONCERN Ill& FEDERAL OIL AriD &AS LEASE SALE 160 FOR LOWER
COOl INLET AIID SHElltaJf STRAIT.
THE ICOO!Ait ISLAIIO 80ROUGH OCS AD¥1SORY COUNCIL IS A COLLECTIVE
GROUP OF ICOO!Ait CITIZEIIS 1110 HAVE IEEII &lYEII AUTHORITY BY THE ICDII!Ait ISLAIID
80ROU6H ASSE!'ILY TO PROVIDE THE TECIIIIICAL STUDIES AriD POLICY ADVISEIIENTS
IN ASSISTING TilE ASSEI'ILY TO TAlC£ ACTION CO!ICERIIUI& OCS OIL NID &AS DEVELOP-
MENT IN AND AROUIID ICOOIAK.
THE COUNCIL HAS SCRUTINIZED TilE DRAfT EIIVIROIIIENTAL STATEIIENT
FOR LEASE SALE 160 WITII TilE UP!IIST Dlli&OICE WITIIIN A TIME FRNIE THAT liAS
INCREDIBLY LIMITED. AfTER THIS CAREFIA. REVIEW Of THE DRAfT, THE COUNCIL
RECCJt!ENDED TO THE ASSEIIIL Y TO ADOPT THE POSITION FOR DELAY OF SALE
FOR THE FOLLIJIIIIIG R£ASOIIS:
THE MOST III'OI!TAIIT REAS011 OF All IS THE KODIAK CCJIIJNITY'S
CONCERN FOR THEIR FISHERY RESOURCES IN THE SHELIICOF STRAIT
AREA. THE ABUIIIWICE Of THE VARIOUS CCJtiERCIAL SPECIES OF
FISH IN Til( SHELIICOF ARE OF THE WATEST III'ORTAIICE WHEN
ADDRESSING OIL N10 &AS DEVELOPI1ENT IIITHI~ TilE SAllE BOOIIIlAAIES.
AS OR. HOOPES STATED IN HIS TESTIIIIIIY TODAY, TilE OCS
COU!ICIL'S INITIAL FEELIII&S ON ALTERNATIVE IY AS A POSITION
WERE THAT TilE SHELIICOF STRAIT FISHERY Rf:SOURC£ IIOUI.D BF.
LIMITED TO ADVERSE AFFECTS OF OIL Allll &AS DEYELOPIIENTS
AS STATED IN THAT PARTICULAR SCENERIO. HOWEVER, AS
DR. HOOPES POINTED OUT, TilE INFORIIATION TilE BOROU6H HAS
IN ITS POSSESSION CONCERNING THE OIL SPILL TRAJECTORY
ANAlYSIS IIOOELS WITHIN THE DRAfT DOES COIITEST THEIR
ACCURACY AIID CREDIBILITY TO A LARGE DEGREE.
IT IS WITII THAT INFOIIIIATION AND THE Mil ASSESSIIEIITS OF
GR0U11D FISH RESOURCE I'OTOOIAL IN THE SHElllOF STTIAIT
AS RECORDED BY TilE IIATIOIIAL liMINE FISHERIES SERVICE
THAT HAS COIIVINCED TillS OCS counciL TO ADVOCATE A DELAY
-1-
IJRAl TESTIMONY
PUBLIC HEARIII6 011
DRAfT EIIVIROII1EIITAL ! .. ACT STAT~
FE!lERAL OIL I &AS LEASE SALE HO
LOWER COOK III.ET-SIIELitaJf STitAIT
IOIER, ALASKA
OCTOBER 14, 19110
PREPARED IY:
THCIIAS H. PETERSON
CHAIAIWI
ICOOIAit ISLAND BOROUGH
OCS AD¥1SORY COIIIICIL
OF SALE UIITIL A lllRE ACCURATE AND FOIIIIDAILE ADORESSAL TO
LEASIII6 TRACT AREAS IN AND NEAR. SHElltaJf STRAIT .CAN BE
FORIUATED IY THE OFF! CE OF OCS/IIlM.
IT HAS IEEN THE UNRELOOIII6 POSITION OF TillS COUNCIL TO ADVOCATE
THE RECOGNITION OF ACCIKJLATIVE I!I>ACTS OF LEASE SALE 160 NID 146 (!lOll LEASE
SALE 161) BY TilE DEPARliDT OF INTERIOR SINCE THAT IUIDICY' S INCEPTION OF THE
NIIITIDUS 0CS FIVE YEAR LEASE PL.AII. THE OCS COUNCIL HAS ADORESSED THIS
REQUEST AT 80TH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON LEASE SALE 146 AN~ THE PROPOSED
FIVE YEAR OIL AND &AS LEASING SCHEDULE M!l 111111 AGAIN FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARIII6
ON LEASE SALE 160. IT IS THE COUNCIL'S AND BOROUGH'S AIWWIT REQUEST TO
DELAY TillS SALE AIIO FUTURE ONES UIITIL THE ACCIJIJLATIVE AFFECTS OF SUCH SALES
ARE SUFFICIUnY ADORESSE~ IN THE EIIYIROIIMEIITAL III'ACT STATEMENT.
THE COU!ICIL HAS BEEII MIARE FOR SOliE TillE IIIJW, THROUGH COIIYERSATIONS
WITH OIL IIIJUSTRY OFFICIALS, THAT TIIEIR IIIJUSTRY lllll APPROACH TilE ICOOIAK
SALE AREAS WITH THE COOICEPT OF ADORESSIII6 CIJU.ATIYE ASPECTS OF OIL AND &AS
DEVELOPME!IT FOR COST EFFECTIVENESS AriD BEIIEFICIAL PROFIT ADVANTAGE. TIIEREFORE,
THIS COUNCIL IIAIITS THE OCS/IIlM OFFICE TO IE CO&!IIZAIIT OF THAT FACT ALSO.
DR. HOOPES' WRITTEN POSITION PAPER FOR THE BOROUGH'S PROPOSED
AI. TER!IATIVE. AND HIS PAGE-BY-PAGE REVIEW THAT lllll IE SUIIIITTED TO Til£
DEPARTIIENT OF INTERIOR CLEARLY EXPOSES THE IUIEROUS INADEQUACIES TIIROUGHOUT
THIS DRAFT. TilE COUNCIL TltOROUGit.Y REYI~D THESE A.'ID CONCLUSIVELY FOUIID
TIIEM TO REFLECT THE OPIMIDNS I)F THE COU'ICIL CO!ICEIL'IIII& THE SClMEVHAT BLAiAIIT
DISREGARD TO EFFECTIVELY IlliTE A DEIS IIIITTEIIIIITIIIN NEPA &IJIDELINES. THE
COUliCIL'S RECOfiEIII!o\TION Of DELAY Of SALE TO THE IIOROU6H FOR AOOPTION IS
STRO!G. Y SUPPORTED BY DR. HOOPES' WRITYEN CMIEIITS.
I~ COIICLUDIII& TillS ORAL TESTIMONY, I WILL AGAIN REITEIIATE THE
IOROUGH' S POSITION TO REQU£ST A DELAY OF SALE FOR LEASE SALE 160 FOR THE
SEC!IETARY OF INTERIOR TO CONSIDER. IF TillS REQUEST IS VIEWED UNFAVOAABI. Y
BY THE SECRETARY, THEN IT IS POINTED OUT TO THIS HEARIII& PANEL THAT TilE
BOROUGH HAS CONCEIVED A TRACT DELETION APPROACH TO THIS PROPOSED SALE
THAT WILL 8£ EXPLAINED MORE FULLY THROUGH ORAL TESTIIIO!IY AT THE PUBLIC
HEARHIG IN ICOOIAit TOIIDliROW.
TIIANK YOU FOR TillS OPPORTUIIITY TO LET ME EXPRESS TilE ICOOIAit
OCS ADVISORY COU!ICIL'S VIEWS 011 LEASE SALE 16C.
-2-
ORAL ftSTI_.,
of
Dr. David T. Roope•
OCS COnaul tant
Kodiak Idand Borou<;~h
Pre .. nted at a Public Haarin9 on the
DEIS for OCS Oil and Gaa Leaae Sale No. 60
held in ao-r, Alaaka
on
OCtober 14, 1980
-2 -
MIGHT AFFECT MARINE BIRDS. DELETION OF THESE BLOCKS MOULD
SUSSTAIITIALLY REDUCE THE RISK OF OILSPILLS AND RBLATED EFFECTS
TO MAJOR SEA 0'1"1'ER AND OTIIBR MARINE IIAMNAL HABITAT, PARTICULARLY
IN 'I'IIE NORTIIERN KODIAII ARCHIPELAGO AND SHELIJI:OF STRAIT AREAS.
'I'IIE ELIMINATION OP A '1'lUIKBR IIOI1TE 'lHROUGH 'I'IIE TREACHEROUS WATERS
OP 1111ALE PASS GREATLY RBDOCES 'I'IIE RISKS TO IMPORTAIIT NEARBY
MARINE AND COASTAL HABITAT. THE CHANCE OF P0'1'EN'I'IAL ADVERSE
IMPACTS TO ENDAIIGBUD CftACEANS ALSO PALLS SHARPLY. MAJOR
ADVERSE IMPACTS TO 'I'IIE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE OF PORT LIONS
AND KODIAJI MOULD ALSO BE ELIMINATED. IN SHORT, DELETION OP THE
SIIELI~OP STRAIT BLOCKS ,_ LEASE SALE 60 MOULD MARKEDLY REDUCE
'I'IIE UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EPnCTS OIL DEVELOPMENT COULD RAVE ON
'I'IIE RESOURCES AND EIIVIROIIIIEN'1' UPON IIJIICH HOST OF 'lHE AREA'S
RESIDENTS DEPEND FOR C~RCIAL GAIN AND SUBSISTENCE.
THE IIBDUCTION IN RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS BLOCK DELETIONS
IS PREDICATED UPON THE DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE
MODELS USED FOR BLM'S OILSPILL RISK ANALYSIS. RECENT RESEARCH
INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE TO THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CASTS
SERIOUS DOUBT ON THI! ABILITY OF THESE MODELS TO DETERMINE SPILL
TRAJECTORIES THAT ACCURATELY PREDICT THE SPEED AND DIRECTION OF
OIL SPILLS OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROPOSED LEASE SALE AREA.
THERE ARE OTHER SERIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
STA'1'ENEN'1' FOR LEASE SALE 60 THAT HAVE INCREASED OUR RELUCTANCE
TO SUPPORT ANY ALTERNATIVE INVOLVING DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME.
OF MAJOR CONCERN IS 'lHE FAILURE OF THE DOCUMENT TO ADEQUATELY
ADDRESS ANY ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION OTHER THAN
VARIOUS BLOCK DELETIONS. ANOTHER MAJOR DEFICIENCY IS BLH' S
POINTED DECLINATION TO ADDRESS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THIS
- 1 -
DISTINGUISIIED PANEL III!MBI!RS, LADIES AND GEN'1'LI!ICEII, GOOD ~.
NY NAME IS DAVID HOOPES. I AM Dill! TODAY TO IIEPRESBRT 'I'IIE KODIAJI:
ISLAND BOROUGH AS 'I'IIEIR OCS COIISULTAIIT AND TO PRESBRT ORAL
TESTIMONY ON BI!SALP OP 'I'IIE BOROUGH.
OUR CONCERN HAS NEVER BI!I!N lllll!ftll!ll OR NOT OPPSHORB OIL DEVELOP-
WILL OCCUR BOT RA'I'IIER 1IJID AND UBDER IIJIAT COIIDITIOIIS. COirTJIOIIERSY
OVER OIL DBIII!LOPIII!IIT ON '1'HE KODIAJI OCS S'l'I!MS ,_ A BtBIBI!R OP
SPECIFIC CONCERNS. OUR OVERALL GOAL AS 'I'IIE GOVERNING BODY
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL KODIAII ISLAND IIOROUGB RI!SIDENTS HAS BI!EII '1'0
ENCOURAGE A GREATER PUBLIC IIOICI IN ALL NA'1"1'ERS APPECTIBG OUR
SHORBLINES AND ADJACENT IIATSU. DURIIIG OUR RBVIEN OF IIUVOCS
OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE PROPOSALS, THR11E SUBSTAIITIVE ISSUES HAVE
EMERGED AS FOCI FOR GI!NI!JUIL PUBLIC COIICI!RN. 'I'III!Y ARE: ONSHORE
IMPACTS, ENVIJIOIIMEN'TAL EPPECTS AND FISHING IBDDSTRY COIIPLICTS.
EVER THIS BIIEJIKD<*N REPIIBSENTS All OVERSIMPLIPICATIOH OP '1'BB
ISSUES INVOLVED IIBCAOSE EACH AREA OP CONCERN OVERLAPS TO A GREAT
EX'1'EN'1' WITH THE OTHERS.
IT WAS OUR FIRST INCLIIL\TIOII, APTER REVIENING THIS Dllo\P'1'
ENVIRONMENTAL STA'1'ENEN'1', TO PAVOR 50111! MDDIPICATIOII OP BLM' S
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IV. THIS ALTERNATIVE APPEARS TO OPPER
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN RISK TO RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMI!IITAL
VALUES OF PARTICULAR COIICERN TO KODIAJI ISLAND RESIDENTS.
DELETION OF "1'11E SHELIKOP STRAIT BLOCKS FROM '1'BB PROPOSAL IIOULD
SIGNIPI~~TLY REDUCE THE RISKS OF POTENTIAL OIL POLLOTIOII,
CUMULATIVE DBIII!LOPMENT IMPACTS AND FISHERY CONFLICTS WITH RBGARD
TO A NUMBER OP MAJOR FISH AND SHELLFISH RESOURCES. REMOVAL OF
THESE BLOCKS ALSO GREATLY REDUCES THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED
WITH OFFSHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY THOSE IMPACTS THAT
- J -
PROPOSAL SHARI!S IB OOIICERT WITH 0'1'HI!R PIOPOSED OCS LEASE SALES
SCHEDULED FOR THE KODIAK AREA.
ASIDE FROM 'I'IIE OBVIOUS DESIRABILITY OF PROTI!CTING THE RE11E11ABLE
MARINE RESOURCES UPON IIHICR OUR 11C011011Y AND LIPI!S'1'YLIIS ARE IW
LARGE PART BASED, lfE SHARI! A GENERAL CONCERN FOR THE NELL BEIIIG
OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY. lfE HOLD THAT 110
TECHNOLOGY IS NORTH RISKING THE REDUCTION OR IRIIEPLACI!AIILE LOSS
OF ANY SPECIES; NOR RAVE SUCH LOSSES I!VI!R PROVEN NECESSART '1'0
KOMAN SURVIVAL IN THE PAST. NE SHOULD NOT VIOLATE ENVIJIOIMDITAL
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS, OR EVEN ENVI~ AMENITIES,
FRIVOLOUSLY. NE CANNOT SUPPORT ENTERPRISES POR IIJIICH 110 OBVIOOS
NET GAIN IN WELFARE POR OUR ISLAND COMMUNITIES CAN BE D-.STIIATED
----ESPECIALLY '1'110SE ENTERPRISES '!RAT ARE, BY BLM'S 011R
ADMISSION, CERTAIN TO RAVE DELETERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE IIPP!lC'1'S
BASED ON THE 95 PERCENT PROBABILITY THAT AT LEAST POUR MAJOR
OIL SPILLS WILL OCCUR DORING THE LIFE OF THE SALE.
GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED WITH THE USGS OIL SPILL RISII
ANALYSIS, THE MAJOR COMMERCIAL AND LA'1'EN'1' FISHERY RESOURCES
INVOLVED, THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF VIABLE SALE ALTERNATIVES A11D
THE TOTAL LACK OF CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN CONJUIICTIOIII
WITH OTHER PROPOSED OCS LEASE SALES IN ADJACENT AREAS, NE RAVE
NO OTHER RECOURSE BUT TO REQUEST THAT LEASE SALE 60 BE DELAYED
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THESE MAJOR DEFICIENCIES ARE SATISFACTORILY
RECTIFIED. SHOULD A DELAY IN SALE NOT BE FORTHCOMING, '1'H1!K WE
CAN ONLY REAFFIRM OUR LONG-STANDING POSITION THAT OCS DEVELOPNJ:Wf
BE PROHIBITED IN SHELIKOF STRAIT.
MADAM CHAI~~. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS
WISHING TO TESTIFY HERE TODAY, I SHALL RELINQUISH '1'11E IIEIIAIND£11
- 4 -
OF MY TIME AND CONTINUE HY PRESENTATION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND
BOROUGH'S TESTIMONY WHEN THIS REARING RECONVENES IN KODIAK
TOMORROW AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU.
- 1 -
DISTINGUISHED PANEL MEMBERS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS DAVID HOOPES. AM HERE TODAY TO REPRESENT THE KODIAK
ISLAND BOROUGH AS THEIR OCS CONSULTANT AND TO PRESENT ORAL
TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE BOROUGH.
THE DEEP CONCERN WE HOLD FOR THE WELFARE OF OUR FISHING INDUSTRY
PROMPTED THE BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION'S ADOPTION OF THE POSITION
TOWARD LEASE SALE 60 THAT WE SHARED WITH YOU IN YESTERDAY'S ORAL
TESTIMONY AT HOMER. WE DO NOT FEEL SECURE WITH THE CONCLUDING
STATEMENT ON P. 170 OF THE DRAFT THAT THE PROPOSED SALE WOULD
HAVE LITTLE OR NO EFFECT ON COMMERCIAL FISHERIES. THIS STATEMENT
IS COMPLETELY AT ODUS WITH THE PROBABLE IMPACTS LISTED IN THE
PRECEEDING PAGF.S,
ON P. 166 TilE DR!\t'T STATES LOSSES TO RAZOR CL!\HS COULD RESULT
FROM THE PROPOSED ACTION. A "GOOD CHANCE THAT AT LEAST ONE
POLLUTANT EVENT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT SHRIMP POPULATIONS" IS
~OTED ON P. 1o5. A PROBABLE REDUCTION IN CRAB POPULATIONS
CA~SCD BY EVENTS hSSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL IS NOTED ON P. 163.
AtJD O~J P. 161 THE STATEMENT IS HADE THAT SALMON POPULATIONS
COCLD BE ADVF.PSF.LY AFFECTED. AGAIN, ON P. 170 THE CONCLUSION
IS CHMiN TIIAT "THE PROPOSED SALE WOULD HAVE LITTLE OR NO EFFECT
ON TliE IWDlt\K, HOMER, PORT L!ONS, SELDOVIA AND J<ENAI COMMERCIAL
FISIIEHTF.S." YET, ON THE SA.'IE PAGE, JUST FOUR PARAGRAPHS BELOW
Tl!IS STATEMF.~T, WE READ THAT:
"THE CO'<"F.RCIAL FISH!NG INDUSTRY WOULD EXPERIENCE ADVERSE IMPACTS
FRO>! TillS PROPOSAL."
HOW CAN WE PUT ANY CREDENCE WHATSOEVER IN A DOCUMENT THAT FAILS
TO MAINTAIN ANY SEMBLANCE OF INTERNAL INTEGRITY? HOW CAN A
ORAL TBSTI**Y
of
Dr. David T. Roopae
OCS Con•ul tant
Kodiak leland Borou9h
Pr .. ented at a Public Hearin9 on the
DBIS for OCS Oil and Gee Leue Sale Ro. 60
held in Kodiak, Alaeka
on
October 15, 1980
- 2 -
DOCUIIEIIT WITH SUCH GLAIIIIIG IIICCIRSIBTI!NCIBS BB USEFUL IN THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS?
WHILE liE FULLY APPRECIATE 'l'BB OIIQUAIITIFIABLII NATURE OF MUCH OF
THE INPORMATIOII NDDED '1'0 EVALUATE VARIOUS ALTERMA'riVBS, WE
KNOW THAT CATCH AND BPPOR'l' STATISTICS EXIST POR REPORTING .1UtBAS
PALLING WITHIN CERTAIN RISK PROBABILITY ZONES. THUS, PROBABLE
LOSSES TO FISHERY VALUES COULD 88 ESTIMATED FROM DATA SUBHIT'l'ED
'1'0 BLM WITH RESOLUTION 79-9-R, DATED FEBRUARY 22, 1979,
REQUESTING THAT SHELIKOP STRAIT BB STRICKEN PROM LBASB SALE 60.
NOWHERE IN THE BODY OF THIS DRAPT, JIOWEVBR, IS THE VALUE OR
MAGNITUDE OF THE SEVERAL COMMERCIAL PISRBRIES EVEN MENTIONED,
EXCEPT FOR AGGREGATED CATCH STA'l'ISTICS FOR RECENT YEARS POUND IN
TABLE III,B.2.c.-l 'l'IIROUGH 6 AND TABLII III.B.2.d.-l THROUGH 6.
'l'HE VULNERABILITY OF VARIOUS SHORELINE HABITAT TYPES '1'0 OIL SPILL
IMPACTS HAS ALSO BBBN ASSESSED DURING THE OCSEAP PROGRAM BUT
THESE DATA ARE NOT CORRELATED WITH SPILL TRAJECTORIES. THUS,
THE RISK ANALYSIS DOES NOT BBGIN TO FULLY ASSESS IMPACTS '1'0
BITHER FISHERY RESOURCES OR SHORELINE HABITATS.
OUR CONCERN OVER PROBABLE IMPACTS TO SHORELINE HABITATS IS
FURTHER HEIGHTENED AS A RESULT OF ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
THAT HAY IN THE NBAR FUTURE REST WITH THE BOROUGH ADHINISTRAT.ION.
THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH HAS RECENTLY APPLIED TO THE STA'l'E OF
ALASKA'S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS FOR
PERMISSION TO ANNEX THE NEST SIDE OF SHBLIKOF STRAIT FROM THE
SOUTHERN BOUNDRY OF THE ltEliAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SOUTHWEST ALONG
THE ALASKA PENINSULA TO A POINT IN THE VICINITY OF KUMLIK ISLAND.
THE VULNERABILITY OF THIS COASTLINE '1'0 OIL CONTAMINATION FROM A
MAJOR SPILL, THEREFORE, WOULD BE OF PARTICULAR CONCERN TO US AS
- 3 -
'filii LOCAL GOWRIIICEIITAL BlftiTY IIIESPOIISIBLII FOR THIS ARBA.
BBOR!:LIIIE HABITATS PLAY A PARTICIILAIILY SIGNIFICANT ROLli IB THE
SUBSISTZIICB LIPESTYLII OP MARY OP THE ARBA' 8 RZSIOZBTS. AllY MAJOR
DISRUP'l'ION OF SUBSISTI!BCE OPPOR'fOIIITIES OYI!R A LONG PERIOD OP
TIME IIOULD CREATE A SEVERE HARDSHIP ON AllY VILLAGII SO IMPACTBD.
THE FULL SIGNIFICANCE OP THZ SUBSISTZIICB LIFE S'I'YLII IS LOST TO
THE DOMINANT NON-NATIVB CULTURE. 'filii IIATIVB AMERICAN' 8 VIEW
OP LIFE IS ORIENTED 'I'OII'IUID THE GROUP AS AN ORGABIC, ALL-IIMBRACIBG
BODY. A PERSON'S IDZNTI'I'Y AS PART OF 'filii GROUP IS PART OF BIB
OliN IlfDIVIDOALI'I'Y. HZ IS THIS PERSON, A11D PART OF HIM IS 'filii
FACT THAT HE IS ATTACHED TO, BBLONGS TO, IS PART OP, THIS
PARTICULAR GROUP. HZ BEIIAVBS AS All INDIVIDUAL, TO SB SURE, BUT
HE BEHAVES IIITH REFERENCE TO HIS GROUP ATTACIIIIBNT. IT IS AS AN
ASPECT OP THE GROUP THAT SUBSIS'l'ZNCE TAKZS ON ITS SIGNIFICANCE,
FOR THE !IUBSISTZNC! LIFE STYLE IS PART OP 'filii LIFE OP 'filii GROUP,
AND SO IS PART OF IIHAT AIID 1180 A PERSOII IS. WITH THE DISAPPEARANCE
OF 'filii OLD LANGUAGES AND OF MARY PRACTICES AND BBLIEPS, AHD WITH
INCREASING USE OP GOODS FROM THE --BATIVB liORLD, THE CORTIIIliANCE
OF A SUBSISTENCE TRADITION R!:MAINS A SOLID POINT OF IDENTIFICATION.
FISH, PARTICULARLY SALMON, AND OTHER IIARIIIE FOODS AR!: STILL All
INTEGRAL PART OF KONIAG LIFE. AS 50MB OTHER ASPECTS OF THAT
LIFE HAVB DISAPPEARED, THE ROLE OF FISH AND SUBSISTENCE FISHING
HAS ASSUMED EVEN MORE IMPORTAlfCE ---80TH ECONOMIC AND SYMBOLIC,
AND THE SYMBOLIC MAY lf!LL BE THE MORE IMPORTANT OF THE 'l'lfO.
lf! VIEW ANY THREAT TO THE SUBSISTENCE LIFE STYLE OP BOTH NATIVE
AMERICANS AND NON-NATIVES ALIKE AS EXTIIEIIBLY BBRIOUS AND WISH TO
GO ON RECORD AS FAVORING ONLY THOSE ALTERNATIVBS AND MBASURBS
THAT WILL EITHER REMOVB OR REDUCE SUCH THREATS TO All ACCEPTAIILII
LI!!VBL.
- 5 -
MOST FEEDING FLOCKS OF MARINE BIRDS OCCUR WITHIN 5 KM. OF LAIIlJ.
'1'lfO OF THE THREE MAJOR PREY SPECIES ARB CAPBLIN AND PACIFIC SAND
LANCE. THESE '1'lfO SPECIES OF FISH MAY AT TIMBS HEAVILY POLLUTE
COMMERCIAL SHRIMP CATCHES. THE MARINE BIRDS, BONZVBR, FBBO IB
'filii NEARSHORE AREAS NBBRE SHRIMP ARB ABUNDANT AND COMMERCIALLY
FISHED, THUS THE BIRDS SERVE TO KEEP POPULATIONS OF THBSE
UNDESIRABLE FISK (PROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE SHRIMP PISHBIMElf)
UNDER CONTROL. ANY MAJOR DECLINE IN MARINE BIRD POPULATIONS COOLD,
THUS, INDIRECTLY AFFECT THE IIARKZT VALUE OF THE SHRIMP HAIIVBST.
THE IMPACTS OF A MAJOR OIL SPILL ON SALMON STOCKS, MARINE BIRDS
AND OTHER FORMS OF MARIBE AND COASTAL LIFE SHOULD BE ASSESSED
UNDER THE "WORST CASE" SCENARIO TO ALERT DECISION MADRS TO
THE PAR-REACHING EFFECTS SUCH A SPILL KIGHT HAVB ON THE ENTIRE
MARINE ECOSYSTEM.
AT THE BEGINNING OF 1980, LEASE SALE 60 RANKZD 11TH OUT OF 15
PROPOSED. SALES IN MEAN ESTIMATED RESOURCE AVAILABILITY (5-YBAII
LEASE SALE SCHEDULE rES, P. 4 3) • THE AIIBA PROPOSED FOR SALE
liAS ESTIMATED TO CONTAIN 160 MILLION BARRELS OP OIL. THE MEAN
ESTIMATE APPEARING IN THIS DRAFT, HOIIEVBR, PLACES TOTAL MEAN
PRODUCTION AT AN ESTIMATED 670 MILLION BARRELS (TABLE II.B.1.a.-l).
IT IS DIFFICULT TO KNOll lfHBTHER THIS INCREASE OF OVER 4-FOLD IS
DUE TO NEW INFORMATION, THE ADDITION OF SKELIKOF STRAIT LEASE
BLOCKS OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH. NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED BY
THE BLM TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS QUADRUPLING IN POTENTIAL PRODUCTION
OVER A PERIOD OF JUST 8 MONTHS. THIS LATEST ESTIMATE WOULD RAISE
LEASE SALE 60 FROM 11TH TO 6TH POSITION WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL
OIL PRODUCTION IF THE VALUES ESTIMATED FOR THE OTHER ALASKAN
SALE AREAS REMAIN UNCHANGIID FROM THOSE PRESENTED IN THE 5-YBAII
-4 -
'filii WORST CASE ANALYSIS DBSCRIBSD IB 'I'BIS DRAFT ZNVI~
STATBMBift' IS INADEQUATE ACCORDING TO CURRENT CBQ REGULATIONS
(40 CPR 1502. 22). WHILE THE BUI BAS PREPARED A WORST CASE
MALYSIS COVBRIBG BNDANGIIRED CETACEANS (P. 281), SUCB All liiiALYSJ:S
DOllS NOT IIBBT CUIUIIIII'I' III!GOLATION STIPULATIONS BECAUSE IT !!!!,!
CONSIDERS EFFECTS ON SIIDANGIIRBD NHALBS. UNDER CIJRIIDJT CEQ
R!:GULATIOIIS, HON!VER, THE WORST CASE ANALYSIS MUST ALERT TBB
DECISION MAUR TO 'filii COSTS OF UNCERTAINTY BEYOND JUST SIIDAII~
SPECIES.
THE DRAFT CORR!:CTLY NOTES (P. 160) THAT AN OIL SPILL SVBift
REACHING THE IIBORB COULD SERIOUSLY An'BCT PINK II~ POPIILATIC.S
BECAUSE OP THE DISCR!:TBNESS OP 'filii 2-YBAR CYCLIC NATURE OP Till!
GBIISTICALLY SEPARATE STOCKS. THE DRAFT IBDICATES, BOIISVBR, ftA~
RISK EXISTS ONLY DURING TBB SHORT PERIOD OP TIMB PRY ARB
BMZRGING FROM THE GRAVELS. THIS ASSIMPTIOII IS INVALID.
ON THE ALASKA PBNIHSULA AIID IN 'filii KODL\It ARCHIPELAGO VIItTUALLY
EVBRY STREAM SUPPORTS US OP INTERTIDAL SPAIIIIING Pin: AIID CJIUJI
SALMOIII. 011 KODIAK ISLAIIll 'I'BIS SPAIIIUNG SIJIISTRATE Ill MOD
IMPORTANT THAN Ill OTHER AREAS. RIVBRS RAVIlfG THE LAIIGBST -S
OF PINK AIID CHUM SAIMOII CONTAIN TBB HIGHEST PROPORTION OP
INTERTIDAL SPANNERS. COIISBQUBNTLY, AllY SPILL THAT R8AC11BS SIIOU
FROM T!B TIME EGGS ARB DEPOSITED IN THE GRAVEL IN TBB PALL TO
APTBII PRY BMBRGIINCE AND OUTMIGRATION TBB FOLLOWING SPRING COULD
ADVERSELY AFFECT SIGNIFICANT NIMIIERS OF IBCUBATING EGGS OR AUVDIS.
THB DRAFT NOTES (P. 175) THAT A MAJOR SPILL (4 PR!:DICTZD) COULD
DIRECTLY KILL "PERHAPS SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND BIRDS, • GIIIBII
THE RIGHT SST OF CIRCUMSTABCBS. TBB IMPACT OP SUCB A LOSS UPOB
THE COASTAL ECOSYSTEM IIOULD HAVE FAR-R!:ACBING COIISBQOBIICZS.
-6 -
LEASE 8ALII SCII8DULB FBS. TBB BASIS FOR THIS 811GB INCIIIIASB
SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY DOC1lMSIITI:D IB TBB FBS FOR LIIASE SALE 60.
lf! IIOTS, IB PASSING, THAT A RECENT G11NZRAL liCCO!JBTING OPPICB 8'l'ODY
SEVERELY CRITICIZED BUI FOR ALLEDGEDLY MAIIIPULATING PRODUC'rl:C*
ESTIMATES TO SIIIIAIICZ 8ALII APPROVALS. A COIIPLBTB DOC.-TATIC.
OP THE REASONS BEHIND THE INCREASED ESTIMATES CITED IISit& 110ULD
DIBrELL AllY PBAJIS THAT SUCH MEASURES KIGHT RAVE BBSII SMPLOYBD
DURING PREPARATION OF TBB DRAFT DIVI-.m&TAL ITA~ FOR
LIIABB SALE 60.
WHILE OUR TESTI**Y SPECIFICALLY REFLECTS THE OFFICIAL IIOROUGB
ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION IISGARDING LIIABB 8AL11 60, lf8 HAY11
RBCBIVBD A BROP.D BASE OP SUPPORT AND INFORMATION ,._ TBS PISBIWC
CC»MMJJIITY. MARY PISIISRKBII ARB PREVBIITBD PIIDH ATTBIIDING 'I'IIBSB
BEARINGS BECAUSE 80TH SHIUMP AHD KING CRAB FISHING ~S ARB
Ill FULL SWING. lf! BELIEVE OUR TESTIMONY ACCURATELY RBPLBCTS
THE FZBLINGS OF 'I'BOBB WHO NILL 88 IIOST IMPACTED BUT 11110 ARB
llNABLE TO BE WITH US TODAY.
TBB CONCERNS lf! HAVE VOICED TODAY, COUPLED III'I'B OTHER DEPICDIIICIJrS
ALR!:ADY CITED Ill PREVIOUS TESTI**Y, HAVE LIID US TO THE DBCISIOII
THAT LEASE SALE 60 SHOULD 88 DELAYED UNTIL TBS QOBSTIOIIS lf8 HAVE
RAISED ARB ANSIIBR!:D. IN THE BVBNT THIS SALE PROCSZDS ON SC11BDUL11
DESPITE OUR RBQUI!!ST FOR A DELAY OP SALII, lf! SHALL COif'I'IIRJB TO
ADVOCATE THAT ALL SBBLIKOP STRAIT BLOCKS 88 DBLBTBD r-LEASE
SALE 60.
THANK YOU.
ORAL TESTIMONY
of
Dr. David T. Roope a
OCS Conaul tant
Kodiak Island Borouqh
Presented at a Public Hearinq on the
D!IS for OCS Oil and Gaa Leaae Sale No. 60
held in Anchoraqe, Aluka
on
October 16, 1980
- 2 -
THIS DRAFT STATEMENT CONTAINS NO SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION OF ENERGY
SOURCES ALTERNATIVE TO EXPLOITATION or OCS LANDS PROPOSBD BY THIS
SAL!!. SPECIFICALLY, THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE
SOURCES Or OIL AND GAS, PARTICULARLY SOURCES OI'I'ERING LBSSI!R CHANCES
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. NOR ARE OTHER FOSSIL FUEL.TECHNOLOGIES
EXPLORED.
ALTERNATIVES OI'FI!RED HERE ARE ONLY VARIATIONS OF A SINGLE PROPOSAL
AND DO NOT ENCOMPASS A RANGE 01' REASONAIILI! AND AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES.
THE NEED FOR AN EIS TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY DISTINCT ALTERNATIVES HAS
BEEN EXPRESSED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS (ALASKA v. ANDRUSJ NRDC v.
CALLAWAYJ MONROE COUNTY CONSERVATION COUNCIL, INC. v. VOLPEJ
CALVERT CLIFFS' COORDINATING C~ITTEE v. AEC).
THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 01' THIS DRAFT FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALnE
THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE OR ALTERNATIVES OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION
AND CONTROL OF BLM.
CEQ REGULATIONS DIRECT THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY TO:
"RIGOROUSLY EXPLORE AND OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE ALL REASONABLE
ALTERNATIVES, AND FOR ALTERNATIVES WHICH WERE ELININATED FROM
DETAILED STUDY, BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE REASONS FOR THEIR HAVING BEEN
ELIMINATED."
"DEVOTE SUBSTANTIAL TREATMENT TO BACH ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED
IN DETAIL INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION SO THAT REVIEWERS MAY
EVALUATE THEIR COMPARATIVE MERITS."
"INCLUDE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE LEAD AGENCY."
THE EIS SHOULD INCLUDE SUFFICIENT ANALYSIS OF SUCH ALTERNATIVES AND
THEIR COSTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SO AS TO NOT PREMATURELY
FORECLOSE OPTIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE LESS DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS. AN
- l -
DISTINGUISHED PANEL MEMBERS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS DAVID HOOPES. AM HERE TODAY TO REPRESENT THE KODIAJ(
ISLAND BOROUGH AS THEIR OCS CONSULTANT AND TO PRESENT ORAL TESTIMONY
ON BEHALF OF THE BOROUGH.
EARLIER BOROUGH TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THESE HEARINGS HAS DELT
WITH THE BOROUGH'S POSITION REGARDING THIS PROPOSED SALE AND, IN A
MORE GENERAL CONTEXT, WITH SC':'E 01' OUR COHCERNS REGARDING DEFICIENCIES
IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT. WB SHALL TAKE THIS FINAL
HEARING OPPORTUNITY TO FOCUS ON WHAT WB BELIEVE MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL
AREAS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH I'I!DERAL ACTS AND REGULATIONS. PRINCIPAL
AMONG THESE IS THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (NEPAl
AND CURRENT COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CEQ) REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTING NEPA PROCEDURES.
NEPA REQUIRES THAT AN EIS INCLUDE CONSIDERATION Or ALTERNATIVES TO
A PROPOSED ACTION. THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY MUST GO BEYOND SIMPLY
ENUMERATING ALTERNATIVES AND DISCUSS THOSE ELEMENTS REQUIRED BY SECS.
102 (2) (C) (i), (ii), (iv), AND (Y) OF NEPA THAT ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THIS STATEMBNT. THE STATEMENT MUST INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF AS
MUCH OF SEC. 102(2) (C) (iii) AS IS NECESSARY TO THOROUGHLY ALERT
THE REVIEWER TO ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALL REASONABLE
ALTERNATIVES (NROC v. CALLAWAY: NRDC v. MORTON).
NEPA REQUIRES THAT THE EIS INCLUDE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT
A REASONED CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVES SO FAR AS ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
ARE CONCERNED. IT IS CRUCIAL THAT THE EIS PROVIDE DECISION MAJ(ERS
WITH ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT REASONED CHOICE. THE DISCUSSION
Or ALTERNATIVES HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS "THE LINCHPIN OF THE ENTIRE
IMPACT STATEMENT (ALASKA v. ANDRUS; MONROE COUNTY CONSERVATION
COUNCIL, INC. v. VOLPE).
- 3 -
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SHOULD DESCRIBE THESE ALTERNATIVES IN
SUCH A MANNER THAT REVIEWERS CAN INDEPBNDEN'l'LY JUDGE IF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STEM FROM TRYING TO MAXIMIZE ECONOMIC RETURN
OR ARE INHERENT TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT. THIS DESCRIPTION NOT ONLY
REQUIRES COMPLETE ALTERNATIVES THAT MOULD ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVE
WITH LESS IMPACT, BUT ALSO SHOULD COVER NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
AND THOSE THAT INCLUDE ELIMINATION OF "HIGH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT"
ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.
THE RANGE OF IMPACTS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED CANNOT BE LIMITED TO
THE TRADITIONAL AREA OF AGENCY JURISDICTION OR EXPERTISr. THE
STATEMENT MUST DEVELOP AN ENVIRONMENT~ AWARENESS FOR THE FULL RANGE
OF IMPACTS INHERENT TO THE PROPOSED ACTION. BY FAILING TO DISCUSS
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS OR BY DISCUSSING
THOSE ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS IN A PERFUNCTORY MANNER, AN AGENCY
DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE STATEMENT AND LAYS ITSELF OPEN TO THE
CHARGE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT (NRoC v. MORTON).
SEC. 1502.14 (b) OF THE CEQ REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY CHARGES THE
LEAD AGENCY TO:
"DEVOTE SUBSTANTIAL TREATMENT TO EACH ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED IN
DETAIL INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION SO THAT REVIEWERS MAY EVALUATE
THEIR COMPARATIVE MERITS." THE STATEMENTS THAT IMPACTS ARE
"REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY" OR MODERATED BY AN "UNQUANTIFIABLE EXTENT"
WITH ALTERNATIVES CONTRIBUTING ONLY AN "INDETERMINABLE INCREMENTAL
RISK" HARDLY PROVIDE THE REVIEWER WITH THE EXACTNESS REQUIRED TO
PLACE ALTERNATIVES IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE.
THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE CONFIRMS OUR CONTENTION THAT THE ALTERNATIVES
PRESENTED IN THIS DEIS FAIL TO MEET THE INTENT OF NEPA AND THAT
THIS DEIS DOES NOT CONFORM TO CURRENT CEQ REGULATIONS REGARDING THE
-4 -
CONSIDERATION AND PRESEN'l'A'l'ION Or AL'l'BRIIA'l'IVE COORSBS or ~0..
liE QUO'l'E FROM P. 131, PARAGRAPH 31
"IN COMPARING '1'RB DBVELOPIIIIII'l' PRASE OF 'I'D F~ WI'l'll '!'ROSS
OF 'l'RB ALTERNATIVES, I'l' IS APPARIIIIT '!'RAT '1'RB IICEIIARIOI FOR '1'B8
AL'l'ERNATIVES ARE, FOR '1'RB MOST PART, VARIATIOIIS 0. '1'RB IICEIIARIO
BSTABLISHED FOR THE PROPOSAL. ALTBIIIIATIVBB IV AND V AB8 118SIIII!ULLY
'1'RB COOK INLET PORTIONS Or 'I'D PROPOSAL'S IICEIIARIO. ALTBIIIIATIVI VI
IS ESSENTIALLY 'l'HE SOU'l'IIBRR RALr OF '1'RB PROPOSAL IIUT DirrBIIII r-
IT IN THAT EX'l'RACTBD GAS IfiLL liB RBIIIJBCTI!D 111'1'0 '1'RB I'OIIIIA'l'lO.,
'l'RE MAXIMUM CASE SCENARIO • , • 18 BXIICTLY '!'RAT OF '1'RB PROPOSBII AC'fiO., •
liE CONTEND THAT 'l'RIS 'l'O'l'ALLY lNADIIQOAT! TRBATIII!IIT Or ALTBIIIIA'l'IVU
REPRESENTS A BLATAH'l' CIRCUIIVBIITlOII Or '1'RB lRTBIIT OF IIBPA AND COIIRBII'l'
CEO REGULATIONS AND RENDERS THIS D!lS IIO'l'R TBCIIIIlCALLY AND
SUBSTANTIVELY DEFICIENT.
IN ADDITION '1'0 'l'RE LONER COOit lRLET-SIIBLIItOF STRAIT LIIASB lALII,
O'l'HER SIGrUFICAIIT FEDERAL AND S'l'ATB BIURGY DBVBLOPMBW'l' PIIOJIICTS
ARE IN PROGRESS OR PLAIIIIBD FOR 'l'RB IIBSTBRR GIILF OF ALAIIItA ltBiiiO.,
PRINCIPLE AMONG 'l'RESE IS OCS LEAS! SALE NO. 61 FOR IIHICR -IRA'l'lOIIS
ARE DUE IN NOVEMBER, 1980 AND A DillS IIY MARCH 1912, LESS TBAK A
YEAR AND A RALr FROM -. 'l'HBSE DBVELOPIIU"l'H 'l'UD AS A IIIIOLII CAN
BE EXPECTED '1'0 HAY! SIGNIFICAR'l' ClllltJLATIVB BFFI!CTS 011 '1'RB 11A1U11Z
ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE ltODlAit AIICHlPBLAGI FAR Ill IIXCZ8II or 'l'lll
IMPACT THAT NOULD BE BXPECTBD FROM ANY ON! PJIOJBCT S'l'ANDIIIG ALa.~,
IF 'l'RERE ARE SEVERAL PROJBC'I'S THAT IfiLL HAVE C1JII1JL\TIVB III7BC'III
UPON A REGION SUCH THAT THB BIIVI~AL CONSEQUIIICBS or A
PARTICULAR PROJECT CAIIN0'1' BE CONSIDERED lN ISOLATION, 'l'IIB ll8CISlOII
IIAKER MUST BE ALERTED '1'0 'l'HOSB ClllltJLATIVE IMPACTS (ltLIPPB y, SIIIIRA
CLUB).
-' -
THIS IIOIIEN'l' POSSIBLE."
A CUMULATIVE IMPACT IS DEFINED BY CSQ AB 1
" ••• 'l'RE IMPACT ON '1'RB BRVlRONMBII'l' IIHlCR RBSULTS ,_ '1'B8
INCREMENTAL IMPACT OF '1'RB ACTION -ADD!D '!0 0'1'B8Il PAS'!', PRBSIIIII'r,
AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FU'l'1JRII ACTIONS REGARDLIISS OF liRA'!' AOIIIICY
(FEDERAL OR NON-FEDERAL) OR PERSON OIIDERTAUS StJCB 0'1'B8Il .IIC'riOIII"
(40 CFR 1508. 7).
liE HOLD THAT A SUBSTAII'l'IVE NEXUB !lUSTS B~ LIIASB SALB8 60
AND 61 IN RESPECT '1'0 PO'I'ENTIAL ClllltJLATlVII IMPACTS '!'RAT IIIIPLY
CANNOT BE IGNORED. DESPI'l'E 'l'RE DICLARATIOII THAT 110 CUIIULA'l'IVB
EFFEC'l'S CAll BE DE'l'ERMINBD AT THIS TlMB B~ LIIASB lALII 60 AND 61,
CUMULATIVE EFFBC'I'S OF 'l'RB '1'HO SALBS ARB MBII'l'IOIIID ll'l'llllt DIRBC'rLY
OR INDIRECTLY ELSEIIHERE lN 'l'RE TBXT OF 'l'RlS OBIS 0. PP. 4, 11, U7,
170, 185, 199 AND 245.
liE BELIEVE THIS DEIS FAILS '1'0 CONSIDER '1'HB CUIIULATlVB IIIPAC'N
LEASE SALES 60 AND 61 IfiLL HAVE UPOII 'l'BB IIA'l'UHAL A11D IIUMNI
ENVIRONMENTS OF ltODIAit ISLAND. FUR'l'BBRIIORB, STATIIIG '!'RAT AN
EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS IfiLL APPEAR Ill '1'BE OBIS FOR SALE
61 MEANS THAT THE BLM IfiLL ONLY CONSIOBR 'l'RB ClllltJLA'l'IVJI BFFBC'I'S OF
'l'RE '1'lfO SALES ~ A DECISION HAS ALREADY BBBN RBACIIZD IIIEGUIIIIIG
THE FIRST, HARDLY THE TIME FOR LOOKING AT CUIIULATlVB IIIP.IIC'rS:
NOT MORE '1'HAN 6 MONTHS AGO THE ALASitA OCS OFFICE HELD HBARIIIGS 011
THE SECOND DEIS FOR 'l'RE AREA ENCOMPASSED IIY TN! 11011 CANC!CLED BALE
46. MERELY CHANGING THE SALB NUMBER CAIINO'l' CHANGB TRB F.IIC'r THAT
HUNDREDS OF HOURS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS HAVB LITBRALLY BBBII
POURED lN'l'O 'l'RE SALE 61 AREA IN A RESEARCH EFFORT '!'RAT HAS SPAIINBD
YEARS. lF liE DO NOT IUIOII ENOUGH ABOUT THAT AREA '!ODAY '!0 BS'l'liiA'l'E
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS lN CONJUNCTION III'l'R LEASE SALE 60, -OlD liE
- 5 -
Ill 'l'HlS DIII, COIISID&RA'l'lON OF CUIIULATlVII IMPAC'N lS BSSIIIII'rlAL IF
'l'HI DBClSlOII IIAXBR IS '!0 BE ALERTBD '!0 UALISTlC POSSIBLE CONSBQCEIICES
OF '1'BE PROPOSED .IIC'riON. 'l'RB DlSCUSSIOII MUS'!' PUR!! ISH SUCH INFOIIHATION
AS APP-RBABOIIABLY RBCBSSARY UIIDBR '1'11B CUCUMSTANCES FOR PROJECT
BVALOATIO. (lfROC v. CALLAIIAY). '1'BE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF O'l'RBR
PIIOJECTII 'l'RA'l' CAN BE BXPBCTBD '!0 HAVB SIMILAR lMPACTS MUST BE
liC~DGID.
ON P. U7, PARAGRAPH 3, OF '1'HB DRAFT 'l'RB S'I'A'l'EMBII'l' IS IIADE '!'RAT '1'RE
DISCUSSION OF ClllltJLA'l'IVB EFFI!CTS lllLL BE BASSO ON '1'RB liiT!RJIELATIOII-
SHIP OF '1'IIB PROPOSBD .IIC'riOII AND "O'l'RBR MAJOR, CURRI!IIT, AND PROPOSED
PIIOJECTII.• 'l'IIZ RBADD IS UPERUD '1'0 SBCTIOII IV.A.l.h. FOR A LZST
OF PROJKC'I'S CONSlOBRBD Ill PUPARATIO. OF '1'BE ClllltJLATIVB BFF!C'l'S
SBC'l'ION or THIS OBIS. BBU, 0. P. 148, SBC. h, liE FIND 'l'HB DRAFT
LIS'l'R O'l'HER MAJOR PIIOJECTII "IIHlCH MAY OCCUR, IN '1'HB NEAll FUTUJtE,
III'l'Hlll OR CLOSE '!0 '1'IIB BALE AREA" THAT HAVB BEEN "CONSIDERED IN
'1'IIB CUMuiATlVII BFrBC'I'II SI!C'I'IOIIS DF 'l'RlS DOCUMBII'l'. " liE FIND THAT
liE NIGHT EXPBCT CQIOLA'l'lVB BFrBC'I'II riiOM SOCH PROJECTS AS '1'HB BELUGA
COAL FIBLD MD '1'BE BRADLBY LAD HYDROELBCTRIC PROJBCT BUT THAT filS
OBIS !!!:: !!Q! IIICLUDI AN BVALOATIOII OF CUMIILA'l'IVE !Fr!C'l'S Ill RBGARD
'!0 LIIASB SALE 61: lALII 61 18 110'1' liiCLUDID BECAUSB 1
"FOR StJCB M BVALOA'l'lOII '!0 BE MADS, A'l' MINIMUM, THE ALASitA
OCS OFFICE NOULD HAY! '!0 ~ IIHA'l' '1'11B BALE 61 RESOURCE ESTIMATES
IIILL liE, IIIIAT 'l'RB AaBA8 OF PARTICULAR Ilf'l'!RBST IfiLL BE '1'0 liiDUSTRY,
COVBRIIIID'l', AND SPBCIAL IIITBRBS'l' GROUPS, A11D FINALLY, IIHAT '1'RB AREA
SBLIICTBD FOil FUII'l'RBR S'l'UDY (e.q. THE PROPOSAL) lllLL BE. AS ~ OF
'l'IIIS lNFORMATIO. IS PRBS!NTLY AVAILABLE, THERE IS NO BASIS ON IIHICB
'!0 MAitB AN !NVI~AL ASSESSNBII'I' OF 'l'RB SALE 61 AREA: HEliCE, 110
VIABLB ASSBSSNBII'l' OF '1'B8 lll'l'ERRBLATIONSRIP or 'l'RB '1'HO SALES IS AT
- 7 -
._ IIIIOUGH ABOUT I'l' 6 *-'1'118 AGO '1'0 PREPARE A DEIS FOR LEASE
BALE 46?
liB SUIIIII'l' THA'l' IIUI HAS FAILIID '!0 ASSBSS l'l'R PROPOSED ACTIOII FOR
I'l'R ClllltJLATlVII III7BC'III 011 'l'RB I!IIVIR<*MBII'l' IN DIIUIC'l' VlOLATlOII or
... A, IIBC. 102 (2) (C) (iv). liB FUII'I'IIBR SUBMIT THAT 'I'D BLM BAS,
IN M Dn'llll'flOIIAL AND PRI!NIIIIITATBD IIAIINBII, AVOIOBD ADDRBSSING SUCH
CUIIULATIVJI BFrBC'I'II AND, FUII'I'IIBit, 111 DOliiG SO HAS RENDBRBD '!'HIS OBIS
IO'l'R DIFICIIIIII'r Alii) IIIADBQUATB.
ANY 'l'ltiiA'rMBIIT OF TIIB SRVI-..rAL CONSIIQUDICBS OF A PROPOSBD
ACTIO. MUS'!' IIICLUDB DISCUSSIONS OF TIIB IIIIEliGY RBQUlRBIIBIITS AND
CONSBRVATlOII PO'l'IIIITIAL OF VARIOUS ALTBIIIIA'l'IVBS A11D MITIGATION
IIBASURBS (40 CFII 1502.16 (e) OF '1'11B CEO REGULATIONS). SECTION
1502.16(f) CALLS FOR DISCUBSIOIIS OF TRE lfA!UIIAL OR DBPLBTABL!
RESOURCE REQUIRBMBII'l'S AIID CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF VARIOUS
AL'l'EIItiiATIVBS AND MITIGATION IIBASUREB AS IIBLL.
THE PARTICULAR IICOIIOIIIC AIID TBCIIIIICAL BBIIBPI'l'S OF ANY PLANIIED
ACTlOII MUST BE ASSBSSBD AIID '1'H!N NEIGHED AGAINST 'l'RE !NVIIIOIIMIIHTAL
COS'l'R I ALTBIIIIATIVBS MUS'!' BE CONSIDERED THAT NOULD AFFECT 'l'RB
IIALANCB OF VALDIS (CALVBRT CLIFFS' COORDIHA'l'lNG CONMITTB! v. AEC).
THIS OBIS COII'I'AIIIS 110 StJCB ASSESSNBII'I' A11D lS, THEREFORE, DEFICIEIIT
UNDER EXISTING CSQ REGULATIONS.
'l'RB MIGRA'l'OIIY BIRD TRBA'l'Y ACT OF 1918 IL\S BEEN HELD APPLICABLB
'!0 11011-RUNTlNG COfiiiBIICIAL PRACTICES, CREATING CRIMINAL LlABlLI'l'Y
FOR NBGLIG!NT CONDUCT '!'RAT CAUSES TN! DEATH OF lllRDS (UNITED STATES
Y. CORBlll FARM SERVICES: UNl'l'ED STATES v. FMC CORPORATION). ,_
THE DBSCIIIPTION OF POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON MARINE BIRD POPULATIONS,
INCLUDING MIGRATORY IIA'l'ERFOIIL, FOUND 011 PP. 170-176, liE MUST
CORCLUDB '!'RAT 'l'RE DBVELOPMBII'l' OF OCS RESOUIICES IN THE LONER COOK
- 8 -
IIILft/SDLIXOP S'l'RAI'f 8ALB AltBA IIOUUl IIII!III'l'AIILY RIISOL'l' IN
VIOLA'l'IOIIS OF 'l'BB KIGJIA'l'ORY BIRD 'l'UA'l'Y AC'1'.
'1'BB COIICLUSIOII IS UACIIBD Ill '1'BB DIIAP'l' BIB (P. 183) 'l'BA'l' OILSPILLS,
IIOISB MD DIS'l'UIIIIAIICII ACCOIIPAIIYIIIG OCS DBVBLOPIIBII'l' COULD RIISOL'l' Ill
0 liCU'l'll" . DIIIBC'l' OR IIIDIIIBC'l' BPPBC'l'B 011 MARIIIB NAIIIIIILS. 'l'BIS DISCUSSION
IIIDICA'l'ZS 'l'BAT AC'l'IVI'l'IBS PROPOSED Ill 'l'BIS DBIS CAll ALSO RBSOL'l' Ill
VIOLA'l'IOIIS OF '1'BB Mlt.Rillll 11AM11AL PROTBC'l'ION AC'1' OP 1972.
Ill S~Y, I'l' IS OUR OPIIIION 'l'BA'l' '1'BS DIIAP'l' BIIVIROIIIIBII'l'AL S'l'A'l'BMBW'l'
fOR LBASI 8ALB 60 CORTAINB MAJOR DBFICIBIICIBS Ill IIBGARD '1'0 l'l'S
COIIPLIAIICB 111'1'8 A NUMBER OP FBDBRAL LAIIB AND REGULATIONS. liB AIIB
BOPBFOL 'l'BA'l' 'l'BESB SBOR'l'COIIIIIGS IfiLL BB ADEQUATELY ADDRIISSED AIID
RBC'l'IPIID Ill '1'81 FINAL BIIVIROIIIIBII'l'AL S'l'A'1'BMBII'l'. liB BBLIBVI 'l'BAT
BRINGING 'l'BBSE DBPICIBIICIBS '1'0 YOUR AT'l'BII'l'IOII A'l' '1'818 TIIIB MAY
PRECLUDE 'l'BSIR BIICOIIIIIG '1'BB SUBJBC'l' OP PUR'l'IIBR DBBA'l'B Ill '1'BB
~8 AJIEAI).
'l'BANJt YOO.
Poai tion Paper on Kodiak leland Borou9h' •
Propoaed Alternative
OUr concern h .. ne,..r been whether or not ott.hore oil develo-nt
will occur but rather when and under what conditiona. Controveray
over oil develo-nt on tha Kodiak ocs ate .. rrc. a n-.r or
apecitic concarna. our overall qoal a• the qoverninq body
ruponeible tor all Kodiak leland Borouqh reaidenta haa been to
encouraqe a qreatar public voice in all mattera aftectinq our
ahorelinea and adjacent watera. Durinq our review or BLM/OCS
oil and 9 .. leaH sale proposals, thr-: subatanti,.. iaauee ha,..
-rqed .. foci tor qeneral public concern. 'ftley are• onahore
i~cte, environmental effects and tiahinq industry conflicts.
Even this breakdown repreeenta an overet.plification of the iaauee
involved becauae each area of concern owrlapa to a qreat extent
with the others.
Althouqh reprasentativea or the public qenerally share eiailar
con.cema. it would be mialeadinq to atate that there ia aqreement
on all iaauea. The Borough's present position reqardinq Lease
Sale 60 1a relatively dynamic and repreaenta only a qeneral
coneenaus. Individual qroupa with specific concerns may articulate
positions that vary tr010 the Borouqh' • stance in 8011101 reapecte.
It was our first inclination after reviewinq this DBIS to favor
• .,.. ....Sification of BLM' s propoaed Alternati,.. IV. 'l'hh alternative
otters substantial reduction• in risk to resources or particular
concern to Kodiak Island residents.
POII'l'IOII PAPER 011 XODIU ISLAIID BOIIOIJGII' 8
PROPOIBD AL'l'BIRA'l'IVII
PREPARED BY
IIIIVID '1'. BOOPBI.
OCS COIISOLTANT
XODIU ISLAND BOIIOIJGII
KODIU, ALASKA
OC'l'OBBR 14, 1980
-2 -
.. note 011 p. 249 or the draft that eliaination of Shelikof
Strait tracts offers a 25 percent reduction in the overall riak
of a aajor oil spill. -n tha potential t.pacte or the CI sale
are ~ved. however, tha probability or reduced i~ct• in tha
critical Shelikof Strait area is markedly llfthanced. 'ftle probability
ot i~cting razor cl-beaches near Bwikahak, tor exUiple, is
reduced by about 85 percent. Siailarly, the probability of oilapill
i-cte on weatern Kodiak Ialand bays, auch as Kupreanot Strait,
declines by a like ..,unt (p. 250).
Deletion of the Shelikot Strait blocks froa the proposal would ..
aiqnificantly reduce the riska of potential oil pollution l-et•
and fiahery conflicts with reqard to a nuaber of aajor fish and
shellfish reaourcee. Por exa11ple, the probability of an oilepill
iapactinq important ahriap area• in Kukak and Kinak bays decreases
fro~~~ 31 percent (the proposal) to 8 percent under BLM' a Alternative
IV. 'ftle aliaination or a tanker route throuqh the treacheroua
water• or Whale Paaa qreatly reduces the riak to iaportant nearby
marine and coastal habitat (p. 2501. Reaoval or the Shelikof
Strait tracts and thoH adjacent to the Barren Ialande al80
qreatly reduc .. the cuaulative i-cta .. eociated with oftehore
oil develop~~ent in the Kodiak-Afoqnak area (p. 2511, especially
those iapacu that aiqht affect aarine birds. Deletion of these
tracts would aubatantially reduce the risk of oilepilla and related
effect• to major eea otter and other marine ..... 1 habitat,
particularly in the northern Kodiak Archipelago and Shelikof Strait
areas (p. 254). The oil spill risk analysis tor Alternative IV
llbowe a substantial reduction in tha probability that apilla will
- 3 -
tbe -iak Archipela90. ftll&, tbe cbaDoe of pot:eaUal 114YerM
illp&cte to endan98nd oetaoeana falla fzoa 41 perceat to 17
percent (p. 256). llajor ~ta to tbe .,._,.ity 1Afraat1'11Ct...-.
of Port Liona and -iak would alao ba aliaiD&ted. In abort,
delation of tbe Sbelikof Strait tract& fzoa La-kl• 60 would
-rkadly n41108 tbe unavoidable adv.rM effecu of de,..los-ent on
tbe raaourcea and anvi.,_,t apon wbicll ~Y of the area' a
raaidanta depend for ..-rcial 9aiD and aubehtenca.
!be nduction in riaka aaaociatad with _jariOII& tract delation•
ia predicated upon tba deta and aaalllllpUona 1111derlyin9 BLII'a
oilapill riak analyaia. ..oent reaaarch info..-tion -de available
to the -iall Ialan4 Boro119h o.au Mrioll& doubt on tbe ability
of the aodela 11&84 to detaraiAa apill trajectoriaa tbat accuratelt
predict the epead and direction of oil apilla within the propoaad
leaee eale area.
ADalyaia of llaUonal l!nvi.........,tal Satellite Service deta collected
"' over the laat year and a balf indicate• tbat tbe Alaaka ltraaa
bituo.taa off the lenai Paninaula. !be ni>rtbam portion antara
COOk Inlet aa tbe "Kenai Current.• Wara water froa thia currant
apparently liaita aaa ice diatribution to the area above a line
be-n Cape Do119laa and Anchor Point.
Freabvatar runoff ia a .. jor drivin9 force of the curant and ia
infl,..ncad fr.,. aa far aouth aa aoutheaatem Alaaka and, poaaibly,
canada. ftia runoff reaultto in .... ~ current& in the fall and
llini-in the apring. The curant penetrate& lover Cool! Inlet
and Sbalikof Strait throu9h &anna4y and Stevenson entrance&.
- 5 -
In Shalikof Strait tbe boundary of the wara water curant ia
deflected into ainusoidal wave train• and cyclonic vortioea,
particularly in the fall duing tba period of incraaaad flowa.
In October there .. y ba aa f-aa three or aa ~y aa tan of th .. a
wave create extendin9 aa far southweat down the Strait aa 500 lla
fzoa cape Dou9laa. !baM vavea ande"90 conaidarabla interaction
with the atrong tidea of the lover COOk Inlat•Sbelillof Strait
region. Wave lan9tha avera98 45 lla wbile their aaplituda doaa
not 98narally axcaad 35 lla iA -r Sbalikof Strait. They appear
to ..,. 4ovnatraaa at ba-n 1 and 2 11ilaa per hour in apita of
tbe infl,..nca of the tidea. Moreover, tbe cyclonic vorticea .. Y
either carry 80118 currenu toward the -iak Arcllipela90 or even
aet up counter current• northward alon9 the ... atam aida of the
Strait for abort diatanoea.
lie 4o not believe it ia poaaibla, in vi-of tbia new iafo..-Uon,
for the axhtin9 aodela to ••U•ta with any accuracy tbe direction,
apeed and extan~ of pollutioll avanta. llor can tbey be relied upon
to aati•t• environ.ntal illp&cta in quantitativa ta.,...
~anker accident• are alao a particular hazard with the propoaad
altarD&tive, given the difficult •taorological conditions, COIIplex
oceanic current• and attendant navigational pr0bla118 aaaociatad
with the -iak Archipala90 and Shelikof Strait region.
!bare are other aarioua 4af1cienciaa in the 4oc.._nt thet bave
incraaaad our reluctance to aupport any alternative involvin9
devel-nt at thia tt.. Of -:lor concern ia tbe failure of tbe
4ocu.nt to adequately a44reaa any alterD&tiv.a to the propoaed
-. -
lie Dn4arat:ea4 tbat eatt.taa of tbe aut--inter ooaanograpbic
oon4itiona for lover Cool! Inlet and lbelillof Strait 4o not utat
iA the -litaratara, altbo11911 IID)oar unt, J. l'bya. ~-.
t•555-563) baa pradoualy ._ted tbat tbe -of waterly
flow at tbe iAlat 110uth derivea fro~~ tbe -lf r89iOD of tbe Qalf
of Alaaka off tbe lenai ~Dla.
fta lover Inlet ia ahallov, averaging 40•10 •tara in depth, wbila
upper Shalillof Strait ia up to 180 •tara 4aap. 7ba 110uth of tile
inlet fo.,.. a "pi'OIIiD&At r&~~p-lika feat...-.• traverain9 tbe inlet
fro~~ eaat to ...,.t alon9 the lOO..tar i~th. At tbe IIOUtb,
currant• fro~~ the entranoea parallel the bottoll contour& wich
arc fro~~ llennady l!ntranca aero .. to cape Do111Jlaa and exit into
Sbelikof Strait.
~ lenai currant antera Cool! Inlet and lbelillof strait Yia
-y intrance aliiOat all tbe tt. (77 of 12 utellite ~
tiona). once iMide, it bifurcate• with one braach of vera water
axtendin9 into 0901< Inlet. 7ba graateat penatrati<!ll of tbia
curaat occua in October and early llo,...,.r, wban it -y aJ<taD4
northward to tbe POralan4a. 7ba MCOft4 braach of tbe currant
oonun ........ tvard frc. &anna4y l!ntrance aero•• tbe inlet,
parallalin9 tbe ......-bottoll oontoura of tbe •ra~~p• and into
Shalikof Strait. At bigb tide, aapacially in October, tbe vera
water .. y ovaraboot tba r..p and extend aa far aa 30 lla in tba
direction of AIIIJU&tina Ialand. ~ratara -rvationa taken
on the l'billipe and Dolly Varden oil production platfo.,.. taD4 to
verify utelllta ObMrvationa of tbe behavior an4 axt:eat: of tbe
-i curant.
-' -
action otber than variOD& tract IIUiipulationa. ftia obv1011a
aubveraion of CBQ r89ulatiOD& ia DOta4 in 110re detail el--
whare in o-.r taatiiiODy. 7ba aaoond .. :lor deficiency ia BLII'a
pointed declination to a44re .. tbe Cllllulativ. ~eta tbia propoaal
abaraa in concert vi th other propoaa4 ocs le ... ulea 8Cbadula4
for the Kodiak area. ftia aubject, too, ia delt with 110re fully
elMVbare ill our taatiiiODy.
A C0118Dnly bald view vitb re9ard to the ,... of aa axbaaatible
anviron.ntal reaourca ia that the raaourca baa value only -
extracted, or ra9ardad u a atorabouae "'aiting futara axploita-
tiOD. lie coatand tbat tbe raaouce •:r have another value,
realhad only if it 1a !!2! extracted. Noraov.r, it 1a tbe loaa
of ~ia value wbicll -Y be 110ra illport.antly irre,.raible than.
tba uaa of an axhauatible resource aucb aa petrol•-· ftie val-
.. y be t111....S the reaource'a option val,... !bat ia, tbe vel-,
ln addition to conau.r' a aurplua, that ariaaa froa retainin9 aa
option to a 90o4 or Mrvice. In tbe caaa of offabore oil, tbia ...
value include• inco. fra. other reaourca uaea 1•·9· fiahariaal
that would ba foregone ahould develo-nt occur.
Aaida froa the Obvloua desirability of protecting tba -la
.. rine raaourcaa upcD vhicb our &CODOJIY and life atyla are 1D
large part based, "" ahara a general concern with r89ard to tba
...u being of all .-bare of the ecological COIIIIUftity. lie bold
that no technology or luxury ia worth tbe irreplaceable loea of
any epeciea1 nor haa that loaa ever proven neceeeary to b.-a
auviv.l in the paat. Whalaa, Ma ottera, aaala and 4olph1Da
bava their legion• of aaviora pri•rily bacauaa -find thall to
- 7 -
be -rt, cute, affectionate or all thr-. Yet the beat evidellce
euggeate that the true foundatioD for apeciea conservation reate
with an ecoayat:ea that ukea no value judq-nta baaed on -
other living apaciea can or cannot relate to humana .
.. ahould not violate enviro...antal life support ayateu, or
even environmental ... nities, frivolously. Me ahould not engage
in enterprises for which no obviou net qain in ,.ltare for the
ca.aunity can be da.onatrated---eapecially those enterprises
that are oertain to have deleterious enviro11111ental aicSe effect&.
Given the uncertainties involved with the USGS oil spill riak
anelyaia, the major co..ercial and latent fishery reaourcea
involved, the ca-plet• absence of viable sale alternative& and
the l:otal lack of cuaulative 1-ct asaeaa-nt in conjunction with
other propoaed OCS leaH aalea in adjacent area a, we have no otber
recourae but to requeat that Lea.. Sale 60 be delayed until each
ti-aa thea• ujor deficienciea are satisfactorily rectified.
Should a 4elay in sale not be forthcominq, then we can only
reaffi~ our lonq-held poaition that ocs developDent be prohibited
in Shelikof Strait. '1'1118 position w .. firat ude clear to IIUI
in our Fabruary 27, 1979 letter to the Director. At thia ti•
the Kodiak Island Borouqh adopted Resolution No. 79-9-R requeatin9
that the Shelikof Strait be re1110ved from consideration for outer
continental shelf oil developaent aa part of OCS Lease Sale 60
with the excluion of all • ..-rqed lands in the Shelikof Strait ~•"-south of Cape Douqlaa lincludin9 tract nwobera 43, 44, ·n, 41, 131,
132, 90, 91, 92, 176, 133, 134, 135, 219, 220, 177, 178, 2i3, 264,
221, 306, 307, 308, 265, 350, 351, 352, 309, 394, 395, 396, 438, 439,
POSITION PAPER ON FISHERY RESOURCES
AHD THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
PREPARED BY
Do\YID T. HOOPES
OCS CONSULT AHT
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
KODIAK, ALASKA
OCTOBER 14, 1980
-I -
479 throaqh 413, 522 t:hroa9h 526, 565 throagll 570, 607 throavh
613, 651 throavh 656, 695 throaqh 699, 737 throu9h 742, 781
throaqla 785, 825, 826 and 127).
Position Piper on Fishery Resources
111d the illlrlne Envl ,..,.,t
The •riM resources of the Kodllk Archipelago and Shellkof Strait regions of
the northl!m Gulf of Alaska s1411'0rt several of the IIISt valuable .._stlc
c-rchl fisheries exlstlnq In the United States todl,)r. These .._stlc
fisheries represent the Olljor source of Inca. to I:Ddhk Island residents. All!l
devel-t that will dholnlsh the val,. of the several fisheries constitutes
a threat to not only the entire ec0110111 of the lsllnd but to the very w_, of
life shared (Ut the Olljorlty of the Islanders a• well.
All five species of Pacific sal., are harvested In the Cook lnlet-Shellkof
Strait regl011. P1nk sal., harvests are l11portant throughout the area. On
the Alaska Peninsula side of Shellkof Strait there are seven stre-In which
the average esc-nt exceeds IO,ODD fish lnd on the Shellkof Strait side of
the I:Ddlak Archipelago there are 14 stre-In which annual escape.ents are
greatar than IO,ODD fish. The Karluk and Red rivers have averaged 380,0DD and
320,000 pinks respectively. Both these rivers have ...:h stronger runs "" even
years and eadl had 111re than a •1111 on fish In 1978.
On the Alaska Peninsula side of Shellkof Strait r..,s of over S,ODD sockeye occur
In two rivers. On the Shellkof Strait stele of the I:Ddht Archipelago there are
13 stre•• with sockeye runs, IIISt notably the Karluk and Red rivers with average
returns of 350,0DD and ISO,ODD respectively for the last ID years. Of the
re~~~lnlnq II stre-, three have escape..,ts exceedlnq IO,ODD fish. On the
Alaska Peninsula stele of Shellkof Strait, ch• sal., are widespread with 25
rivers havlnq runs greatar than !,ODD and In three of these the runs exceed
IO,ODD. On the Shellkof Strait side of the I:Ddhk Island gro141 16 rivers have
escape..,ts exceadlnq !,ODD of whldl six have escape.ents of •re than ID,ODD.
•• z .
S1t~~~1f1c.t Cltdlls of dl1noot ul-are .... 1n the nr1-~ a1081 the
Slla1111of Stnln s1de of Jadllt lslllld.
01 tile Alasu '-1Mula ud 1• the ltodhlt Arcll1pelago virtually e....,. stre.
s..,....u I'UIII of 1nUrt1dat s.,_1ng plat llld ctou. ul-. On ltod11t th1s
s.,_1ng Sl•strate 1s •re 1IIIPOf"tallt than 1n other areas ud r1wn hl~1ng tile
laf'!lllt runs of p1111t and diu. sal-CGIIU1n the h1gllnt proportion of 111ter-
tidel s.,_.rs. 1hese raca of 1ntert1dal s....,.rs are, of course, ext.-ly
vulnerable to the ldftrse effects of 1"1 on ,...c:h1ng the shon ,_a sp111.
For the per1od ,_ 1!111 to 1975, the annual Cltdl of lt1ng c:rall fra the Slle111tof
Stre1t N91011 CGIFlsed 14 percent of the ent1re Gulf of Alasu hlnest or •
awre,. of 1,210 •tr1c: tons (lit). Approx1Mtely 22 percent of the total Gulf
u-r c:rall hlnest, •· awra,. of 2,200 lit, lOIS tann fra the Slla11kof Stra1t
re,1on dur1ng the s-per1od. The -1 Cltc:h of Dun,.ness c:ralls fra Slla111tof
Stre1t awra,ad 18 percent of the Gulf total, or 344 lit, dur1ng the 7-yur per1od
,_ 1!111 to 1975. -.. -1 c:atdl of owr 2,000 lit of panda11d shr1"' -
taken fra the Stre1t Nt~on bat.. 1!111 and 1975.
1hese fishery resourca ~ up011 the un1que hall1tats v1Ul to spec:1es
reproduction and devel.,.nt. The greatest concentrations of s..-1ng lt1ng era
occur 1• U,U11t lay, Y1eltoda lay and ICupreanof Stra1t. The shr1"' fishery 1s
COIIduc:ted 1n vlrtuall.J all the bays on the wst s1de of the Jadllt Ardl1pelago,
1nc:lud1ng the north end of Afogn~~lt Island. She111tof Stra1t south of the latitude
of Cape Douglu hu been the s1te of a shr1"' fhhery s1nc:e the early IMO's.
1he -t ~1stently produc:t1w sections, Qyalt, U,.n11t, llelt Afogllllt, llld ltl*lt,
haw y1elded total -1 catches of 1,818 to 3,545 lit w1th an average -1
Cltdo of 2,363 lit. Resource uses...,ts by the llat1-1 lllr1N Ffsher1es Service
haw "-larte c:onc:entrat1ons of shr1"' occurring 1a the put 1n U,U1k, Uglt,
111.-t lay, Raspllerry Stre1t and along the northeast side of Slla111tof Stn1t •
• 4 •
devel.,....t of f1sh eggs 1n on-polluted wters after the&:!!!!. lllrc:hant
sp1ll on Nantucket Shoals 1a Dec:eoller 1176. Longwll found that there 1s
-ting ev1denc:e that o11 1s toxic: to fish eggs llld larvae, and 1111 ba lethal
to, or adwrsel.J affect, the1r noNil cellular d1vlslon. ltbout half of all the
flab eggs ei<Mlned had on droplets llld tlr adhering to the1r c:hor1ons. F-r
cod •tiS were fouled thn those of polloc:t. ltbout zo percent of the cool eggs and
46 percent of the polloc:t eggs c:ollac:ted at SH were dead or clr1ng w1tll the1r
c:h-d1vlslon arrested. ~ polloc:t .-ryas fra stations near the s11c:lts
wre grossly Mlfonled; none wre Mlfo....S 1n s.,.les taken at dhtan\ locations.
Longwll found that the devel..-nt of abnoNil ..,..,.. -the pr1nc:1pel effect
of 101ter-so11•1e ban-on Pac:1flc: herring eggs, thus ....,..trating that-
-ll -ts of o11 can haw disastrous c:onsequeac:es dur1ng thh -t fragne
11nlt 1n the 11fe eyc:le of fishes In their natural hallltat.
llot only can a pollution -t create •rta11t.J aong larval fishes, but 1ts
affects 1111 ba ....,.. trallla farther dcJom the food web as well. 1111 ofauna,
pr1nc:lpelly tile ostracod Pontopor1aa aff1nh, s'-<1 an Increased frequenq of
abno,...l dewl..-nt or non-dlffarent1atlng eggs after the Tsesls on sp111,
,..1c:h occurred on October 26, 1977 Uout. 50 t.. south of Stoc:lthola, Sooedan.
1he drut1c: reduction Ia Nc:rofauna lbunclanc:e after the spill left 11ttle doolllt
that this lass also ws a d1rec:t effect of the on (K1-. et al., .1980). Tile
daa1nat1ng bivalve, M!l!!! edu11s, dec:11ned and drastic: affects wre noted for
the Fuc:us necrofauna 1n the area. The abundance of all Mc:rofauna species, w1tll
the possible exception of the barnac:le, Balanus 1•rovlsus, decreased In on
affectad areas.
I
OIMte to the great kelp beds a1081 the shores of ltod1alt Island and Slla111tof
Stre1t could prow s1t~~~lflc:ant. Dr. llleeler J. llorth, wst coast ulp expert,
ast1Ntes that each square 1111e of g1ant ulp bed Is worth about a 111111on dollare
• 3.
Ia edd1t1on to shlllf1sll and sal-, Slle111tof Stra1t supports stocb of ot11er
1111!111f'tant or potentially 1~t •r1• fishes. Ills-usesSMIIt .....,.,.
., IWS researdl wssels llld dlartered fllh1ng -•ls haw 11.-CGIIduc:1lld 1•
tile nort.hern Gulf of Alaska s1nce 1153 (lloolholt, et al., 1978). Tile 111--t
allundanc:es of ttnWt..,.. found 1• Slle1111of stre1t 111c1 Uget ~ay, •ll.,e polloct
In Qylt lay llld salllef1sh 1a Raspllerry Stre1ts dur1ag CrufM 0» Ia 19SI. r.
1153 turbot and 101ll.,e polloc:t wre allllldMt 1a upper Slla1111of Stre1t. Tile
est1Mted b1-s of flatfhhes 1• Slla1111of Strait dur1ng tile s .... of Ull
-44,34!1 ••
llowldflshes were also estlMted u lllundant at al-t 19,000 •• 1nc:lud1ag 12.-at
of flathead sole, 4,000 lit of roc:lt sola and 3,000 lit of hl11but. lAter surwors
(1173-H) 1nd1Cited that roundf1shes wre present In approxlMtel.J the s-
allundance but that flatfishes had Increased te 24,000 at. Slla1111of Stnl1t tlf'fen
a reMrvolr of bottoaf1sll llall1tat not exploited by f-11111 fleets and, caas 1q-t17 ,
provides an axcellect potential f1sh1ng ground for the growing u.s. bott.nsll
111dustry. 1hl exht1ng U.S. bottoaf1sh fhhery hu baen dlrec:ted at 10111•
pelloc:t llld, to a lesser uteat, Pac:lflc: cod In central Slla111tof Stre1t. n.
doMst1c: bottoafhh fishery 1n Kodiak has just started to explo1t thh .....-a.
landings of bottoaf1sll have gnMI fra about I lit In 1975 to 2,067 lit 1ttroo1g1a
.Jul.J 1979.
It had 11.-soapoc:ted fra ear11ar egg and larval S""''JS that the Slla111taf
Stre1t 111ght lie • 1111!111f'tant s..-lng a,.. for wll.,e polloc:t. Dur1ag a cra1se
., the R/YII111er F..-(IIIAA Cruise lllport, CrvlM lo. a.l) ,_Ilardi II
through 21, 1980 •s b1olog1sts dhc:owred a CGIItl-c:aoaatntl• of.,_..
1ng wll.,e polloc:t wary1ng fra one to sewnl 1111es In w1dtllllld ext.t~Mtag -
50 to 70 1111es doea the stn1t. A. CNIQ ~11, a bfo1011st and geaet1c:1st
for the JWS, hu 1n_U,.ted the ways petrol•• ~,._ affected t11a
• s •
a .JHr (Earle, S.A., 1980).
Studies of 1ntert1dal -,._,ectad to on spills s11ow tllet ~ f,. •
on sp1ll Is sl-t 1n f1N sed1-t an¥1.-ts, •re o11 ., persht
virtually Ulldllnted 1n the deeper, OQ9111 free layers for at 1-t fl .. to tan
.JHrs (Krebs and Burns, 1977). Th1s pershteat on _, c:ontf-to present a
hazard to the blolog!Cil ~HOJ for extended periods of t1M, pnwntfag 1ts
return to pre-spill produc:t1vl~ and provld1ng a potential ._of slw,
continuous on leata,. to surrounding a,...s (Y...,...•l• llld &ordon, 19:71).
lluor c:l-occur througllout the lease area •rewr tllere are sanc1r beadles.
In the Kod11t area virtually all the dlgg1ng hes .._ done • the SW!Itshalt
leach. Hanests haw renged ,_ill to tO lit but since 1975 tllere ..... ~~.
only a fw thousllld tn....-hlnested. Tile Cl-of c:atdo fl~~et.tf-
rest upon 1nst1tut1onel c:onstre1nts that NU the future of thh hooMtl7 -
predictable. A potential adsts, '-""· for hlnest1;. as audl as 450 • ..
-lly. The loat-tern pollution of rezor c:l• beadles could set back or
virtually e11111nate razor c:l• stoc:lts on affac:ted beadles for extended por1 ..
of tiM.
lllne 11ttle eftOII!Ih 1s t..... regarding !,.acts of petrol-on ll.tgher 11fe
f-, • ..., less understood are the 1..,.c:ts of sp111ed on on the prfal17
producers. To beg1n with, ltnowledte of phytoplallltton d1str1bat1• 1a the
v1c:1n1t.J of Slla111tof Strait 1s al.,.t -•htMt (Jadlalt lntr1a ~h
Report, 1980). Thh lac:lt of data 1s unfortunate In vlw of the llfgh prodac:t1YitoJ
of the regfon. Petrol•• 1a the •r1ne •vl......,t 1111 fM1b1t plwtophlltt.
pwth but !,.acts vary greatly, depeodfng up011 the specfes 1nvol ... ,
anvl..-tal c:ond1tf011s and t.Jpe llld -'ret1• of on. So Uttle 1s t..
regarding exhtfng phytoplallltton c:ond1tl-t11et no ewaluat1• of sp111 1111Kb
- 6 -
Is possible. Little IS k,_ regArding zooplankton nllllbers or distribution u
well. A thorough understanding of all Invertebrata populations Is a pre-
requslta to usesslng the conseqlllftCeS of oil and VAS developooant In the watars
surrounding Kodiak Island. JCnowladgl of the Invertebrata llfa histories,
seasonal distributions, population cb'n .. tcs, end feeding relationships 1111t be
k-.. before species vulnereblllty and sensitivity to envl,.ntal disturbances
can be detel'lllnad and used by resource •nagers In the declslon-Mklng process.
The Intertidal and shallow subtidal zonas of the Kodiak end Shellkof Strait coasts
are highly productive. Substrata type Is critical In detel'llinlng lntartldal
~tty structure. The rodfak/Shellkof Strait a...,. contains a high proportion
of bedrock and boulder substratas, ""lch support rich macroflll1te and Invertebrata
-ltles. Thus, these beaches ~be especially vulnerable to oil spills
because of the preponderance of eplllthlc biota. The relatively protected
coastlines of the Shelltof Strait area, being less susceptible to the ~~eehanlcal
effect of •-as a natural cleaning process, MY show the adverse t..,acts of a
spill event for a 1110re prolonged period and to a higher degree.
The buge n.-en. of 111rlne and coastal seabirds nesting, feeding and rearing In
the Afognak/Shellkof Strait area also rely on the coastal zone to provide their
necessary Hfe requtreooents. The three Njor pre)' species (euphausffds,
ca~lln, and Pacific sand lance} are present throughout the region fn the surface
•ter layers. Most feeding flocks of Nrfne birds occur wfthfn 5 kll of land,
usually tn areas of greatest coastline COiq)lexfty ---the s-areas that noay be
the .,st susceptible to oil spill t..,acts. Bird populations fn the Kodiak area
stand a greatar rfsk fn. oil cont .. tnatlon than those at lower latitudes. Thq
11111t endure extreooes of weather, uncertain food suppll' and the need to reproduce
In a brief period. Alreac~Y under stress fn. the harsh envfl·-nt, they are thus
particularly vulnerable to the stresses assocfatad with oil davelo-nt.
- 8 -
Science Applications, Inc.
1980. Koclfak lntarf• Synthesis Report -1980. Boulder, Colorado, 326 pp.
Vanderoeulen, J.H. and D.C. Gordan, Jr.
1976. Reentry of 5-yaar-old stranded bunker C fuel oil frc. a law-enerw
beach Into the water, sedt_.ts and biota of Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 33:2002-2010.
- 7 -
Certain Mrfne •-Is, particularly the sea I ton, sea otter and hafr seal,
depend upon the coastal zone envfron•nt. The llllrlne ..._1 Protection Act
of 1g72, Sec. 2(6), specifically states that:
• ... the prl111ry objectf ve of thel r Mnase-nt should be to Nfntaln the
health end stability of the Nrlne ecos)'sU.. •
In vfew of the high probability of an ofl spill event, the critical dependence
upon tho near shore habitat of the Sh~CYak-Afognak lslands/Shellkof Strait area
shared by sea otters and other Mrlne -h. and tho aliiiOSt certain adverse
t..,acts that will occur to 111rlne -Is, we believe the upper Shellkof Strait
area Is too critical to be Included In 1111 oil lease sale thet Is responstw In
alii' positive Mnner to the requl.....,ts of, and dangers too, these aniMls and
the other living Nrlne resources depending upon tho near shore end coastal
.nvl~ts of the Shelltof Strait portion of Sale No. 60.
References
Elrla, Sylvia A.
1980. Undersea world of a kelp forest. Nat. Geographic 158(3):410-426.
Kln-n, John J., Regnar Ehagren and Sture Hansson (ed.)
1980. The Thesis oil spill. U.S. Dept. of C01111erce, NOM Office of llllrlne
Pollution, Boulder, Colorado. 296 pp.
Krebs, C. T. end K. A. Burns
1977. Long-te .. effects of an ofl spill on populations of the salt-Nrs~
crab Uca 1!!!9!!!!· Science 197:484-487.
Ronholt, Loel l., H.H. Shippen and E.S. Brown
1978. llen!rsal fish and shellfish resources of the Gulf of Alaska fn. Cepe
Spencer to UniNk Pass 1948-1976 (A Historical Review). IIFS, Northwest and
Alasta Fisheries Centar, 3 vol..es, 972 pp. (processed).
POSlTIOII PAPER ON COII'LIANCE Willi
FF.IXRAI ACTS AND .lEGULATIDNS
PR£PARED BY
DAVID T. HOOPES
OCS CONSULTANT
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
KODIAK, ALASKA
OCTOBER 14, 1980
Position Piper on Calpltlnce with F.-.1 Acts
aftd JlttulatiDIII
Our reriw of the DEI5 for S.le 110 has reVHled at w believe te be -.lor
deflcl~~~eles with respect to -tl1111 the letter IIHI Intent of a lllllllber of acts,
regulatl•s Mid gu1delhoes. Principal _., these Is the latl-1 Ea-ul
Policy Act of 1969 Mill the c:-11 on Envl,.,.,tal Qualltr's retUhtlons on
l..,l_,tlng IEPA procedures (40 CFR 1500-1501: 43 FR 55990, lo...-.r 29, 1971;
-..... Janua.,. 3, 1979, Effective Jul.r 311, 1979). These def1c1...c:les are listed
In _.. deta11 In the fo11ow11111 discussion.
lllttonal Ean..-tal Pollq Act
IEPA requires that an El5 l,nclude consideration of alternatl-te a ....,..ed
action (42 u.s.c. Sec. 4332 (a)(C)(ttf)l. 11111 responsible atiiiQ' _, 91 ...,_.
st..,l.r -rating alternatf-and dfscoas those al-ts required b.r sees.
102(2)(C) (f), (It), (h), aJM1 (vi of IEPA whlc:ll are wltllfn the scope of the
sta-t aJM1 as .a of -· 102(2)(CI(ftf I u Is necessa.,. te thoroughly alert
the reri-r to all the envf,_,tal CDIIHCI-of all reasonable altarnati-
(IIRDC v. can.._,, !.!!!:2!:.. 524 F. 2JM1 It t2, IIRDC v. llllrton, ~· 485 F. 2d
at 834). IEPA requires that the E1S Include fnf-tfon sufficient to pe...tt a
reuoned c:llofce of alternatl-so far u envl,.,.,tal aspects are concerned.
It Is crucial, ._ver, that the EIS proride the decision IIIler wltll enougll
fnf-tlon to •t• that reuoned choice. The discussion of altarNtf-has
been c:llarectarfzed as "till llnc:llpln of the entire fiiiPict sta'-t~ ~las~ v.
Andrus, s,.ra, 580 F.3d at 474; ..,.._ c-t~ c-ervatlon c:-11, Inc. v.
Volpe, 472 F.2d 693, 697-98 (2JM1 Cfr. 1972).
The DEIS contains no sW.Stantlve discussion of -rv s~ alternative te
eJII)loftatlon of OCS hftds proposed b)r this sale. Speclflcall.r, there ts no
oeanlntful discussion of alternative sources of o11 Mid tu. partlcularl.r -
• 3-
"(b) Devote sW.Stanthl trea~t te each alternative considered In detail
Including the proposed action so that revl-" .q evaluate their COIIIPirltlve
•rlts.•
"(c) Include reasonable alternatt-not wltllfn the Jurisdiction of tile
lead ati"Q' ••
The El5 should Include sufficient analysts of such alternatl-aJM1 their -ts
aJM1 IIIIPictS on the envl..-t so u te not p.-tU...l.r foreclose options that
lllght have less detri-tal effects. An enn_,ul sta'-t should describe
these alternatl-In such a -r that revl-" can fndependentl.r Judtt If the
envlror.ental t..,acts result f,. ~~~~ to ttln •xl-econolllc return or are
lnllerent to till entire proJect.
This description not only requires ca..,lete alternatl-that -ld acco..,lfsh
the abJectlve with less fiiiPict, but also non-structural alternatl-aJM1 those
that Include alllllnatlon of certain "hlgn envl..-tal. f..,.ct• aspects of the
proposed action.
Court decisions uftder llliPA haVe established that the "deta11ed" stat....t referred
to In section 102 of the Act -t thoroughly aJII)l-all k-enri-ntal
consequences of altarnatl-te llljor proposed actions even though tills .q laed
to consideration of affects aJM1 options outside the ati"Q''S actual control.
VIewed as sl..,ly an application of IEPA's "full disclosure• requl.-nt. This
basic principle Is •ant te ensure that relevant offl'chls aftd the public are
alerted to the envf,.,.,tal fiiiPict of Federal I9IIIQ' action (see EDF v. Corps
of Englnee", 2 ERC 12110, 1267 (E.D. Art. 1971).
Furthe!Wire, the rantt of IIIIPICts which -t be considered cannot be lllllted to
the traditional area of ati"Q' Jurisdiction or expertise. IEPA fR essence adds
1 new Mndate te the enabllllll legislation of all agencies, requlrlllll till
developoent of enriror.ental -.-ss for the full re1191 of l..,.cts of proposed
-2-
offerlllll lesser c:llances for envl..-tal .....,.. lor are other fosstl f•l
techllolotles such H the flash conve"lon ....-s, ~tical gas~~
w f1 utd1 zed bed sys-•Jill lored.
1ll1t alternatives offered here are only variations of a sf1111le ....,...1 and dD
110t ~ the wide r~nt~ of reasonable and avallallle alternatf-. The _.
for an EIS te clearl.r Identify distinct alternatives has b.-eJII)ressed • ..--1
occasions (Alaska v. Andrus, 580 F.2d 465, 474 (D.C. ctr. 1978); !RIC v. can.,..
524 F.2d 79, 92-93 (211111 Clr. 19751; Monroe c-tr c-ervatlon e-n v. Yolpo •
.fi!.t; calvert C11ffs' Coordinating c-. v. Atow1c Energy c-•a, 449, F.2d at
1114). The EIS -t also consider those altarnatl-to tile proposed actl• tut
.q either partially or ca..,lately -t the proposal's goal Mid It-t .,., .. te
their COIIIPir.ttve .rlts (IIRDC Y. C.n...,, 524 F.2d 79 (211111 Ctr. 197Sh JaDe •·
llllrton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Clr. 1972).
The altarnatl-are, for the -t part, non-ana.l.rtfcal In nature aJM1 the DEIS
falls to adequately anal.rze the lo Action alternative or alternatl-_, ..
the jurisdiction aJM1 control of the lead agency (lUI). 11111 altarnatl--
•lghed IR favor of the proposed action aftd do not lll!lhaslze llftlgatlon --
MJond exlst11111 stat~ provisions. lOr does tills DEI5 cross-ref-HC:tf-
on affected enri_,t or envl-ntal consequences.
Section 102 (2) (D) of IEPA eJII)ressly directs Federal agenclas to:
•stoqo, develop aftd describe appropriate alternatl-te ...-olded courses .r
action In 1111 proposal ""lch Involves ..,resolved conflicts concernfllll altjtrllathe
-of avatlallle resources. • 40 CFR 1502.14 (a, b aftd c) directs the respooosfb1e
agency to:
"(a) Rigorously eJII)Iore aftd abJectlvely evaluate all reasonable alteraatl-,
aJM1 for alternatives which were elllllnated f,. detatled stuotr, brlefb d1saoss
the reasons for their having been e11111nated. •
-4 -
19111Q' action. ly falling to discuss reesonably fores..-le altarnatl-aJM1
l..,.cts or by discussing those alternatl-aJM1 IIIIPICts In a ~ -·
111 19111Q' defeats the purpose of the sta-aJM1 la.rs Itself open te tile
chartt of non-ca..,lhnce with the Act (IIRDC v. lorton, 3 Ellt 1551, 2 ru 20DZI
(D.C. Cfr. 1972). Here the court afffrw4 the d1strtct ~·s "'11119 tllet U.
Interior Depa~t's 1D2 sta-t on a proposed sale of leases fw otl and,_
extraction on the OCS ws legall.r Inadequate. 11111 court held that tile 11112
sta-t was required to discuss the eoon..-tal effects of ,........1• alar-
native coursas of action, Including coursas of action not within tile llltloorif;J' of
the Departsent te adopt.
Eari-ntal l..,.ct sta-nts shell also state hclf altenoatl-_,..,.. fa
U.. aftd decisions based on thea will or will not achieve the Nllul-a of
sections lDl aftd 102 (1) of MEPA aftd other envl-.tal 1-aJM1 policies (40
CFR 1502.2 (d) of the current CEQ regulations).
Ill nota that CEQ Regulation 15D2.14(e) calls for the lead I9IIIQ' te Identify fta
preferntd alternative aftd we ass-that Alternative I represents saltl preferTW
alternative. The dlsclal•r appearing on p. 25 of the draft, '-'-"• dDes .at
appear to .. t the Intent of the CEQ regulation referred te above. Ill~
Identifying a preferred alternative, the lead lti"Q' leaves the decision ..ar fa
11a "".,; att...,tlng to •te an Intelligent J..tv-nt regarding alternative
proposals and their relative t..,acts and •rlts. It 1s lnclllloeoot ,._ the leatl
agency to provide the reviewer with sooe direction, by •ans of ldentffyt"'l a
preferred alternative. 11111e we believe the -.lor portion of this 1)(15 cleart.r
points to Alternative I as being preferred by BUI, tlMi sta-t on p. 25 dDes
not, In our view, Mke our understaftdlllll of BUI's Intent ~vocal.
- 5 -
Sec. 1502.14(b) of the CEQ regulltlons specifically cherges the lead aveney
to: "Dtvote substAntiAl treatoant to Mch altei"'WWtlve considered In dete11
lncllldlng the PnJPOSad action so thet revl-rs -.y evallate their ~retlve
•rlts.• The sta-ts thet t..,.cts are "red-.! substantially" or _,.retad
by an "unquantlfhble extent" with altei"'WWtlves contributing only an "lndete...tn-
lble t"nc,...nhl risk" hardly provide the revl-r with the exactness required
to place altei"'WWtlves In proper perspective.
11111e ,. fully appreciate the unquantlflable nature of IIICII of the lnfor.tlon
needed to evaluate various altei"'WWtl-,,. k-that catch and effort
stAtistics exist for reporting areu falling within certAin risk problb111ty z-.
Thus, probable losses to fishery values could be estl•tad. llalohere In the'*"
of tills DEIS, however, Is the value or Ngnltude of the 'several c-rclal
fisheries Involved even IIOfttloned, except for aggregated catch statistics for
recent years found In Table III.B.2.c.-1 through 6 and Table IJI.B.2.d.-1 through
6.
The followlfti pessave conflra our contention that the alternatives presented
In tills DEIS fall to -t the Intent of IlEPA and that tills DEIS does not conf-
to current CEQ regulations regarding the consideration and presentAtion of
alternative courses of action. Ill quote fi"CCII p. 131, paragraph 3:
"In co-paring the de .. lop.tnt phase of the pnJPOSal with those of the
altei"'WWthes, It Is apparent that the scenarios for the alternatives are, for
the -t part, variations on the scenario established for the pnJPOSal. Altei"'WW-
thes IY and V are essenthlly the Cook Inlet portions of the proposal's scenario.
Altei"'WWtl .. VI Is essentially the southern helf of the proposal but differs frDII
It In thet e.tractad gas will be reinjected Into the fo ... tlon. The ••l-
ease scenario .•• Is exactly that of the p~ed action. •
- 7 -
to Section IV.A.l.h. for a list of proJects considered In preparation of the
c.-latt .. effects sections of tills DEIS. Here, on p. 148, Sec. h, ,. find the
draft lists other llljor proJects "which -.y occur, In the near future, !!U!!!Jl .!![.
close ~the sale area• (eoopllasls added) that heve been "considered In the
c.-lltlve effects sections of tills doc-nt. • Ill find that we 111ght expect
c.-lltlve effects fi'QI such proJects as the Blluga Coal Field and the Bradley
Lake lb'droelectrlc ProJect but that tills DEIS !!!!J,. NOT Include an evaluation of
c.-lithe effects In regard to Lease Sale 611 Sale 61 Is not Included because:
"For such an evaluation to be Nde, at 111n1-, the Alaska OCS Office would
have to k-what the sale 61 resource estiNtes will be, what the areas of pa1"-
t1cular Interest will be to Industry, goverrwnt, and special Interest groups,
and finally, what the area selected for further study (e.g., the proposal) will
be. As none of tills lnforNtlon Is presently available, there ts no bash on
which to Nke an envlrOIIIIII!ntal assess111nt of the sale 61 area; hence, no viable
assess110nt of the Interrelationship of the two sales 1s at tilts -nt possible. •
A c.-latl .. IIIPict ts defined by CEQ as:
• ... the IIIPICt on the envlror.nt which results fro~~ the lnc...,.ntal l~t
of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertAkes
such other actions". (40 CFR 1508.7).
lie hold thet a substantive nexus exists between lease sales 60 and 61 In respect
to potential c.-latl .. l .... cts that SIIIPlY CIMOt be Ignored. Dtsplte the
decllratlon that no c.-lathe effects can be deterlllned at tills tl• between
Lease Sale 60 and Sale 61, c.-lathe effects of the two sales are nentloned
either directly or Indirectly elsewhere In the text of this DEIS on pp. 4, II,
127, 170, 185, 199 and 245.
-' -
Ill -tend thet this totally Inadequate trea-t of altei"'WWtl-represents a
blatant c1rc-t1on of the Intent of IlEPA and current CEQ regulatl-and
renders this DEIS both technically and substantively def1c1•t.
In lddltl1111 te the L-Cook lnlat-Shellkof Strait lMsa sala, other s1g~~1f1UIIt
federal and stAte enerv develop.tnt proJects are In progress or pliNIId for tile
western Gulf of Allskl region. Principle -s t11ese Is OCS Lease Sala liD. 61
for ..,tell nolllnatlons are due In ...,...., 1910 and a DEIS by Ilardi 1911!, les~
than a year and 1 helf fi"CCII -· These de .. l~ts tAken as a lllola ca. be
expected to heve significant c ... htlw affects on the MriM envl..-nt surroo.t-
lng the Kodiak Arclllpelago far I• excess of the l~t that would be expected
fi"CCII WAY -proJect standing al-. If there are several pt'Qjects thet will
haw c ... latlw effects 141011 a reg1• sucll that tha •v1-ntel _..q-
of a partlculare proJect cannot be considered In Isolation, the declsl• lllbr
-t be alerted to those c..,lltlw 1~ts (Kleppe v. Slarre Club, .!!I!U• 472
U.S. at 409-10).
In tills DEIS, consideration of c ... latlve t..,acts Is essential U the dec1s1CIII
Mker Is to be alerted to realistic possible consequences of the proposed actl1111.
The discussion of c ... latl .. 1..,.cts Med not be owrly dete1led; llke ot11er
ospects of the EIS, 1t ts governed by the rule of reason. The discussion -t,
howe .. r, furyttsh such lnfo ... tlon as appears reasonably necassary under tM
clrc-t.nces for proJect evaluation (see MIOC v. tall-. 524 F.2nd 79, a,
2nd Clr. 1975). The c ... lotlve effects of other proJects thet can be e~tad
to hew s1•11ar 1~ts -t be ack-ledged.
On p. 127, parograpll 3, of the draft the ste-t Is Nde thet the dhcussl•
of c.-latlw affects will be besad .... the Interrelationship of tile proposed
action and "other -.Jor, curraet, and pnJPOSed proJects. • The reaoter Is referred'
-. -
Ill belle .. tills DEIS falls to consider the c..,latlve l~ts lMse sales 60
ond 61 will hove 141011 the natural and h-n env1..-nts of Kodlot Island.
Furtherwore, stetlng that an evaluation of c-lothe effects will oppear 1• tha
DEIS for Sale 61 •ans that the 8UI will only consider the c ... latlve effects of
the two soles ofter a dectsl• has alreed,y been reoched regarding the first,
hardly the t1110 for looking at c-latlva t..,.ctsl
IIDt •re than 6 _,ths ago the Alaska OCS Office held hearings • the second
DEIS for the area enco..,.ssed by the -canceled Sale 46. Merely chenglng the
sale n...,.r cannot 'chenve the fact that hundreds of hours and thousonds of dollors
heve literally been poured Into tlla sale 61 area In a research effort that has
spiMed years. If we do not know enough lbout that area ~ to estl•te
c ... latlve effects In conJunction with Leose Sale 60, how did ,. k-enough
about It 6 _,ths ago to prepare a DEIS for Lease Sale 467
Ill sublllt that the 8UI has failed to assess Its proposed action for Its
c-lotlw effects • the envlron~~~nt In direct violation of IlEPA, Sec. 102
(2)(t)(1v). Ill further sublllt that the ILM has, In on Intentional and pre-
-ltatad •-r, avoided oddresslng such c ... latlve effects and, further, In
doing so has rendered tilts DEIS deficient and lnldeq~ate.
~til¥ treatlllnt of the envlron.nt.l consequences of a proposed octlon, Sec.
102(2)(c)(1) of NEPA, -t Include discussions of the ••rv requl.-nts and
conservotlon potential of vorlous altei"'WWthu ond 111tlgatlon •asures (40 CFR
1502.16(e) of the CEQ regulations). Section 1502.16(f) calls for discussions of
the natural or depletable resourca requl,....nts and conservation potential of
various oltei"'WWtl .. s and •ltlgatlon •asures os wll. The particular econolllc
and technical benefits of any pla-.1 octlon -t ba assessed and then wlghed
ogalnst tile anvl..-nhl costs; alternatives -t be considered that would
affect the balanca of volues (Cihert Cliffs' Coordinating c-. v. A£C, !!2· £!1.).
-g -
lie contend that It Is lnc..,.,.t upon 1111 Federal agency to ~trote that 1
proposed action Is not only cost effective but energy effecthe IS .. n If
that agency Is to fully respond In an aggressive and positive •-r to the
Adalnlstratlon's ... elites of energy self-sufficiency and conservation. In
the put agencies have bevn required to Include 1 section explaining how the
benefits and costs are calculated, and then detell ""•t IU. are Included IS 1
benefit or cost and the valuation of each (~ Henry Bird Club v. Laird, 35!1
F.Supp.404,414(11.D. Ya.l973), Iff'~, 484 F.2d453(4th Clr. 1973); see also EDF
v. TVA (Tellico Dill II), 371 F. Supp. 1004, 101Q-1011 (E.D. Tem. 1973), aff'~•
492 F.2d 466 (6th Clr. 1974); EDF v. TVA (Tellico Dill 1), 339 F. S~p. 806
(E.D. Tenn. Jg72), Iff'~, 468 F.2d 1164 (6th Clr. 1972); Alab-!! rel.
Baxley v. Corps of Engineers, 411 F. Supp. 1261, 1268-1271 (N.D. Ala. 1976).
Still other courts have gone further and have undertaken 1 substentltlve reviiW
of benefit/cost analyses and •thodology, requiring In particular that envl.--..-
tll "i:osts• be Included ""ere sl•ll•r envl...,.,...tel "benefits" have been credited
to the project (Sierra Cl.., v. Froehlke, 359 F. Supp. 1289, 1363 (S.D. Tex. 1973),
!!!'~ J!!l ~~sub~· Sierra Cl.., v. Call_,, 499 F.2d 982 (5th
Clr. 1974). See olso Alab-!!.rei. Buley v. Corps of Engineers, 411 F. Supp.
1261; NontgGRI)' v. Ellis, 364 F. Supp. 517, 532-33 (N.D. Ala. 1973).
Private enterprise can write off the costs Involved with exploration and develop-
•nt IS tlx deductions.• But Fede~al agencies, dealing as they do with public
resources and tex dollars, cannot legally or ooorolly afford that luxury. It Is
absolutely essentlol for 1111 rational evaluation of lease sale No. 60, o~ 1111
other leASe sole for that •tter, to cte.nstrate the relationship of expandltures
to expected returns, not only for dollars spent but for energy e..,..,..... In other
words, Is there 1 reasonoble expectation that the BTUs derived froa devel~nt
of the resource will exceed the BTUs required to develop, produce and traMport
the product(s) to Its ultl•te point of cons1111Ptlon7 If not, then the entire
-II -
ILN Guldell-and Lease Sale Schedule
Out of the 22 offshore leasing areas considered for sales during the 1980-85
period by the ILM, Industry ranked Sole 60 as 16th In resource potential ond
13th for Interest In exploration (Proposed Fhe-Yeor OCS 011 and Gas Lease Sale
Schedule, March 1g8Q-Februal)' 1985, USDI/FES). This .Interest rating 11111 have
been altered s-""at by the drilling of 7 dry holes In the Cl sale.
At the begiMing of 1980, Sale 60 ranked lith out of IS proposed sales In ••n
estl•ted resource aullablllty and wos estl•ted to contain 160 •llllon barrels
of oil (2.4 percent of the total estimated production and 2.7 percent of the total
area proposed for leasing, 5-year Schedule FES, p,43). The •an estl•te In the
DUS for Sale 60, however, places total production at 670 llllllon barrels (Table
ai.B.1.a.-1). It Is difficult to know IOhether this lncreose of over 4-fold Is
due to ..., lnformtlon, the addition of Shellkof Strait leose tracts or 1
comlnatlon of both. No explanation Is offered by the BLN to account for this
quad~llng In potential production over 1 period of just 8 -ths. The basts
for this huge Increase should be ... ll doc-nted In the FES. This latest
estl•te would place Sale 60 In 6th position with regard to potential oil produc-
tion If the val..s estimated for the other Alaska sale areas remln unchanged
froa those presented In the 5-Year Sale Schedule FES.
lllgratorx Bird Treaty Act
The lllgratol)' Bird Treaty Act of 1918 has been held applicable to non-hunting
c.-rclal practices, creating crl•lnal lhbillty for negligent conduct that
causes the death of birds (see United States v. Corbin Fa~ Services, 444 F.
Supp. 510 (E. D. cal. I, off'~.!..!!. 2!!!_, 578 F. 2d 259 (9th Clr. 1978); United
Stotes v. FMC Corp., 572 F. 2d 902 (2nd Clr. 1978). Froa the description of
possible !.pacts on •rlne bird populations, Including •lgratory waterfowl,
-10 -
proposal Is absolutely Inconsistent with Ill)' rational enerw progr-. To dllte,
OCS devel-t In the Gulf of Alaska represents an energy deficit of conslderlb1e
•gnltude. Yet, IIOIIhere In this DEIS do,. find 1111 estl•te of the relatloaslltp
bebleen dollar expandltures and estiNted return or energy required for that wlltdt
lll~t be gained. Sl.ply, there Is no •asure of the cost effectiveness of tile
proposed action. 11111 lease sole 60 bee-part of the energy probl•, or will
It contribute to the solution. How can !!ll decision be •de regarding the
deSirability of the proposed action without knowing the costs Involved ond Nlat-
lng tha to the probability of 1 return that _., or _., not exceed the level of
Inves-t?
l'lle worst case anol1sh described In this oEIS Is Inadequate according to arre.t
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22). While the BLN has prepared 1 worst case
analysts covering endingered cetaceaM (p. 281), such an analysts does not .. t
current regulation stipulations because It !!!Jl. considers effects on endangered
IOhale species. Under current CEQ regulations, however, the -st case lftll,ysls
-t alert the decision •ker to the costs of uncertainty beyond just .......,.,....
species.
Agencies are required to Identify Ill)' •thodologles used and shill ..U explicit
reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied -for COIIC1U5t-
ln the stat-nt (40 CFR 1502.24). Stau.tnts on pp: 151 and 165, _.g au-s.
are not so referenced.·
According to CEQ regulations the draft enYironaoental l.,.ct state.nt she"n list
all Federal pe~lts, llceMes, and other entltl-ts IOhlch -t be obtai-I•
l.pl-tlng the proposal. This DEIS falls to Include such 1 list and is,
therefore, deficient on this count.
-12 -
found on pp. 170-176, ,. -t conclude that the devel-t of OCS resources In
the Lower Cook lnlet/Shelikof Strait so1e area would Inevitably result In
violations of the lllgrotory Bird Treaty Act.
The DEIS notes (p. 175) that the •greotest risk tc! coastal bird habitats choe
to oil spills Is within Shellkof Strait. • The DEIS concludes that "clependl119
on the location, she, ond season of the spill, thousands and perhaps sewnl
hundred thousond birds could be directly killed by 1 large ollsplll •.• vulnereble
species could take as long as 50 years to recover froa 1 single SO pe"*lt
mrtlllty event. • froa these stat ... ts It would oppear that the proposed
alternative has evel)' likelihood of causing ooortallty to lllgratory birds, -
thereby violating provisions of the Migratory Bird Treoty Act. lie note that
Alternative IV would greotly reduce the probability of such adverse effects to
lllgratol)' birds. Del~tlon of the Shellkof Strolt blocks would reduce the
probability of ollsplll contact ot sea ond .. rkedly lower the probability of
risk to coastal habitats (p. 251).
The conclusion Is reached (p. 183) that ol)spllls, noise and disturbance
accQIIIPIII11ng OCS devel-nt could result In •acute• direct or Indirect effects
on •rloe -1s. This discussion Indicates thlt activities proposed In this
DEIS can result In violations of the Morine ""'-1 Protection Act of 19n. lie
note, however, that the DEIS concludes (p. 254) that Alternative IV would afford
a "substlntlal reduction" In risks to Njor sea otter and certain harbor seal
habitats, partlcuhrly those In the northern ICodlak Archlpelogo ond Shellkof
Strait, when coq~ared to the proposal.
The ollsplll risk onalysls for Alternative IV shows o substantial reduction In
the probability of a "spill contact and potential spill effects to endangered
ond non-endangered cetaceans In the nearshore areas of the northern and nortt.-
ustern ICodlak Archlpelogo and Shellkof Strait, especially the eastern side.
-13 -
Risks -ld drop fro. 48 percent (proposed action) to only 17 percent under
Altel'lllltlft IV. The DEIS concludes (p. 192) that the posslblli~ exists for
Mldangerecl 111d non·enclangerwd cetaceans to sustain direct and Indirect
effects In INH of high risk such as the northern Kodlok Arch1pel190 ond
eostern Shelikof Strait. The c...,hthe problbtll~ of oilspllls Is high In
these oren. lie conclude fro. this dtscusston thot Alternathe IV offers •
stgntfiCMit reduction In proboble l111p1cts to endongered cetoceans fro. OCS
devel.....,t ""11e, of oll the olternotlftS, the proposal pos .. the ODSt potenttol
for cetace111 dis turbonc:e.
PAGE BY PAGE REYIEll
p. I, Eoivl,.,...ntal l~~p~cts, puo. 3, line 2
Ch111ge •u-• to "It" to agree with "each" on the preceding ltne
p. II, poro. 5, ltne 6
Add •s• to "exist" to agree with "population"
p. 111, pora. I, ltne 20
Dtlete "using an extended horvest ronge• ond Insert "extending the harvest
range"
paro. 2, ltnes 5·9
lie foil to see how l"""cts •centering on the effects of COIIIpetltlon for
scorce c-1~ 90Qds and services• ore expected to be "Interpreted prl•rtly
as benefits. • The flnol EIS should exphtn how this tnterpretetton Is reoched
and upon whit outhort~ this clll• Is bued.
Neither here nor elsiWhere In the droft do we ever see 111re thon Illusion to the
perceptions of Port Lions residents towords OCS developoant. Everywhere, however,
,.. IN led to belteve Port lions residents will welc-OCS developoant. Yet,
when ,. read closely ,. find thot the "effects ore expected to be Interpreted
prt•rlly as benefits. • Expected by ""om? Interpreted by ""om? llowhere In the
draft Is there ony Indication that ony offlchl poll or vote was token to
substenttote these suppositions. One reference Is •de on p. 198 to tilts with
Port Lions residents that "suggest thot the town would respond well to 1 change
of this •gnltude. • lie seriously question the voltdtty of this perception on the
port of Bl.ll ond ut that It be fully substonttoted In the final EIS for Lease
Sale 60.
p. 111, poro. 3, line 4
lie are not os dlsenchonted with 1 "slow" growth rate of 3 percent u the Bl.ll
1ppears to be. After all, 1 t Is the horrendous growth rate that has gotten us
Into the fuel crisis to begin with. Any Inference that • low growth rate Is bod
ORAFT EIIVIROIIOTAL I .. ACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED OUTtR CONTIIIEIITAL SHELF
OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE
LOWER COOk INLET /SHELIICOF STRAIT
SALE NO. 60
Page by Page Review
prepared for the
Kodlok Is land Borough
P.O. Box 1246
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
by
Or. David T. Hoopes
The Townsend ~
20207 liE !48th St.
lloocltnvtlle, IIA 99072
Septelllber 15, 1980
Is subjective and should be ovotded.
p. 111, para. 3, lost sentence
- 2 -
lie fall to see how the lene sole -ld Ill expected to produce "ltttle or no
ecCIIIo.lc stl•lus to the vllloges on ••• Kodiak Island. • Port lions Is located
on Kodht Island ond the first s.,tence of the poragroph SI,YS the location of an
on StoNge ond tanker tenolnol fac111~ neor Port Lions would creote 1 •Jor
econ..,tc stt•lus. One or the other of these stot-ts •st be In error.
p. h, Alternotlfts to the Proposed Action
The selection of alternotlftS foils to-t the Intent of IlEPA as set forth
In the latest CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508; 43 FR 55990, llov. 29, 1978;
Aonded Jon. 3, 1979, Effective July 30, 1979). The alternatives offeNd here
are only vorlatlons of a single proposol ond do not enco~~p~ss the wide range of
antllble opportunities. The alternothes ore, for the IDSt porto non-onolyttcol
In noture and the DEIS fatls to edequotely anolyze the llo Action olternatt., or .
olternotlftS outstde the Jurisdiction and control of the lud agency. The
alternottves are .. tghed In favor of the proposed action llld do not IIIIPh•stze
M1t1getton IIIHSures ~ond existing statutory provisions. llor ttoes this DEIS
cross-reference sections on affected envl,.,...nt or envlr"OIIIIIntol conseq-ces.
p. v, Local 6oftrnlllftt
The list of offtctols fro. Kodtok Is outdoted. It h true, however, that
these lndhlduols M.Y have been lnc.....,t ""en scoptng c-ts for Lease Sele
llo. 60 .. re solicited by ILM.
p. 10, Estlblts._,t of Colllplnsatory Funds, pora.
We should ltte to note In passing thot any clot• settl-nt reached to
cQOIPensote for a loss of natural resources will be purely orbltrary because It 1s
IMpossible to determine the full extent of envl,.,...ntol d-ge resulting fro.
any oil-related perturbation.
p. II, Sec. 2, pora. 3, line I
"Contingency• should read "Cc...,ensatlon"
• 3 •
p. 23, Sec. A, ~ro. 1, line 3
Delete c-after "settings" ond Insert ofter """lcll"
p. 25, ~ro. 2
111 ore 'lt 1 loss to understand how, on the one hond, tills DEIS praports
to present us w1tll 1 description of 1 proposlcl action ""11e, ot the s.-tl•,
the BLM tells us thlt all scenor1os only represent COftdltiOIIS tllot, at present,
-likely lind do not represent • Bl.ll rec-.dltlon, preference, or endors-t
of fec111ty sltas, or deftlop.ftt sme.s.
111 note thlt CEQ Regulation 1S02.14(e) colls for the lead ager~cy to Identify Its
prefel'l'ed olternothe IIIII,. •ss-thlt Alternotlft I represents sold prefel'l'ed
alternotlft.
The dlsclol.r ..,....rtng on p. rs of till dreft does -oppeor to -t the lntellt
of the CEQ ,....iatlon referred to ....,., lllu-t l•tlfylng • prefel'l'ed
oltarnothe, till lead ogency la•-the declslon-•tar In lleo....., ot~tlng
to •ta on Intelligent Jud9aMtlt ~rdlng olternothe proposols ond their
relatlft h111ects and •r1ts. It Is lnc...,.t -the lead agency to pi'0¥1de
the revl-r w1tll s-direction, by -of Identifying • prefel'l'ed altarnotlft.
11111e,. belleft the -.lor portion of tills DEIS cleorly points to Altarnotlft I
IS being prefel'l'ed by Bl.ll, the sto-t on p. 25 does not, In our view, ..te
our understanding of lUI's Intent unequhocol.
p. 26, ~ro. 3, line 3
Insert ~ oftar "Penlnsulo'
p. 29, Potantlol llltlgotlng llauure llo.
u
111 hoft no dlso~t w1tll the •ltlgotlng .. sure of pNtactlng PNtruslons,
If feoslble (""otaver !!!h ••ns). 111 ~ It Is !.l.!!!z!_ feulble to offer-
•asure of pNtactlan to an establlshlcl user (I.e. flshe.-n). llllt,. -t to
"-Is, will tile ••sures wort? All the stlpulotlons In the world IN--
the ~r tlley ore printed an If the geor can't ~ss over tile sii'Ucture.
• 5 •
In tlleo17 but there Is not 1 nucleor reoctor In the ..,lted Stotes w1tll an 10
percent plant foetor and !!2 plutonlu. rec,ycllng Is -taking place. Tllus,
It Is abSurd to consider 1 nucleor reploce.nt u vllble, especlolly since no
~rotlft costs .,.. Included. Cost OftrTIIIIS, delays, eccldents, shodiiY ond
unsofe construction and llbor disputes have pushlcl costs of the two lllshlogtan
Public Power Supply Sys-(IIPPSS) reactors at HMford, IIA to ast.-tcal
figures thet Increase at such a rata there Is little point In quoting U.
here becaoae they will be out of deta -by a llllllon dollars or •re.
p. 47, Sec. C, ~ra. 4
Sec. 1502.14(b) of the CEQ Regulations speclflcolly Cherges the lead
agency to: 'Devote substantial treat.lnt to uch altamatlft considered In detotl
Including the pNpolld action so tllat revlewrs 111)1 evaluate their ~ratlft
•r1ts. • The sto-ts that IIIPICts are 'reduced substentlally" or IIOderoted
by an '..,quantlfllble extant' w1tll altarnotl-contributing 011ly en 'lndetarllln-
lble Inc-til risk' hardly pnwtde the rev!-w1tll t1101e tangible handles
required to CGM to grips w1tll altarnotl-so tllat they 111J be placed In
P"'Pir ~rspectl,. w1tll Hch oeller. Lite • handful of Silly Putty, Hch
oltarnotlve always .-Ins Ins-_,rphous, Intangible stota, defying all
the revl-r's ottapts to pin It dolon for Inspection.
lillie ,. fully appreclota the Ullfll*ltlflable nature of s-of the deto, ,.
-thot cotch ond effort statistics exist for stltlstlcol reporting areas
falling within certain risk pi'Gblblllty -· Tllus, pi'Gblble losses to flshe17
volues could be estl•tlcl. llawhere In the booiY of this DEIS Is the value or
•gnltude of the several ~rclal fisheries lnvolvlcl even .entloned.
p. 50, ~ra. 3, line 2
Change -..re• to """s • to agree w1 th 'share'
• 4.
.. ,.,_to tests, s~es, etc. -.ld be IBiful here to help the,...._
assess Clle ldeqUK;Y of tills -ure.
p. 30, Eveluath• of Effect!-•
111 aN -certal11 after reading tllh ~,..,.....,.. •tiler or 110t till --
-ever ectuelly adopted. lie read thet the -ure 'showld be adopted' Mil
tllat there-"..,--t to adopt' but IICIIIIIere 1s 1t clurly stated thet tile
... s,... Is -In effect for tllh pNpoled sale. Slllllar -.!log on pp. 31, 33,
35 ond 36 also luds us to quest1011 tile final disposition of till --Ia
question.
p. 40, ~ra. I, line 12
TIIIIIPONI'l' lntarleNnce to fts•tng In llzJHQtat k1 Is referred to. The ladt
of dati ,....rd1og till type(s) and -..•w. of tills fi111M7 ..._ 1111 -lytical
evaluation of tills I~ l~s1ble ••• IJICIIPt, possll1ly, far -actl•
In thet ~rtlcular fishing arH.
p. 40, Sec. 2.b., ~ra. I, line 3
lie ~ acapt the prelllse thet -holding Sole ISO will 'cruta till
national need to de.,.lop altarnotlft _,... sources.• Tills need has.,_ m-.t
for s-tl• and has long been recognized by leading ......., autllor1tles In botlt
goft,_t IIIII lndUSt17.
~re. 2, line 6
To sey thet sale conc:ellatlon will result In lncreeslcl I~ Is only tJW
!! on and gos ore '-<! In ~lal quantities. It Is equally IS nltd to ,_
thet holding Sole llo. 39 In the nortlllrn Gulf of Alaska res•ltad In 1~111!1
foreign 1-rts therefore Sole ISO should J!21 be held for fur of lacreaslng U..
s-aorell
Table 11.8.2.b.·1
The nuclur copeclty and fuel requl-ts to replace till llltlc1Nted o11
ond gos production f.,. proposed OCS Sale ISO 111)1 equal the antlcl~tad -w loss
. ' .
p. 51, ~ra. 2, line 3
The observatloa thet • rota of growth of al-t 69 percent Is "heeltllr"
Is Jud9aMtltol. The use of such subject!,. -~t help but bias a
revl-r's oplnt011 IIIII their hocluslon should be avoided In 1111 object1ft
trH-t.
p. 51, ~ro. 2, line 5
Change 'seftrely IIIPICted" to •strongly lnfl-.1. • Seftrely l.,.ct~M
.,.. PNP~rlY deScribes a bad auto eccldent or a sore tootll.
p. 53, last line
Change •ts• to ._. ond place the rest of the dlscussloa In ~t -. --
If, In feet, the feclllty wu closlcl on the data hodlcoted.
p. 56, ~ro. 1, line 2
Change 'elided· to 'ending'
Table IIJ.C.2.b.·8
lily are 1977 dati reported In till text of the DEIS ...., &noplllc 14
refe" to a 1910 tWIA subsistence survey? It -.ld s-lll·ldvlsed 110t to
present the -t recent dati avelleble 111 Nth cases.
p. 58, para. I, line 6
Typo In ·-ufactur1ng'
p. 66, ~ro. I, line 4
Typo In 'addition'
p. 69, Collposltlon of &plo-t, ~·•· 1, line 7
Strike lut •a• In second 'area• to t11en read •are'
p. 'II, ~ra. 3, ll-1 I 2
1979 Is oftr, tilts Is 1910. lllat ~happen -ld be •re to the polllt.
p. 77, Enlarg~Mnt ... Mon-t, line 7
Change 'are• to 'Is' to agree with 'enlorg~Mnt'
p. 77, Loki Clark ... Mon-t, line 12
Change 'of' to read 'to'
- 7 -
p. 82, para. 3, line 3
lie q-tlon the occuracy of the figure of 1,525 bertlls for the ~r
-ll bolt hartlor e.,.,.ton.
p. 83, para. 4, ...,ultl•te line
Strite parenthesis before "lllkefleld" ond Insert c-
p. 83, ""ultl•te paragraph, lost line
Source of personol ~lcotion has been 0111tted
p. 84, para. 1 I 2
Sources of personol ~!cottons ore not Identified
p. 85, penultiMte parograph, line 1
"ojolned" should rud "adJoining"
p. •· ""ultl•te parograph, line
Delete "of" ond Insert •on•
p. 95, District Progr• O.velopMt~t, lines 1 I 2
Either •te "oreo" plural or change •are" In next line to "Is"
p. 100, Energy Foclllt,y Siting Anolysls, paro. 3, line 3
Personal ~icotlon Is not identified, use loooer cose
p. 101, poro. 8
Personol c_,.,icatlon Is not Identified
p. 102, paro. 2, line 3
Olonge 'effect• to "offect'
p. 107, 11.11 Studies Progr•, paro. 2, line 4
Olonge ..,..re. to 'was' to agree with singular slbject 'progr•" on preceding
line
p. 109, poro.
How ,..s on occurote spill trojectory .,..1 for the area developed
without this lnfor..tion?
• 9 -
Alte,....the Yl is essenthlly the southern half of the propoul but differs
frooo It in that extracted a-s will be reinjected into the for..Uon. The
••i-cose scenario ..• is eXKtly thet of the preposed action. •
lie contend that this totolly lnadequote tru-t of alterneu-represents
• blatant circ-tlon of the Intent of IlEPA and cllfnllt aQ ...,..latiOIIS llld
renders thh DEIS for L•se Sale 60 both technlcolly and slbstentiwly deficirr.t.
p. 132, para. 2, line 6
Typo in 'n.~turol'
p. 132, paro. 3, sentence 2
Does the oil spill risk ~n.~lysis tete Into a~t the dell wry of Ul6 to
• California port ond the dellwry of crude on to tetwtn.~l destin.~tlons In the
contiguous states? These risks -t be factored Into the .,..1 since risk does
not cease once • vessel lu-Kodiak waters. l..,.cts associated wltll Leose
Sale 60 do not stop until products frooo this lease sale ruch their port of
destin.~Uon ond ore transferred to existing facilities. If the proposed Ul6
e-sificatlon (isn't dea-slflcatlon incorrect? Aren't we turning Ul6 Into gas
In C&llfornlo?) plant at Point ~tion Is beill!l constructed to handle LIIG
frooo Leise Sale 60 then, of course, the envlron..ntal l•cts of plant construc-
tion and operation -t olso be Included In the FES for this sale. This draft is
supposed to oddress t..,.cts associated with the enUre sole, not Just those that
involve only Alaska. To 0111t such a slgnlfiCIIIt oru of coverago s-to us to
be on oversight not consistent with provlsl011s outlined In IlEPA for the revl .. of
ill invll"OIIMfttal t..,.cts associated with the proposed action.
p. 133, paro. 2, line 5
lllat 'past OCS experience' Is avoileble frooo Alasko upon ""lch to predict
"future spill frequencies?'
p. 133, para. 1, lost sentence
lllere is all this oil expected to COlli frooo? Ill)' Is it not ... ttoned In 1
p. 119, para. 3, line 1
a..,. 'In" to 'frooo'
p. 119, para 3
- a -
To ""lch specific trut,y does this sto-t refer? lie Mlleve the ste~
should read 'lllllts ••. cotchel 12 .._,ond the 200-•lle lllllt. •
p. 127, pare. 3
The ste-t h lllde that the discussion of c-latlve effects will M besed
on the lnterrelotionshlp of the preposed octlon end "other Mjor, curreat, and
PrGPOMd projects.• The reeder Is referred to Section IY.A.l.h. for a list of
proJects considered In PNPintion of the -latlve effects sections of tills
DEIS. Turning to the referenced section, we find thet we lllgllt expect -lattw
effects frooo such projects as the lelua-Cool Field and the lndley Lob~
electric Project but thot this DEIS WILL IIOT Include an evaluotiOII of c-lotiw
effects in regord to Leise Sale 6111 lie find this posltl011 usolutely .,.captlllle
and slblllt that such an erbltrory end coprlclous decision on the part of lUI
totally dlsregords both the Intent and the letter of the 1• (IlEPA) and current
C£Q ...,.lations gowrnhog the t-.ttflcotton end -tMnt of C~R~lotlw l~~peets.
Tllble lY.A.l.a.-1, Drill "'*• llul-Case
'2740 •• sllould reed '27405 lit"
p. 131, paro. 3
The following passoa-confl.-. -contention thet the olte,....tl-presented
In this DEIS foil to -t the Intent of IlEPA llld that tills DEIS does not conr..
to current C£Q ...,.lotions ...,.rdtng tile conslderotlon end preHIItltlon of
olternethe courses of action. lie quote:
'In caopori11g the deWlQPMnt pilose of the proposal with those of the
alte,....tl-, It Is _....,t that the sce~~~rlos for the alternett-ore, for the
-t part, varlotlons on the sce~~~rlo estllbllslled for the proposol. Alternettves
IY ond Y are essenthlly the Cook Inlet portions of the proposal's sce~~~rlo.
dlscussl011 of c-lottve t..,.cts?
p. 133, para. 3, line 5
-10 -
Olonge •are• to 'Is' to 19-with "average• on preceding line
p. 136, para. 2, sentence 2
This stl-t Is s~ot lllsleodlng since adding current octivlt,y does
.!!!!! Increase the rtst of the proposed octlon beCiuse the events are oss-.1 to
be lnclependent (p. 133, paro. 2) of HCh other. In eddition, to dltt drilling
In Sale Cl indlcotes • low potenthl for oil end, therefore, 1 conslderoble
reduction in risk ""tch, In turn, .ates the risk frooo Sale 60 proportlonolly
IIICh higl!er If the riskS are to be oggregoted.
p. 137, penultl•te para., last Hlltence
Such an oss,..tton Is Invalid.
p. 140, ""ultl•te paro., line 5
Olonge 'is' to 'are• to agree with 'locottons,• the slbjact of the sentence
p. 141, Sec. f ..
I
Over 4 pages ore used to describe the several ons:lll response ora-ntzatlons
response plans in effect, requiNMnts, equl-t depl-nt end policies, but
IIOIOhere in the entire doc-t Is the octuol coplblllt,y for cluning up spills
eddressed.
p. 139, paro. 4, poro. 6 ond line before O.ltos
All th-references to HI)'H, et al. hove the yeor of plbltcotlon •lssing
p. 140, line 1
Reference to Hayes, et 11. Ollits dote of plbltcatlon
p. 144, para. 1
Discussion of cleanup tlchntquos •tes no reference to equt-nt copablllt,y.
The DEIS goes into great detail regordlng the response phn but gives no
lndlcotlon of the actuol field copeillt,y of the ovalloble personnel and spill
cleonup ••suns to M IIIPlQred.
-11 -
p. 145, Plrl. 1
It Is difficult to sa'-the OSC cen ldvlse 1 spiller In writing thet
his ectlons ere l111dlquete, note spiller's fellure end Iss-Federel responsiblllt¥ ---
all within a SPica of tl• short eMugh to effecthaly cleen up 1 spill ......,
the tl• raqulrad for a spill to rNch 51101"11 _, be u little u 72 hours.
p. 147, PIN• 4
We ere not -vincad that IllY ts...-1 wtmlng sysu. -ld provide enougll
101mlng to evacuete offshore fecllltles in ti• to prevent a disaster. Petlding
notice wts 111-residents In the vlclftlt¥ of lit. St. Hill-. yet over 30 people
lost their lives, Plrtly ..._ to ~lcatlon brNkdoolns IIIII a lack of assigned
responslblllt,J. ..,.t usur"IIICII do,. !lave that coordl111tlng f-diffeNIIt
sources of lnforaetion on Al9stiM Volceno -ld not result 1ft the ..-sort
of horrible debacle?
p. 148, Sec. h
The draft lists other -.lor proJects -.tch _, occur, In the -• fuwre,
!!1ll!1!t !t !!a 12 tile sale aree• (...,..Is ldded) that hive beeft ·-siderlld In
the c..,lative effects sectl0111 of this doc-t. •
We reed on p. 150, hjlooevllr, thet proposed OCS Leue Sele 61 Is not included In
the dreft beceuse:
"For such en eveluetlon to be lllde, at lllnl-, the Alukl OCS Office
-ld hi• to~ llllat the sele 61 resource estl•tes will be, llllat tile ereu
of Plrtlculer Interest will be to lndust17, liO.......,t, end special interest
grvups, and fl111lly, ""•t Clle lrH selected for further stucb' (e·ll·, the propose I)
will be. As none of this lftforaeU• Is presently evall..,le, there Is no buts
on ""lch to lUke an envt.--tel u--t of Clle sele 61 lrHI henca, no
vt•le asses-nt of the lnterreletiOIIIhiP of the two seles Is et this -t
possible. •
-13 -
p. 151, Plrl. 3
'MI.Ior• ollspill is defined here es all ollspllls e•caedlftll 1,000 berrels.
On p. 144 1 "-.lor• oil spill Is defined IS OM thet e•ceeds 100,000 1111. Since
thiN.,.. 42 gal./bbl then 42d,OOO • 42,000 1111., constltutlftll a "-.lor• spill.
llllch figure represents e "-.lor• spill? This teN-t be rlliQrOUIIY defined
for llllll purposes, if for no other ,..son.
p. 153, PI••· 3, line 4
Should •rete• ,...d 'fete•: lnsteed?
p. 154, Conclusion, liM 2
Typo in "dlsturblncas•
p. 154, Conclusion, line 4
..,.t does the teN "edditionel" refer to? lie ess-edditionel to spills
froa Sale Cl, etc.
p. 154, PIN· 2
Unc:leer """ ftshe.--, -ities end Stete -ld be •de to us-costs
In the first place (IIIP!ied by use of IOOrd !!ll) other then efiY losses sufferlld
..._ to destroyed resources \nd Nflectld by loss of 1-.
p. 154, CIIIIUhtlft Effects
It Is e~stlc to refer to the risks assocleted with the proposed ectlon
as being s•ller ......,, of course, thQ' ere lert~r then the pNsent risk to ou:h
of the aree end~ gNeter and greeter IS 11ch dl7 hole Is drilled In Sele Ct.
The 99.5 percent chlnca of iiiiPICt lndlcetes 1 fairly high level of risk Is Involved.
p. 156, PI••· I, line 9
Appllcetlons cennot l!!! for ~~~)'thing. They_,, howver, Include the
requl,...nt thlt tests be perforaed.
p. 158, Conclusion
Not only will the species IIIPICted suffer, but so will the entiN ecosysu..
IIIIPICts siiiPIY cennot be subJectively thought of and eopressed u the loss of
s-Wit,_, nUIDer of e Slftllle species llaYiftll s-correspondlftll dollar velue.
This ste-t SIIIPIY defies tile l•flneU•I IIOt .,... tlllll 6 -till ... ta..
Aluke OCS Office held heerlngs on the !!5!!!!t DEIS for tile INI _...... ... lllif'
1-sele 46. lllrely dllftglftll the sale IIUIIber -=-dllftge tile fact. t11at
hundrads of hours end tllouslftds of dollers hive bee~~ pouNd Into the sele 61
e,... fw ll tere lly yeers. If ,. do not U. lftOUIIII Mout that -t.-, to
estl•te c ... lltlft effects In c..J-tlon with Leese Sele 60, ._ did w ._
enougll Mout It I -ths ego to ,.....,. a DE IS fw Leue Sele 46?
We hold thet 1 substentlve nexus edsts bet.~!~ OCS Leue Sele 60 IIIII OCS
Leese Sele 61 In NSPKt to potentlel c..,letlve IIIPKU that sl_,'b' ~ lie
ignorad. lie further salt thlt BlM hu, In 1ft lntlntl-1 IIIII p.--dlteted
-ner, evoided addresslftll such c.-letlve effects end, further, to dol .. so ._
Nnderad this DEIS deficient end lnedlq~ate lllder IlEPA IIIII eppllelble tal
raguletiOIIIo
Dtsplte the decleretlon that no c..,letlve effecu c:en be deterllllled at tills
tl• between 1-sele 60 end sale 61, c..,letlft effects of the two sel• -
..,tl-elthar directly or Indirectly els...,.re In the ten of this OEIS •
pp. 4, 18, 127, 170, 185, 199 end 245.
FurtheNore, atetlftll thlt en eveluetlon of c..,letlve effects will IIIPIIr Ia a.
DEIS for Sale 11 _, thlt the BLM will only COIIIIder the c.-letlft effects .r
the two seles !!!!!: the decht• has beeft _. rlflrdlng Sele 6011 ltllrdly tile
tl• for looklftll at c..,lotlve IOipiCtsll
p. 150, L-r Cook Inlet Sele, liM 1
llllt does ·s-· ••? Are there elso "other" se-dl7 holes? As wrft.-s
of technlcel ._ts you -t -ti-lly strive to es~ obfuscation.
p. 151, Oihpills, lut ••tenca
PI-cite Clle scientific refeNIICI(s) supporting the ste-t thlt
neturel liiS end gu -.lensetes eveperate r..,ldly I• northern lOiters. so
repidly, 1ft fact, thet their Pr'ISIRCI Wrlftll a spill represents no poteHfal ~
envt.--tel "-ege.
-14 -
The IIIPICts of en on pollution .... t trenscend species of .-tc 11111/rtr
-thetlc IIIIIIOrtlnce to Involve the •tire biotic end eblotlc .. vt.--t. .-til
the slgnlfiCIIICII of the CCIIIPlexlt¥ of the •riM ecosysu. u 1n In~ ...
holistic, S)'Mrglstlc sysu. Is gresped by BlM edlllnlstl'ltors, no ,..listie
evaluetlon of IIIIPicts will eftr eppeer In 1 lUI £IS.
p. 157, Conclusion, Sllltenca 3
Tilts ste-t Is ve17 lOibi~. It Is certelnly true thlt •no effects
would likely be attrlbutlble to on lndlor gu production. • It Is equalll' ~.
howftr, that effecu ay occur thlt ere .,.ttrlbuteble to on product~•
siiiPIY beceuse the)' occur In .., -..-eble or llldetectele fashion. illplds
Clft occur It tl-other then ..... II"M IN present. IOipiCts _, -U •
result of IIOrtlllt¥ -g orgMI-thlt occur tllrougllout the yeer 1111t prowta
food fw fish I•"• only during the tl• the llrYM ere preseat. 11le -••t•
thet larYM will not sllffer losses due to spills at u-other thea....,. tile
lerv• eN present Is not substentlated by .._, scl•tlflc re"'-s.
p. 159, last PINgr.,.,
The ecosysU. Is not "COIIItreined;" on the -tr117, It Is Y117 CCIIIPIU --
It Is the topogr!!!!I!Y thlt Is c:onstrelned. It Is 1-retlft for good ~cetloa
thet technlcel words be used cor.-.ctly. The BUI/OCS office often -to lint
difficult¥ with using biologlcel teNs correctly. lie suggest JGU -..IQJ tile
services of 1 good biologically trelned technlcel edftw during,_ I..._.
Nvlew process.
p. 161, PI••· 7, line 2
Insert c-efter "quentlfied"
p. 115, Plrl. 2, line 2
Delete •a• after "fra., • or •s• froe •eftfttS• on next 11M
-15 -
p. 165, Conclusion, poro. 2, ltne 2
It ts not cleor to us how the lnfo,..tiCIII fi'OII the otl spill rtsk -l.ysls
(Appelldh D) Mel cetch statistics fi'OII Sec.IJI.I.Z.d. (Table lli.I.Z.d.-5) wre
used to derive a figure of 13 percent for the shrt_. population contltllld In
oreas of htgh spill risk. 111 -ld also ltke to ~ ""'ch Shr1., populott011
the draft h referring to and • refe,_ to the •thod(s) used for est1Mtlll!l
the total population fi'OII ""'ch the 13 percent -calculated. The MthodolO!D'
should either be described In the text or referenced.
p. 168, para. 2 end 3
The deletion of 8,000 acres of trawl gi'OUids ..._, not al..,s hawe lllnl•l
1 .,acts. Often ft sh conc:tlltrete 1 n very nafTCIII bands or spec I ftc a,...s or
trowlable ground ts restricted. Thus, ""lle thts -t 11111 not s-stgntftcent
In view of the total proposal, It Is possible that wtthdr.,l of certain areas not
exceeding 2,000 ocres could be t•rt•nt.
p. 168, paro. 3, ltne 3
"Restriction" should be plural to egret with verb •are• on followlll!l ltM
p. 168, penultl•te para., last 2 ltnes
Should ,...d "Offshore 011 Pollution eoo.tnsat1011 Fund"
p. 170, Conclusion
The sta-nt that the proposed sale -ld have ltttle or no effect 011 the
c-rchl fisheries ts ~letely tnconstst.nt with Clle prablble t.,acts
revt....S just prior to this conclusion. On p. 116 till DEIS 110tes losses to
rozor cl-could result. A "good chance that at lHSt -pollutant •-t
will adversely offect shrl_, populations" Is noted on p. 165. The prablble
reduction of crib populations caused by e-ts associated with the proposal Is
noted on p, 163. And on p. 161 the sta-t Is Mcll that sol-populations
could be adwersely affected. How t111 WI put .._, cl'fdence ""ltsoe'llltr In 1
doc-nt that foils to •lntaln any Hlllt of Internal tntegrtey?
t.,act to Kodhk fisheries
p. 198, poro. 2, ltne I
-17 -
Insert c-ofter "rates• lnd delete "of" before "1lcohol"
Alcohol lbuse Is sela considered 1 crt• by ......, clinicians. Alcoholl111
Is now considered 1 dlse1se by -t specl1llsts. This DEIS should reflect
this 1110re h-,accurate ond enltghteMd vi-tnt.
p. 198, Port Lions, line 4
Insert word •on• between "or" and "nearby"
p. ZOO, CIIM!lotlve Effects, first sentence
lie percetwe this stot-nt IS lbsolutely ..,true. We view Lease Sale 61
u IIUCh 1110re l_,ortant with regard to sociocultural (end other) c-l1ttve
1..,1cts. We sl.,ly c1nnot ..,...rst1nd BLM's refusal to acknowledge the c ... lltive
'"'acts associoted with Sole No. 61.
p. 202, Conclusion
The fact thlt Nny residents of Port Lions view GCS-related growth IS
desiroble should be sobstontiated. A desire to attr1ct industry should not
be construed to Min the ~ley wlc_, OCS-reloted developo~~~nt. See olso
p. 198 -re entire t-of paragroph Is Ills leading to the revl-r.
p. 202, CIIM!htiwe Effects
The st1-t Is ..... th1t only lllnor l.,acts could be expected In Kodllk
ond Port Lions as 1 consequence of ·c-latlve effects resulting fi'OII the proposed
leose sale 1nd other projects.• We contend this sta-t is ... true. If Leue
Sale No. 61 Is included 111011g the "other projects• IS tt should be, then the
ciiMihtlwe effects represent 1 !!!.12!: t.,act to the Kodhk areo.
p. 204, pori. I, line 8
Delete "the" after "of"
Tobie IV.A.2.h.(4)·1
A st•l l1r table for e1ch alternative -ld be useful for evolUiting oll
devel-t options on a c-rotlve bests.
-16 -
p. 170, para. 6, ltne 1
Directly contredtcts the first sta-t ..,.... Conclusion 1t top of page.
llhen two absolutely contredtctory ste-ts concerning • Iss• as vital to •
IS -rchl fisheries IPPIIr on the!!!!! page, just IOhlt are w to bell-1
How can • doc-t with such gl1ring tnconstst.ncies be -ful In the doctst-
•kin9 process?
p. 170, para. d, sentence 2
Delete entire sentence and ._,lace with: "Avllll fa..,., especially pelegtc
birds (llclds) ond •rine Wlterfowl, Ire the species -t s-ltl'lllt to hydrocarbon
dewel-t.•
p. 174, p1ra. 3, line 1
lllat does the word ·-rcioble" Min?
p. 184, first par1gr1ph, lines 1 I 2
Delete •ore• ot end of line 2 1nd Insert •ts• to agree with ·-Hey"
In line 1
p. 1116, pari.
Sta-ts referring to effects of otlsptlls on -otters lnd harbor
seals lndtcote 1 high problblltt.J that S1le 10 11111 result in violations of till
Mlrine ""-1 Protection Act of 1972.
p. 19 1, lost 2 porographs
We 1re W~Cleor why this discussion of pot.ntlll l.,acts of -ll bolt
trofftc, Including fishing -sels end proposed ferry services, not directly
rel1ted to, or closely 1ttrlbutlble to, OCS devel-t Is Included here. Ill
believe it an lnopproprhte discussion better found In 1 DEIS on the t.-cts of
-ll bolts on cetaceaM. Fr1nkly, the entire discussion boars 1 •riled
reslllblance to the pro'llltrbill "red herring" ond ldds nothill!l to an alljectlve
trel'-t of OCS-rehted t.,acts end the r11der's understanding of U...
p. 1g7, poro. 1, sentence 1
Stat-nt Is in direct conflict with ossertton on p. 170 of low or no
-18-
Table IV.A.2.h.(4)·2
lllat does the third col-, d •, represeoot?
p. 205, Conclusion
The significant dts...,tion of sobststence OIIPOrtunities -1 long period
of tt• -ld create 1 severe hardship on 1ny wl lllge so 1.-cted. The full
s'gntftcance of the sobltstence life seyle is lost to the ai-t _.. .. u,.
culture. The .. tlve Aootrlcen's view of ltfe Is oriented -rd the group u 1n
organic, 1ll-lllbracing bod)!. A person's ldentlt.J as part of the group Is part of
his -indtvldUiltt.J. He is this person, end part of hi• Is the fKt that he is
1ttoched to, belongs to, is part of, this particular group. He behl-u an
tndtvldUil, to be sure, but he behoves with reference to his group at~t.
It is IS 111 ospect of the group that sobStstence takes on its stgntftcence, for
the sobslstence life seyle is part of the life of the group, and so is part of
oll1t and ""o a person is. With the dhiPPiarance of till old llft9Uiges end of
-.ny pr1cttces end beltefs, ond with Increasing -of goodS frooo the _.. .. uve
world, the contlnUinet of 1 sobststence tredltlon .... IM a solid point of
identificltlon.
Fish, partlcullrly sal-, 111d other •rine foods are sttll an lntlgrll part of
Konhg life. As •-other 1spects of that life have disappeared, the role of'
fish end sobslst.nce fishing has ass-d e-.,... i.,ortance ---both -'c
ond syeoltc, ond the syeoltc 11111 wll be the oore t•rtant of the two. Ill
view 1ny threat to the sobsistence life seyle of both .. tl'lllt Aootrlcans lnd --
llltives alike as extreMly serious 1nd wls~ to go on record u fnorl119 only
those 1lt1rn1ttwes ond Masures that will either ....,. or red-such th,...ts
to on 1ccept111le level.
p. 207, Port Lions Areo, paro. 1, line 6
Ch1nge "have• to "hu" to agree with sobject "nUIDer" In precedlllfl line
-lg -
p. 207, Port Lions Area, para. 2, lut sentence
The phllosGPIIJ' of lncreued gove.,..nt spending Is not vlewd by all
persons as e singularly edvllltaveous ~c concept to follow.
p. 213, para. 3, lhw I
Change •on• to •o,.
liM 6
Change •on• to "of"
p. 213, para. 4, line 2
Dlleta •s• fi"OII •requh-t" to agree with verb "Is" on following llrw
p. 214, hst paragraph
Regardless of the legal status of the land, the plpellrw would be a~ facto
adverse l11111ct If built thro<ql the ,.tllllds. The 1111Pact could J!!!!l: be
ellelnattd by building the plpeliM ~the ,.thnds area as suggested and
not by SIIIPlY changing the hnd use policy or designation. It h sOIIIOihat
frightening to read that a Federal agency whose very title Includes the taN
"land •nagetlllnt• would evaluate the IIIIPacts of a project •rely on the basts of
applied land use designations.
p. 217, para. 2, llrw 5
•uncertainties• Is llisspelled
last paragraph, llrw 11
•uncertainty" Is elsspelled
p. 220, Kodiak Island Exploratory Period, para. 1, liM 2
"Would" Is •lsspelled; delete "the" before "Port"
p. 223, para. 1, llne 13
"Measurable" Is orlsspelled
p. 225, Conclusion, para. 2, line 1
Change •are• to "Is" to agree with subject "conflict•
-21 -
otherwise exists. lie contend that any construction (e.g. UIG pl111tsl or other
actions (e.g. transfer to s•ller tankers to pass thro<ql Pona.. Canal) that .ust
take place as 1 direct or Indirect result of this sale .ust be tddressed In this
OEIS, 40 CFR 1502.16(a) and (b).
p. 246, para. 3, llrw 2
lie fall to ,.,derstand how the North Slope Borough suddenly bee-s Involved
wl th Leue Sale 60.
p. 248, para. 5, Cancel the sale., sentence 2
lie believe Inclusion of this stat_,t represents a distinct position of
advocacy on the part of 81.11. The statellent Is subjective and presupposes that
8LM knows ""at Is best for the area. It also IncludeS the thinly veiled
Inference thlt any delay will actually be henaful to the region.
p. 24g, 5.a., para. 1, line 7
This stau.ent 1s llisleadtng since OM lligllt also argue with equal validity
that reduction could Include ulstlng leases (5 spills) plus Shellkof Strait (3
spills) for a total of 8 or abOut 75 percent reduction In risk. Or, one could
argue that reducing the probable n-r of spills for Sale 60 alone fro. 4 to
represents 1 75 percent reduction In risk. Since the Cl sale risk analysts
could not anticipate future soles and, thus, enjoy • reduced risk proportional
to the total risk frotn all sol &s 1 n the reg I on, how can 81.11 turn around and say
that one or another alternative reduces or tncreues risk In proportion to all
previous soles rather than only to other alternatives tn the .... sale. Why are
State sales not Included In the risk analysis? Followed to the extreN, each
additional sale would lower the risk of each future spill by sooe uoount, yet
BLM has alreaey stated (p. 133) that spills occur Independently of each other end
thet spills are correhted directly with the vol-of oil extrocttd end
tronsported.
-20 -
p. 227, pare. 1, liM 2
Change •effect• to "affect; • effects are results, affect • .,s to ch...,.
p. 227, last pare., penultt•ta line
The ~al Itself hes no effects, It Is the proposed actions that,
If IMdertlken, .ay or~ not conflict with provisions of the CI'Ps for either
the Kll or the KPB. The proposal, ofter all, Is l!!!J1: a doc-nt and, as such.
has no IIIIPICt ,.,til Its provisions ore IIIPl .... ttd.
p. 228, para., last liM
Strike "er• frGII "out• and ccxmlne with "lying" to ,.,.d "outlying"
para. 5, line 3
Change "Plats • to "F lats•
p. 232, last para., liM 1
"Research" Is ehspelled
p. 233, Conclusion, llrw 6
Insert "other" before •equattc• since fish !!!. 1 for. of aquatic life
p. 233, Unovolclele Adverse Effects
If short teN and cueulatfve effects of contlllinant release ore awlclable,
""Y not 111ke such strategies 1 condition of the perllit? They could SIIIPlY be
Included In Mitigating Measures In Place.
p. 235, pora. 3, line 4
Change "of• to "to" preceding "air"
p. 235, last paregraph, first sentence
It would seee sudl data could be obtained fr1111 Valdez.
p. 237
-ere tn the entire discussion (pp. 150-237) of the envl~tal i~~~NCts
of the proposed alternative are the UIG and crude oil tanker routes and deltvery
terllinols and IIIPICts ossochttd with their use oddressed. It IS as If once the
products leove Alaskln waters, no eore potential for any tepacts, adverse or
-22 -
p. 250, c...,htlve Effects, sentence 2
Nonsensical stotetoent. Regardless of existing risks, deletion of the
Shellkof tracts would reduce rhk to Shelllof Strait coastal habitats.
p. 251, para. d., line 6
Typo In "days•
p. 252, para. 1, lost sentence
Why not? An analysts of risks for Inner Mereot Bay and Whale Pass would
be very Instructive. lie suspect the risk Is virtually 100 percent.
p. 266, h(2), para. 1, ltrw 5
Insert c011111 ofter "conflict•
p. 267, para. I, line 2
•a• In "areas• should be lower case
p. 280, para. 2, liM 1
lie fall to ,.,derstand how cons-tlon of offshore oil and gas (or~
oil and gas for that •tter) can be considered a long-teN use of non-
ren ... ble resources. Pleue exphln In the FES.
p. 28.1, llorst Case Analysis, para. I
The worst cose analysis described In this OEIS ts lntdequate according to
current CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22). While the 81.11 has prepared a ""'"t
case analysis covering endangered cetaceans (p. 281), such an analysts does not
lll!et current regulation stipulations because It~ considers effects on
endangered ""ale species. Under current CEQ regulations, however, the worst case
analysts IIIISt alert the decHion maker to the costs of uncertainty beyond Just
endangered species.
p. ~85, line I
Nonsensical; should read soaethlng like:
"thet n-r of breeding anllllls below which the populotlon cannot fall without
bec011lng extinct ,.,der natural conditions• or "that n-r of anl101ls required
-23-
to Nlntaln 1 vhble breeding population under naturol conditions•
p. 285, line 9
Delete "are• before "low" ond Insert "Is" to agree with "oss...,tlon" ""let
Is slngullr
p. 285, Aban-nt of Hobltat, line 14
Delete "is" ofter "gos" and Insert "ore" to agree with plural subject
•on ond gos •
Graphic 14, a. populotlon, pora. 1
This discussion cites the Konlog os being of "lndlon" (Athaposcon?) orlgir
This origin Is not substantiated by linguists ""o place the Konlags _,g a
group of people of Eski1110 stock colled the Suqpigoq. These Paci fie £ski-
spoke a llnguoge, Sugphq, that differs fi"OII both Aleut Mid the Yup'lks to
the no..u-st.
Appendix E, p. 4 and p. 9
Note is llllde of suction hose with "tUllock Fittings" on p. 4 ""ereas
these fittings are referred to as "Kamlock fittings" on p. 9. Are these,
In fact, the same fittings Mid/or are they interchongable and compatible?
A standardized spelling for products would prove less confusing to the layman.
Appendix E, p. 6
Why is the Cyclonet ISO Open Oce .. Skl-r stored In Long Beach, California
""•n It is carried on the Inventory for Aloska, ""ere oil can hit critical
beaches within three (3) days? Hos this skl-r ever been tested In 10 foot
seos In Shellkof Strait? This deployoent also -Inconsistent with the
Gulf of Alaska OCS Order No. 7, Appendix C.
Bibliography, p. 3
"Bottelle" Is misspelled
Bibliography, p. 25
Reference to Stickel ond Oleter should con after reference to Stwart
and Kennedy
-25 -
Order 5, p.l, para. I, line B
Delete conn after ''used• 1.nd insert co.a after •and"
line 13
Delete c001111 after •equipment"
p. 3, pora. 3, line 2
Typo In "onodl fy"
p. 3, last 2 lines & p. 4, first 2 lines
Not a complete sentence
-24 -
Appendix A, p. 3
Stata.nt re. standard pipe lay barges is repeated verbatl• on p. 5
Appendix A, p. 4, pare. 7
Again the ugly specter is raised that Alask .. Lll6 fro~~ Lease Sale 60 will
not go to U.S. ports to help su. the "energy crisis" but~. lnsteed, be
shipped to Japan. We .--In flr.ly opposed to placing our fishery resources
and life styles in Jeopordy slllflly to produce foreign exports """" the sale is
touted as reducing our own nHd for foreign lllfiOrtS.
Footnotes for Tables A-1 through A·S do not include costs for transportation.
Appendix 8, p. I, pora. 4, line 5
The figure of 68 ~ be In error, the days are accounted for but no personne 1
figures are given except the total and, thus, cannot be checked.
Appendix 8, p. 1, pora. 5, lines 617; g110 Mid 12
The explanotlon of the n.-.r of personnel bee-s very Involved, espechlly
"""n trying to keep the n.-.r of ships Involved per rig u-rigs used clear.
How Is the JUIIfl frooo ships to catering serv1cu Mde? The entire section could
probably be handled with one table.
Appendix C , Order 1, para. 2, ll ne 4
Strike "of" after "potenthl" Mid Insert "for•
Order 2, p. 1, pore. 1
lily list as "proposed" 1f the order was Mde effective In Deceeer, 1g791
Order 2, p. 3, penult••te poregraph, line 2
Typo In "obtained"
Order 3, p. 2, line 3
Order 4, pora. 2, line 3
Strike "being produced In" and Insert "producing•
.Tl\MS
nPPETTS-ABBETT-Me CAilTHY· STIATTON ·---
Alaoka OCS Office
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box ll59
Anchorage, AK 99501
October 20, 1980
Subject: Draft Environmental llllpact Stat...,.t for
Proposed Sale of Oil & ~ao Leaoea from
Lower Cook Inlet & Shelikof Strait
Gentlemen:
We at TAMS Engllleers, on behalf of the City of a .... r, have part·
ially reviewed portions of the oul>j ect draft environmental impact
atatement ao it pertains to the Port of H .... r Development Plan
(TAMS Engro. June. 1980) and wiah to offer the followin& conatruc-
tiYe c._enta for your use in the preparation of the final report.
Paaa/Para./Sentenca/Line:
82 1 3 5&6
82 2 2
82 2 3
~
Delete the vorda, 11DOt, however,"
ao the oentence reads ao followo:
"···· the propoaed port develop-
ment plan hu been officially
adopted by the City of H .... r."
Thio comment can be verified with
the Homer City Manager, Latry Famen-
telephone 907-235·8121.
Delete the words, "230-foot dock
and redeveloping the exioting !60·
foot dock." and re-phraae eo the
sentence reada •• follows:"-----
new 220-foot first stage berth,
and remove the existing 100-foot
dock and conatruct a new 160-foot
second atage berth for an over all
new facility 380-foot in length."
Delete the word, "double" and
oubatitute in ita place the
word, "triple".
«~7 IUSINUS PAU. IOULIVAI.D • ANCHOa.ACI, ALUU HS03 · T&L!PHON'l Cl07l 278·85-8~
TAMS
AlaaiLa OCS Offlee
JNreau of 1AD4 ~~anq_,t
Pau/Para ./Sellt.,.ca/Lina'
82 3 2 3
82 4 16.2
12 4
12 4 7&1
12 6
naura III. c . 5. c.-3
followina pqa 82
-2-October 20, 1910
9!!!!!!!!!
Delat& tba n-.r, "100" aa6
aubatituta in ita place the follow-
ina' "approat.ataly 600".
De lata the vorda, "a 40-foot water
darh (IIILW)." aa6 aubatituta tha
!gJ=~~f. alavatioo al.nua
Correct tbe teraiaolo11, '" 40-foot
teiLII'' to raacl aa follova' "al.nua
40 -foot IILLW''.
l.eatructure the eeatmce to read
•• follow&' "Tha barth will acc--
IIOciata aajor oc...,.oina vaaaala OD
the aaavarcl a icla ancl laraa Uahina
v••••l•. the laraeat claaa OCS aup-
r.~;l::·~ · .~!t.;•~::rt; :!r:c:;•
eeavard aide.
The Port of H-.r Davalo-t ia
~ :t:•!!!~:!~! :::~!:-:. f~!.~-
tured to read •• follova: "Tbe
plan ia daaianacl to acc._.,data
all the aeneral requir.-.nta of
an OCS eupport baa• oper.tttloa: u
The Port of K-.r Propoaa~ Dave lop-
-t Plan ahovn, ia the phn ahcND
in our draft report ancl cloea not
reflect the f1ul arr--t
of certain facllltl••. auch •• the
K-.r Spit lloacl alia-nt, act.
We are eacloalq a copy of our
~!:•~11 o;v~;or::~ ~~f for your
KACHC:MAK B A Y
·,
;
TAMS
AlaaiLa OCS Off ice
lkaeeu of 1AD4 "-q-t -3-October 20, 1910
If you heve aay quaati..a perteiDiaa to our -u va ~d be
pleeaacl to cltacuaa thea with you at your coavicce.
Ind . FiD&l Plaa
cc' Larry , ........
a-r City lf&r .
cc , Cary Dally,
-r Port Dir .
Vary truly your&,
TlPP!TTS·ABI!TT·Hc~~/ ~~W/-
Project "-qer
PUT OF lOili
~.s
a ·~--·· K A
= -= = $ ...
~ FRIENDS l1F THE EARTH
H october, 1980
Ma. Eater Wunnicke, Manager
BLM OCS Off!ce
P.O. Box ll~9
Anchorage, AX 99510
Dear Ma. Wunnicke,
4-Nar. ~·
L. Alot. ..... ..Ml _ ..... Lolr.
-1SIIo8Lolr.
-PIO
-Cbicl,Opo
LCI .. M,I:"
-Chlcf.MS
-lhpo.CA
Friend• of the Barth appreciate& thia opportunity to com.ent
on the Draft Bnviro..-ntal l-et stat-nt IDBISI for the pro-
poaed Lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait Oil and Gaa Leaae Sale
160. In general, -feel that parte of thia doc-nt repre-
aent an improve-nt over paat etforta. Even 110, we have noted
acme rather aerioua deficienciea. The .:>at outatandinq of
thue ia the OBIS' • failure to diacu .. the c,.ulative i-cta
of aalea 160 and 161 to the Kodiak Ialand region. 'l'hia ia an
iaaua of qrave concern which thia document muat addreaa.
We are alao concerned that the incluaion of Shelikof Strait
rather late in the ocs planning proceaa haa ruulted in
inaufficient ti-to fulfill iaportant re .. arch needa. Data
1a particularly inadequate for fiah, ahellfiah, aarine ..,_la,
and marine birda. Becauae of the lack of adequate information,
our concern about the livinCJ ... rine reaourcea of Sbelikof Strait,
the lack of a diatrict coutal plan for Kodiak Island, and the
ahortcol'linqa of current oil apill clean up capabilitiea, we do
not feel that oil and gaa leaaing ahould take place in Shelikof
Strait at thia ti•. lie rec.,_nd tracta 92, 131, and 132 be
deleted, and all tracte aouth of and including tracta 176, 133,
134, and 135 a lao be exclud~.
To minimize impacts on fiaheriea, ... rine ...._.la, and •rine
and coaatal birds in Lower Cook Inlet, we reco ... nd tbe fol.Lowing
tract deletion•: 317, 361, 405, 527, 615, 625, 659, 669, 703,
713, 757, and 484.
The following aections deal with our major concern& in the pro-
posed sale area, and the manner in which they were addreaaed in
the OBIS.
Coaatal Ma.naqeMnt Program
Friends of the Barth feela that the relationahip bet-n thh
propoaal and coastal zone .anage•nt ie one of the JaOat iiiPOrtant
iaouea to be discussed in the DEIS. Both the federal and State
qovernments, through their reapective coastal -.na~nt acta,
Friends of the Earth
Sale t60 DEIS
Page 3
More inforiiLiltion is needed on fiah and ahellfiah reaoucea tor
Shelikof Strait prior to any deciaion to leaae in thia area.
Available inforaation auqgeltl that ~jor harveat areas for sal.an
are found along both aidea of the Strait, with aOM of the JOOSt
abundant catches from the .outhve1t area of Kodiak Island. The
DEIS notea that •aalJOOn ... y be the moat vulnerable co..ercial
apeciea in the area affected by the proposal, • and that •thoae
stream• on the weat aide of Kodiak Ialand ••• could lose entire
year clasaes (of pink salmon). •
Vital areas for herring are ·Zachar, Uganik, and Uqak Bays on the
west aide of Jtodiak, and the KuJtak Bay area on the west aide of
the Strait. These are also the areas with the highest probable
cumulative impacta from an oil spill, according to the DBIS.
'l'he we at aide of of Afognak and Shuyak Uland a, Uganik Bay,
Uyak Bay, JCukak Bay, and Wide Bay are i~~portant harveat areas
for shrimp, and major harveat areas for all tbr-apecie1 of
crab are found generally along both aides of the Strait. ShriJDp
and crab larvae are particularly sensitive to oil, aa the DEIS
indicates. However, the DEIS should a leo cite a report by Rice
et al (1976) that Dungan••• crab larvae were apparently attract-
ed to oil alicka, and would repeatedly awim into them until over-
come by the toxic effects. The aame might be true of other
species of crab, and thia should be considered in the FEIS.
In addition, on page 162, the DEIS states that •the &IIDunt of
oil it take• to induce moribundity in larvae ••• waa approxi•tely
2 ppa .•. Larvae can exiat in the JDOribund ataqe aeveral days
before dyinq. Larvae do not recover from this stage. • While
we are glad to see that BLM recoqniaea that death ie permanent,
thia latter aentence could be deleted froa the FEIS.
Another fishery which ia only beginning to be utilized in Shelikof
Strait is that for bottomfiah. Trawl fiohe.--n working in the
Strait from Malina Bay south to Chirikof Island have often re-
ported catchea of up to 3,960 pounda per hour. A story on the
front page of the Daily News lut April reported a school of
pollock in the Strait that wu 70 ailes long and 5 miles wide.
Shelikof Strait may have the larqest aingle concentration of
pollock in the Gulf of Alaaka. Becauae the egga of .. ny apecies
of bottomfish, including pollock, float near the surface, they
would be particularly auaceptible to a surface oil spill.
The DEIS discusaea a number of potential probleae arising from
conflicts between oil and qaa exploration and development and
commercial fishinq operation• and equipment. The DEIS atates
that the Fiahermen 'a Continqency Fund will compensate to a max-
imum of $100,000 for da.maqea to fishinq qear and veaaela. One
Fr iendo of the i.~rth
S&le 160 OBIS
Page 2
have recogni•ed the opecial need to protect oenoitive coaotal
reaource• while providing for their balanced utilization. 'l'he
Alaaka Coaatal Manaqe .. nt Program ia an exprea1ion of thia re-
cognition, providing an orderly planning proce .. which i4ent-
ifiea aenaitive coaatal reaourcea and area• which 1hould be
protected if and when develo_.,t takea place.
11t1 appreciate the fact that the OBIS recogniaea aOM of the
problem~ poaed by the propoaal to coootal planning efforto. For
eX&IOple, the OBIS noteo that the only • in place• guideline• for
coaotal planning are ooae 9eneral goala and objectivea which
hava been adopted aa official policy by the Kodiak Ioland
Borough (11:18) • Even thea• general 9uidalinea would indicate that
the Shelikof Strait petroleum develoPMnt acenario ia inconoiotent
with Borough planning objectiveo.
Even ao, the DBIS fail• to give a.dequate e~haaia to the •eriou.a-
neaa of the problem,particularly for the Shelikof Strait portion of
Sale 160. The Jtod' ak Ialand lllorough haa only recently begun
their diatrict coaatol planning efforta. 'l'he DEIS indicatea
that tha KIB plan io acheduled to be aubmitted to the State for
review and approval in late 1981. Given aimilar experience
elaewhere around the atate, thia will be an extr-ly difficult
achedule to .. et. In tact, '.:here are atrong indication& that
the KIB ,...Y already be aignificantly behind schedule in their
planning efforta.
If thia io ind-the caM, the tilling of OCS leaaing in the
Strait could aerioualy affet.:=t the KIB'a coaatal planning proceaa.
one poooibility is that in an effort to have aomething in the
way of a coaatal plan in place, the KIB could try and clo a ruah
job. Such an effort would undoubtedly have aerioua flawa which
would have to be corrected at a later date.
Another, a:>re likely poaa.\blity ia that the leaae sole and re-
aulting activitiea would preceed the KIB'a coaatal planning effort.
In either ca1e, a clinate of uncertainty would prevail concerning
the require•nta of the c.ZM plan. It would •e-that it would
be in the belt intereeta of all partie• concerned, and particular-
ly the leaaeea, to delay thia part of Sale 160 until the KIB plan
is .ore fully developed, and ita requirement• more clearly
defined.
co-rcial Fiaberies
'l'be propoHd lease artJa baa a variety of c~rcial fiah and
ahellfiah reaources, •lllfhich are a aajor source of local .-ploy.ent
for the Kodiak area. In Cook Inlet, the towna of Ho.er, Seldovia,
Ninilchik, and Port r;raham also support a large fiahing fleet,
aa -11 aa fiah and ahellfiah proceaaing plants.
Fr ienda of the 11..-rth
S&le 160 OBIS
Page 4
lt.laakan crab v .. Hl and equiPMnt aay be worth ten tt.ao that
a110unt. 'l'be Contingency Fund auat be increaaed. to cover the
actual worth of lt.laakan fiahing veaaela and gear, with funda
r ... ining to cover loos of potential profits due to d ... gea.
'l'he fact that the Fund cannot currently do II!> should be aade
clear in the OBIS.
Finally, after o,.r 20 pages on the potential ~eta of the
propoaal on fiaher iea reoources and the co-rcial fiahing
induotry, tha OBIS conclude•• "the propoaed sale will have little
or no effect on the Kodiak, Ha.r, Port Liona, seldovia, and
Kenai co-rcial fiaheriea. • Given all the preceed.ing data,
thio ia an abaurd concluaion, which ahould be corrected in the
FBIS.
!Iarine llalaala
one technical probl--noted ia that Graphic ll uaea two vir-
tually identical greens to diatinguilh bet-n sea otter low
denaitiea and oea lion pupping/breeding rookery/hauling out areaa.
It is illlpOrtant to be able to differentiate thia infol'llllltion, and
a different color or pattern ahould be uaed on one of the two.
This •ame graohic also omits a very large aea lion concentration
on Latax Rocks, north of Shuyak Island. C&lkina (1979) cited a
population of 1,164 aniaala for this area.
The OBIS atatea that certain upecta of oil develoPMnt will have
an adverH affect on each of the marine __.1 apeciea in the
leaae area. HOW8ver, we feel that the DEIS tends to cite in-
formation, particularly on short term direct effects, that tenda
to downplay the impacts of oil on ... rine ~la. For example,
it notes a study that says oil did not affect the mortality of
grey seal pupa, It fail a to include such atudies 11 that by
Pearce (1970, in CalJcina, 1979) who reported tbat •after the
Arrow apill in Nova scotia, younq grey aeala were found blunder-
ing about in the woods ., mile from shore, unable to find their
way because of oil around eyea and nostrils. •
The DEIS notes that short term exposure to oil may •yield rela-
tively minor phyaioloqical effect• such aa eye irritation•,
but fail• to include that eye irritation and nostril damage -Y
prevent aea liona and aeala from orientinq th ... elvea (Smith and
Geraci, 1975) or that parenta might not be able to identify the
young and would thus abandon them.
The DBIS a lao ci tee a study by Jtooyman and Costa on the effect a
of oil on sea otters. It should be noted that although the re-
searchers were •fundamentally unwilling to put enough oil on the
otters or to leave oil on the captive otters long enouvh to en-
danger their Uvea (OCSBit.P, 1980), two of the five captive ottera
Friends of \:.be ._rth
Sale 160 DBIS
Paqe 5
develooed pneU80nia, ..,d one died. The U~>unt of oil and liiJlgth
of exposure varied, but 25' covering of crude oil and eight daye
expoaure ware the .. xia,.. Kenyon (19721 reported that a thin,
iridescent fila of oil ia sufficient to cauae death in aea otter&.
In addition to the above corrections for the DBIS, we feel a
nuaber of infor.ation naada -t be aat prior to any leaeing.
'Eheae reco-ndationa are baaed on tbe work of Mary itllen Spencer
in an internship progaa sponaered by the Dniveraity of California
at Santa Cru1 and Friend& of the Barthl,
1. Infor.ation on diatribution, pattern& of 110-nt, and
breeding populations of aea liona, harbor aeala, and ••• ottera
in Shalikof Strait.
2. Doc,..ntation of endangered apecies of great whales in
Shelikof Strait, population aiaea, and poaaible breeding acti-
vities.
3. Dhtribution, abund&nce,and patterns of 110-nt of other
cetaceans in Shelikof Strait.
4. Identification of prey apaciea for marine ..._lo in
Shelikof Strait, including diatribution, abundance, and
variation with the Haaona.
5. MOre infor.ation is needed on the direct effacto of oil
on .. rine ....alo, the ability of .. rina ..... 11 to detect and
avoid oil spill&, the effect& of poaaible acc,.ulationa of petro-
leum hydrocarbon& in the food chain, the affect of a reduction in
prey apeciea, tba iJDpact of increaaed noiae and haraa~t, etc.
In light of the lack of infor.ation on IIJldangered specie& iD
the area, we do not f-1 that it ia reaaonable to •••~ •the
leaH a&le and exploration activitiea a .. ociated with leua saleo
46, 55, and 60 are not likely to jaopardila the continued exist-
ence of any of the endangered whale& or their habitat&. • (OBIS,
page 19l).
Finally, wa wiah to ca..and BLM for beading an earlier raqueat
concerning pre .. ntation of .. rine ..... 1 data. In our ~nta
on ocs sale 146, wa requaated that the lilllitationa of the infor-
mation preaented on the graphic& be briefly deacribed, partic-
ularly for the endangered specie& graphic. The axpanation on
graphic 12 of this DBIS fulfills this need.
Marine and Coaatal Birds
Review of the inforaation preaented in the DEIS on .. rine and
Friend& ot the
Sale 160 DSIS
Page 7
:th
ln summary, we would like to reiterate our concern for the po-
tential impact& of the proposal on the ca..arctal fiaharies
raaourcaa of Shalikof Strait, particularly bottoafiah, aa wall
aa on .. rine ..-la and birda. In addition, wa note the lack
of baseline data, abaance of a district coaatal plan for Kodiak
Island, the inaffectivaneaa of currant oil &pill clean up
technologies, and the dependance of the local people on the
living .. rine reaourcea of the area. For then reaaona, we do
not believe that any laaainq ahould occur in Shelikof. Strait
at this u ....
Thank you for thia opportunity to coaa.nt.
~~( (,:,&--...
g Gibson
A aa a Repreaent.ative
rr i da of the Earth
Sincerely,
Also subaittad on behalf of:
f~ a_t,t;;_.
P~ Tileaton
Executive Director
Alaaka Center for tbe
&nviron.ent
David Banton
Marina Raaourcaa Specialist
Friend& of the Barth
?t l
l1c 'l (1'€_ •. --
Paul
Chair
Alaaka Chapter of the
Sierra Club
rr iends of the l!..rth
Bale 160 DSIS
Page 6
coastal birda reveala quite a contraat between the level and
quality of data available for IDwar Cook Inlet and that avail-
able for Shalikof Strait. Baaed on the work dona by Suoanne
Baston in an internahip oponaorad by the Univeraity of Calif-
ornia at Santa Cru:a and Friend• of the Earth, we have the fol-
lowin9 r~ndationa fo1· additional research in the Shelikof
Strait areal1
1. Survayo of the Strait itself and the Alaaka Paninaula
coaatal area to deter.ine abundance, diatribution, and .. aaoDal
variation• in .. rina bird population&.
2. MOre inform.tion on the types of avian habitats found
within the Shelikof region, which are the moat utilized, and
which are \:.be 110at critical.
3. Determine tha location and population a he of non-
colonial breeding bird&, location and siae of non-breadin9 an4
molting bird concentrations, and the location and size of .ajor
wintering populations.
4. MOre extenaive and accurate data ia required conc•rnin9
the aiae and location of aeabird breeding coloniea, particularly
north of Puale Bay on the weat aida of Shelikof Strait.
5. Bxaaina the principle pray and feadin9 diotribution, and
the aeaaonal variation• in both, for .. rine birda in Shelikof
Strait.
6. Studies to dataraina whether petroleWD hydrocarbon& are
accu.ulatAd in the food web& of aarine birds, the impact& of
chronic pollution, the i.-pacta of poaaible reduction& in prey
it ... , the aenaitivity of varioua apeciea to noiee and cHatu.r-
b&nce durin9 varioua ataqea of life hiatory, and so on.
1 The doc,..nt produced by this internahip wao cited by BLM
in the D!IS, but vaa not correctly referenced in the biblio-
graphy. The cloc\DIIent waa produced throuqh a cooPerative pro-
Qram of the University of California at Santa Cruz and Friends
of the Earth, as .. ntioned above, and not by the Alaska Depart-
aant of Fiah and "-• && atated in the DEIS.
.·· Aluka Ollancl 0.. Aaoclatlon
''·
'·•.jiOIIW.-IJtlllla-
.,1 .. ~211 ____ .,.
111071 Jn-1 .. 1
October 31, 1980
Kra. £ather Wunnicka, Director
Alaaka OCS Office
Bureau of Land Managaaant
P. o. Box 1159
Ancbora9e, Alaaka 99510
Dear Kra. Wunnicke1
The Alaaka Oil and Gaa Aasociation io a trade aaaociation wboae
29 ...O.ra are involved in oil and 9aa exploration, production and
tranaportation activitiea in Alaak&, OUr ~ahip include& the.
largest and aa.a of the ... lleat petrolaua firaa in the induatry.
AOGA 1a the Alaak& Diviaion of the Weatem Oil and Gaa llaaociation.
Attached are our writt.., .,.,_ta on the Draft Bnvi~tal blpact
Stataaant on Sale No. 60, Lower COOk Inlet/Shelikof Strait&.
Thank you for this opportunity to co-t.
Very truly your a,
t::c-t,,..; ..;..J."¥;4-L:..-.
WILLIAM W. BOPKIWS
Executive Director
IDGit. Written c-nta
OCS Sale No. 60 DEIS
Lover Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait&
General c-nt:
The docuaent, briefly .. ntiono the nation'• current and projected
dependence on forei111 oil, and the reaultant national econoey and
security "iaplicationa". We feel it io serioualy deficient in
addreaoin& the need for the aale in teraa of real national, otate and
local benefita. We feel the analyaia baa failed to conaider the need
for mininwo reotrictiona and the need for a re&Ulatory cliaate which
encouraaea the develo-nt of aaall reaerveo in li&ht of proven
technolo&Y and mini-potential adverae iapacta. Since the eatiaated
reoource potential of thia area ia not ao hi&h as coepared to aoee OCS
areas there io a need for retainin& all tracta in the propoaal which
e~poaes •axiaua acreaae and therefore increaaea the chances of
c.,...,rcial viability.
C~enta a a they apply to opecific aectiona of the docuaent are
provided below.
Sumaa.n; Sheets (paaea i -iv):
e su-ary sheet for the propooed outer continental ohelf oil
and gas lease sale t60 identifies the environaental iapacts that could
occur as a reault of oil and aaa diocovery and developaent. That
discussion includea an outline of riak aaaeoaaent of featurea in the
environaent that would be affected by pollution froe a aajor oil opill
event. The probability of oil apill iapact is calculated froe an oil
spill risk/trajectory aodel which incorrectly auuaeo a 10~
probability of a worot caoe oil apill. The analyaia doea not take
into account the low probability of occurrence of aajor oil pollution
evento in predictin& ecolo&ical effects. The quantitative difference
in the effects of aajor oil apill evento and minor oil apilla are not
taken into consideration. Thia needs to be ex-ined eapecially when
one looks at the actual oil apill data of the Upper Cook Inlet
developaent area (aee table next paae) Oil Spill Vol1111e and
Incidence of Spills in Cook Inlet).
3
On Pace ii, the auggestion that the total populacion of sea
otters in the ICamishak Bay and Shuyak·Afocnak Island areas would be
destroyed as a result of a aajor apill ia not aubotantiated by the
analysis of impacts on aarine ..,...ala (IV.A.2.e.). It baa been the
r:xperience of industry that in aeneral, populations tend to avoid
spill areas althouch individual aamaala aay be affected.
On page ii, last paraaraph "There is a potential for adverse
impacts on cetaceans (whales), especially if an onshore facility h
located on the eastern shore of Kodiak leland ... " Jlo connection
between onshore activities and whales is aade. What effects of
onshore development will affect whales? And upon what documentation
are any predictions based?
Page iii, states "Port Lions and Ouzinkie would be additionally
subject to the effects, undeterminable at this tilDe, of chronic dis·
charges and tankering incidento resulting from the oil tenainal
f.acility at Talnik Point." The "chronic discharaea" herein referred
imply an environmental impact resultina from. this activity. But such
discharges come under close scrutiny by the U.S. Environllental
Protection Agency through NPDES permittin& process and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation for oversee in& coapli.ance
with state w.ater quality standards. No dearadation of the enviroNDent
from such discharges is allowed by law. To aaau.e that •uch incidents
would occur with some frequency sufficient to have an environmental
effect in the vicinity of an oil tenainal does not take into account
strict regulatory compliance requirements that cu~rently aovern such
operations. Experiences at the Alyeska Pipeline tenainal and the
!>rift River terminal refute implications of environ~~ental impacts from
'Chronic discharges" 0
Pages 25·40, Analysis of the Proposal.
Page 2&, Estimated Activity.
The estimated timing of the activity appears to overly optimiotic
b.ased on historical activities in other areas includin& the Gulf of
Mexico.
Page 27, Mean Scenario.
ln reference to the use of pipeline lay barces, the DElS states
that "throughout the proposed lease sale area ... waves are cenerally
higher than 1. 5 meters" o This stateme-nt does not .agree with data
published in the Climatic Atlas of the OCS Waters and Coastal Regions
of Alaska by Brower, et al. Accordin& to the Atlas. in the proposed
le.tse sale are.:.. significant wave heights are less than or equal to
1.5 meters an average of 88~ during the suauaer, 561. during the fall.
49":, du.ring the winter, and 65,_ during the sprina. Host pipe lay in&
opcrat1ons would be conducted during the su1111111er, when significant wave
hcq;hts typ1cally are less than 1.5 meters. Althou&h larger lay
barges, such as the VIKING PIPER may be used dependin& on economics,
the phra.~e regarding wave heights should be changed to "wave heights
may exceed 1. 5 meters" or a similar phrase.
Pa~e 29, Potential Mitigating Measure No. l.
This mitigatin& aeasure would require, where feasible, protection
of subsea we llhedds. temporary abandonment and suspended operations to
YEAR
*1971
*1972
*1973
*1974
*1975
**1976
**1977
**1978
**1979
**1980
2
TABLE
OiL SPILL VOLUME AND INCIDENCE OF SPILLS IN COOK INLET
Oil Induatrv
Spill Volwoe
(barrels) Incidents
72 12
19 8
24 6
19 25
12
52 13 (3)1
12 14 (1)1
14 (2)1
4 6 (1)1
8 4
236 98 (7)
Other Sources
Spill Volwoe
(barrels)
1,794
32
29
268
18
28
16
18
55
2,265
Unknown Source
Incident&
6
7
8
7
4
19 (6)1
26 (6)1
18 (4)1
15 (2)1
9 (3)
119 (21)
Incidents
15
4
3.
5
8
10
5
4
56
*From BLII, FEIS Lower Cook Inlet Sale (Sale CI)
**Thie part of the t•ble was coapiled by ARCo uein& records
obtained froa the U.S. Coast Guard Station in Anchoraae,
Alaska.
l. The nuaber in parentheses indicates the t of apill incidents for
w~ich there was no volume reported.
4
aitigate potential da .. ace to fishin& aeu. AI recocnized in the
•nalysis, existin& OCS orders Nos. 1 and 3, •lready provide 1dequate
•itigation and the propoeed •easure doee not provide the economic
justification for auch a require•ent. We rec~end this measure be
rejected.
Pa&e 30: Potential Mitigatin& Measure No. 2.
Thia aeasure atateo that pipelines would be required if
ri&ht·of·way can be obtained, layin& the line 11 technically feasible
and environmentllly preferable, and if pipeline& can be layed without
net eocial loss in the opinion of the leosor. This ae1sure is
potentially onerous since the DEIS statee thia to be .are expensive
than offshore loadin&, and that the impact of ••rine transport could
be f.ar lea• than construction of pipeline•. Further, the analysis
reco111izes the Interaovernaental Plannin& Pro1raa (IPP) which
considers local land use, coastal •anaaeaent, environmental data aapa,
loc.al socioeconomic conditions, transportation, routin& .and plannina.
This part of the proposed measure as stated doea not provide the
proper flexibility afforded by adequate planning. We recomaend this
portion of the measure be rejected.
Page 34, Potential Mitigating Measure No. 4
We agree that Potential Mitigatin& Measure No. 4 on dioposal of
auda, cuttin&s, and foraation water should not be adopted at leaat for
the reasons &iven in the analysiao Further;-however, this mitigating
measure assuaea that drill cuttings, .uds and produced foraation water
may have serious enViron.ental i•pact and ••Y require apecial
handling, includin& bargin& of auds and cuttin&s onshore for dtoposal.
This opinion is voiced in opite of severll atudies that h1ve been
perfonaed to evaluate the dispersion and biolo&ical effects of
drillin& fluids. One such study, Drill in& Fluid Dispersion and
Biologicll Effects Study for the Lower Cook Inlet Cost Well, was
published by Dames and Moore, April 1978. That study examined
oceanographic conditions, drillin& fluid releases and dispersion
measures of cuttin&a, accumulation rates on the aeafloor, as well a~
static bioassay& aboard the drillin& vessel to deteraine the
sensitivities of important marine species to drillin& mud. Live box
studies examined the effects of the discharae plum.e on important
species. Benthic community samplina was done before, during and after
drilling.
Plume modelin& and oceanographic aeasurements showed turbulence
created by the drilling vessel in currents greater than 0.1 knot was
sufficient to dilute discharges by a factor of 10,000 to 1 within 100
meters of the point of discharge. The maximum increase in sediment as
a result o! drilling mud discharge raT"S'edtne suspended solids by 8
mg/1 in an ambient range of 2 to 20 •&fl. Strong currents and
extensive reworking of the seafloor sediments prevented the
accumulation of cuttings near the drilling vessel. Static bioassays
established that pink salmon fry are the aoat sensitive species tested
(others were shrimp, mussels, mysids, and other crustaceans) o The
lowest 9&-hr. LC50 value determined for this species was 3,000 ppm
whole drilling llud. No 110rtalities attributable to effluent·related
causes occurred in any live box tests in the effluent plwae.
5
In other worda, thue etudiee det10natrate that there ia little
enviro1111entd effect of diacharain& drillinc aude and cutting• into
the Lower Cook Inlet durin& exploration activities. Baoed on thia
c:oncluaion, it is no lancer prudent to aaauae that special
require.enta need to be given for handling drillinc •uds and cuttiDJI.
No atipulation for protection of biolocical reaourcee 1a neceaeary and
no precaution a for disposal ahould be atipulated, perhapa with the
exception of overseein& the kinds of bacteriocideo that are uaed.
Reinjection of produced fo..ation watero should aot be required
of the laooee. Diaposal of produced wotera are aufficiantly
controlled through the NPDES pe .. ittin& proceu. Ve rac-nd this
.. aaure not be adopted.
Page 34, Potential Hitigatin& Haaaure No. 5 Protection of Bioloaical
Reeourc:ea
A report that identifiea the environaental features of aD area to
be explored is suaitted with an operation plan filed with the
u.s.G.S. Adequate envirollllental protection is already afforded throuah
aaency review of theae plana. Additional aite apecific aurveys will
raoult in unneceeaary additional coot and tiae delays without
providins aignificant additional info..ation. Va rec-nd thia
•easure be rejected. In the alternative, biolo&ically sensitive areas
requiring additional aurveya should be identified prior to the le&8e
aala.
Pace 37-40, S..-&ry of Probable I~acto.
Tba analyoil ahould include the c.,..ent f.-pace 131 which eays
"It ahould be nphasized that the trajectorieo siaulated by the .adele
represent only hypothetical pathwaye of oil slicks and do not involve
any direct consideration of cleanup, dispersion, or veatberin&
processes which would dete .. ina tbe quantity or quality of oil that
could eventually c~ in contact wi&h targets."
Further we draw your attention to pace 154 where it is stated
that "The oilspill riske to coaotal habitats that are o....ariz.ed above
an actually ... uer than the already exiatin& oilspill risks" and
"the unavoidable iapacta to the coaetal habitats are potentially very
ainor."
Page 38, Bird Speci ...
The worst case iapact such as "sa.e vulnerable bird speciea
indicated in the i•pact discuaaion could take as lone aa 50 years to
recover fro• a sinal• 50 percent .ortality event" ia unsupported in
tho discussion on Pace 175. Such remark1 ohould be deleted.
Page 39, Iapacts on Primary and Secondary Species.
This discussion tot•lly ianores industry experience at Nikiski
and Drift River which provides a010e 15 years of data. This part of
the analyaia should be rewritten to acknowledge that experience.
Page 40, Impact of Tanker Traffic.
There is no reason to believe that 5 tankers per .anth to and
fro. ~ te._inal facility could "'roduce long-te.-i•pact of cloain&
nearbY'fishins grounds". Further, the implied iapact is not supported
in the discussion on paae 222. The ot.ate•ent ahould be .edified or
deleted.
Paae 132, Baaic ..sau.ption (Production).
The diocussion on produced fo..ation waters ehown include
diaposal to the ocean after treataent.
Paae 133, Probability of Oihpilh Occurring.
It 11 stated that atatiatical diatribution for estiutina proba-
bilitiea of oilspill occurrence were taken fro. studies in 1974 and
1975 and f~ USGS files of offshore platfo._ accidents. It ia
obvioua that the data does not reflect experiences in the Cook Inlet
(see table below). If, aa aasuaed in the analysis, future spill
frequencies can be predicted f.-p88t OCS experience then the IIOSt
recent information should be used. Also, the ualysil acknowledaee
that the auu.ption aiaht be .edified by a decrease in future apill
rates due to experience and iaproved standards. We believe the
auuaption auat be .edified to account for tachnoloo advances and
safety practiCes. It would be much .ore reaaonable to base oilspill
probability on industry perfo..ance in the c~arable area of the
upper Cook Inlet, where 13 oil producing platfo.-a have produced 890
million barrels of oil over the past 13 yeara without a major &pill.
The current atatistice in the Gulf of Mexico OCS and in Alaska da.on-
otrata conclusively that iaproved technolo&Y, induatry effort& and
aovernaent reaulations have drastically reduced oilspilla fr010
all sourcea and have euentially eliminated oilepilla fr011 blowouts.
Ve therefore must otronaly diaaaree with the aeau.ption that four
ujor oihpilh are to be expected over the life of the field for
le&8a eala t60. Furtber, reference is •ade to Table 1, appendix D
which aho ohows the expected nu.bar of spills fro. existin& sale CI
and tankers fro. upper Cook Inlet. For reaaona stated above. and the
fact that exploratory activity in CI will .oat probably cease in the
near furure in the abaence of a dilcovery. The fiprea of 5 apille
fro• CI and 2 spills fro. tankers are siaply not aupported. Sea
tabla, next paae.
6
a. Page 48, Daecription of the Affected lnvi....-nt.
Tba D£15 referencu Graphic 2 for the cleacriptioa of
Mtaoroloaical and oceanoaraphic conditione. Tba follovin& c-u
apply to the deocription on Graphic 2:
1. Skycover •roc is the principal causa of redacad
viaibility, and 1a .oat e....an f.-Dac.-ber throap
February &Dd fr010 Nova.ber through Hareh. • Thia atat-t
ia unclear. In addition, data publiahecl in the Marine Atlas
by Brower indicate that foa is .are c....an durin& the ~r
than durin& the winter.
2. Tabla lli.A.2.b. -2-Annual Haxi.u. Vinda and Waves for
Selected Return Periods. 111 ukin& these wave asti ... t.u,
eonsideration should be aiven to the API ltec-.lecl
Practice for PlaDDing, Desipina. and Constructin& Fixed
Offshore Platfo..a (API. RP2A), which providao a referea,ee
level vava hai&ht of 60 feat for Lower Cook lnln.
Paae 127, Basic Ala-tiona (lxploration).
"In paraaraph 5, offshore Canada" should read •offahore easr.en>
Canada"
In paraaraph 6, •raaervoir" ah-ld -r• properly read •...s
tutc.a•.
Page 121, Baaic Ala-tiona (Exploration).
In the fourth paraaraph, last untence, "aud diacbarae• should
read "aud ayat-"'.
Paae 128, Iaale Ala-tion (Exploration).
The last aentence of the laet paraaraph ahould be .edified to
read "Host oil-baaed auda are used for well c~letiona and other
apecial operations auch aa cortns•. Oil-baaed auda are not used to
prevent blowouto.
Paae 129, Baaic Ala-tiona (Exploration).
Paraaraph two eODtaina the followina two stateaenu, "Bari-
avlfate ia esaentially non-toxic to aarine oraani ... " and "tbere 1•
concern about products cont.ainin& t..riua..... becauae of t.he
pouibility that certain toxica could be released into r.he
enviroMtent". We aar•• that bariu. il esaentially non-toxic aDd the•e
two contradictory state-.enta should be corrected.
Paae 131, lasic Aaa ... ptiona (Production).
In the last paraaraph, daily production of cas should read 464
...,f.
a
TABLE
OIL SPILL VOLUHE AND INCIDENCE or SPILLS IN COOl: IILET
Oil Induatq Other Sourcee
Spill Vol,... Spill Vol-
(barrela)
UnknOWD Souree
YEAR (barrah) Incident a Incidents
*1971 72 12 1,794 6 15
*1972 19 8 32 7
*1973 24 6 29 8
*1974 19 25 268 7
*1975 12 3 18 4
**1976 52 13 (3)1 28 19 (6>1
**1977 12 14 (1)1 16 26 (6)1
**1978 14 7 (2)1 7 18 (4)1
**1979 4 6 (1)1 18 15 (2)1
**1980 8 4 55 9 (3)
236 91 (7) 2,265 119 (21)
*Fro. BLH, FEIS Lower Cook Inlet Sale (Sale CI)
**Thia part of the table vas coapiled by ARCo uaina recorda
obtained fro. the U.S. Co .. t Guard Station in ADchoraae,
Al&8ka.
1
1
4
3
5
8
10
5
4
56
1. The nuaber in parentheaea indicates the t of apill incidents for
~bich there w•s no volv.e reported.
9
Page 138, Proposed Hodifications Based Upon Liaited Oilspill Risk.
We agree that areas in the Shelikof Strait are relatively higher
risk areas; however, reasonable risk factors baaed on valid
assumption of much lower spill frequencies as suaaested above, would
already put all surrounding areas below the maximum low risk
potential, and are therefore environmentally acceptable under the
proposal without modification.
Page 145, Earthquake Hazards.
Ground accelerations rangina from 40·60 percent of gravitational
acceleration, as reported by Thenhaus, appear too larce. An industry
sponsored Offshore Alaska Seismic Exposure Study (OASES), a widely
distributed study, indicates much lower values. In addition, the
statement that onshore and offshore facilities should be deaianed to
withstand ground accelerations predicted by Thenhaus, et al (1980)
should be changed to "Thenhaus et al provide estimates---or extreme
ground accelerations associated witli"Ta"rge return period events". The
DEIS should not attempt to establish earthquake design criteria. A
complete reference to Thenhaus, et al should be provided for in the
Bib! iography.
Page 147, Geological Hazards.
We agree that potential &eologic hazards in either lower Cook
Inlet or Shelikof Strait can be lliti&ated by adequate compliance with
OCS orders and appropriate facility deoian.
Page 147, Table IV.A.I.a.·l
The Priorities assigned to physical constraints in this table are
unclear because it attempts to coabine too •any elements. As an
example, earthquake maanitude is ranked as a high priority c:onstraint
on production platforms. It is unclear whether this rankin& indicates
that earthquakes represent a severe potential hazard to structures,
that acquisition of additional information on earthquakes is a hi&h
priority need, or that present and future technology ia not available
to design a structure against earthquakes. The table should be
re~laced with one that clearly identifies the meaning of the ranking.
Page 151, Oilspills.
for reo:ssons stated above. we strongly disagree with the b4Sic
as~umpt1on that four major oilspills are likely to occur as a result
of the proposed lease sale. The chance of a spill from exploration
activity is very low based on past experiences. Recent spill
frequencies from other sources, i.e., production and transportation,
simply do not support such an assumption. The statement that
11 oil!:pills due: to blowouts on the U.S. OCS have a.veraaed about 2,000
barrel~ in ~i~'! (Council on F..nvironment.11 Quality, 197/t)," needs
further .. n.1l)''>,:i. Thn Ceologic01l Survey Circular 741, titled "Oil
Spills, 1971-~~. Gulf of Hexico, Outer Continental Shelf," (G.S.C.
7.41), does not support such a statement, C.S.C. 741 docs sl.1te
"Particularly noteworthy is that no •pills of aore than 50 barrels
resultc:d !rom drilling operations during 1971~75, even though 4,105
new \.'ells wer<: ~.rarted. No such spill has occurred since July 14,
1965, •hen 1,6H~ barrels of crude oil was discharged into the Gulf
11
Page 159, Impacts Commercial and Sport!ish (conclusions).
For reasons discussed earlier on oilspills, we disagree with the
statement "Because of the number of predicted spills, the probability
of a spill effecting these species in high". Proper analysis of
appropriate data would show the probability to be low .
Page 159, Impact on Salmon Species.
ln view of our earlier comraenls we cannot agree with " ... it
appears likely that oilspills would adversely effect salmon population
levels ..... " On the contrary, proper use of existing data would show
that it is "unlikely".
Page 160, Impacts on Satmdn Species.
In the third paragraph, reference is made to "chronic oil
P<:'llution sources near IICAjor anadromous spawning streams ... " Chronic
d1sch~rge sources will not be located near major anadromous streams.
Page 161, Cumulative Effects.
It is uncle.Jr how, if th«=: impact cannot be "well quantified 11 1 it
can be terPttd ''marginal only if controls are rigorous and accidents
av<:rage." This stat<:ment should be deleted.
Pages 170, Iwpa~ts on Comn,ercial fishin& (Unavoidable Impacts).
In discussing impacts such as loss of fishina aear, loss of
fishing ~reas, competition for labor and materials, inability to
market flsh because of flavor tainting and loss of fishing time
beco:suse of th<:: proposed sale 1 the DEIS acknowledges impacts to be
"minimal," "relatively minor," "must not be a notable happening,11
"have minor efft:cts," etc., and we agree. We do not agree that
unavoidable adverse impacts will be "mod<:rate" in the Shelikof straits
are~ and should be estimated to be "minor." Further, it does not
app~ar that sufficient consh!<:rar.ion w..1s given to the mitigating
effect of the Fishermen's Contingency Fund.
Page 172, Disturb.1nce and Displac<:m~nt of Birds.
\..'t: do not ~Krte that there is a major potential for ad\'erse
effects from m.u~~madfo disturbance and displacement of birds from
important feedin~, nt-sting and staging an:•s. Effects of existin&
activities sirnply do not support such a finding.
Page 173, Oilspills.
It is star~d h<:rf'! "An.1lysis of the Geological Survey oil!~ipill
'rajcctory mvO~l re~ult~ indicate four oilspills arc lik~ly to
··cur .. " The U.S.G.S. oilspill modc:l do~s not predjct the nu1uber
spllls but "'redict~ trajr~crori<:s of s,~l.f th~y occur at a
cci(i~d loc:.,Lion. Thi~ statf:ment should be: chanl(f:d to reflect that
or be dch:ltd.
Page 174, Chronic Oilsp1lls.
lL is !.l.Hed, "ChrQnic sm~l l oil spills are the mn~l lil;cly
spills and int.:vital>lc in occurrr~ncc: to a ccrt.1in dcgn~e.'' The
definit1on o( chron.tc i~ ''continuinJ( for a long tim'!, continuous,
C(Jr,~tolnt." ,b such, tht: word "chrnn1c" is a totally in•fJpro~riate
10
during a blowout in the Ship Shoal area off the Coast of Louisiana
(An oil blowout which be&an on Harch 16, 1969, though technically •
non-drilling incident, eould be classified with the drill in& events.
2,500 barrels was diacharfcd throuah the tubina.) A later U.S.G.S.
report "Outer Continent• Shelf Oil and Gas Blowouts" by E. P.
Danenberger statu that in the 1971·78 period, 7,553 new wells were
started; however. total blowout spillaae was less than 1,000 barrels.
That apillaae was from production mishaps.
Paae 154, Cumulative Effecu.
The outed likelyhood of 11 aajor oi lap ills is an overstatement,
especially &iven upper Cook Inlet production and transportation
experience, the lon& history of transport of oil in the Cook lnlet and
the fact that developaent of oil in sale Cl ia remote.
Page 154, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.
The .016 percent•&• opilla&e rate fr011 tankers (Council of
Environ•ental Quality, 1974) needs further analysis in li&ht of the
G.S.C. 741 report. lt states "comparison of volume spilled to volume
produced for the Gulf of Mexico operations (drillin&, production and
transportation) durin& 1971·75 discloses a apillage rate of 0.0028
percent." That percentaae was based upon 35,219 barrels produced for
each barrel spilled. lt further states that "accordin& to the Council
of Environmental Quality (1974)" (worldwide) "the historical spillage
rate for tankers is 0.016 percent." This statement follows, 11 this
estimate is for tanker• of international reaistry. and it is aenerally
accepted that U.S.-recistration vessels have a better record.
Furthermore, the development of deep water ports, the application of
new reaulations restricting tanker dischar&es, and the application of
new technology should si&nificantly reduce the tanker-spillage rate."
We can readily reason that the 0.016 percenta&e rate does not apply to
the Gulf of Hexico OCS and aoot certainly does not apply to the Cook
Inlet. Based on EPA and U.S.C.G. data, summarized by the Alaske
Division of Oil and Gas and presented in the February, 197(
"Bulletin,01 it was shown that 49,292 barrels of oil were produced for
each barrel spilled from all sources (drilling, production, pipelines
and tankers) over the history of Cook lnlet oil and &aa activities.
This data &ives a spillaae rate of 0.0020 percent.
We rccoMend this section of the analysis be rewritten based on
aore current and applicable data.
Page 155, Acute Effects of Drilling Huds.
1"hc conclusions of this section demonstrate that the toxic
components of drilling muds are bacteriocides that are added to the
mud to inhibit 'microbial growth in the mud tanks. These
con5tituents, already diluted in the Muds, are further diluted when
discharg~d ~nd ''Abundant evidence indicates that lethal concentrations
(gre~tcr th~n LDSO) of the dissolved fraction of drilling fluid
cc,ntamin.lnts are only present within a few •eters of the discharge
pipe." What the coUUIIcnt does not say is that there is little
environmental effect from IJud fluid disch.1rxc and we reconunend the
anoiilysis so state.
12
adjective to characterize the "•ost likely spills" to occur 1.n the
Lower Cook Inlet OCS. The Table, Oil Spill Volume and
lncidP.nce in the CoQk Inlet, presented earlier in our comments, shows
the acLu.'11 types of oil spills that have occurred over the last ten
years in the Cook Inlet. This \nforaation demonstrates not only the
small volume of oil spilled, but also the absence of "chronic"
pt~llutant events. To refer to the typical accidental oil spills that
have occurred as chronic pollution events is exaggeration in the
extreme. The D£15 further states "Such spills are most likely to be a
problem nt:ar shore facilitieft and along tanker routes." Even if such
spills are more likely to occur in these areas, the low volume of oil
spilled and the infrequency of occurrence that has been observed means
that there 1• !12. "problea."
Page 176, Impacts on Marine Ma.aalB.
It is stated, 11 0il pollution and disturbance due to increased
human activity could affect marine mammal populations native to the
proposed sale 160 area. Other impact-producing agents which could be
associated with pc:troleum development and production include marine
dispos•l of drilling muds and cuttings, marine disposal of formation
and cooling wau:rs, dredging •nd filling (such a!l that •ssociated with
pipeline construction), and secondary development.11 Each of these
&tatemcnts is made as a au111111ary, yet the information presented in this
section as a whole does nOt support these conclusions. On the
contracy, the evidence prPsented allows quite opposite interpretations
and predictions of iapact.
Page 180, l~pacts on Harine Mammals (Natural Gas and Ca~ Condensales).
lt is stated "Inhalation of toxic vapors (of natural gas. and gas
condensates) could be fatal to marine mammals". The purpose of ~his
statemc:nt is unclear since just above that statement it is stated
"currents, wave= "ction and wind would be expf=cted to disperse. dilute
and evaporate Jt.llS and gas condensate pollutants rapidly."
Pag~ 185, Unavoidable AdvHse Impacts.
A r<:fc:rcnce is aad<: to ... 11 thc hiah probability of spills in
certOlin ,arr:.1s ... " Ev~n tht: unw4rranted predictions of the analysis
for four "-P~lls do not support a 11 high probability of spills" in ~f)Y
are::a. It 15 agreed th11t should a spill occur, habitat and food
source:!'> could b<: affc:cted locally.
Pag•.; IRS, [mfJOJCts on Endllngercd Species and Non-Endangered Cetaceans.
Thi~ p.&rt of the analysi!'ii tends to ixnurc av.1ilable in(ono:ttion.
1hrou~hout th~ an.1ly!';iis, there ib spc~culntion of mdjor imp~cl~ from
oilspJils ·1MI tlistur'bance", yet consult..1titm with r\OA,\/~i'IFS ;ts p.1rt of
this an:dy~h c:c,nr.luc1cs that "Lh<· )(:a~c !1>.1lc· D.nd explor;ttion
.acriviti(~: .. 1o..">rwiatr:d with )t~ol\'H-s:&l<·s t,6, 55 and (,0 arc· not lil~t·ly to
jt:<JI_Mrdi?.c: thr: continu<:d <!Xi~tencc! ot ••ny of tht· (:lldoln~c-•·cd ""h.dc~ or
thc:1r h.:~Uil.1t!')." Al:.,o, T. 1'. Uolc, Ccraci and Smtth find th:ll wh.1les
co-c:d~t wt.-11 with OC~ pr!l.roleun• act i.vitics. In addition, the
an.dy!-tis ;u.::knr,._.:lt.'d~I".!!IE studj(!s of wh;llcs which contacted the Somta
8.1ri.Jo1r:• spi! 1 in J'J6fJ. Tho:;<: 5tud&es shm .. ·c:d the• numlJrr of gr.1y ...-hod<~
strandin~' ••(•r<: not significo.~nll)' different a:rrom prcviou~ year~ and
fr;und nu h~·drv~.:artmn contamination in tho~c st.randcd.
13
Paae 210, Cultural Reaourceo (!Iarine Archeolou).
We rec.,...nd that junification be &iven
identified (red bloch on araphic 13) u requirina
surveys, since we aaree with the analysis that
potential for the occurrence of cultural reaources.
Paae 215, lapacto of Gu Pipeline.
III.A.2. il an incorrect reference.
Paae 219, Cuaulative Effecto.
In the fourth paraaraph, the third .. ntence is not coapleted and
the phraoe is unclear in .. anina.
Paae 227, lapacu on the ACIIP.
We •aree that the proposed ule is not expected to advenely
i•pact the ACIIP nor affect the inte&rity of Kenai Peninoula Borouah
and Kodiak leland Borouah Cootal llanaae~~ent Proar ....
Paae 230, Wastewater Discharaeo.
Paracraph three diecueeea the contaminants oil and areaae
&llociated with oil-based •uds. Since tbia paragraph is included
under the headina of "Typeo of Wutewater Discharaeo" it 1o
•illeadin& to diecu11 oil-baaed aud oyat .. l wi tbout indicatina that
such muds are not diacbaraed into the water column as are water baaed
•udo · Therefore, the reference to oil·baoed audo ohould be deleted
froa the paraarapb.
Paae 230, Produced Watero.
The wordina of thio paraaraph iaplies that the opecifically named
heavy •etala are preaent in all forwation waters in concentrations
exceedin& federal water quality criteria. Since this is obviously not
the case, the in&ccurate statement can be corrected with only minor
chanau, ao follows (chana•• are underlined): "A review of ovailable
d1.ta on typical for.ation water toxic conatituenta revealed that the
Ni, Cd, Zn, and A& oo .. ti••• exceed establiohed federal water quolity
criteria ... "
Paae 231, Other Discharaes.
The word "treatedn 1hould be inserted before each uee of the ten1
I ani tary waetea.
Paae 233, Conclusion.
Tho third oentence of thio paraaraph ie a concluoion which is not
supported by the infonaation preaented in this section. The atatement
that wastewater discharaee from OCS attivt ties could contaainate soae
species surroundina the diecharae aource is contr.aditted by the last
sentence of paraaraph 2 on paae 232 which states that in the study don~ b)• Tillery (1979) no evidence of bioaccuaulation was found. In
add1tion, the contention that theoe diacharaes could .kill aquatic
organises eurroundin& the outfall ie pure speculation which ia
unsupported within thle DEIS. In fact, paraaraph 3 on paae 232 it
ltotes that in the caae of the Cook Inlet COST well, due to the swift
cut·rents no cuttina accUJDUlations were discernible.
A11COOI--~
__ ...
Poet Ofllce llo• --.-.... T-1172111137
october 30, 1910
Bureau of Land Manaq ... nt
Alaska ocs Office
P. o. Box 1159
Ancboraqe, lilt 99510
Qed! ~ 1: :F10
lll'ittan co-nta
OCS Sale 160
Lower Cook Inlet -Shelilcof Strait•
ARCO Oil and Gao eo.p&ny,
a divhion of Atlantic Richfield co.pany
A'l'LARTIC RICHFIELD COIIPAHY
<>
14
Paae 233, c-ulat1ve Etfecu.
The third oentence of thle paraaraph otateo that euau latin
loadinaa of conta.inante froa varioue eourcee could deteriorate
exiltin& water quality. Althouah thia atateaent il qualified vi.t.b the
word" could", baaed upon the anticipated developaent deacribed in the
DEIS, it io hiahly unlikely there would be any detectable aecu.ulatioo
of trace aetals and petroleua hydrocarbons in the water eol\dlll. This
would be particularly true for a biahly dynuic enviro..-nt such as
Lower Cook Inlet.
Paae 233, Unavoidable Advene Iapacta.
It appears that the first and last aentenceo of the paraaraph are
contradictory.
Table IV A.2.p.·l, back of paae 233.
So11e of the inforaation contained in thia table is
unrepresentative due to the unner in which it baa been derived-as
indicated in footnotes 1 and 3. Footnote 1 otateo that the eaiaoioc
rates are eu..ed across all eourcee on the exploratory vessel or
production platfora. Thil •ethod of calculatina -inion rar:ea is
particularly erroneoue for exploratory veaeele eince •any of t.bt
aourcee would not be operatin& at the eaae ti ...
Footnote 3 indicates that a conversion. factor was uaed vb.icla
aeeuaes constant dailY oeeratione of •ieeion sources over a Year.
Not only""'IO"iliri a quutionable •etbod for coaputina -iadona frca a
production platfora, but it 1o scarcely appropriate for calc,.latiD&
e•ieeione froa a teaporary exploratory veeeel.
Paaeo 237-278, I•pacto of Other Alternativea.
Co111111enta .. de above also pertain to the analyaia of iapacta of
all alternative•.
Pa&e 280, Irreversible and Irretrievable C.,_itaent of Resources
(Mineral Reoources).
The only irretrievable loss of reeourcee is tbe n.eeeesary use of
resources associated with unaueceeaful exploration effor~s to
establish the sale area aa a c~erc:ial hydrocarbon produeina area.
lf exploration leads to a ca..ercially auccessful develos-ent. there
would be a net eneray aain. It is not accurate to etate that the act
of extraction of hydrocarbons ia an irretrievable c:a..ic.ent. of
resources when the result ie a net eneriY &&in.
Paae 281, (Social Factora).
There is little chance of offshore oil and a•• activities to
chanae the traditional lifeatylea of Kodiak Ialand and Cook Inlet
villaaes. Social chanaes in Port Lions, Kodiak and Hoaer ai&ht occur
ae • result of positive econa.ic chan&•·
Paae 281, (Visual and Wilderneas Reaource1).
There is no reason to believe that any wtldernees and ac:enic
areas of special oi&nificance would be irreversibly c.,..itted with the
proposal. Many .areas aui table for onshore develos-ent have already
been identified in local borou&h atiiCII'e'S and plans. In addition,
industry has been successful in keep ina installations neat. p.inted
and well-maintained whether offshore or onshore.
Ill'l'JIODUC'l'I()I(
In addition to tha oral teatiaony presented by Atlantic Ricb-
field Cooopany at -and Kodiak, -would like to .._nt on
tha follovinq eubjecta which -r• addre811ed by tbe Draft lblvi-
ro-ntal Illpact Stat ... nt (DBIS) a
(1} Oil Spill Data
(2) Iolpec:te on l'iob&riea
(3) Miti9atinq Meaour••
At tha outMt -would like to aake it clear that -fully
aupport tha Propoaal aa identified in tbe D&IS aa AlternAtive
I. OUr .,_..to are -..t u oonetructive critici-.
OIL SPILL DATA A1111 IIIPACTS
An oil opill riak analyde ia an illportant part of tha D&IS.
Hovever, -ouboait that tbe analyde of Appendix D should
include an analyois of the hiatorical oil apill data and
iapacta of the area in or aurroundinq tbe aale area.
It appaare that tbe data included in Table I -• derived froa
..,.. oort of nAtionAl avera9inq over the life of. exploration
and production in the United Stataa OCS -tara. Altbouqb
thia -tbocl -y have ..,.. purely atathtical value -queatioa
tha value of the aole UM of aucb data in thh oale on two
qrounda. Pirat, thare have been 15 yaare of experi....,. of oil
and qao activitiee in Cook Inlet. 8econd, tbe operatiOD&l -tbocl• in uee in the Cook Inlet are aore reflective of tba
current •state of tbe art• for tbe oil and qes industry.
We contend that a DBIS ahould reflect tba biatorical oil apill
data fr011 the area under the otucly. Acoordinq to recorda froa
the Alaska Departaent of l:nvir.,_,tal ConMrvation froa 1970
to 1979, we can identify only two 8J)illa in tbe Cook Inlet
directly attributable to oil and qaa drillinq, producinq,
pipeline or tankerinq activitiea. l"urtb&raore, both of tb&M
opills were under 1,000 barrele, and thua neither would be
conoidered ·-jor• apilla aa that tara ia u...S in tbe OBIS.
Atlantic Richfield baa compiled data froa other oourcea re-
qardinq oil opills. !'or example, Coast Guard recordo for COOk
Inlet indicate nu.erous 8J)illo attributable to the oil indua-
try frooa 1972 to 1980. -ver, the YOl,_ of all apilh
COIIbined durinq thia ti-fr-equalo 431 harrela. Spills
from other aourcea durinq this tiae equalled 410 barrels.
Altllouqll the data variee aoaewb&t fr011 the data of the Alaska
Departaent of Bnviro-ntal Conaervation it indicate• the ....
qeneral trand. Oil 8J)illa in Cook Inlet have hiotorically
~~i~ T~~he ~I:-~~r ""~• "=,.;! :~1 ~:-c!:k ~.Je~~
At the very leaat, historical data of tbia kind should be uaed
for campariaon aqainet the •national average• especially wbere
such data is readily available. It ia evident that the national
average io not conaiatent vi th the Cook Inlet averaqe and aucb
a comparison should be made.
Furthermore, aucb a canparison ia valid in that the national
average'ia not accurately descriptive of the conatantly improv-
ing • atate of the art. • Oil spill prevention .. thode and
equipeent heva !Joproved greatly in the recent paat. lfe aubeit
thet the excellent aafety record of drilling and production in
the Upper Cook Inlet and of exploratory drilling in the Lower
Cook Inlet ia a reflection of the improved .. thode and equip-
ment and increased care with which operations are conducted
today.
It ae&lle reasonable that any diecu .. ion of oil apilla in the
Cook Inlet area should consider the data we have lted above.
Localized data which reflect• the current •atate of the art•
io probably mora valid than using a national averaqe. It
provides a mora raaliatic picture of what can be expected.
The oil apill probability eatimatea of Table I, Appendix D
of the DBIS are unrealiatic, have created confuaion and have
rahed fears to an unneaaary level rather than provide an
edaquate data b&ae from which to draw rational concluaiona.
W& have one final comment with reqard to the treatment of oil
apilla. We aublllit for your consideration that it would be
beneficial to divide the oil spill diacuaaion into two aepa-
rate area• -one for the exploratory pb&ae and one for the
development/production phase. Drilling practice in Alaska and
alaewbara baa abown that the danqer of an oil spill durinq the
exploratory pbaae is extremely low. A aiqnificant oil apill
during the exploratory pheaa would moat likely occur as a
reault of • blowout. However, even thia risk ie low and the
probability of oil beinq apilled aa a conaaquence ia even
lower. We refer you to Open-Pile Report 10-101, outer Conti-
nental Shelf Oil and Gaa Blowouts by B~r P. Danenberqen,
prepared for the u.s. Geological Survey. According to that
report, 7, 553 wells drilled in the OCS fr011 1971 to 1978 there
were only 46 blowouts, apilling a total of le .. than 1,000
barrels. Of tboae 46 blowouts~!!~ during~
exploratory pbaae.
Therefore, even uainq the •national average• for apilla9e fra.
exploratory well blowout• we find that the riak of such apilla
durinq the exploratory pb&ae ia neqliqible (.00225). Tbia
information ia very significant but ia not reflected in the
oil apill data cited in the DBIS. To .. ke the "picture• .ore
realiatic we auggeat that, in addition to the uae of histor-
ical • local data, aigniticant attention be drawn to the
mini .. l oil spill risks involved in exploratory drilling. We
would further cite the rest of Report 80-101 to substantiate
our contention that the oil spill data of the DBIS ia aia-
laadinq by failure to accurately reflect the reault of -ern
drilling and production methods.
MITIGATING MBASURES
Potential Mitigatinq Measure No. 1 -
Well and Pipeline Requ{ramenta
ARCo Oil and Gaa COmpany feel• that potential •itigatinq .. a-
sure No. 1 ia unnecessary. This propoaed stipulation requires
that aubaea wellhead• and other protruaiona be protected in
order to allow comaercial fishing travel qear to paas over the
atructurea without damaqing the fiabing gear. To date, no
feasible mean• to edequataly protect aucb atructurea bas been
developed.
Requlationa currently in place provide a aufficient .. aaure of
protection for aubaea structure. Gulf of Alaaka ocs Order 110.
1 requires that all aubaea objects reaulting from leaae opera-
tiona which could present a hazard to other usera of the ocs be
identified by navigational markings aa directed by the u.s.
Coast Guard District Commander. Such .. rkinqs would enable
commercial fishermen to prevent damage to their fiabinq qear by
avoiding aubaea atructurea. Since the potential danqar of oil
pollution outwaigbe potential damage to fishing qear if aubaea
atructurea are impacted by tiabing gear or ship ancbora, both
the oil induatrv --· fishing industry abould abare the
burden of enaur1ng aubaea structures remain undamaged.
In the event that the Director of the Bureau of Land N&Dag ... nt
datermin .. that potential mitigating measure No. 1 be edopted
aa a lease atipulation, ve request that it be ... nded to read
aa follows:
Subsea wellheads, temporary abandonmenta, auapended
operations that leave protruaiona above the seafloor
and unavoidably irreqular pipeline surfaces which are
not buried, shall be marked in a manner prescribed by
the Diatric Commander, u.s. Coaat Guard, 17th
District. Latitude and longitude coordinates and
water depths for these atructurea aball be submitted
to the DCM (Deputy Conservation Manager) and to the
District commander, and shall be published in the
Notice to Mariners. In the evant that the District
Commander determines that such structures could be
damaged by fishing gear or ship anchors with reaultant
oil pollution, he may establish a safety aone around
such structures, pursuant to 30 CPR 147.
Potential Miti7atin¥ Measure No 2 -
Transportat1on o HydrocarbOn Products
The transportation of hydrocarbons should be both aafe and
environmentally sound~ To ensure that theae critari• are aet,
any lease stipulation regarding transportation must be auffi-
ciantly flexible to allow case by caae decisions. The proposed
mitigating measure is unnecesaarily rigid in requiring pipelines
IMPACTS 011 PISHJ:RIBS
ana of the .. jor itella to ariae from the DBIS hearinq h a
concern about the impact on fisheries. The DBIS recoqniaea
tbia in ita stat-nt that • ••• aal..,n .. y be the moat vulner-
able aa..ercial apeciea in the area to be affected by thia
proposal." (DBIS P• 159).
It is our position that oil and qaa operation• in the Cook
Inlet area have not significantly affected the salmon catch.
The tbr-tables attacbed to theM aa..enta will serve to
qenerally support our position. Table I was ~iled by the
Alaska Department of Piab and Game and reflects the comercial
aat.on catch froa 1959 to 1971 for the Northern Diatrict,
General Subdistrict. Almoat all tbe production platforms in
the Upper COOk Inlet are located in thia area. Tabla II is
from paqe 152 of the Snvironmental AaHa-nt of the Alaskan
Continental Shelf -Lower Cook Inlet Interim Synthesis Report
1979, prepared by the u.s. Department of Coaaerce (HDAA) and
Interior (BLM) Tbia table abows the sat.on catch froa 1954 to
1975 for the ltaob-k Bay (Southern) District, a very prolific
salmon area and an area in which no production platform•
located. Table III indicates the salmon catch for all of
Lower Cook Inlet fr011 1954 to 1978 and ia from paqe 151 of the
report juat cited.
An analyaia of theae tbr-tebl .. will reveal that the fluc-
tuation• in the aat.on catch froa 1959 to 1971 appear to
follow the •-qeneral pattern for the Uppar Cook Inlet, an
area vitb aiqnificant offahore oil production, for Kachamak
Bay, an area with no offahore oil production and for the Lower
COOk Inlet aa a whole. The years of decreaaed catchea in the
oil producing area were also years of decreased catches for
the area without oil production and for Lower Cook Inlet aa a
whole. Tbia would aeam to indicate that the continuoua oil
production in Upper COOk Inlet waa of little significance in
affectinq the Salmon catch.
W& acknowledqe that tba analyaia juat recited .. y ndt be
acienific, however, it doe• indicate a qeneral pattern and
aupporta our contention that the fiebinq industry will not be
significantly affected by oil production in the Lover Cook
Inlet. W& do not intend to be satisfied by this cursory
analyaia, and we will continue to reaearcb and monitor the
situation. W& do f-1, however, that data such .. tbia abould
be adequately aet forth in any DBIS in order that i..,acu on
tbe fiabinq industry will not be inaccurately stated or over-
stated.
Additionally, we would like to state that not all impact• on
the fiabinq industry are neqative. Technical Report No. 55
aponaored by the Alaska OCS office states on page 50 that
• ••• fiabarmen ••• indicated the veaaela (aaaociatecS with the oil
induatry) had rescued a number of craft in danger and bad been
of help in forecaatinq weather, particularly in the Lower
Inlet near the Shelikof Straits. • The report atatea further
that aa oil activity proceeded exploration and fiabinq contro-
versiea -re ainiaiaed. W& aubeit that the poaitive impact•
of oil exploration have been inadequately treated in the DBIB.
to ahore in at.oat all inatancea. The poeaibilHy of construc-
ting a d-p water port facility for offshore loading at Cape
Staricbkof (identified aa suitable for aucb a facility by a
borough sponsored study, D&IS p. 227) would possibly be pre-
cluded without consideration due to the .. aaure'a atated prefer-
ence for pipeline•.
W& reoo.mend that any tranapcrtation stipulation be ..,re
flexible and auggeat the followinq lanquaqe•
"l'ranaportation of Bxdrocarbon•
The transportation of hydrocarbons produced from .eased
tracta ab&ll be by the safest and ..,.t feasible •thod.
In aelecting the .. ana of transportation, consideration
will be qiven to1 The coaatal mana-nt plana of the
Kenai Peninaula Borouqb and/or the .O.Siak leland Borough
(when aucb plana are adopted and approved purauent to AS
46.40.010), and the reaa..and&tiona of the intergovern-
..ntal planning prnqr.. for aaa ..... nt and .. naqe .. nt of
tranaportation of ocs oil and qaa, affected federal, a tate
and local aqenciea, and induatry.
The leaaor reaervea the riqbt to require that any pipeline
uaed for transportation of production be placad in certain
deaiqnal:ed .. naq-nt areas. All pipelines, including
both flow linea and gathering linea, &ball be designed and
constructed to provide for adequate protection from water .
currenta, ator.a, aubfr .. ainq conditione, fiaheriea trawlin9
gear, and other haaarda •• deterained. OD a caae by caae
beaia • Pollowinq developeent of the transportation ayatea,
no crude oil abell be traneported by other .. ana except in
the cue of -rqency.
Potential Mitiqatinq Meaaure No. 3 -
Envlro~ntal fi'aln{ng Proqraa
ARCo Oil and Gaa eo.pany as a division of Atlantic Richfield
COmpany, adhere• to the Company snvironmental Protection Policy,
which atatea our objective to "Train our employ-• in environ-
.. ntal matters, action• and reaponaibilitiea relatinq to their
particular aaaiqnmenta•. In support of this conaitment, ARCo'a
Alaska Reqion ia currently formulating a cultural/environmental
training program which will acSdreaa concerns .. ntioned in tbia
aitiqatinq .. aaure.
Potential Mitiqatinq Measure No. 4 -
Disposal of NUda, CUttlnga, ana Porm.tion Waters
Tbia potential aitiqating •aaure ia unnecessary and should not
be included aa a leaae stipulation. Tbia .. aaure waa deaiqned
for OCS Sale 142, Georqea Bank, but ia not appropriate for uae
in the Lower Cook Inlet -Shelikof Strait Area. There ia a
presumption that diapoaal of drillinq muds and, cuttings m&y
have a aerioua environ8&ntal iapact. Raqardleaa of the level
of dispute on this iaaue, it is obvious that r•ceivinq water
characteristics auat be taken into account when diacuaainq the
i-ct of diacb&rqe from OCS Operations. The degree of resi-
lience of a bi.,.. to absorb any level of pollution ia nacesaarily
• characteristic of tbat specific bio.a. Any lease atipulatioaa
should reflect an analysis of ccnditiona and resilience that
cbaractarha tba r-r Coot IDlat.
..,aral studies have evaluated diaparaion and bicl09ie&l affects
of drilling fluids. Atlantic Richfield aponaorad such a study,
entitled Drill~kFluid DiaS!jaion and Biological Bffacta ;;ifx
for tba Loller 00 '"liilit c. . . '. wii! ns••· iDd IIOOri;"""l •
Stat.,;r,-e-...a!iiid-.;c-...,..rapblc CODCiitiou, drillinv fluid
raleaaaa and di-raiOD, -a•ur-ta of cuttinvs, aocnaulation
rates Oil the ... floor, aa well •• static bioassay• aboard tba
4rillinv Y&aaal to dataraina tba sensitivities of t.portant
MriD& apaciaa to 4rilli"'J aud. Liw box studiaa a..-nad tha
affects of tba discharge plu. on iaportant species. Bantbic
-ity Nllplift'J vas 4ona before, during, and after 4rilli"'J.
Plu. -•11"9 and oaallDOC)raphic -•ur-ta allowed that tur-
IMal....,. created by the drilli"'J ..... 1 in currants greatar than
0.1 knot vas sufficient to dilute discharges by a factor of
10,000 to 1 within 100 -tara of tba point of discharva. 71>a
MXiaua increase in aadt.&nt as a result of drilling a...s dia-~raisad tba auapandad aolida by I av/litar in an a.biant
ranva of 2 to 20 av/1. BtrO"'J currants and axtanaiva reverting
of tba ... floor aad~ta pravanted the accnmulation of cutti"'J&
near tba 4rillinv -•••1. Static bioaaaaya aatabliahad that
pinll: aalaon fry are tha .oat s-itiva apaciaa tested (others
-r• ahrt.p, auaaala, ayaida, and othar cruataoaana). 71>a
l~at 96br. tCSO value dataraioad for tbia species was ),000
ppa whole drilli"'J aud. llo .ortalitiaa attributable to affluent
related ca,...a occurred in any u .. box testa in tbe effluent
plu..
~•• studies aatabliab that diapoaal of drilling ....Sa and
cutti"'Ja into r-r Coot Inlet will have little anvirona.ntal
affect. Purtheraore, tbare ia already sufficient revulation
over offabore disc~>ervas to protect .,_rcial fisheries. 71>a
B.P.A. ravulates offshore discharges tbrough the •ational
Pollutant Discharve Bliaination Syataa parait process, and ocs
Drdar llo. 7 requir .. that dia-al of wasta aateriah generated
as a r .. ult of offshore operations not -raaly affect. -v
other thi"'Je, aquatic life. Purtheraore at the Maahington,
D.c. 2974 ... ting in July, 1910, there vas a foraal agraeaant
not to adopt a stipulation a110h as 111 tigati'Dg Weaaura 11o. 4.
1bia aitigating ... sura &lao oontaaplataa tba reinjection of
forMtion -tara. AIICo atro"'Jly oppoaaa thia proposal aa it
My apply to exploratory -11•. IIIII injection of foraation
waters aay jaopardiaa tba safety of exploratory drilling opara-
:~o~u:" a '":!lr~olata tba atr~~etural integrity of oaaiDIJ stri"'J•
Potential llitigati~ Measure No. 5 -
ProtacElon of IIOI09loal raaourcaa
While the intent of tbia aitigating -•ura ia laudatory, it ia
unduly broad and giv.. the Deputy Conservation Manager vide
discretionary ~ra to altar or halt ocs exploration or devel-
op.nt activities without requiring a factual baaia for his
Conclusion
We strongly urga tna OCS office to oonaidar tbaaa oo-..ta and
to apply tbaaa ideas to tbe Pinal Bnviro-tal Iapact Stata-
-nt and to future iapact atateMnta. The and result of an
Ulpact atat&Mnt should be to present the aost realistic ex-
pected iapacta. The near exclusive presentation of statistical
... ns and -•• without traataant of historical local data
results in an unreliable iaaga of axpactad iapacta and has
served to exaggerate fears and concerns to an extent tbat has.
significantly daaaged tbe concept of reaaoDabla and rational
approaches to the laaaa aala.ccntrovaray.
In these oo-..ta -briefly touched on tbe idaa that tbe word
"iapact• does not ~~eca .. arily danota a nagatiw result. To be
perceived •• a accurate description of anticipated impacts
BnvirDDMntal Illp&Ct Sta~nta should devote .ora attention
to the beneficial raaulta of oil and gas exploration.
action. Further, regulations vhicb -ld haw tba -effect
as this aitigatift9 -a aura era already in place.
The --nta to the OUter Continental Shalf Landa Act and
regulations p~gated pursuant thereto require BnviroDMDt&l
Aaporta to be aubaittad vitb Exploration Plana and Daval-nt
and Production Plana. These plana .,st be approved by tba Area
Oil and Gas Supervisor, Conservation Division of the Geologia
SDrvey, before exploratory or devalopaent and production acti-
vities are c.-need. The Bnviro-ntal lllllport for an Bxplor-
ation Plan auat include:
a description of environ.ntally sensitive or potentially
hazardous areas which •ight be affected by tha propoaad
exploration activities and a description of the alterna-
tives considered and tba action to be tall:an to preaarve or
protect such ar•••· Such areas shall include, but are not
limited to, thoaa of cultural, biological (e.g., fisheries),
archeological, or geological (e.g., aai.-icl significance •••
(lO CP'R 250. 34-lCal (11 I iii I 19781
A sailer daacriptiOD ia required to be included in the Bnvir-
on.ntal lllllport for a DavelopMnt and Production Plan ( lO CPII
250.34-l(bl Ill Iii I (Cl 19711
After the lessee has identified areas of biological significance,
tha Supervisor 1a -ed to •suspend any operation, including
production, vbich in his judve-nt thraatane i--.diata, aariODS
or significant dllll8ge to life, including aquatic life ••• • ()0
CPR 250.U(c) 1977). The Supervisor .. Y than require the
leases to conduct aita specific atudiaa to dateraina tbe poten-
tial daaage, and to develop adtigating aaaauraa to prevent the
-ga fr010 occuring.
In the alternative, if this potential aitigating .. aaure ia to
be included ae a laaaa stipulation, -....,.,_nd that tha
first two paragraphs be &Mn4ed to read aa follows;
If significant biological populations or habitats in the
leasing area which aay require additional protection era
identified by the Supervisor, he .. y require tba laasaa to
conduct environ.ental surveys or studies, includiaq a .. -
pling as approved by the Supervisor, to characterize
existing anviro-ntal conditione in an identified zone
prior to oil and gas operations, and to dataraioa the
extant and coapoaition of biological populations or
habitats, and the effects of propoaad or existing opera-
tiona on the populations or habitats which •ight require
additional protective -••uras. The s-rviaor shall
provide written notice to tha las-of a decision to
require a~~eb surveys or studies. The natura and extant of
any surveys or studies will be darainad by tba 8-rviaor
on a caaa-by-caaa basis.
[ "1/JW&U. !1
northem District, General Subdistrict, Cotch and Effort, 1959-1978
Ys~!. ·-----------~_!_·•---------·--K..!.r:!g, Sock_!?..)'~ f!>l"!. )'j_nJ!. f.~ ~~ ciffort
Total Gftr C.P.U.E.
1959 10.~77 60,538 27.564 1,6)1 48,456 148,766 1,061 140 19M 5,527 -91,647 113,603 356,866 109,522 677,165 1,138 595 1961 5,065 48,949 34,~57 7,557 57,594 1S4,122 879 17S 1962 6,567 ·80,667 149,324 243,653 125,111 605,322 1,017 595 1963 4,386 54,856 48,1)1 4,216 41,794 15),383 814 188
1964 78 --88,9)6 138,58Z 522,565 111,846 868,00/ 727 1,194 1965 Ill 11,763 15,422 3,127 16,510 46,955 496 95 1966 1,22) 59,881 66,041 )12,948 )3,)48 473,441 575 8Z3 1967 102 58,746 37,223 5,77) 37,491 139,335 l95 lSl 1968 268 -76,480 134,669 479,210 53,944 744,571 1.616 461
1969 1,581 15,157 18,183 6,224 11,126 52,811 633 84
1970 1.051 34,466 69,122 157,915 22,145 284,699 1,246 m 1911 5,039 21,803 15,592 6,)76 15,111 63,981 587 109
1972 2,839 58,520 ~16,159 80.619 15,980 114,117 847 206 1973 118 29,617 18,499 132.898 28,752 209,884 605 347
1974 113 30,366 41.072 38,504 )6,286 146,341 654 224 1975 106 35.304 27,412 76,76) 29,894 169,479 653 2fiD 1976~ ~28 39,776 .)0,364 132,970 13,232 216.570 747 l9D :;~~ rj
511 --il8.611 15,879 102,570 22,239 229.816
732 31,731 31,755 297.246 29,709 391,173
rota! 46,244 1,017,820 1,049,55) 2,969.6)1 866,750 5,949,998
·•o Year
~ 2,312 50,891 52.478 148,482 43,337' 297,500
'ldd Year
ota1 27,618 425,350 258.862 347.135 309,627 1,368,592
Jdd Year
2,762 42,535 25,886 34,714 30.963 136,1159
·ven Year
otal 18,626 592,470 790,691 2,622,496 557,123 4,581 .• 406
ven Ytar
1,86) 59,241 79,069 262,250 55,712 458,1'41
·----
I Cu::I'Jlative total of gear used through season.
I Total sal1110n caught per unit of gear-effort.
I Preliminary figures
I Pre! in:in6ry figures
7 .. ).
I
11
J
:!
I
1
1i
J
~I ••••• vaa •PP••••·
aalMn aDd 1.4 •il·
J, thele tvo 1pcch••
c of tile Cook folol
oc1 the awraae cu.cb
U, W81 IJPI'OMialt.elJ
ortorlr Jepert, Oct•
for tile Lovor Cook !ro) aod luhhok Dil•
.Sb oocl I .S.Sc. 111eoe
~ .lJ ia cotclloo, tho
tdct, u.cl the ~rl·
bu. saleon catcb.el era
~ cbe firot ool8oa to tio Cook IDiot. 11le
ppear ill catcbea io
rotcllu for oll ope•
iuoU, however, an
are abuadant uatU
rly leport, Oct•Dec 1
~.~;:';,;;_ ~:
,_ t4DFf1-)
frHU iJ
r Cook lnlot , 1954
I
j
0
I
1
~
:!
Kac:hemak (Southern) Dlotrlct
r;:}Chum
y .. ,
~ 10
I
0
J
E
:I c
5
0
IP.z...
Year
Dear lie. Klmnicke •
LISKOW & LEWIS
AnoMIIE't8 AT L.A.-
NIIW Ot1U .. &AN8. LA. '01M -----....... ..._
~ ...... .,....
UIAYCTR, LA. 70eM --.. ..... --...... ~---.....
wew Orleana, 70llt
OCtober 17, 1110
OCI lA•• lela llo. 10
Lower dbok Inlet -
llbelikof strait
PureliADt to the notice relative to tbe aab:leot
heuin9• appearln9 1a tbe Federal J1e9hter of AIIIJIIet 20,
1910, encloaed 1e tbe written preMntation or tbe Alaaka
Oil and Gaa Aaaociation. Tille preMntatioa 1a ·included
in one binder -.tainin9 tbe reapective written atate-
•nta of Killiu M. lleyo~re, ~· Coole, L. A. oar-,
and L . o. Gordwl, totetber vitll a -r prepue4 by Dr.
J. w. -noa.
It. 1a reapectfully ~ated that the copiea
of tbe above lhtecl ata-nta and paper be filed in the
headn9 record and be -a put thereof.
-·· lllllcloaw:e
CKM'IPIBD MAIL -Ull
~Pink
Oeo11o
.Sockeye
.Chinook
Your• very truly,
LISitOII 6 Llllll
ay/IJ-. rh·~
Portioaa of the witt• •-u ..... itted b)' the Aluka 011 ODd Gu
ANoc:iattoa are DOt nproduc:ed Mn but •• .... u ... le to tM public for
rwieW •t the Aluka OCI Office. !be portia deleted ccaprteed the oral
tut:laoa.y 1tw• et tM Mcbor•• ..._..taa of VUlt.. 11 • ...,.11', ~ Cook,
L. A. o.r-, ODd L. D. dr:mloo, wUb a-· prepared b)' Dr. J. w. -·
*· lrllthu' WUDD.icU, ..._..,
1WI oa Offioe •. o.-1159
--· lUaalra 19510
-Je.lMO
ft1a portioo of tiMI DIUI'a wi--~ oo oat. Coau-tal
lbelf (OCS) 1-aala 160, will ba ~ witb ...alta of av-
---iaf"""-..,ia~ril~. -~~
-.re OU&i.Dkie, r..n. ._, I'Arluk -a Pan: Llc:acw. hr:tlal Z'Millta
of -• ..._ ~ vt-1a ozal ~at-pabl1a ~
1a -...., oo -15, lHO. !ban 1a edditiooal iafoo.atioo n-
gar«iDg Yillaga atti--oooc:ema of 1M8a aala 160 wbl.ob ~
-pn-ted at -pubUo hMri"''o Pol~ tb1a aazrau ... of -
,...._,. naulta, -lato -lyaia f .. -Yillagw an attaobed.
ftMt ...._ -.tatad of 7-e -"-• wrJill9 f.., -•Ulll9a· -
""""Y .... field -tad 1a ouaialdo. an ~ raU,. -Upt,
-.r t11a iaci-wu ao h19JI 1a -rillagw it wu aot: --
to oalcoalato 1a --lyaia.
-al rof•-aro -1a t11a lllraft ..... ~tal llopaft etato-
-t (Dei&) u to ~ Joi-• attitaola -oil -~t -
-ity ,.-. ..... ill -39 of --t iadl-tllat ._..
of a _,or oil tomiaal facility ~ ba •i-pdaarUy • baDefita
ratllar than _ .. to tiMI _.ty. ~ u--i--• ·-
-tiMiy Yi-ocs -~ta. ftMt -loritr of -1• 1Dterrl-
(U\) did view ocs -~ta u baing -ficial, bat tbia --
raflact t!Miir •1-u to -• tiMiy -t tbaaa -fita tl>zougb oil
-1-•. -ltiiiiA-fartbar ~ t:hia,-of-~ ..
clo DOt: -• tiMI oil t....u-1 to be loaUt 1a tba ~ u--· -
-· -flta to be pined tz<a oil -~ -.ld be attaiaed
thrOUCJh di ffarent. •au..
---•n·-lok·--·~·-11071
··--·--Alulla oa Offtoe •. o.-1159
--· IUulla 91510 -··--·
lllv 18
-U,lMO
-~ an all •to:ciala tbat tile -..., -.. u ..... aociaUoo 1a
-tu,. 1a -to t11a ._t f.., ...,itta _ .. oo t11a
DBU .--oa z..e ea1e 160, t11a 1.-. 0oo1t Iale~ a.umt
&uait aale. ---ofa t11a oral -tou--
by -etaff-at tba---..., DBU ~ -ill9af tba -of-----by--etaff 1a-.. u.~ of Drl .. , ...._ ..,, Olldald.e, e4 Pact Lionel -a ....ral lldd!.Uaaal writ~
~ an eat ~lr .. .-...1 ... u aaUcipat.ed, bat. atatf ..n ~
IIU-_.tta-~-·
.. ~ uu to -t1>e .uvaca f.., t11a ~uaitr to ,._-to
tbaDBU,
..... tbar-..llla
ODt:ol:teE' 30, 1180 .,.._
liaoeroly,
tbia-of tllaaptwa _..,..iaod by tba -u-y of --iald
1a ~ u-oo -16, lHO. ...,_ lU ODd 117 1a -dnft
refer to Poet t.t.au• ~ty dMin to att.nct .., s..t.t.rr e1 tM
-ira to--ty ,.-. Dnw -fiold -.tod oo
t11a f-tllat ~ u-.... --a -ira to~ t11a -tr.
but ,_.r -tile -ira --boyoDd fiabari• related .-.u,.
'l'bo atU---by llr. -fiold oro roiaf-by t11a aurny
roaul.ta. Ia tba at-IIDalyoia of t11a Port Llooa """"i'• t11a-
-"'>9 a -1u ... atU--oa -~an-
at ._t ODd -c -loo. -. ob:lacti-an-
directly rolatod to oil -~t.
.,._ 207 of tlla clnft -t11a cooo1•1oa tbat tbera ~ be 110
.... ~ ..tftne ~c effecte for Part IJ.c.e. !tal• 1a bued aa
tbe Ra~t tbet •t.M .. joe .blpa.ct aa Part LI.C118 ana an laqelr
-to-t -lor-t u.cr-Wicb --ld -.idc
!leDefit.a ratber tUn loee•. • .. fbd thill •ta~t to DOt. t. •tinly
true. -"-ta of ~ Llooa clo •• tile baDefita of l.acrMaod ~
-t aa ~· It coa1d draio -1a1>or focce ~lr rz-
flUeri• related i._t.zy. Iince fiaherl• related l..,_t.ry 18 a
.. jOI' OOD8U.atioa iD tbelr eccDCaic uapMaian, tbu'• wery wll COGld
t.....,..... eocDatc eff-=U. 'ftlt• U u ana tfbicb abould a. etudiad
-1a depth before t11a Piaal ....u-ta~ :btpolot ... ~t <nul.
-ato-1a -"'"' 1a tbat Port Llooa ~ ,._-wo11 to
a ""-of tb1a ~·-(-198), tbia rafera to t:ho ._.. -
........,. nallltiag t.-t11a ~. "ftlia l.af-u ... 1a nbet.antiaUd
by talka witb a c:roaaecticn of tile .,...,Uty. ~ """"F -olta -
a ...,...ety of atU--• duonge of th1a •W• --lority of ~ -119aiMt laqe -ty ~ .... a-u-th1a to be
u t.poctoDt YOriant:, ...S it oleo abould be further _.-before -
"'" Piaal ..... u-tal :btpolot lto-t. lt. -· !Jiponaat """"""" ia
tbot Yillagw otU--ri-be ac:cvotaly roflecta4 in -rua.
-r !Jiponaat f_..,-by t11a ._-.-uta ... -
:a.n1a of .-1•-1a tlla ---.. u ..... _loU• _..., for
tbe foar •111.,.. intarri...S r....,.S fn. 43t. to 76t. for ODe ,...... w.
nelized theM lnet. an lov in ecapari.cm vit.h data 1D the Dl"aLt
.....u-tal llopaft lta-t, It -d be Doted tbet 1 .... 1a of
RMia-'IOU}' ~ oo tiMI year, u-of year --1a Wi""
tbe quution ie ••bdl. It wau.14 be '"ry difficult: ta ac:bine Uta on
a con.taat level of •W.i•tence. Tbe point h, 1n nerr etocty tbe lA'Nl of ·~-1a •itaificutly IU.gb.
•-207 of t11a oaa •to-"It ._. Ulwly tbat direct -lor-t
e4 .._ ialpecta tfCNld. t. rirtullr DOa-eai•teat for Karlalr., tAnee
a.y, AldU.ok, OU&lakie IID4 Old Ra.rbor.• fti• •ta~t 1• not. COI'rec:t..
-:a-1 of -·-1a bith in tbaao Yillagoa wbl.la t11a :a-1 of -.l~t 1e lov. An lncreue iD .-pl~t in other ar ... of I'.041.K
~~~~ will -a ~ -flow--~1' iaflaUoo. -
...Ulagw -"-will -noel'" -_,it of t11a -•· 1oat wUl • affacted by iaflatioo. l'rioea an bith aa 1a for t11a Yillagwro to ....,
*· Bather ttunntcke
octoblr .)0, 1980
• ..,. thr-
ataplea, e~ inereaH 1n Ficee _, force t~ to cboee alternath·ea to
their C\U'I'ent Ufeatyla. '!Ida altemati .. would twwe to include
either an lldcU.ti~l • .,.. of inco.e or a heavier dependence on aub-
abtence than now exbu.
Oft -39 it b otated '"ftle s..p.cte f-oil -,.. production -
tranafar ac:t.ivltiea on pi'S...ry and aecondary apeelea (and uaoclated
ba))it.at) b&rftated for aubcietence purpoaea wlt:hin YillAqe aubeiatence
uae areaa cannot be quantified at thb tt.e, but u. uaeaaed at a
hil)h probability of rhk fro. oihpUl inciclenta. • line• aubdaunce
and native lifestyles are Ulportant factors, these it~paets ahould be
quantiti~. Abo t..pacta fro. chronic low 1.,.1 pollution should be
quAntified f« tbese areas.
•~.n OCS leadnt proqr-4oea not represent a clecidon to leua in a
particular &rH. It repraHnt. cnly the o.par~nt • a intent to
consider leasinq in cert.ain areu, ~ to proceed with tM leaaiftCJ
of such areas only if it ahould be deterained that l ... i119 and .S.velop-
..nt in such areaa would be envlror.antally, technically, and ~
callx acceptable. • Cpaqe 18) rro. info1'11&tion and. data gathered
thrOQ9h the surveys, we question that laue .. le 160 h acceptable.
lnvhonaent.ally, subeiatence resources are in dan~r, this in turn
clatinetly affects the eeona.y. Views of vill&cJe residants directly
imrolved with oil terainal facilities .. ,. reflect that this plan is
not ecoru:.iC4l1ly acceptable for their ~ity. These issues should
l.te investipted th~uthly. Iince the ~unit.ies surveyed are those
wblch vou.ld be iJipect.ed the .,.t in the lol!iak island area, their
attitudes and cancel'ftll toward OCS laue sale 160 ahould not be taken
Ughtly. Areas where dlacnpe.ncr h evident shouy Mv. further study
110 they MY bl adequately aDd aorrec:tly representa in the rats.
*• Wululicke
October lO, 1980
Page fiw
10. exiatlnt data gape ln occurance, 41strib\ltion and relative
illpo:ct.uc. of the Shdikof Strait ar•a for auine and coastal
bl<do '-· 241)
lt is auy to s .. wby envircn-ntal illpaeta are difficult to quantify
when ao auc:h necessary inf~tion is lacking~. Without localized
biolOIJie&l studies on subeistence spec!••• neither pot•nt.ial i.-pacta
« aiti.qating ... aures for subsistence uaa areas cannot be projected.
In fact any envii"'naantal Wpacts would be difficult to quantify with
the current lack of data tMt exists.
... Wumicke
.let.obu lO, 1980
'-9• four
fte aecond portion of thia written tutt.ony rill :be dealing with the
envil'~nt.al data an t.he Bbelikof Stra1ta. Ia i.e appann.t that then
b auch ~ta atill tdaaint 1n thia area. "ftMM infon.tian lacklft9 b
iaperatiw to projeetinq poteatial t.pact.a ud aitip.tinq .... urea for
l ... e Mle 160. 'lbt OCS Lan4a Act et.ipulatea, that atu41u .-t be
ca.pleted 6 -=-t.ba prior to t~ 1.... -1•. .. ntv for e.JW~~ple, to
the 9eoha:u.rd evalut:ian of Shellkof Strait. 'l'hia atuay will not M
oc.plet.ted prior to the aal.e, only an int.ed.a report vtll be available.
W. fMl the DEIS hu preiMfttedl the available infomation an errwiro..ental
studiea very vell, and hu abo conveyed to the public ~ -.en
oa.plete enviro.-.nt.l data ia lacking. -ed an the available l.nfoz.a-
tion, the DEIS presenta the bpaet.a of laue aale 160. It ia poas1ble,
hcNever, that the" illpacta could be better as a-sed if all studies wre
c:o.pleted at leut before the final 41'aft. rollowinq-, 1a a list of
areu which are at the preaent deficient of info~tipt aough to aaJte
a proper usu .. nt of t..pacta.
1. an estiaated vol-of for.at.ion veten produced fro. ddlllnv
is t.po.aible due to the lack of knowledge of the subsurface
veology of tM ShelUcof ltrai t (stated fOUl' t.t...la 1n tM
DEISs Table n. B.I. a.-1, Table II 8.4. a.-1, Table u. a.s.a-1,
""'" 132)
2. at the writinq of the DSIS, the Qlited stat .. Geoloqlc:al larNy
enviro~ntal study of geol091 had not yet been publiahad
(graphic I)
3. only an lntari• 4)e0hazard evaluetion of the SbeUkof Strait
vi 11 be available prior to the sale (p,e,ge 108)
4. the at&bUity of the aand vave field, hu been aaMaaed in
lcwer Cook I a let, there is no ..ntion of data on Shelilcof
Strait (-146)
s. ther• are biol04J1cal data gaps in SbaUII.of strait for finfish
and shellfish populationa, •rina .nd --..ls and cat.aeeana,
.. rine and coastal blrcls, .nd vulnerable coastal habitat..
(~q~ U)
6. there ar•· biolo,ical dau gape for discrete ec:oeyn.-~loyed
in subsbtonc•-ori•nt~ econc:aica (pA9e 47)
7. base behavioral studies are lacking for -rine .._.1 apecies
in lower Cook Inlet and Shal1kof Strait (~g• 178)
a. thora is a lack of inforaation of whether or not cetacean•
frequent Shelikof Strait.
9. e.Kisting ~ta gape in occurenca and distribution of ~rcial
and aportfish apecies, in relation to 4Uferent habitat types
'-· 240)
NC'1I: I 13 PH '80
'l'ZSTIIIOIIY
&ODIAIC AJtEA D't'IVE ASSIXIAnC.
Ou.tor COntinental Shalf (OCS)
ou Lease Sale t&o
DRAFT DfVIRONMENTAL DIPAC"l' STA~
Public IIHring
Kodiak, Alaaka -October 15, 1980
Prescmt~ by 1
QOI;/SUbaistenee
Resurct..r
*· ðer lhmldc:U, Diz'ecrtoc'
&la.eU. OCI office
An~ ... , A1a8b.
... ~-.. u .. ...-.-~ lalAo 110
Goodafternaan-~-~-1-• ..,_
1o •YM !IOn ... ll, -1--~ u • oa~
... ea:rober by DID., the 1Go41alr; ana aati" Meooiatiaa, a1Dae Oatobu'
1, tnt. .. ...Ul.aod a., till -· DD oa --lotaDt,
at yeaterday'e ..mho Beari.Bt la ..._.., t.a. DID. 18 a aon-prottc
....,uaauon tbat .... ~ l.a 1110. M -·· tbe oquU&-
-~ity -~t-~ --to-.. u .. ~e
lhl.a9 "" Jr.odial< l~, puticululJ' -11Yl.a9 l.a -~·e
JCllllk'e effort. to efforti..tr -the ..,._tial of oa oil - -
-1-t in -..n ....... -· .... -.J< lo~-beiPt-
-in October of 1979 with .... nool~ of a ~ f&<lll .... -.1
AlAolul ec-tnltr oct.1oa 1'<09r•· ~b -. --,_, ....
IWIA .... att-od to -te, w-. -_..u. w~.u,..o no~-..
to roopond to tho po-ti&l ~ of oa ~·· -boo -
do1..-tod tho roo-Utility of -U,.. the ~u-....,.... a., ~
eb -poct:ivo •U~ to all -1Uoo ~1Yod l.a .... oil -~·
_ ... !lte dlotot• of t111o---~-DD to
MI. ttun.niclw
october 1 S, 1980
Pat•'
~ IWIA otaff then l.a1tiotod tnwlo to .... f_, -dinatlJ' ~
villaq••• ~tarluk, t.uaen .. y, OUalakle, ..s Pon. t.t.aa., to~ with
the vUl .. •'• 90'"mMfttal aU'\IC't.v .. , b.lp .-ool ~. ADd
naiclenta to 41acuaa the lale, the Da:l, ... tile ~ 11Mrill9.
rollaving th••• iA1t1al will.,. tnftl•, a IMOQiftd. ~~erl .. of trts-wn
.. do bo-... Sept-as-~ 10 to-_...,.. in....._
fouz nu..,eo to -.u. eo l.acreuod-of rillov--ca
cx:s .te.el~t. *· t.un krtela, • oca ~ a..iaUnt with
JWCA, vill outline tM nault.a of theM ll1l.l"ftye ln M.r wal teeUIIoay
before the Hearinq-PaDal tllia aft....-.. at tbe ncr-t. of the Dill.
of one npreaenuti'N frca •ch of the l81and1 1 elx wUl.a9-, the
UNA orqanicecl a one 4ay cx:a infonatloa GODfenaoe iD the ~ty
of Port Liou oa October 2. ftia oonf'enaoe -attMISed a, 5 (ft ... )
repre•enUtiv.a fzo. the Yillagee of ltArlult, l.araen .. y, ADd OU&J.Dkie,
!:;d JWIA OEDP a-itt .. ..a.r fzo. 014 IIU'bor, tt. Part Llona City
Strai ta,ltower Cook Inlet UN. Jlre_.tatiou were ..a. by the Al.&ab
OCS office, St:ate DiY1a1oa Poliqo O...~t aa4 Plannint, Pr1_..
of t.ho !.lrth, and Atlant.ic a1chf1el4 o.paay. 'ltle conl'uence pcow14ed
YUlaqa reprc•enta~ivea witb the unique opportunitiea t.o qMation all
inl'on~ally ella~• Salo 160. '!'be efforte J ba'N j\IR oatll.M4 cul&lnate4
•everal vUlaq•• on the taland adoptiiMJ padtiona ln r.,arcl to kle 160.
llll.llother-eloo
October 15, 1MO
PaoJe a
---1-1r utUioo a .altlt-of •-to pzorido ..._ .. w--
tloo to ~· 11YI-. l.a rural, --loolotod rlU,..O .,....Utloo oo
tUron able to-a qoolity dooio"-l.a ngord to tho --.11'
-etfozt 1o -1r hl.adontl -tho cua l'ltblie -l.a9 s--•
au-tho -u .. ca -.J< lolontl Olllr 65 doyo to ...,.,.... to
the Dati be-ito roloooo dote ... ..,._t 22114 -the l'ltblic --
1-.• bo;10AI.ng ca ~ Utb. 'lho n1-of .... cua 1.a -• -
the u.o fr-of tho -period, ...,-puticulu dlffl.;w.u •
u it coift014ed with the l.aat WMb of the ~ ...... , ..tlich .,.t
-todly oppoood hoYI.a9 .... 0111 l'ubUe ~ foz .. lo 160
-tod du&l.a9 tltlo u.o f--.
pouibiliti• to alter the DlpU'taet. of the Interior'• pn-1 .... Sale
doeloion-Mit1ng pzoeao foo: llale 160, -_..a tho ....,...ity of
boYI.a9 to F_.-. YiU,..O -itloo for tbio c:ritieol -l.a9 4uri.av
~
tll1o .mroollotic tlaotobla. llo the -IA9 -1 lo-.. of"J>&ocao•
tkougb ... idl ind1Yi-1 Yill-doeioi-_ .. -· l rill outll.ao
DIIA'• wor1t pi'OIJI'-effon. btt.eea. ,..._t 22 -OCtabu 14. ta earlr
lillf'IR, Ulla 1Mun4 tlt.at the .u ..... t to aU Y111A9M. ?or tbe
Mxt. t.oweke, ICAIIA ataff ...a.n f-'.U.ariaed ~lfte with t:he DKIS
-drafted a 10 -.,._lo of .... llraft. tbio .,._1o ... -
oo: --deliYOrod to ell rill--ltloo bo-a.p.-lo-18.
•• -iolw
Octoberl5, 1-..., ..
111t .... cua ~ --.. 1. N6, tbe --.. OaU of A1ub
...OOZ., OU&iftkie, ae4 Poet u..... '!he ltAIIA ~ of Di..recton hu
~no central ..-ttJ .. foe Sale 160, u the foar .tl~ that
rill bo -t d1roct1r ~ a., tloio .. 1e -._sod d1fforl.a9
-1.a -4 to .... ---' 1-1.a9 of oa LM>do 1o tbe r-r
Cook Wet/Oppea" -1ibff atroito. 'lho uaa lftaff ba -d1nctod
to Iafon tho -.tng •-1 of tho ftriooo YIU,..O -itlcao -to
elaborate c;:o-.oa oanc:erna that undenoon ~ poait1ou. 'lbeM
d1fforl.a9 -itt-obou14 not be interpntod u ooo YilU. bolA9 -.
oz 1eoo ooncemod ollout oil -1-t l:hon _.._ Yil~, bat ~
bt Yiwed u each reapect.1 ... Yilla9e 1 e pnHDt poeiUGD 1D r_,ud to
oil develos-ent.
At their October 10 Tz1ba1 O>uncil -ung, tbe r.ar-Bar "rribol
Q)ancil adopted AltematJ'N Itt, the o.l.ay lale aptlOD, u tbeir
pn:ferre4 alteraa~iw. 'ftt.1a ..-itloc nflect:e tile "''rlbal co.c.u•a
t.o the ~ity of' t&nen .. Y llld.•t• at ~-t.. ~ the o..ta,
lale alternat1Ye, the Lanen Bay 'f'rU..l o:n.etl bopn. tbat the iater-
... nint two year ti• period vUl enable ~ pd.~ entitiea iDvol.Yed,
fecieral, •tate, and local fJO'Na-eJ~~U, and induetry to better infoa.
the pooplc of L&raen Bay u to how oil devolos-n,t vUl affect ~11' 11 .....
1111. lhannicU
Octobel' 15, 1980
Page 5
'!he OU&inkle City ())unci1, at ~ir a.pte.bu' 251:1'1 -uDIJ, lldoptect
Alterna~iw II, the llo lale opt.ioa u their preferre4 a1t.ena~iw.
"'18 pcMit.l~ eJIP~ed the Yilt.,.• concerDa tba~ the Da:l 1e in-
adequate for tho JMX'PCMI .. of .U.lnt a declaiOft to 1 .... , that pot:ent.ial
ne-gative i..,ac:t;a will occur to t.be ~1.&1 and aabehtence neourcea,
and that the YillacJ• vlll eJ~pU"i..ee few, if any, ..-ltl'N i.llpacta fn.
this Sale.
preference for Alternathe n, the Jlo Sale option. !'be Oxlncil ...t.n
were concerned that a cleclaion had to be aade ln a ~~bon: tiM fr ..
with what vaa .viewd aa a alniaally aecept&ble _,...t of tnf ... tion.
'I'M 110 S.le poaition ratlected the Q)ancU 'a prt.ary ooacerna that
Karluk and ita nrrounding c..erJ.~/eubelatence :reaoureea would bl
aubject to all tho negative• of oil clevolos-rat, and ai.Dl.Mlly potential
'ftle Port Llona City Council •t on Octobtr 13th to conatder the qveatian
of adoptil"i9 a toraal pultion on lale 160. M: the Bearlog Puel ill
aware, the DEIS indiCIIted that Port Llona will experience Mjor itlp&et8
to ita exhtii"'CJ lifestyle if the bypot.heaiaed oil ator .. e teralnal
facility is constructed at hlnik point, located approxi-tely three
ailea fro. tho c:oro of Port Lions. 'l'he Port Ll.ona City Council 4!4
not adopt a preferred alt.ernatift, aa the O»unc:ll decided that no
alternatin outlined iD the ~~ prcwi.s-1 an aceruate n•ponM to the
~ity'a concern• ln retard to thla sale. Council ..Wra aad
Mil. W'wmic:Jte
October 15, 1980
Paqe 7
In conddodft9 proposed oil and v•• ctevelos-ent in the Lower Cook
Inlet/Shtllikoff Strait r~ion, the JtAifA note• that the oritinal area•
of resource intareat for State Sale 135 and Federal sale 160 wren
virtually ayn~a. 'ftlia area of ruource intenat eztend:ed fro.
northern boundary of f.a.ral lancle in Cook Inlet to aa far south aa
the S..Udi Ialancla, an area enco.paniDt all of ebe SbeUJtoff ltraita.
M the Hearinq Panol la .....-., followlnv the Federal Call for llaalna-
tlon• proceaa, the federal landa propoeed for leue now iDclude Oftly
the 153 tract• identified ill Alternative J. In the Call few a.lA&tiona
for State Sale 135 releued on AprU 25, 1980, the state narroved ita
area of call to include only on-shore and otf-ebon tracta narth of
C&pe Douglas -Barren Island retlan. 'ft\e State•• declaion to ef'f'ec:t.ively
delete the Shelikoff S~raita fro. the aroa of call vu pd.aarily
based on the ~nt:a offered durinv the Federal call for IIOainationa
proce•• for Sale 160 by the lodialt Island lorouqh ocs lldviaory Council
and the State Depart:-nt of Fish and G&Ma . U.. KAMA ia curious u to
why the Stou viewed CORNftta offered by a local tovern-ent body and a
State O.part .. nt as adequate to eliainate all conaideration of l ... in9
in the Shelikoff Strait, vhen the fltd.oral qoverM~ent •lewd it aa
necessary to propose theae landa for lea•••
In .. dditlonal consideration in conductinq Federal Sale 160 in the
She!>likoff Straits h that the State My abo be able to lease State
OCS lands contiquous to several federal tracts without bavift9 to
follow the State's current 5 year leaae Hle achedule. ll t.a.ral
tracts nUIIlber 111,219,261.306, and 737 in the Shelikoff Straita are
Mo • .....,iclw
()ctobu 15, 1980
... e 6
naidenta of the ~1~ ....,...._. n.erNtiona 1a A9U'd to tile
-ed leui119 of OCI ~ ill tho -lilrorf auai .. , -felt that
tllio laaai119 -i--wod particularly pn-t aari.,... i.llpacta to
the ~rcial l'iahlnt/IIUbahtenoe Ufea~le of the ~ty. a. a
..Wr of thia HMrint Panel and an Alaalta OCI !fflce ataff ....,_. will
M t.rawelint to Port Llona ~. 'lbur.day, to~ Ol'al
t.eat.t.ony frca the c~ty, I vUl refraill tra. a t.tber diecuaiaD
of Port Llonil • poeitlon •
.,.,. •ilagao of ~hiok -Old llarbol: did noo adept f-1 -iU-.
in refJ&r4 to Sale 160, u tlley will ewperi-.ce pd.•.rlly ln41rect s.p.eu
due to their ~raph.ical locat.lon on the eut: aide of Ko41ak Ia1ancl.
lloweYu, the ltAIIA ootea that tllue Yill&p ~tlu My M IIUbject
to tbe ~latiYe iapacta of Sale 160 aDII pz'OpOHd aa1e 161• the
WeaUm Gulf of Aluka Sale, that b achedulect to occur in April of 1M3.
AlthoUIJh the XAII'A haa not endorsed a ~lflc altvnatlwe that 1a 1n4J.cat.-
..s in the DBIS for 8ale HO, tho 1tUA hao -cllar9e4 with tba 41....,.,.• .OC.
t'*-to elaborate on Ylll-t• C'.:IDBOezne. Ofte of tbeM pd . .uy caacen.
wu ~tlve iapacta, a 001t1cem that DIIA at.aff ..-.. ... 8111 o.bor'ne
..sctnaaH in ac..r. A alqnificant oU M4 9U dawlCJIIMlftt Ktlwlty
vhcih the DEIS failed to aaJre•• ill the State of Al.ulca'a propoHd
LM•• lale US, the ltate'• LOwer Cook Inlet Sale. "'ttila etate Sale ia
to bo coord:inatod vith r.a.ral Sale 160, ud ia "c:be4ule4 to be held
dudft9 the first. quarter of 1912, or rou,hly •1• .ontb followift9 pco-
pOGed Pedoral sale Mo. D11A r .. b tbat the Bill 1a •tinly n.t.•e in
failiDt to addr••• the potential ~tin _..l~t.al, b1ological,
-oociol ioopacto that ay occur aa a n.W.t of ... te 1oeue Sale US.
*• Wwmiclte
October 15, 1910
Pa .. a
leue4, the State CJO'"~t vUl be able to 1 .... tiM state oca
tracts oonti9uoua to theM lanct. within a one year perlol of U..
followin9 the Federal aale action. JtNia would llb tbe DUI to
recoqnize the effect. of r.a.ral leulnt on potential ruta:n ltate
leasing aetioc b the SbeUJtoff Straite.
'I'M DIIA'a oral tuti.oay will be 1Nppl-ate4 tbroavl' det:alled
written a-nta. TboH areu which the Kala will alldnu 1a writt..
tutt..ofty by OCtober 31 lncl ude 1 data 9APII in the aua for 111blc:b
a&Utional infor.ation 1a neade4 prior to conductlnt aa oU tea. .-lar
IANA'a int.erpretat.ion of canduct.ing thia lale in c:a.pliaDce with
thll OCS lands Act of 1953 as .-.4 1Ja 1971, ebe i.nadecpacle• of
thll Oil Spll 1 eo.penaat ion fund &Dd Piabera.an' a can.tlDI)eftCJ fUftd.
to 00111penaate for actuel loaaear co.pllanee of conducting thia l&le
in ac:cor~nce with State pol1ci• on r.a.ral OC8 l ... inq cta&rlng th1a
ot tba
KODIAK A11EA IATIVE ASSOCIATIOI
at tiM
0111'111 COITIIDTAL SIIILF ( OCS)
OIL AJl) GAS LIASI IIALI 16o
DRAr'l' IIVliiOIII!IITAL DIPACT STA~
PUBLIC IIIAIIIIG
KODIAK, ALAIIKA -OCTOBER 15, 1980
1W1A OCS .,..,, t la0117
Oetober 15. 1980
Pase 2
II FAVOR OF
Ouzinkie 12%
larsen 8a\r 21~
karluk 1~
Port Lions 28%
PRISEII'I'ED BY :
LAIIM 8AIIT!LS
OC8 RESEAIICRIIl ASSISTAIIT
DOI'T !OIQ!!
oS
oS ns ns
I vould like to point out that the oppoa:i tion to Leue Sale l6o naae• tro.
55~ to 68:::. Even it tbe 1~ and l'TS vbo at the tbe h&cl DOt ade a a.etlton,
have nov 4eetcled in taYOr ot, tbe .,_n:entaan voul4 •till 'be wU OYer 50S tor
opposition to the Leue Sale.
The reuon• si ven tor an tn tawr or opin1oa 41reet}7 eorre1ate to tbe maven 11 Yen
Vhen all respondent• wre ulr.ed What a.d'Yaratqea tb.,-aav to tbe action ot Leue
Sale 16:J. Jlesidents 1tated the actnntace• ot the propo1ed action u rollova:
1. Possible aployM!Ilt develOJDeDt
2. !conomic: deTelo~nt and i1iproTaletlt to town fadl1t1n
3, It vould help tbe national neect.
4. Growth voul4 be soocl tor the c-it¥ -it voul4 proY14a ...
e~n4e4 tu 'bue.
5. Better re1eue ope>ntiODI lD the 1eued area.
It :;h?ul J be noted that in Ouz.1altie 5~ ltate4 tbey ICV DO &d.Tanta&H vtaatsoeYer.
in Lar3en Bay I&)S, and in Port Lion• 11'1.
Anotht!r .i1rt!ct correlGtion vas dravn betveen reuons for oppo::ition and dhad-
vnnt:u~e• "JhiC"b are:
1. lo:JS or t1ahing lpACe 11.114 gear
2. oil 1pills
). ~-~ \o cornunity gro-rth -esJ)@c:ially tr0111 out~icJe 10~••
4. destruction or enviroDMnt
Good atternoon. Ma.d..-~Cbat~ •4 panel .... bera. II¥ 118M le La\ll'a a.rt.el.s.,
I u an OCS Raearch .beiltant tor tbe lo41ak Area lathe A.uociatlon (EAaA).
II¥ teati..,..,. vill prt-.rilJ be &d.cii"Haed to the ~ult1 of •UI"Ye7• COD4\IC"'te4
r.gardlnc OCS Leue Sale 160. P'o\IJ' rillapl were BUI'TeJ'ed: Ouaiakia., La~
lq, Karluk, and. Pbrt L10GI. "'l'b."• rlllace• are located. OD tba aortb a~u! 1NSt
liclea of ltodiak Iel.ud., •4 are anu of poteatlal l~t• it Leu• Sal• 16o
bJ tbe eouncU• of all tour rill-e••·
The IW"VQ'I vere adain.lltend by 1111J'Ielt 1 •d tvo otber lAllA. repreaeAtat.l,_.
Wa:yne Marshall and Diane Z..dar. The people w intervie'W'd are veey 4J.Yerse
in their intere1t1. Ttl.,-repreeen.t ca.erei&l Md eube~etenee rtsber.ea., resi-
den.tl or Sa:lll villa&e ec.eunl tiel. loeal sovernMnt otrtcl&.l.•, aad rlllap earp-
oration ~r-:~ers. 'nle corporate ..-ben referred to are tb01e vbo ec:.prlae t.be
Tlllu:e corpnrations for.ed throU&h tbe Aluka latin Clat.a Settl--.rt Ac-t {.us:&l
or 1911.
vere c:onstant tbrouebout the q,1.1estloD&ire. Coa.trols wre kept. 011 41•tr1but:lcm a~
lex 31'1d 'L't• in each vtllqe. The nWiber or in.terTlevt: c:cm4uet.~ ranced rrc. 9'1 u:
1~ or the entire populatioas of tbe Tillace1, tmd VM at least loJ Of" t.be ad.Wt
popul3t1on in eaeb loeation.
"nle t'irst queetion or the interview aeked it tiM respondeat vas in f'a.YOr o~ t.beo
proposed leue 1&.1e aetlon. Tbe reaponaH ot the p.ople in.terrieved. are -
IWIA OCS TISTIMOIIT
Oetober 15, 198o
Pace 3
;1>;:.
5. i~~paets to 1ub1htenee 11 te1tyle too great
6. &nJ' a~plo,..at vould 'be ebcw-t tei'W and vould probably require
reloeation.
1. pollution (n.ohe, air, vater, •d 11111d)
8. in.tlation
10. DO &billt7 to reeelTe ~atioa tor los• or t1ehe17 and c-
re•ource•.
11. atate resi4entl would Dot beraartt t~ tbe oil pl"'4ucedl.
The majority of tbe Tillace ree14enU intervi..,.d believe t.be diaa4Yaa.t.qee: ra.r
ou!..,eleh the advantac••· ODe point ot eontlict 1e the Yievpoint on ~ity
bi&her thu:t. tbe frequency u c &dTantace. "nlis raiHa queet.iooa u to the-a.c:-=u;:o--.
ecy ot 1tat...ats aade lD. t.be lEIS on pqn Ula cd 111.. recardinc attitudH or
e..au:ti ty grovtb and expanai011.
To retnroree tiM previous.l7 .eat1one4 attitudes. rHROfldents were asked t.o rate
tbe altematlTH in order ot preference. Alternative II (DO aale) vas tbe lLi&bHt
rated in &.11 tour rlllacea:
Ouzb.kie 82%
Larsen h;r 50S
Knrlult 5vS
Port L!ono 4lS
The next hi,;hest rated <ernat!Te vas III (~lQ tAle tor 2 Je&rs}. In Ch::.i:ai~
18% retUie~ to rate .,re than ex~e c:holee. io Lanen Bq ~. in !Carl~ ~S .. .,d b
Port :.1:-r..1 !5~. The .1!:4jority of the•e people ratdAlterna.tive II as the ~ly
eoune or :~ction.
IWIA 0CS "'ES'''lii)JY
October 1 S , 1980
Pqe ~
"nl.e DEIS, on page 39, st~tes that "I~aets or a major oil terwlnal facility
on soeiocultural systems of Port. Lions also vould be signtrteant, centering
on the ettecta or competition tor see.ree ec:arwunity soods anl1 aerviceSi thoae
etrec:ta are expected to be interpreted pri_,.lly u benertu rather tbu eoata to
the COIDUfti ty." Port Lions resic!entl vere uked their opt non on tbete deTelop-
:Mnts Htn.; beneficial to their COIIIIISWlity, 42% said yes, )I.S said no, and 31 at
thllt t.i:ne did not knov. Hovever, the Mjority ot respondents tbeo stated that
t.h~ voul1 not 11ke to see the terminal built in the Port Liont1 area. ben thol.&lh
1 t 1a1 be benetieial to the cocn.unt ty in sou v~, they vould rath•r not have
a terain3.l built at the proposed lite. In their YieVI the detri~~enu a.re tar &reater
than the benefits.
A oa,lor issue tt.ddrened in the questionnaire vu the etrects ot OCS deTelopmenta
on ~ubahtence resource1 and native Uteatyle. In Ouzinkie 100% felt it vould
arrcct their lite aty1e, L&rsen ky-100%, Karluk-lOOS. Port Lions -90S. In
t.be tour v1llacH eurveye4, the avaraae eub•ietenee levela tor one year zt-.ncecl trc.
la~ to T6S.
When "l!'Jke-1 hov ocs dev~lopr.w!nts vould arr~ct tb~ir urestyl4!', the rolloving areas
veri'! ~nt.ioned;
1. Re!IIOval or the reso,Jrc:e trOD the v1cinity due ~o n1')1ae and
ccn:;;tructicn o.ctivi.tie!'J, an incr«!ll!Je in pop·.lati,,r. Jnuld put
.ore preuure on the exhtir.g resources. aport hunting and fishing
vould increaae. A depletion or rl"'sourc~s alon~; vtth re~val or
habitat vould force the hwttin& ~~.nd fishing out to areas turther
trOflll the villages.
2. EnvtronJDental damage due to oil spills and pollution vould cause
depletion or the resources.
KAftA. OCS 't'ESTT:.t.JKY
Oetober 15, 1980
P~e 6
These p~ople live vhere t.hey dtl in or1er to Uv~ th13 type of sub.obttmce
lifestyle. w~ are conc~rne-1 th~a.t novhere in the DE1:3 is the idea or "'itiga-
Ung wasures or rei:llbunement for a losl3 of ttubs!sten':e res':lurces addressed.
It a thher:aan has hai a year or tvo of bad fishing an1 his subsistence re-·
sources &re taxed beyond constraint. he could be l!'conmr.ic'llly ruined, not just
tor that year. but tor years to come. He vill have to change hh lifutyle
jus": to surv!v~ a sit'.lB.tion vhich has been tor\::eJ upon him.. Hov do you com-
per.sateo M indi·tid:.~al tor loss or a li~est.yle'! Ir.!'lat.ion il already a problea
tor the v111.1ges. it oil production occurs and more inflation follovs, many or
these people will be even JDOre dependent on subsistenc~.
~e actb"l ·.th!cr. "las been pnp0::;ed 1n Lease Sale 160 pose!! too rna"ly risks and
~\.~ ....... _
P"•.enti3.: J~tr~::Y>r:t:ll ir.pacts t:> the cu1':.:.1!'"al an.<i s·Jbdsten-:"e r~sourc-es of~
villa~e3 on r.~j~1.k :!Jh.n(L W'e llrc faced 1o11th the poz:db111~y of end!l!lger!ng and
perhap:J elimina~!.n~~; a cv.ltur&l lifestyle on the vest side of h.oJiak Island.,
' ...... ,.\,. \ .:' .. : ; '". ,' ., ,_._ .;..o.u\.' '-"\..
-vM-eft·~~~..-.1. It is our 0pinlon th&t the DEni doeu not accur:~.tely
reflect thto attitudc11 of v!llagf' residents tovard oil dtovelopm~nt and does not
&drire:;;~ the subject~or ·.~uhsistCII·~e re-5'J'.Jree .:C>r:"perJJ:.lti:>n "r ~r.iti,:;ating ~asures
The YJ\::A "Jill lat~r :>ub:nlt cc-l'lplete annlysi;; of the sur1ey ror the four villa.;es &nd
eople:1 of the ::Jurvey5 thcf!Ule:!.Vfi!:J in vrlttt"n ,..,,.., ... ,..,t~ t'"' be aubmitte•l on October
31.
KAnA OCS T!STU«liiY
October lS 1 1980
Pa,;e 5
]. "nle land. can only aupport a certain uaount or people and
-iatain an eaviron..ntal balance. Tbat balance nov exiat8 1
but it any or the abon impacts bee ... a reality th~ balance
would be loat. The exhting village& vould be forced to break up
into sa&ller groupe and relocate it their lire style vere to con-
tinue.
1.. It diaiahhint; resource• becc:.ea a reality, there vould be an
increased. entoree~~eat ot regulationa eoDC:erntns hunting and
tbhinc. VUlaae reddanta would aurrer a loa• or exhttnc
bunting an4 tiahinc richts.
5. Loaa ot cultural identity: vUlqen are coneemed vith pre-
aerrlng their Native cultural identity. It any of the areu
.. ntioned are iw.paeted, part or the latin identity vtll ~ lost.
Subsilt~nce 1e the e .. enee ot tbe llath·e Lif~etyle. All raeetl a.re interrelated.
you c:mnot 1eparate one action rro. the nov or aetivitJ vtthout tapa~tl occurring.
In !h~ vill:ute• e~rcial and. subliatenee tiahing ... ::t"":ee -~~""· Vitbout the
ca3h !"!o'" t"rolll commercial rtahing, auppltes necessary ror eubsht!'nee activities
:o:.~l.! ~ot be-purc:-hs:aed, nor vould they be able to purchase the reov stBples th!>Y do.
tlithout :~ surplus or 1cae coa10dlty vith vhieh to barter, their socio-econ~ic
systeM would falter. Money 1a or little consequence in this ayatem. tt rarely
conn tbe ti•. expenae, and labor vhteb h put iato a proJect. it oal.T aervea
to lupple-nt the e:dstinc ey•t~ ot subsistence, not control it. !4oat rood hunt-
ing or c•therins activitiu are &hand vitb other ae11bers of the co~m~unity. The
ayatem h delicately balancttd. vi th the en vi r:mtnent, any upset in part or the
:lj'.:t-!""1 01•>·~1<1 contribllte to the Jetrh'.entnl i"p3.C't:i to this t)'Jlt" nf lifestyle.
Thh lifestyle even includes the choice of place to live one'• life. This
feellng in the villaaes !a very strong. It vaa conveyed to me con:ltantly tha.t
tbeee people bave ehoaen to live tbh type or 11 te. 'l'bere are .-ore convenhnees
avdlablto to theae p~ple tn lar~er citlea. 'nley do not vant tt'l~m. nor d.o they
w.nt an influx or ~ople chanp;ing: their eOf!ENni ty.
r: ....
or the
KODIAK AREA BATIVE ASSOCIATIOB
at the
OUTER COti'I'Ir.niTAl SHELF ( OCS)
OIL and GAS LEASE SALE 16CJ
DRAFr EIIVIROitm!TAL IMPACT STATD!Em
PIJBLIC HEARI~G
PRE:;EIITED BY:
BILL fl~!:')P~It
0CS RESEARCHER ASS!S'::Jl':'
T~':TIODY or THE ICODIAJI: AREA WATIV! ASSOCIAT!ON AT THE OCS OIL AWD GAS
LOSE SAU: .•60 PUBLIC HEARING IJ HOMER. ALASKA, OCTOB£!1 l9, 1980
Coo:! ev~nin~ ~·bd:a.e Chairperson and t'earins Panel ~UII'.ben. M7 DUM h
Bill Osborne, U'lc! I u e~loyed u aa. OCS Researcher Uliatant em a abort-
ter.:.'l eontr3ct vit.b the !Codialr: Area lative Association, or KAnA. In the
th!"~e ynrs prior to accepting thb contract position, I priaa.ril:f vorked
vt~h ICA.l'.A in the areu or Fishery Develos-e:nt and Educat10ft. Ow-inc tbh
tl::~e period, I Uved in tbe Yllla,ce or Port Lions tor ODe rear and worked
u a cre>J c.e~ber on a ea.ercial a&l..=on. tis bin& veuel tor tvo aw::wra.
The Kodh.k Area Ka.tive bsociation b a non-profit or&anh.tlon ot lath·es
in the IC:>dlak Isl&nd area that vu idtialQ lncorporattd 1D 1966. KAllA's
overall purpose h: to pr(8)te pride oa the part ot the lathes or Alulr.a
L"J.oj t!':.elr tn.dltions; to presene the C\lltOU,tollt lore, and art ot the
tfati·:e r:2.cn• ~o proaote the physical, eeoncale, and social wll-bein« or
tbe :r:1ti·:~3 o!' .\lask~t.; to discourage and overcO!al! racial preJudiee and the
inequities vbieh such prejudiee ereatee; e~d to pro110te cood CO"mMnt b7
rr.:a1n1.inoJ; those vho govern and thOiie vho are coverned or tbeir Joint met
autual rHponsibi U ties. 'fo achieve tbue pw-poeee, OIA UDdertook vortr.
procraa acthitieaoa its tint contract iD February or 1971t. Sinee these
hu:•ble ber;innin~, KAllA bas developed into a •ult1-faeete4 DOn-profit orpn-
i&:J.ti?n th:~.t delivers cocprehensive ..npover, be<b, education, aocia.l eei"Yicee,
and c~u."litj" developDII!'nt Gnd ph.nninc services to tbe latin people on tbe
Iel:an-1, p11.rticula.ry tbose living in the leloa.d's sb:: villaces.
Y.A!iA's ro.::u:. on proposed OCS oil end gaa developoent ln the are:a aurroundin«
the laland vu beia:htened in Oetober, 1979, vi tb the receipt ot a latu.ral
Re:JOIIJ"Ce:l Mntr.'lct rrca the flur:ll Alaska eo-,.unlty Action Proe:na. ,h
KA.'!A OCS Leuo Sale 6o Teati-.r
~tober 11.. 1980
Pace 3
Consider.,d in Analyzinc Cumulative Errects," consiieratlon is atven to the
e!'tects or such projects u the Beluga Coal Field develos-ent; tbe Bradley Lake
!f71!:-oclec:tri: Project; and harbor exp&Dsion proJects in Boeer, ltodiak, and Port
Lions, but no evaluation h given of the c:OGbined effects or Salee 6o u.d 61.
'l'tlh h because "at a ain1ln.1111, the Aluka OCS Ott'ic:e vould have to kDOV vbat.
the Sa.le 61 resource est1-tea vill be, Vhat t.be areu of particular intereet.
vill be to in•Justry, coverne'lent, and •peci&l interest groups, and ti.nall.,:r,
vb"1t the are~ selected tor further •tud,y (e.£., tbe propo~al) rill be. b
no~e or this information 1a pre5entl.y available, there h no bub 011 vbich
to :sake "" envirorment&l us .. aaent of the Sale 61 areai heDce, no rlable
U:J'!S:J!:~~t o'( the interrelationship Of tbe tVO Sales is at tbis Dement possible."'
·.:e si:-:rl~· ~1~1 this explanation Wl&ccept&ble.
The proce3s le3.dir.g up to the now-cancelled Lease Sale 46, vhich encompassed
aHro:r.iru.telj" the a-e area or call u Lease Sale 61, vas tollawed through the
vritinG or 3. DEIS ln 1977 before the sale vas pottponed until Dece.-ber, 1980.
Arter the pastponement. nev acoping ae•aions vere held and a nev DEIS vas Vl"it-
ten. S•n·c!y :1ft~r the DEIS process h3d been folloved throueh ~ tor the
•~e s~l<! areu, the BU4 should ha.ve •ome idea or vha.t the resou.rce e!ltiaatea
ano:l the ~&reKS or particular interest vill Ia tor Sale Areo. 61, 80 that tbe
CUIII.uh.tive i111pa.cts of Sales 6o and 61 could be considered.
Co.L~· ... ·-:.:.t·:·~ ··=~~··..:t:J or S:J.les 60 a.nd the n'l"'J-Cili\O:C'lled 1.6 Vf'l"C ~ntiJncd :.13 15!'1'1C5
or concern '..&t the tvo Lca.ae S:l.le 60 3COI-in:; 5e!>sion::t h~lJ in Y.oJi.J.lt on ,'\u,-:~t
llt, 1979. and M:arch 5, 1980. In tact, tbe OCS Office iapl1citl7 acltnovlad&ed
t.bat the two sales vould. Jointl.T artect Xodin.k I•land by holdinc an ia.titial
D:IA OCS !.oue Sale 6o re.•t~
October 1", 198o
._ 2
71s-:d Y~::1r l98a contrGct aad the PT1981 contract vbicb vu receatl7 avard.ed.
concerns on the poaei ble t.p.&ct8 of OCS devalo.-ent, Md tor lAllA to ~
cate positions ad<Jpted by the rHpective villace• to all eatitlu lJ•volYH 1.n
tbe oil d.evelopr-Aat proce... To achieve these objectifta, DDA bas reeei'N<l
vbich h cc:-;pris!!d. or a repre•ea.tattve trc. eecb or tbe six lalcd Ylllacu.
Thil .11!"ection bas beet! auppla.nted. vtth 1tatt travel8 to dllacea. 41•t.r1-
butlan o"t' educational aevsletter•, vt11ace surveys, lllld direct rilla.p p&r'"..J.-
etpaticm. in the dechion-Mkiac proc: .. a tor OCS 4..,.los-eat. lD thb ~.
r.t.:l.\ st..1.!'1" L"\::1 vtllap reliclenta b&ve vortr.ed cooperatin~ vitb tbe Al..U
ocs orn c:~, the Kodiak Ialand .,roup' • ocs Adrisory CoUDcU, and t•ttn.._
at t!w t:nib!i.: hearina:• tor tbe Pive Year X...• Sale Scbed\ll.e ea.d tbe IZIS t'or
the Lease S4!.e 46. In a ccatiauation ot tbeae procna ertorta, rAJA RaN' .ad
vill~e rei)rl!'sent:ttive• vtll 'be orally tHt1t)"1nc at the Public Beariacs ca Ute
DEIS tor Leue Sale 6o ia lkwer, locliU., ud tbe Special learinc in 1\:)rt Liaas.
'l'lae KA:IA etarr and ita coaatituanta are verr coaceraecl t.bU DOW!aere iA t.be
DEIS h 211 evalu.:1tion &1 ven tor the C\S.Ilati ve ettec:ta ot the proposed X...:e
iU Isl:an4, h pro~e4 tor leue in April, 1983. ln• tbaa tvg yean after
Lease S.:1le 60. A:J .entioned. on Pace J, ot the DEIS, •rr botb saln 6o and 61 a.n-
hel·J a.J oil.:i'I,_•,J~Jl..:d, th~re vill be oil and ~aa e.xplor:J.tory a.ctivitio on both sides
or r..od1:J.k. I314nd. Furthe.-.ore, it oil and/or natural p.e is rowad Ia 'bot.b sale
areu, tben production. aetiv1t1ea tor 'both leue aalea voul4 'be oeC'UJTiac st.aJ.-
taneousl7 on Kodiak Island. • In tbe aecticm or tbe DEIS an "Ot.ber MaJor ProJects:
IWIA OCS Lease S&lo 6o Teati-
October 11., 1980
Pace "
coet.bi ~•d sco!)ing sea lion tor both Sales 46 and 60 in Anc:borace on MQ-23.
1979. By t:~.Uinc to address th•e acopinc iSiuea, tbe DIIS tal.la abort of'
o!' the int.e:-reh.tioa.bip or S&lea 60 aad 61 'before Leue Sale 6o 1e held. """-1.4
aidest.ep one of the .-t .t.portant h1ue1 tor KodiK Ialaad.
It h our belief that Tal.D.ik Point vu selec:ted u ua oil terain&l lite
in order to potentially serve u the receiring point tor oil t1'0D. both sides ~
ICo:lhk Is!:u:d, it' oil b discovered in Doth sale v.as. I lliglrt amtloa t.Ja.u.
Tabilc Po!:1t is far too close to Part Lion. to be c:onsiditrltc!aa •cla-.. sit.e.
A ccmc:er-~ "J~ich ':I&S expressed at tbe March 5, 1980, seopins •eaaion vu t.laat
te=-:--i-;·.1! :'"~ci!.iti~s sboul.:i. be located. UIQ rroa edstina; rlll&«ea to leaaea
Isl:'Uld !or..,-.:.-;h's 1977 f'aeUit7 dtiag stud:J abo Mntiooed avoidance ot exie-
siting; and the State ot Alulr.a'a 1978 Gulf of Alaska OCS Baadbook lAelldM
land use cO"ll.!J3tibility u a aitlq critericm. It aw::b eoncerna nre to be
adeq• . .nt~ly nd·Jr'!sstl!d in tbia D!IS, then other oil terainal site. aore ~w
frort ex'l:itir.~ COI'lo'llunities than Ta.lnik Point •boul4 have been c:'OCW14ertd. 'ftae
bc:t th·'t thf!y vere not conddcreod llf:&in indicates the ratlure or the DE.IS to
deAl vith ou.j.,)r S<'"Oping: issues, dei!Oilstratel the fa.llure of tbe lEIS \o follCII
:b~;.~n"ll .... :.·,:.:--·~nt.~l PoUcy Ac:t obj~c~ive:o, r:md rcconNr:~:: our belief t.hat
the Po~ L.i..:::n:: .;ite V3.$ ::elected becn.u:oe or it:. conv'!nh•nce tor both :3ln.
KA=IA OCS Leue Sale 6o Testhaoey
Oetober 14, 1980
P~e 5
On page 24 the DEIS states that the Alternative VI, all utural ps tbat h
pro.!·Jc~d in the Shelikot Strait vould be reinjected. Presu.ably thh 1e be-
ca'.J.J~ :1.ot eno:.~,;;r. gas vo"JJ.d be produced to varrant piping it to the IUtis)cy LIO
rad!H;r on Ko41'lk bland. However, tram the DEIS tor Sale 1&6, ve were led to
beli~ve that the outer continental shelf on the eut aide of Kodiak Island. 1a
gtts ?r-:.~.~ a.tl1 ~h3.":. if pro1udble qua.ntities of natural gas vere d.heonred an
L::~ fadli~:r ·:,;oul1 be bt:.ilt on Kodiak lal&nd. Given t.he simultaneo\&8 deYelop-
r:.e.r.";. o!' :i.::t.l~ area:; 60 a.nd 61, is it not reasonable to &SS\IIIe that it producible
Q',.;~:l.~!.:ies o~ natu:-al gas vere foun:'S on both aides or Kodiak bland, then an
L::~ !'acili':.:t 'JO"JU. be built on th~ Island to process the cu from both areu!
Si:"'.·.::";.1.r.e~..l!l dev<!lo~:"len'":. on both s1.:1es or Y.odiak bland vou.ld .est Uk~ly be
0 :~ '::.·~ r~.::;; . .:-:"!5 or each sale area. Once Bg&i!l, the DE!S tails to evaluate
t:.': p-:~~c-:-.!:·.11 si~ul•~aneous deve!op. ... >!r.t of the tvo aa.le areal.
The sect1:m ot the DEIS dealina: vith eu:aulative ettects ot oil lpilll includet
the pc~ .. ~!"!-:.£o.l for spills associated vith drilling in Sale Area CI and tanker
tn.!'!"!.: !'Jr O?".h ~I and U;.p'!r Cook Inlet, yet no consideration is gi·ten to
spil!::: r~:::u1•.i:o1: fr':l!: pro1ur:tion ~d tankertng act1·tities associated vith Sale
Ar•n 6~. ?ctMl: :.. p:-?duction !'roa Sale Area 61 vould increase tanker trattie
an•o.'"I·J Y.-;1.:'\l<. I:::l.~'!. th:Js raisin.!! the over,ll avernee prob.:J.bilit.y ot a •Pill.
tr:J.Uon::;. Fro11 the 1960 •t.udy or surface currents in Lover Cook Inlet-Sbelikot
Strait by Ca.r-1 Huffa.rd, ve ca.n usua. that on tpUled iD tbe DOrtbeJ"D portloa
Y.A:iA OCS ~:ue S3l~ 1'estir.oon:r
Oc":.'lb<!r 1'-. na:;
Pa.Je 7
Si:-.c~ t!'.is n::I3 !'a.L!.s to present a pictu:-<! or th<! cc:cbined effects ot 1&1e1
1): 1.!':.1 1:5: •• 1<:. 1:; 1n?"ln1~le ror vtlla,Je ccr::munities oD r.odhk Isl.tnd to ade-
Ba.se1 on !he !.:l.ck ot consi1era.ti.,r. or c~ulative :lmpaet:s for sales 60 and 61
ant:! '):1 ~~:~~:" ~:H!::ieT..l!.::ies o':' the O=:!S, the !<o:Hak Are& !Jati'.·e Ass-;ciat1on,
~;.-:"1::1::: en '::~:1:.:!' o':' tl".e •rillages of Y.a.rluk, Laner. Eay, Port Lions, and Out.ink.ie,
~:; _.;-;;:·.::--; ':.'.;~ p:.siti:l:: ?!' be1:"1g op;.-:sej to th~ sale at this th~~. Ad11t1cr.al
i~:·-:~~~';i :r. a:;. tht!' K.A;.IJ.. and village pcsitions vill be presented at. the hearin&
K.\::.l. OCS te~e Sale 6o 'l'esti__,.
October 11., 1960
Page 6
or Sale 61 eould be swept. b7 tbe lend Current throucb Keane~ EDtrance
put the Sa.rren Islands, acroe1 the aouth or Cook Inlet, and into Sbel1kot
Strrlt. That •ueh surface tran~~port 11 pc,.:•lble vu --..nrat.ed in 1916 by
tYO drift c3.rd reeovertea on the vest ahore or SbeUkof Strait and one r.-
eovery near -Cape Dr:olD. oa Soutbvnt ICodi&k Ialaa.d, all t'J'ca a siq:le releue
ovt!'r ~o!'""!lo-:ic !ank in tbe northern portion or Sale Area 61. thh drift card
stuJ;t vas cite-! in the Kodiak Interior Synthe1i1 Report or March, 198o.
It 1a re:U?:t~ble to auUDt that developaent activitie• tor the Leue S~es
6o and 61 vould be coordinated on Xocltak I•lan4 and one aisht fUrther as•UIW
that clupllca.tion or lbore-bued fac:ilitl .. Vould be ainiai&N.. 'l'hU1 1 Ve aight
expect th'1t not only vould an oil terminal facility or an LIIO racility be sited
to ser·t., b~th :sale areas, but also roads, airports, barbon, lhipptng lanes, and
pipe:lr.C!; ·.nuld a.ll be developed liViD& Considers.tion tO aillultaneoU.S develor...ent
in Co!!': :~ale areas. Would thb prospect alter the developeent and production
activities •• described. in the DEISt Vould population and emplOJI'ent increue•
be di!":"~rent friT.I vhat h deacribed in the DEIS! Once q:atn tbe DEIS fails to
a.:!~q·..L:J.":.~!:; '1:-','ll:t:.e the overall imp:act ot the propos~ leue eale bec:1use it does
not 1d·l:-c:;:: 3t all the CUII?la.tive i11pa.c:t1 or the proposed lease sale tmd Lease
541• 61.
We under::t:md th'1t an eaviron~~~mtal 1mp!1Ct state~~ent il aeant to be a decision-
:ll'.,U-.lr •• : Ju~-:-.•·n':.. A~ I. "b~st-f!U<!..:u" esti!!l.'lte ot the 1ap:a.cU of the proposed :t.ction,
the !!!:> .:ohoull provide the infonu.tion needed to c:booee between the proposa.l or one
ot tbe alternta.ive ac:tioas. 'l'hh DEIS at be•t tells u. on11 half or the ltory.
of the
mDIAX ABA !laTIVB ASSOCIA'I'ICIII
at the
OU'I'ER CIIIITIIITEIITAL SHELF COCSI
OIL ond GAS t.BASB Sl\I.Z 160
PUBLIC JIBA1U1IG
IODIAJC, ALASICA OC'f'Q8Eil 15, 1980
PIIESEUTED BY
BILL osaa.z
OCS OESEAROIER ASSIS'rl\IIT
-Ola1rpenGD --ia9 -1 -n, too4 .,._-wl-
to -1alt. 11J -u 1111 Oebome, -u I lndioa-,...-,
-..1A9, I-can:ontly -l..,ed u M OCS .. ___ --by the
At the public -ia9 ,...-, lA -I -1~ -·· -
-utin9 the ~ of the -• foe ocs LeaM Bale No l.D ita
lack of _,.1a...u .. of the ~atiYe '-ota fra ._ Balea
No -t61, 'l'oday I viah to upnn ov -rn• _.u., oU opUl
'-et• -cleanup -bility,
All tlayne ju.t. ... t.ioned, DIIA hu bien tinotecl to el.Abol'aU oa.
Yilt..,. concerM ~ the propo.ed oU !.Mae aale. 0. of theM
concerno u the aitigaticn of oU oplll '-eta. rt 1o oar -...-.
ia9 that the -ted ltatea O>ut -..! -· -o yet ba,. -~Uity
to contain or clean ap oil in .,..... OIW'U' da r .. t, wincb owr 15 knott!,
opUled oil o.-o a good -of ....:llia9 ohoro anu. Ill-
to s-vperly plan -.urn to aitipte tM eff..:ta of apUlect oil c.
ahonlinea, the DEJS ahouUI tAke into account the neulta of UMI
at.udJ.u by 1111 .. Hayea con~ming ooaat&1 ~phology and •~tatloa
ln Lo~~Mr CDok Inlet and ~Ukof Strait. !ben et.U• t.dent1f1ed WI
Oil Spill Wlnuabl.Uty ~x of ten -liaa typea ~ -...
to ococ:epUbiUty to oil ap111o, 'ftle typM r_. frc. r-, beaol ~
DD oca Leu• Sale ... .J 'l'ut..i8orly
October l s, 1910 . .,. ]
lea in t11o Illle•, etc:,) -tllo ~ity of tbo
predicted bpact ar•.
b) &qui-nt ohtNld 11o -191*1 -p....,.... that Will
affect.:lftly ~ off the .::Nt.ha of the bigllly
auceptible llllbayM:nta, e.pecially the -11• '-18 and
.ar.1t oyet-, tak1ntJ into •-t the atr<onvoUtal
currents thet exiat 1n ..,.t of t.bltse ar ....
e) This W~Ui~t .,.t be locally aY&ilable (.ad at tJte
eite within hcNn.l
41 OU opUl c:onUngOftey plano a~ llo dh~ -
tested in •uch a vay u to uaun efficiency UDder the
hush cond.i.tion. of cli•te ud. curr.nta tNt ex:Lat
in the Inlet. •
In ~r4 to the inventory and location ot oilapill clunap
equls-nt listed 1n Appendix E of the DBII we 'I'~ that avit.able
on spill ccntrol, oont.air.ent, and cl-ap equl~, t. awailabU
where oil developMnt acttwttiea a:ra occu:rdftCJ, ud. that tbe equ.i~
can be ct..ploye4 within ft.,. hoUI'a of the OCIIW'tao..t of e apill.
Thh equir-ent should alao be able to be rapidly clllployed under the
•eve:re veathe:r conditloft8 of the SMlikof Strait. and Q)oll Inlet. In
p.art.icular, ..,. que~~tion why the only Cylonet 150 Open Ocean Bk~ la
ato:red on Lonq a.ach, California. I:'Nn tbouqh the Open Ocean su-:r
1a only capable of oU cleanup in •eu leaa tt. 6 (ai•) fHt, • t.be
bliat-avatlable c:u:rn.nt teehnoloqy, it ahou14 be aftilahle in Jtenai and
-OCI '-lale .0 ~
Olrtol:ael' 15, ltJIO
·-z
to~ -...na. o<---cal-blov-ie-
-t ...-the oU if la to llo -· Ill oalt -· oil apilla
•:r -~-dol-'-•tf-Witll life ·-of at leut ._
:roan.
'ft>a -• -iacl-.., -lyoS. ~ ..,...ua1 ~ to abon111w
_ .. -• poojacted oil oplU "-'~""· -· tbia
..,.1yoh WUld llo fu: -ftl-if tha 1 ... 1 of -thl t.po<:t
to -.. _ .. Oftld llo _.la_ Witll tbo OU 8pU1 ...U.nbUty
hadex, u well M cl'it.iaal ~IDt ...S bUitat. anu. 1D. order to
1-tify tha-11aa-that u:e-cdtical fer oUop111 --u.... 1 ai ... t ---of --u-IUait oooo.u-clao--... to the on lplU ~lit:r ~--'-
Cl-in hio 1977 ooalyoia of OGDOtal -.pholotl' --tatiCMI
lA 1oovu Cool< Ialot -I _..,
•c:..a-u-1 oU oplll "'-~ -bo coed ca a _,or pocti011 ~ --• .......,Uble ohoroli-Ceow-ahelten4
zoot cllffe, t.ia.l flab, alat. ..r.._). !benton, efforu
ahculd OCIICOfttrata --tia9 on aplllo frc. nac:hiJ>9 -
..... ..,-.............. ·--lloi.Dvt
a) OMbon and offahoz'e petrol ... f.c111t1ea ahould. be
loc:ated With a -bdp U pndic:tod oU op111
"-'-1"" Clloia9 -of the -Y&riatiCIIO
-•ible ~""tho Udal ""-• viD4 ..-.uu ....
1o to ... held,
'ftle Dal iodicatao tbat -t11o Ufo of -fiald, -. 1o a -
....,_ of aa oil op111 ~ 1a the o&lo u:ea. •-With tllio
'rirtual -•anoe of an oil 8p!U, U tbe 1--Ale 1a to b8l held,
alt.lptlnf -..ana nflee:t.J.ae llr'. -.ye•a ~t.i.oM eboa14 b81
iael-in --·· -·· vrlttoo -Will apeoifieally
out.U.ae AC' T I Mled, ait.i .. tiftCJ ----·
!It • -tb9 lA -&It ... .....-r 17 -11 of -Alulla 11091~
1'ec:bnic:al ~kia9 c.ocp, ---.. of -1'ec:bn1oal ~king
c:.oup tU ocuaood the -1bllit1eo ~ tinct off-ohoro 1oadb9 to
.... ken fro. platfono liter-faeiUUu u a aitigaUng-to
aia1aiao ....-n '-ota• ftio -of ~ oil f.-t>.e
~ion ri90 to .-n for -hal tr-..ort to Nfi.Au:y fac111•
tiae -14 eliainata t11o -o1uu of ~ -.... plpeu-
fn. the product:ion plaitfo:r-. to Mon and the ooostroctiora of ~
llhon oil stor-.• facil1ti... In 8bar't, • oil RoraiJII t.ual.Dal
facility at Talnik Point u dnc:ribed in ~ DBU WOG1d DOt be
aeeeeu:ry. At tbe Or:tobu 2nd Port Liana CCII Cl::ll\fennc:e *1eb ..,..
referred ~ llr. llid\u:d -loa, t11o ~f-Ddllia9 lluperi.A-t
fOZ' ..:D'• Al.aaka Cperat.ton, ~ to the qau:tlon of d.J.rKt ~
loedi"9 f..-oaiotia9 platf-. 11r -1u otated that t111a-a
poaeible productiOD ac.n&~"lo. ltAIIA •Ita, lf offalaon t.anker la.dlnt
ICAia oc:a t.ue Sal• 60 .,_t.f.8ofty
October 15, 1110 -5
u tochnologicallr r ... ibla '"" u. u ... part of oU to nfblezr
en•t.ron.ntal r•eb an4 oa-ehon 1llpact8' trca tbi• IIOMU'io an
oon•i&u'able different fftla t.hcNie a.ociate4 with ~ aa U!Ddllnea
pipeline •re•-to ......._.. potent1el .,.._,._. to -·
AlASKA O~S ciFfiCE
.\NCtl('IG.~• r •1 .\SIU
0CJI6 II 2~ AH'IO.
Al~s/q OC S D(f,'c"
Brn~u..'-t. c..f!. .!-to..../ /.,/4~~~~
P.lY n,~ li rtf
ARc~~ 1 It(.._, k 'lf~.J ----:-----
, . .,. . . . . ·r ~ ta'j"-·· II• "··· .-t-·•'j"l
Portlou or tbe witt• c-U .... itted ~7 tbe l.odlu Ar .. letlft
.Ueocf.at1• .,.. -t teprodaced ..... llut •• w.Uabla to tbe pu~lic fot
rwu. at t .... Alaau OCI Office. !loa p01<Uoa ••lated ._.~.an tba ....tta
of tbe c-ity opi.Dt... poll .., oil _. 1aa 1-aa1e 60 or Port LloDa,
-luk, aa.iDUa _. 1.ar-ley.
-J--
-'}-
&r Zl It 2'liH'ID
... • later w ...... icke.
Jl!u ... r,
.Uaall:a OC8 Ottice,
P.O. Boz 1159,
Anohorqe. 41<. 99510.
Dear "•· W......icke,
20th October, 1980.
Sale 60
Lower Oook lDlet/
Shellkot Bt
II)' h11abaad ud I are 1Jl ta't'IIU' ot Sale 60 aad
vollld Uke to be pat on record u aaoh.
BiJloerely,
Jolm aad .Ulee11 lirkpatrick,
Star Rolate A, Boz 42,
8011er • .Uuka. 99603.
......----......
;·"1, ~..-,\J' ·i ... <•. ··.:-.. ~
:: ...... rr;; r:·r· "'n
I. r. :},).,. 11 •
,,r;~•: ,.-0 t ;. ! 1':' ", ~·: 1 I
IIUMF-"•IDtlfla.-• ------
"! ~'!'li'"'',.., • t· ·i] ir1•.J•+ .. ,, !1,. t'l r.i trot··~~i ~·.:a:· i:ilJI··
'·r'f: 1"'0'\..,,'t1:l 1 :_. "~""··~ "'"'~u·1 :;,r ···2 Hl r:.:;•• .r.a·-: 1: .l;'o•:" :::~1 ; ]!"'.l"!!:t.
'·"'l ~ ~· t ,1:'1"'' ,!~ ··· •u,.. -4 i: '' (:-'. 1:-o·p·;-,' ::11 ., :-"' ...... r.
r ,. · --.11.-t ~--r """·: ,, ._...,·~r:~t, ., •.• ,~ .... 1 .,_ .......
·-~ .. i ... .,. •:~,..,'I·J'• 1"~1 t t' 'J~J; ·~;·.:·, :1•.~. • ·~,-i·.-c-:.:~1 .t!'l:
'\if~_',(: l:"o'• ,..;f'<..:J 1 'i '' ,.:;1 !',f'' .. I r_r 0,1 1 IJ.'i·J.Ol!•7:fo
C·" -~~ •• . .-~-• '"~•.-. ·:c•-,•. -; . 1 t•, • • r
"\" : 11 o o\"1 T 'If I ,. , ' 0' I 11 f 1 i ~ :. ~ '
"t7.," · .... t ,.~ ·~· rur11L:' ·-.-: .. ,.. (' ,... .. ,
<: i·.; . • _.., ,I" Jil
'lt•
--~. <i
\-;··1 ·-;-: ~ .... 1' :; JJ
1 ' I f· •l""'•,
fr ·rl~ •..,·•'f.'J'~O.: •rp.,. ... '') '·-(: "••• t•1• J"L"', ~--_l.,.,,.,.._';'ll.'f-T-~~~~,_ ... -,..,,
''"~-r-•l--' -/'• ;I-,-~~-~~,.. ..... fl-•· rt: , •. r·· ··1 J lJ.....i< •,.,.!: ,;-J ....
~~,;. h ·;~~";: ~::i~:~~i ;~~l ~:;'~ :::~·: •! ~{:-,~~:-'~~~-;:: • 'c:i:~: ·:"·,~~: ',;!
!v:~l!~ ..... ;,~-;~ ~:~~~\·~,r~·~~ ;:··~~/;_~:~·-;: ~L=~~ ~>-r,..:!' ~!2~'\r~•:,.t:~
!'tOI ~·kfl! O',;r livi111,.o ·"' "!"""' ··":1 i ~ o:·:.l ·~-'· ,,_Vl ~l -:11• . .-:. . ..< 'l· c 'J~""'
i·· t'•e '\(')·er.,l f:-•~--·~ };~• 1 f" .·-.r(•J. 11:-•n,: 0 •. T
~-&•-r O'"L; ~I on #If, tJi] "1; r.lr 1, ,·' -"''"·!"', ' Jl•· ;t-!. r1 t 1<: ,('• Jrt.: '.C ,..._1
~'--Jf,.;llCS ,.(.e to r-rot...t<'t 'r.e "' ir•)'l •p·,t,..
I b~lif"Vf" t'"e -('1Cfi' "o-11 .. it·.~.·,tL ..... •.;,. 1 it ;o'l":('l•i•"!/ a; ·i-: ··.-~ -~
~~:~!?:~;:!:~r r;r.~~:i"~.~;=l~~-~~: ~::: '':; :=b~ h ~:i ', ~ .~~ .. ~;? ~~~:~:~;:r~;.l ~n
~r.c""r;v. !1•1t_T will lti-"1" 1t 1 ·ou~ t·.,,j• 'l~:, 1 'I(; Jl• I" •~.·r '"ef; oil 1"'-~-":o• e<j,
lu~re ~· ""'""',:JlP. an,.irorJ•,.,.J•t.-1 rl">k • ._.rln I · 11'1 <··e "'IT ""-"'-~ i• t.1e J-er"'J..•n
i";Jlf h~,..:•Y•I! -~ ~-o«'~f' .. 11--·-~! :J<,r"'e1 ,..._ t.o :,,,.. . ...., t, .. E' r-.d .or~ ·Je~t'!'1-1""' ..;n
f:Jr .. 1 ~r. .lil.
:'o.J--: • ,..,1 '•
~c{~~
OCtober 17, nao
o.c.s.
Box 1159
Anchorage, Alaaka 99510
Dear Sire•
~AUI.L. ..... M.D. ·----• .0.-IM -...-..---
·--.~.:;~
Orr 21 I j' lll '80
I would like to ~it written testt.ony reqardinq oil lea ..
aale DO. 60 1Jl the 1.,... Cook Inlet and Shelikoff Strait area.
I .. wery •uch oppo...S to thia Mle vbich iJlcludea large areae
vital to our fiabinq.induatry.
I .. DOt a bioloqiat but I do know that from a bioloq1cal at&Dd-
point tbet -are juat beqinn1nq to 1....., ..,.. of the details of
our fraqile nortllern aco.y•t-. llany apeciea of -life vbJ.~h
are cossercially t.portant still have life cyclea which are not
fully Wlderatood or known.
!'or iJlatan.,., -re the varioua larval ataqea Qf a n..a.r of shell
Uab apend tbair devsl~ntal t:t.. 1a atill •peculation and DOt
really clear. It could -11 he that: the oil drilliDq would daaa~
an exu-ly illportant apecies and the -qe -y not ever. be
known or Wlderatood for :r-ra to coee.
I .. further oppo...S to tba oil lea .. aale on a very per-.1 beeis.
I c-to Alallka 15 yeera aqo to eacape the d .. truction and bas•l•
tbet occur• -..ever there ia ut:enaive develo_.,t. I bave -t
I .. aure ia the unrealistic hope that the oil companies will a~ly
peck up and qo -Y· llut bafore they do eo, I bope that: their
deat:ruct:ion will be kept to a ainillu..
Your•,
Pa~~-~~-~.D.
f?(), IJOx /'ltJI
/rOc-hiLi; 1/aska...
!0-!F-30
Bureau <I Land ~ 1lfW81Mn1:
OISOftice
701 C St.
Anchorage, All:. 995!0
GentlUieno
!0-21-80
I would like you to know tllet the t"iellermen and conse•-
vatlonists in Ho•-.er DO 110'! apeacl< tor this 411 )'ear resident
ot HOller, nor 111 tully.
HOIMir has never had a robust econ01l8y anc1 ucept tor
tlshermen, we have had to scrape tor a living. We cannot a11
be tilllle.....,n. !!ow can you morally alow the tiellermen to
harveat "their" natural reaouroe wealth and deny the rest at
118 ci thana the ript to harvest our ahare ot the resources,
via oil development?
A thpueand yeara atter the oil 1a extracted Hoaer will
atill be a lovely country to live in eo the tine Ilea coae
tor the country to liM ita' reaources.
1'he people -.ainat oil development are thoee who have
found a comtortable lite-style here and are afraid it to ~
people find tllia !Ieven it ·., lll be epolled. Well, their
comming here Ilea not chansed the scenery nor will the ~
>ne thousand people change 1 t V'.d we do have the r.-and
should be wUling to ellare 1t.
B .E. Uainall:i
Box 1258
H0118r, All:. 9960)
~anlL!J CJ~rr.nzi.nal~, nnc.t#.~~.t:~s."',,!tr
cOMI'UT'e -••HT aiUIYica BerN & · -s~
IIIIOYINe a 11T0MR 5) -II! 'If
OCEAN DRIVE It FAA SPVI' !tOAD
..... c. MoVIL.aY -
BOX tiH HOME!t. ALASKA IIH03
~20,UIO
8a1a tor..-OX*~ ftnight
.... --.Idle, --~ocsora.oa
P.O.-115!1
~.~ !195111
-.... -.Idle•
-------
'DI1a ~ 1e ill oowzt at 8a1a to. I l..iM ott.a hi -.... b
~ -dl.d -.,._. lit tba '-riD; tiD oowxt tba p:qo...s aa1a-alactC tiD ...,art it hi withlg.
I • tba ~ at -ur ~ D:lc. Qll" bad.-1e tzaltWig
IIIII ~. Qll" ~ ~-tba fUIIiD9 IIIII tba oll
~. ~tbayo~~n, I---~~tiD
wi-tba clrillhlf IIIII ----....aiDJ <-* at tba port at-· I-a1ao wi-8ll att:lto*-., bf tba ~
at tbia -dte:1ng tba lMt --·
au-tba lMt aa1a ~ crl.-crl. ~ b tba ail~
-~WI cu: t.aiiMl IIIII tba port of -· lllq' l*l'le -t... ~y hi 8III1P'ft ot. tba oll illllaatzy hi -IIIII -.,.1 17 -.fittm-tMlr ~ t:nddll;. ~. port~.
hl>tala, air!.'-,~-·--·~.~. 91'XB1' atana, .uc.l, natala, ~, ~. IDS tao -w
--tiD-.
Ill dlticm, -.1 fUIIiD9--a... ~ hi oowxt ot. tba
oll c1ri111n!r IIIII ~ ...,., -tba tiDidat -""''ltlll8a
bf tllldDrJ t:<lllrUa tiD -tba drill rltJII. Ql -.1 --sa. 8IEViaa
--......S ~ IIIII to.-! tiJmr-tiD-· 'lb1e 1e l'ri-..... -~ dl.d -pDtaat tbia ala. e., ~y ...,art it.
lliDaa IIW' effll!pt!m with the ail ~ I - - -tiD be ~y enn-.tally ~. I..,_ at JK>--tt.n
.I
II
'I
I ().C. S
l)t:J-. :Z '-, I 9 f>()
/'t} If~ :l.' Of'
~-a.lr '"'~"3
Ocr N 9 ~' 1 ~'18
11. s. ~\ ol tbo Ia\erior
-· ol LoD4 __ ,
Oo\. 21, 1980
lla>h 0.\er C.UD•\al Sbell Ollioe
P. O. Box 1159
--· lla•lra 99501
a...u-,
.Utbo I a\\-.ol tbo ~ pallllo -u.,. ol JVIIZ' ~ 1D
-roo Oo\ober 1.4,.,--DO\ 011 \bo Uo\ ol tbo•o-
olloroc! \e·~, -I ••oal4 tboroloro lite \o _, tbo
lolloviast
n .... prollabl7 a~\ \o tbo -1 tbo\ tbo boull.Deoo -v
.,.. DO\._,;.,"" a\ tbo _u.,.. !'bl.o 1o DO\-\o a 1aot ol
l.D\eroo\0 Ina\ ratbor \o tbo lao\ tbo\ 1\ 1o 41111oal \ \o p\ -
'-a lnllol.Dofoo oo\e'bll-\ lor 011 ~ -'1-.·
I alao D0\84 tbo\ vi\b ODO -ep\1011, tbo peoplo \eoUIJUc-_u .. MV ~ w \bio -· -'IIIIUo tbolr opl.Dl-aro
OOr\al.Dl7 ftl14, tbooo opl.D1011o &ro DO\ -ooril7 _, ·-
VUl'tl, or aeecl11. '
AI a ka1De11 perND, aDd a :ree14mt of tbe ana to~ crnzo 28 ~~
I wal4 oerial.Dl7 DO\ _, \o ooo 11117 oporaUaao 1D -llo;r
tbo\ wal4-_. or 1.alti'bU tbo liobiajr l.MuU)'. -· r-
o'bo-U011 ol oil prodaoUoo vp tbo Ialo\, -tbo liobeZJ' 1D
tbo\ looa\1011, U 4oeo -tbo\ tbo -l.Mwl\rioo -wozk 1D
a -raUft a-O)Ibero \o tbo -IU ol ... ._. U -
DO\ --'blo \o • -tbo -rv ai-Uoo 1o oo oriUoal
Nl4 -ve all aoo po\rol-prodao\o lor ....--· oaro, 'boe\o,
-lnllol.Dooooo, tbo\ looal roai-\e ~4 aU.-p\ w 'balk \bo
ezplo:n.Uoa. for a Y1 tal Hm'Oe of eel'IJ 1a our looaUoa.
-bao OD omoll .. \ pon, -ft &ro looltl.Dc lo.-ro! \o •,jor
._.ioo-I tool tbo\ -" looiUUoo 001114, -oboal4, be
olloroc! lor oil nplora\1011 1D u.o DO\ 1-.! \o be \GO 4ol1oa\e
-lolloall7 \o be 41•-·
~DCC:.~
fxlre&..-~ \...&nCl ~Mel'\..t
P.o. P,o¥. 1 t&1
Ptrd.'IOt~1 ~ Cfq510
~ o1Y'/~-
t.\o\~
l>.O. ~~4131
~. ¥1\a~ qqll!ll
Oct zz_ tceO
A~ ~it\&~ ot ~ ()r61ft &wl\'a'\~
\mpac.t-~~~ Clr'\ i+lc. ~ Ccok.. Inlet"-
~e.\\-.o~ ~aU· Oil arcl &p~ ~ "SG!e. ..... (DO 1
I &.:JI-'""~ ~ . ~m~ ~~ of.
~~~.
~tr\t) INed ~ WO<"t.e.:! ·~n if'\(~ ~a. I i:e.J
. ~~ ~ 'itle Ql~ll$o&~_, cf ~ 8 ~,
Gf> .~~ o~\ ~~~~ Of-penD lewm
1~ d.eud.clfn'\&.oAJ" -tor ~n #e ~:.
'f« ~. t:e.~ pen"·~~ ~talC.. I &n tr\<11(_
"fl!JI'V\il~ u.).-th iYoe. t..oc1lslf-~ .Thi'l. i~ a.
1\~ o;rn,Yioo~ a· De~, t>&-~ ~~ 1~.
'1\"te. peopSlc.. 4«.. ~1anti"Mer-. c:y t'\~"' ano. ..,.~
~ 'tW!m~ ~ lill~ ~li-h thet-r
~ a.-o. \~:~ wau\d.··r~.~~
'frel, pc-cc.IOt.i'f> li~le Oro. \d.'ld -fc.... ~ .
~ ~~ec;. t> ~e -J\..,.,.. t-o t-....e ""' oit-'
2
b()(l'f'l18o'\ ·~ ·,n ~~ an«J. C4pli-15\
c!lro\.N). ~.a~ ~~-~ "'~
<W.. ~~\,hew~ <1\f{l~ N¥) ~~~
w'tlft CJ'\~ -ftme-., M~~. '1\e \tn~
~" -h!. na~ ~ ~ \tfc:.~\e.~ 'INOJkl
be. C1\~1 '•m~le.
1-'cAYib" fi'!O.»L ic-.el ~ ~e. ~
v&lue. -thew lll'e.~, pic.e1 ~ )1'1~. ·
~. ~ ::1:" ~eel ~ QrC.. ~ arecu ~
~ld. · ~ a:;~ ,.. 0~ I 6pwtcS~tWn. P\.ea~
cancet ~\~ ~e Bnd. · &Mt. OA' p.a.tO\W
91\11\TOfl~ ~ Qnel~. 1hQn.(. fiN'-•
<><·· ..,..._ _... ...,":>"Oc. ..,...., c~ ~
Cec.it Arv:trus 1 De,t, cf -trito_ In~
us. 4"1'\h "'"\.I.Told.lt~~
_,-
.{,U.(~~.J I'Ut(A.-"1 ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ . , .. "U-u-.w R4--.?.f. f-t.n«. ~ ~
~ ,L~ Ji.'ll.4-; , ... ,.,.j./..,~f • "9rot~->t.ot..a.J! ~--~ I d14.f<~ r~ ~-IU:C 4:u hJJ ~~
.;;(4u UI1J1J...i ~-~,~ a....t -~ ~..f._, •
~4 /(~ ~~ 1-H~~ 1 d..;. a.t.-.. -l;_
~~.~~~~~~
/ll4-<~:..t ?~-~· ..v.~~~
-~ f,. I.$. -tn ~-* kJ CL-tJ A-~ ft~&"t
+-uz-. 7"' t..d -~~JI.p.. ~ ~~ 1-t~<--
..;du q. i ;d, "''" th....d~~ ~·
~ ~ #~ ~....V ,d, -'Jl~-71 .~1.-~<L
/1-r..L ~ .tl2t'~ a-t"' (I~ .a.-~
1-ncr ~~ --o/?<~d WAI~Ao ft ~
AA.:rt .tL ~?.,.. ~ eL~-tt-t!JU 1/ a-t-fo.,.J nu~ ~
~i-1 ~-&c~. .;jl'-,(A f¥.;:1Jtit.nvl! a~a,_!f
.:tt I'/'IL.. ~ ~ ~ . rJ:tw, ~ kt"..t-"~
;;r::i ~ (l.J -&f'<t4-.-..· .A'"~ """'-........... ,-~
'A~-.;4~. ~~~~a-u./<~~-
,.,, .oe.c ~ L .5 *'1-'-..k-u~
-fP 7 -" a .... .,t ~ .(/Ul..-
AlA'i~.·. r'IO:S 1lfflCE
-~•~· . . .~~u
-3-
P.o. ~t'~'z.
If~,.., AI.. tJtJ/tl3
~II" ;;!.,~ J9f(l
!bie 1a wr1tw11 aa a follow up to tba o8it·~~{~a bold 111 Boaor,
ud to perbape clar1f7 ud so iato tba recorda, a rep11 to c,_eDta
ezpra~o tbo BoHr llowa b7 tbo federal official& coaduct1111
.v~»~t.• . - . •M"''lll• D'-.~a\boarills waa .. n .....,..cod oYer tho pllblic radio atat1oa, -.m't> ·~6 well aa c~rap 11l tbo Boaer ll .. a. C&rda tor apoeura ud
(!t1 ~bp1aa or the iapect atat-11t ware uailabla to nar7oaa at tba
pllblic Ubr&rJ. It ...... 7ea, tbat o11a aapaat of tba populati.,.
did uka tb1a iaforut1oa :a uailable to tb .. aalna at tba Ular7 ud
attar readias tho iapect atat .. nt did taat1f1 at the pllbUc beariJis.
'lbeaa people are alao a croaa aect1oa of tho people who Un ia Boaar
ud abo care about tbe place 1a wbicb tba7 Un. Tllroup pdUc
taat1aoae7 or petit1011a tbe people reproaanted aacbaaica, adnrt1a1RS,
reaort onere, ncretariea, laWJera, cOAtractora, tood store onere,
tMd deYalopera, teabhera, carpeatera, cbubersaida, raaauraat
o...-a ucl workers, retired people, charter boat operator, •ercbaata,
cUDary workers, toasabor ... nC', aunctua, accoUDtaata, boaeataadera,
writera, faraera, artiata, nu.rH.!f.. aurYeJora aad tiahei'Ua. lfJLia 1&
Boaar-tbaaa are tbe people tbat-.. up tbe poplllatioa of Boaar.
'lba acop11l& aaat1111 tbat waa bald 1a Boaar ia Aut. of 1979 na aot .. u
attaadad but I tb11lk 70u abould alao UDdaratud tbat tba da1 of tbat
aaet11ll na alao a ulao11 Uilb11ll period for c,_.ricial u ftll
aa aubaituco t1abarua, .-, ia tha tiaa of 7&ar tbat ... 1 people
would t111d 1t iapoaaibla to attaad -ties••
I u aorr7 aoae of tba tollowiD& 11lforutioa waa obtataed too lata to
i11cluda il1 81 oft# teat1aODe1 but I aould Uka to pro-t 1t at tbia t1H.
I be line 1t abou1d aarn to correct -· 'f" the tb1D&• Mr. Jtaowlea,
troa ARCO, waa atat1n1.
M8J, 196.2 Standard-Ricbt1ald..Sbell Belup #1 ~.ad a blowout ill tba 1Dlot.
Juna, 1962 Pan-All bad a bloaout at aiddle sroud aboal #1 ud na not
broupt u11der cODtrol tor lt5 da1•·
&us, 1962 uotbar blow-out 1a tbe ialet b7 Pu-Aa.
Por :51o aoatba bes1JmiDI 1a JuU&rJ of 1966, tbaro ware 140 a1pt1ap
of oil pollutioa i11 Cook Inlet. Of tbaaa ap11la-49 ftl'e of llllkllon
ori&ill, 1 na troa a t1ab11ll .a-1, 46 c•a troa oil platforaa1 9
troa p1pel1Daa, 10 troa abore taciUtiea, 10 troa taakera aad ll>
troa a:rploratiODa .riP aad aarrtce Yaaaala. 'l'ao of tbaae ap111a were
ujor ap111a of onr 1,000 bbla.
Betnen 1972 ud ~8o tbara ware 98 apilla 1D tba Cook I11lat caued 117 tba
oil 1andat7, 112 ap1lla troa otbar aourcaa aad 40 ap1lla froa uakao1111 •ourc••·
Tbia 1a not a &DOd record ud ena 1t &JICO au not parta1117 raaponaiblo
tor -• of tbaaa ap11la, tba point 1a that tba raaaODa tor tba ujority
or tb•" apilla reat 011 tbe tact oil danlopera caued tb... 'l'bia ia not
a soo4 record wbaa peopla 11rt111 1a tbia area are ao dapndaat 01l tba
aaa tor tbarUYiaJ, ud tor tboir food. 'lbia ta aot a sood record wbaa
70u coaaider tb• lower Cook I11lot ud tba Sba11k1of Stra1 ta baY•
waatber conditione lib tbat ar• aore an•re tbaa thoaa 1D tba Upper
Cook IDlet.
'lbuk 10U,
&... 11>7$
~""-<..
II lt>>r..._ '/'TioO 3
~ ... ~~-
Rt.,...l,_, u.1,
&lua oc::a orttoa .,...._ of l.anol ..._ •• ,.,
r.o. lloK 11.59
Anohorac•• .u. 99.510
AUsc• oes oFnct
Alfe"'l"c • ·'J' •t.t.SU
lbl! I 021'11 ..
... ,. 1)2)
.:ou .......
'""'" '·' r 9961.5
'11 • '.~:;~ Oot. Mo, 1980
O:r 1' I rc :H 80
Jtetl'PR' tl led,LI4 PMbllp IW1M 9A QCI LIM• lelt 160, Oplr 1$• liM
•ot•• tha o-t• ln () aal tiM F.S. -re aoldad arwr llpMJ<a. aal
baar1!11f other& teatU'1o
11J -1a 1&~"7 11Jr1oll aal I haY& 11nd 1A &odl.all tor 10 1earll•
11J hue-. Chr1a. 11110 apoka aarl .. r. baa_,. t1aft1A8 -..o1&ll.F
here ror 1) 1aara. 111 1971 6 2 -nahad for bal1blat aal 4-
orab Oft our """ ••11 -t 1n tb• llarllllt a., 6 K1..,QU: a., -· ( 1'111• , ..... I raoalnd ~~~· paunt co .S aorea of •opaa-~o-U~ l&all
at On1on a., Oft ~ber17 I•laal • ..,lob I a~ ou 11l 1970.) '!Ilia ,..& n-r w Ht-nettecl co-ro1&11.7 tor eal.on wltb oa.r Cwla
) Ja&r old c1rla at i:ek•ar Po1nt. It 1a aorCMOa i:1abQU: a., rra.
!aln1k Point. ~~~· propoaad ~-r 1-1ns tac111t7•
&t rtrat I -..n•t so1A8 to llpMk at ~h1a baar1ns-I
dldn't t111nll "Ill teaUIIOI\1 -ld oarr1 anT .. 1pt, ataoe I'•""" a
b1oloslat, a ao1anHat. or a poUUol.aA, aal I d""'' reall7 -1d-., .. u to be a •rtahorparaOA•. <•-••r I han -botll apon aal
oo-ro1al t1a1111111 uo-• 1A &J.aab.) .,.t I llpMk aa a •-·
oonoernad about ~ba natura or our .,1ldrea. I'• no~ a ataUaUo1an atthar. bolt a tn fl.cDrea froa 11\be mill
.,,.opala (pr&l>AI'ad bJ tbe &odl.all Area .. t1Ya .t.aaoo1aUoa'a Oat.r
Cont1nantal Shelf .Ao!Y1aorJ COilnoU) ~ad out at • • '!bert~ 1b a
4 ..,."" ohalloa or a •Jor oU apUlo t!o •· 11\111& 4oeoa'' a..-aloa
bwaebold oo-"""• .. por~adl1 tba ol-p of a ap111 -ld
be dona 1n _.,.. ner .S taat hi.CII• Laa~ .,._r ..,.,. t1ab11111, 1t -
board a -ther report or S root aaaa, that -t 1t _. flat -
V. .. ,.. tn a ehelterecl epot Wltb M e~oe11ut ..-r ... t.bel'-w1M.
va oould onen ••• Wll1t. aapa t-tb• -t.rl1 -· aa-looaot
acroaa U&IIU1U a., t-..da 'raln111 Pt. our MI.CIIbor ••t-nar ..,
tha lt1dl117all alda or rtalnar Pt. had bla allltf ~ b7 .._a-
onoa thla au-r. I llnow that -l111of Stra1U are ..,,..., V1Dt.r
-atnn ta worael (lltlale rua, 1\ha prppoe..S p1pal1M rout. Jllat
ar-t'>e corner rro• 'falnlk rt.,1a no~ ~o be tuan 11Sbtl1 altll•r•
It ta notortoua aaon« tto.tara tor ati"OIII' tldH &nil Ylotou.a oa.noea&a.
1111ppera ... t oheok th• tlda tablea before ull1A8 tllroup. It 70'1
bud tha t11e. at beat u wlll tue an •ooar 1Aat-or 1.5 -to
aa•1sate. &t worat JOU so down, aa tha a/Y Deep aaa dl4 It TMr& .... J
At i:elmr Pt ... oould b...-tha &luka ltaw PerrJ. ~-..
oo1111111 rroa Se-to Por~ L101U1 loas batoN -oooald nan -bel'
out •• a tlftl' apeak on t.,e horll'ora. aaand oarrlH tar oa the •ter.
I r .. l that Jut the nolaa ~ollut101l alone troa the h•l1oopter aal
a1r trarrto to tne proJeotad Port L101U1 a1rport, -ld be 1Atehrabla.
Set-nattlno; 1a a low taohnolou rtaberJ. va WOIIld rataer row
or uae aa11 than ••• an oll u1• oo• to l.oltak. 'fttla n.-r .. trled.
to llYo aa .,oh 1" har-w1~b aature aa poaa1bla. ve _.ot b7
the ... an'!l pt,t out our neta fro• ahore 1a. WOOllen tto.ta. !be II:U.
ran ttaratoot on the beaCh wtth a.o '-1' on the1r teat. V• aaw aeala,
••• ltor&a, otter, bear, w .. ela, Wbalea, I'OZ'J~Olaea, 4Mr, and. _,.,.
cnu or aea aal leal b1rda. v. l1Yad rroa 1111 tnrouch lepte-r
ln a oanYU •11 tent wtth a ••11 wool-bUrnlAI atoye tor heat a~
oooktna. Man.7 or our ••1• were oookecl OG a atone ftreplaoe oa the
beach. We ate rtah •'f•r7 dq. Ve 414 not out anr lln trMa tor
tlrewood., "• there waa ~~ar• than enouch 4rlttwoo4. V. a!Md a propaDe
-2-
ca10v aton Wltll at r•" out ot ,... Than I ended. u~ oann1AA 2 oaaaa
ot a-.l.on OP\ tne woo1 atoye. So, tn etteot, we 11Ye4 a au.balatenoe
llteatJle. So,.. miRht conal1er it a ponrt1 lenl ezlatenoe. llllt tor
ua lt w"a like a dr••• come true to be there aa a !aa11J. Ne•rl7 •••r~
year, Chrta seta a ieer fro• the •rea around i.upreuot Stralta.
Wlt"' aubetatenoe a .. l.on and hallbUt, we do ."lOt need to bU¥ an.J •at;
or tiah troa the at ora, I teel ••rJ atronglJ that the 11os;acU nt an
otl aale would ruln theae aubalatenoe reaouzcea ror Wh1tea aa vall ••
n~tt~••· ·
We aa a nat1on, need. to chan&• our Uteatyl... lie ••t 11,. up
our electric not dOl bUll ••r•ra. And I'• reed.J to chaftle• Are rou1
I round tllia aua-r th•t it ••• eaaier than I iBa&lned..
011 ia not solns to hat torner. It'a t1• to 4nelop our
"\lternat1Ye rene•ble reaourcea now, rather than rapine the eutb an4
pollutlN! the air we bloaetne. There 1a tra•adoua power 1n the Udal
actlon hue. We ~ue lot a anl lota or wlnd tree tor the llarnaaalQ&o
'l'he au ... •r aun slvea ua 20 1\oura ot dayl1&ht, l'aae1Ya aol"r heat1q
la " real poeaibllltJ hera. (I apant a colle15e 7ear ln tha lleet Coaat
or NorwaJ, where .. tertalle were tap :.e4 ror en-rSJ • ltc41u haa
alallar rainfall and terrain to proYide ua with .. terpower enar&J•l
lie alao n .. d tu .. o II!Ch aore towa ... a co~aening what enerc1 we 4o
h••• lett. I ••• Ushta bla&ln& a'ft,f 1n town at nl.cht on bu llHqa
Which -re closed.. (Na .. lJ the U.S. Poet Ottlce) We "t hoae tr7 to
lle~our wlnt•r he:>t between 65-68. We wear neater• and l<>na-Johne
(a . en we (rHI -1n Snsbad 4oins poat-cra4uate work an:1 UY1QI
1n atone mana ion without central lleatill6), But I orten aweUer when
ln the O't8rheate4 buai:>ea••• and ornoea 1n town. Publlo traneportatlQD
coul4 be natlJ' 111Pro•ed.· llouaea leak preoloua heat. (lie ware eur-
prlzed. laat rear on a trlp •outai4e" to ••• the nu-r or bl.c aaa
suz&l111f oara epee41n& •AI OYer the 55 l1111t and oarrrln& Clftl7 Ofte
pereon.)
so :rou oan put • .town tor no aale. I reel ••rr atronslJ that
1t ie t11118 to t•ll• the reapona1b1Htr tor our own aot1ona 1n re-
ll"rl• to bein& soc4 oaretakera or our planet. lie ••t think .. r10118-
l7 about what we do now and 1\ow 1t wlll arreot the kln4 or worl4 ..
are go1~ to le•Ye for our ohlldren.
'l'hanl< rou,
1SdY..., A·l¥ci._
Betaer A· 111r1ok
P.S. It •••• tMt Jlr,Jtnowlea, rroa A&CO, Who spoke later. was
4i8count11111 our teat1ao111 becauee we heel no taota, 414 not Raderatand
the oll coapanr tecl\:>olcsJ, an4 portraJe.t the •orat po .. lbla oaaeo
Being a aother or twina. I haYe no tt• to do atat1aUoal re-
•••rch. I've neYer epok•n at a public heartna betore, eo I'• not
"" orator. IIUt 1 llaYe the actual ezperlence or l1Y1ftll he.... And
I ha,_ toel1n&a about it. rh1a ••t not be l.cnored.. 1 l1Ye4 tor
18 r••r• in a auburb or WllahlN!ton, D.c., and I hed. nenr heard or
koi hll before I ca• here. So I IUlow now har4 1t .. at be to ooa-
prellen4 what it ia Uke here--Wiles a Ofte Uatanea oaretullJ to thoae
who teatitie1 rroa thelr heart• .... 11 ... thelr hea4a.
IC JOU want more tact•, check tne U.s. Weather lerY1oe tor a
ye"r'• record of the lod1ak Ialand. water• •rlM weether reporte.
On ho• aan:r dar• were there S rt. or leea ••••? CAll the u.s.
coaat Guarl 10nd aak how •111 llna and boata were loet 1n kc41ak
w10tera in 1979· Aak Wien Air Alaak10 an4 w ... teltn A1rl1nea, and
llc4iak Weatern Alaaka A1rl1nea, how ...., tlishte to or rroa ltc41u
are delaJe4 or cancelled each tear beoauee ot l.noleMnt .. ather here.
Then check wi tit the looal alr charter OOIIP&ft18 on their tallJ ot
a:.•("·" -~ ;·::! 'n ·:t:
•,II" L ' . • ~I f.
Del 3~ I' I~ \!1'i0
;;;_,,{ o .$1u{ ,ntJ# CO/'Itln••".J ~~ o,{ /e •• ,
.»6.s M ro-e; Cool Z./6 t.
::rt .su_, d.l .v.tl. -t:k C..u{,./-,..J ,,.t,f,f,t or
c ,(,_.J -tC /"'Dt" i t/e '"'"'"'a.. ,...,e,. I Co,.. /'_'""*
a.../ ,a-J(,, ":/!"'''5; 011 ?'Y/'t!£~~--or z'le e_.._.-.. (
6x .. ~ uu~ss. 114-lf __,;,; ,1,../,..,.,4_ z'k r.J't
of oul' c~f ~"'S ,_,t/ /'""'A o c~u-{ ffe.s/
,,. d. I'"Dt;' &;<-... -kJ/e.ss erto.l.l,o, .... / .,./.,...,(
A1' .. ".!e-~ ... t.. 0.1 rtt'l.s ~sl ,.,t' ,M _r,,..,l{./
.to o./1.~1'#/e t'/e. ""[J"S Ot ,~_,,_S ro IA..JO/
u,.J.., ~e) ou-.... e-~ .,~1/vle) .re~ercs o .. tl kdts .I
o~l "'"'"'/'co•l'e/ C.dert45• "?-' -~ ~ ~..?" ... _,t{
~ t'4 o./ ,../..JI.-)'J o.o/,14->.,,.d ~ A~/~~
Ou/' oce""•. O"l' ~t!CD..,•-:J ~~et~.s•"J ~ _fY, ,;t'•(/.,.6/
aJ o ,.e ... /1 of fitJ sa-,..L..s/.-1'.
::rt' ?J"':<'~'• 2"'1'.{ -rlt eye ot -de ~,,_ ot"/'"'f!'W
,,s o~0 a'..rl rA ~sl .(0,. /"ex,..-1,-k .1~.
_,_
.. ather 4e l&Ja •
I eo not truat the oU oo..,anra' teohnolOCJ'. lie oa• to Ala81ra
to eeoapa the klnl or o••r-teohaolos7 that brlaca ua 'l'hree-K1le•Ialaad.
SJ'la, and llalJ ta..,one. ... Jtnowlea oYer-ai..,Utled. the rleka ln-
Yol•ed. br etatlns that they lower the 4r1ll1ftll rll 4own ao 1entl7
that no r1a11 are aquaaha~. 1aplJ1AI that thelr teohnolos7 oan eol•a
nerJthlftl• Aa 1 wrlte thla, an 011 drUllQI plettora haa drirtaol
looae and 8IIJ\k 1n 60 IUlot wlada and )0 root eeaa eouthwaat ot l.c41ak
leland. Ill· the aa• atora, the terl'1 'l'uat ...... .,.. not able to dook
at IIIII Port Liona and ,.. delaJed. 1n return1n& to le-r4 br hlllh aeaa
1n the llaraot lle7 are•.
Iea, Den ltublak ,.. ~eed. rl.cht. We !log set the worat poaelble
ode hertlo A r14e dUrlllll a winter sale onthe 'l'ueta•na will oonY1nce
e.,.n the aoat r1ra dlabell•••r· And 1t 0 a not onl7 the •worat Poaaible
oaae• that ........ ua. IYen 1t there ooul4 be no poaa1bil1tr or an
o1l apUl, we are atlll worried. that the other o11 reletaol act1Ylt1ea
oollbined. wUl ruln thie blt or laat rrootler rorenr.
OUr tlahlftl uverlanoa .,.. not ent1rel7 a p1on1o. lie worka4
lOftl, har4 lloura troa 4awn to 4uak. Saa Uona and ahara• tore nol ..
in the nata whlle atoaUq tlah. lluaa blt ua. we 10t tlah polaonin&
and JellJ tlllft atln&a 1n our llande. our treah -t•r etreaa 4r1e4 up
and we lied. to haul 4rin.ll1n& -tar 1 111le. lla liM Uttle t1• tor a
bath elfoept in oold ae• -tar. lla ••lled. ot rotten tleh and woc4
aaou. r11en .,.. a oonatant battle to ll"P the MU rrea cr seaweed..
!lilt we .. ra workln& t01etbar ae a taallJ, 1natee4 ot belllll apart tor
S aontha ae happelled. when ChrU ueed. to hall but tlah. And aoat 1a-
portantlr, we .. re our ...,. aaatera. r11ere ooul4 nuer be •111 otllar
k1n4 or ooape~atlon ror thla troa the oll ooapanlaa. Ir .. wanted.
to work Oft an oll rls, we woul4 haYe &Ofte to the ~tt •orth Slope or
tezaa.
we did not set rioh tlalllftl, but ....... able to earn a soc4
portion or our Jear' a 1noo• 11\ ) montha. 'l'lla real rewar4e were
1Dtaft'l:1ble -----whlte -wlftlled. eeasull• olrollQI hl.ch into a ateel-
blue akJ' ---the cora or our nata bobbins ln a -.ntle aea ---the
sreen hUla or lhantln lle7 eUll dotted. wlth enow in Aucuet ---
our twln dauclltera aaleep 1n the -or our ekltr .... rul .. lt
wltll aiher7 aalaon ----and untol411111 OYer all, a double raln-.m peace.
Plell are a raM-ble resource. Oll 1a not. u11 and -t•r
4o not atz.
---... -·----_,_,
Al.&aka o.c,s. Ottlce
lluroau or !And llaMp•ot
P.o. -11-'9 ..-one-, Alt, 99510
Dear C.ntl-no
·------
IMI wolll4 Uko 1 t kDoom lllat .. are .W.Olutelr ~ to tho
oll 1-oale I!AJ, eopec1all7 tiM! l"""r Cook Illlet hill! Shel1kor
St.rai ta areu.
;Ia bel1.,e that tl\e oll 1e ... oale h DOt ln tho beot 1ntereot
ot &11 penOD&, J18rticularlr tno. Ol!lo Uw on tho DellhllorlJI& cout&l
ooneo, I t h a tact tl\et tho Enrt..,..nt&l Protectioo ~o,. ... oc1 at&ted
lhat tho oal t -....n ........ would be -tioallr attect&cl bJ -o11
ap1ll. Sci.-Appl1catioaa d14 & •WIJ tor tho li.P.A , iD 1978 alii
1919. Detri tua, the be&lllllinc or tho _,c food web, •oul4 be
harMd. 14 auch aa u.tant. that &11 tor. ot ooeadlc life would autfer,
A& oatllralhta and bloloshte, we teel lt our huaa obll.ptioa
to protect theee lncred1bl7 productive •"tan, ;Ia an totall;r oppoae4
to t.IIJ 011 1-oalee lD thlo ana e>r 1\laaka,
Thank JOU tor tho oportwd t7 to wlce our op1D1ou,'
Al-OCS Offlw
-ofLooll"'-l ,.o .... 1159
--.,.,Aluutlllo
st ... •-·
leMeUI I. CI1TIIsa
loalSZl
lodtat, AlHU tillS
Dt-111.1110
• ~· •. ·. J
A .,..._ frw Qew,... U.S.A. -* a blUntlr f&lH IU~ at tM 0CS
Wrt11191 • Off.-. Silt 110 I• loUak tMs OctoMr ftftlellt•. M a btolottst
111J tratnt .. Mil ,....,, .. , ... I •• appe11M to hl.-r Ma state ttwt'e Ms ..,.,. :n-:.:•::-."';!.:!!., ~,.!•:,•LftS:~!.·,~~'i• ~~=~~ ctt.ll
It Is _,, -to u. blolotl .. l -~~. -... tllot ttoore octuo11t Ms .._. tltBtftcut .,.,.._. U..t otl don ,..._.. hlnl Mrlne l1n11. Jlillst
::u;-:.:•.e;.,:,r:=a~~~~t 1 .:C::!•~,t:.~ of 1
Effects of Cnlde Otl • llrlyltft Stlfll of Pacific HerTing• puttlisMd In tiMI
:=ct.~~ 1 a-.::!1C'~ !:;ec':'"~ a!:..stl:n". S:Ct.!'!~~:.!.. ... c:.!!:!:o"
wltMn : cells of .....,., .. larYM, t11111 article concludet """ • ... "'-"..,..
st,.tftcant •tfflrencet 11 Ulll u1trlltrwctvra1 ..,..r-.ce of tNu 01"11•1-.
Tile •tsrupttcas IIOtH -.1• .....-.ly decnase suntwal poc.ttal ,,. tM lll"'fM,
:::'::.!'.;;.~:::.':.m. ::-:.:; :-r:·::a·:~:-co::: ::··
Maine fw IIIPPQI"tt,. ..-1411K:t, u Qew,.. U.S.A. •••· but ratller rttltt lttf"' In
_. -biological •net~·. lllts spect11 of ltlrrllll, tnctdeatllly, tt ::. -.;~.:-:~.!:.=!'1..!'=-: ea.~t,=.:';:;r:.,·~. ~~tt
::='Of =-=u.:-,:r.., ~:.::;'~:-:.:·~::;:--~:::-:,
kt .. crib Mil ....,.., tp~elet. of ua...
~:,.!:.!t•!tsa::'::r'....:..:,~= :-:.r-~ :o-.:~'t!':=t!J::.
Kloottftc -~~~. Or -0011 SO ltttlo -fw ... 0CS -IIIII
ttoo -~~ of lodtot ttoot t1111 fMl •talltb"0tod to ,. tilts tloll of ltat.-.t. .
TMM fwl1t.teftllll•
- ' (&-)-..--~.-.a. I. Clri'IKO
'!MU...., tor Dre.R lltYlr1..,.,.&al 1..-ot State..._& tor GCa ..._.. aale #60
11r •• to llat~lo -t. l ,..,. u..l'lli l.lUA·-t or IIIII' )0 rear•· 1
-. N1M\t "' &roc"\U aad beptteru I•1M4• eat 1a .... &owe or loctla& • .1.84
1 •i•~.:pl~·,:,.~~ ~-..:.-~;~~\n"..i~ .... trelU vt&h • ne-
..,.. lid~ ..... v. own • bo-:t. •ttliiC OIU' .U•llla rteratnc •1-.. oa u.e
.... •U.e Of &ocll ... ld.an1 ard Ol'eb ltl &urreO"''O(f Ste. 'lfe 11-C and. tln tor
_...,. tOOII u nll. V. loft Cbe...,. n llft L"'ll oaa•t 1-.tne a'l.f o&a.r.., or uro.
IMn an aleo ) OCher t'aalll." la Dl'l a....,._ .-.,. no\ oOIIa.'llll: ...,_. a& ••• .. u.,. -. ..... et•tlar llfe•&rlee.
1 •• -tq•' a -.J.o la Shell•ot are. I Mow the rte& or oU ep111• IUIIl
1 .. ...._. t• "" hs.Jl and. PMe• a nrr real 4Meer to tlabU.. tbe oalJ' ...,._
oet.o -.. &M people or &oUe& heft, not to .en&loo ttM re•ouroe o..-.e. !'1M
oU twlaetrr 4oee noc heft ,,.. aD11lC7 to ol..,. ap or 00ftt.a1ft an oll oplll
at all 1n &be Ulll Of' --.u..r OODd.U1DAe odeu,_ 1G &hoao •tore. J. 4oa't
belleH tM oU oo.pu1M ..,. nallJ' 4o aob ln CM ••• ot ott'Oil•&aneee
...-.n 1n. a •r1,... NYtrora.nc. •• tM ...,. ... or ou •oa14, •• thb &1•
be UlllMII to , ... l...t WMre u.e 4a-.ce •• reeCNroe• u •em £oon...c.
1 -. ln SM&a llllr'bua, o..urornta lll 1969 Oft ., IMMJ.aoD lll'left one ot tiM
ot'f-ataon wU• blow then. I Ulld.outllllll tae probl.e• -. oaueed. be--.e ,,..
nU ... 41'111 .. -.. a t•U 1ft &a.. OOMA floor, (ptontr or llh1oll .. ban
.. -,.H)onol "'" '"-.-14 400 11e u..,,-. 1 4""''---oftlle ell_, 1eto tile ....,., J. 4~1 & mow the e&•Uettoe. the tao&• ...s.
rl8V'M. lillt I -u.e Maorau and. tiM du4 .rlAe Ute. &1'14 the htlle ettorte
Co el ........ & rev awl a balr ...... INObiwd allll J. ... tM& , ...... onevo
ftOt; roe eJ.ewt, I Son•• MOW lt Ulo .._,. th•l: od.taere• to ,,.., IUIIl olOCillal 10
WMIIiiiiJ wp ,., r..-..,., dluMr. or le tiM ron.U or oou&an& ~ tr•
"-l•~-:= ... ":1 ~';:-~'0:": ::::1-tL'::::·a,reooott •••·• plftll onr-
I.Md tr• CMMot P&. to a ...,...,. lo.tlnc teeuu, at 'l'alA1Jl tt. ,....u._
lA ...,._r tnrt1e lA 11u..c ..,. aa.ell•ott '"•·. ~tt •••·, and llll.riD& .., an all t-.ortant tlebU. •HMil• rw eu.-...a Ol'ab. BNl4•• '"-~
~I' to, ... Ml'lne ura. tM ...,., •• aeg, ....s u .... too. WOIIL14 be ·~~
ed .., •IIAII:•r tratt1o. ~" ..... "•••1• oan • t etop or tu.l'ft •-llr eo orab
...,. and. ...._1• lA , ... .., oo.ld. be ran ~-.,. 'here an auo a •rMt cloal of :::-;..:r::l!:f:.'..: :::.:':::;. ~::·:.. '!:!1r..~':;.~~!:..:!':J:.
081 fro. ·-Wl&ft; haaMw•, epor&e rl .... r.a and ,.10ft1oere, .Jut .... ftral ... u
.... I.._ oat. tro• ,.., 1n • ., ....... ,, a all.ltt, wUb • 21/2 rou-ol4 0111.14
::t:' .. ::. •!::!~sO:..:. b~~ 1!... -:.!;1 !:..~::& :=..~!!:.!1::~~:~
_.14 Mft been 41tterM& to IDOII &bat oae Of ..,,.,... t.anacan oou.ld. 10011 ap "' or ,,.. foil ,_ • or r.--lal.
AIM1 I .. _.,"•' &M 1)0UI.blUtr or w.t.le lue &1'14 atniJ'•• 1111:a,. belftll alter-
••• teo&or roa, ... n .... ..s.uu 'o • ,,.., ,,.., are ...,. ..._. •• , ... u
•rr• llllll ....--rt.Uon H &IMIJ .,.., wUh ... ooellltlOftll eftr --lloac..4 bf
•'"'1 :=-~ . ..,.. tha' &he ,,........ plpell,I0~14 be reetrlotoll tor rta.-
1fiC ..... w be l •U• .. ..,.. arCMIDil Ul' oU riC•. VIal' ebou.ld. o._rolal tl.,._
., .. Ullll' tt .. oe 11"0W1la rw ...., ,..... aooepl: tbe1.r Lout 'l'bore an _,.
people ....... lln1lAOal o-a r..-&a••• areu.
'l'o .... "P ... tM1!i Moat tM o-ropoMd. a.uaort aalo, l tll1n& tiM ol\uoa
of ... Ut"t'le 1anl _, ot a&lJW a Uw-lae: bela& d.ea&...,od. 1e , ....... ,,
I oen•c ... anr 1ad.YM .... 1a ort ... hon ieft1op.at to ttt.o &odla& vee at all.
Miler ,.._. lbe .-u .. u a tlt\ole n.eedta& ,.._1 ou. And • 1.a Ud.la& nea4 oU
•• heat ov bweea 81111. to .,. ..... oar boat•• .. , J. &h.1Ail &be Ull1ted at&&M
1• a f'Ml "Ga· ...a that 11M sot to .top • ....,. abou.ld. w ure l4 Aluu. --
rlf1oe a.r ..,. ot Ute 10 F•ople can 4r1•• Clldtllaoa en4L•••17 011. , ... .,_....,_
_,. ot &aerloa. It u ~n. oae .,ro t.hlail that tM lOYer.,.& U •rrtac to
r.. d.CNII 0111' &"r•te, OMn.lail u aU &tie tllftUo 1n.to bello•s.n.: w ftiM4 n,
;.. U:et.J...,\ _.;_,~ .;: .. liut..'t! • .-.\. .. "t-l ( 111.-111.•: ntJ rn l
.7.{,.: ·(b_.{\t;t -"·Hl ~ Lt' tL ti<t ·Hltt (' /ot.j){\.(o;t o\J.i.a(I ~lu Ht
..r _ lo r · t -1 ' r (0' / ' t ~ ~ 0.0--t-• ...:.-_L c~llo! ()[.mld Oo.->·v(.l ~\.Uo.O: ·:_.o'f.•\ltLI'l\ •
, .Y.o.M\ .a~~u~· ··j>t-"a.'\'lC~o~\.ctr.LI .c-; ~·~nl~;
i. -'?(t\.'11. _•)'}:y ...f!,u:-:~ -~'.A.h.;_VCJ-.tA.: •~1.-IJ:~Il(t•HtJ
{.l.'''ll..~-\..<l ....(-e-i}._ U.'l..C, .. )lw toz.t·7i -'\L..tC.:.?(t ~\.>L(I( J\<l
o.. ._c L(.u-tru: .• l.(-t:.'l. u ·11 .•. (~ ..... -:,-.;.,.., ti<.~JL/.> •
.j_ kfn-t.i...'Q..f.&. t-L<.l.:t.."~·J\.-~: tL .... ·.uJ.(,·Ii.L tloM
clc .• u:lt.Q{.t:d~c C"'/. r.Lu.a', 1'f' --L" .Uu \llu.i. :.a· ...1t.A.:t
0 \ {. :j /.. . .
'-l..'ll..o\ 0 1/L.(.u;."_-:W ~~'-1 'I .f>~o(" .CJ-.<<.>•,·, ?'f•··••d.<·>·.:r
~J. • ,J<.. ~~II_ (i'l ~\L .. {, t <l h (\ 1/11 h\.':fl:> . t't'":L(I/..: ,·, o ';It
..5..t (.._"'7t..'Co..[_,, ..JdJ.J..d, n.. {:(L.d ~eLJ.V, cf ./L..\Lc<!J.tft(.'f.r
~CLi'fv ~ ..ft, ..... J11.(?t..t/!-J'---i-H.~:1.a~{. (~ --1-o4..
Lt..'<ct.tf\Q.ol., •. ~:t~ . ....tL(ol_c-J, 0..•1.(\ (l..C.tit..-..< ~t
~ .. -4L£-.-) .~rc-lc,\ !\C'J (h(I.AJ ,,,.., r;/1,,): M (l :!>:?" c-A-t\')t(·<:
· tl.'(.n U·t-df..., fi, l'fN.Lf{!p 1 Aor-f :::n~·.::"~1.-..LWL~
'lJfiR-~ ~' ~ Ct•7W l~·; -bu. ~·2L~~ 1 5'f~/-~ ~
J) (}((. _{.j ({.W.~ !"(,of tv~) I~ f ~;_ ~
0
C.1 (~'LU'b H~ ~ tt.'·O'l..<U kn. ..A..L 'I·LtL'-t..-\1>---: ..'i)-.<-<> _.{,.?l..ll..CVYt.£.• _,
~ ~ )k J,:,1W:-.1 L1 -ti>£ ~ 4f!i{ u2td.or\ t.y:l
. tl:O...~ 1 ....-lk." (f"ll...iA./n .. ·rW"·>t.! -"'~' l"l'<·l Cl ~'/«f ~~ /.
-<l.Q.o..., ... lt A c£~"' *· .A~'~..< .. -it~ ...IJ..~ <:il..(I..II.~J.N1
ot (t-?t.t'O..~IL))\L 11.t ~-~:t!.l.~":e ~ .-:"'vi •
c .fA-c....~<:. +l ; ... -,.a.., •• 0 .. ()-({ ....£4. 4 ?..(~<JJ f!(N{' .
l.l :#---€ ~ F-~l ~ ~~ (U) ~ 1'-<'.oi!..
~~III.Cl·"-.. (.41--H wUJI..fl rL ..k<) {.oU~«.~1~
(..t.>-e<J.tA..ef\. •
J.,._ ~ ,...<h.t ..d.w:&~ cu.O. .:t;IA~tr
O,~l·¥\.t{ ~f.: ...iil o..tc..~\lt (.\. .>dil.ot'1..-t -Wz_.,H
o.o.'{R .. v-~l.&fV>-n&-:d.. ...A.t-..(,6._ An, il< i/I(IC MVlt.~c..tA~
a...~~ ~'Le.{J~..rfs.?.. ~Ao .... "'-~.-<1 ....0.'\. o-t.L -t ~
~ ; v0..f t.{Jt""'l.·~ ~[oJ~: AJ~ -<.1Lti u~~~
f~""-'"1, C'<"'t.dtl .• {,.; Jut .... u-.. t ... \iN.~ o-rvz :6 Cl·11u:: ~l'ci~-.0 ~ ../1-ic'~~.:t -P~•11f -rr-cu·"--d.-4
'U\.-::. o...a ../1'1'\M.C h. 1.~-UA... ...(i. ....{.(...3 cul.C{ ~Uv..' .
,:£."t"'t.ld_ (l..N Ct 5% (~(\,1\oC.&l. ~~ ~~-u,~
.6:-tLC-tt,u• l •
llov ~ 10 Z2 ~If .,. Oe..._, .so,mo
Sox .1'f'W-
"~ /ttl(. 't, .. O!l
i::f.o llciD~r4~ OCS Le .. e Sale bO
Bear1DA ~14 1n Boaer, Al•Ka, October 14, 1980 :;;.:~": :•"'S ;!~.';;~
liD• ~ :' JJ ~~ '90
•Ilia will bd tile writtc veraioll of tba te•tiaOII,J I &ave ras-Z'<l1111
the OCB oil alld aaa la••• aale 60 at tbe haarillS ill Ba.ar, Oil
Octoobar 14, 1980, Wll1oh •u iaproaptll --aad ver7 DarYOilB alld. d1a-
orpa1aa4 --bee .... • I wu called oa tile da7 bator•· I wae IICihed.Ued.
!Ilia COP7 ahould aupercade 87 oral teat1aOG,T.
It saeaa tlat ODe of tba aoat eloq11eDt ar&,...Dta apiDat tiM oil
all4 pa laaaa aala 60 1a tile Draft ...,11'0D8aatal Iapact BtataMA~
ltaalt. Wltll t!Ua .doouaeat iD ita head, how em tile Dapto. of toba
Interior coMider proceediDg with tba leaaa ule iD q11eat1C111? WtQ-1a
U •111111! to rua rlalr.a of d.,.•&• raJII1aa froa certain to •omq.ant1t1·
able" aDd • uDIIDown• to thia area ao rich in food reaoOU'Cea? '~'bare
•• • ap1t OD tile lhUvera1t7 of Alaska'• "60 Becou of SciaDCa" zoe41o
proaraa latel7 that stated tll~t ODe o11t or ever7 tweot7-fiva flab
eatc in the world 1a csupt ill Uaalr.a. 'fila SllaliltDt Strait-lower
Coclt lDlat-.. cheaalt 1187 area 1a oil" of the aaJor ao..rcea of Mafood
ill the world. Wb,J •r~ we will ill&, after 7eara and 7eara ot watef11l
coull8pt1on of o..r ocnreDawabla ru0urcaa, to r1alt irreparable U..S•
too tllia vital area? How can •• do all th1a in &ood OODac1aaca, •ball
.. hna neitiler c01l8erva4 t.lle aoer117 we hne nor dneloped dtarDAUvaai
ADd •117 have •• clloaeo to coDCeDtrate 4r1111ac in the aaa, which 1a
aor~ daa&eroge, ratber tbaD OD aitea on land, whlcb are aafer, aad, ..
I 11111leratelld it, 1o tba caae ct the Alaalta Wild Life Reace eD4 tba •no;
Petrolell8 Reaerve, •ore liltely to be produetlve. 'l'bat wo11lc1 aaea tile
leaaer of teo evila to ••· Reither of tbeae alteraat1vaa 1a aaa.r for
•1>7 ot 11a to -llo•, aaa.r of 110 who for 20 yeara havo lieu U&lltiDS
tor a coiler·•nt couerut10D oDd altern..Uve eller17 1'ol1c7 aD4 pre-
d1ctiA& the c11rrct •rape aDd r11iD" pre&raa. le atill do not bawe a
coherent con .. rvat1on proaraa aDd or·• only beaiDiliD& to th.ill& ~oo11t
altarllllthe aner17. I a110pect ~t the ..,,. • .,r to •1>7 of the q11eatia111
above 11ee 1D political dacieiona •~de behind locked d~ora aDd ~
1111Uary'a lar&e ex•eaded baad.
Pet!-•Y lie: Intyre >'M&e ;~
lD 117 t•t111011J', I would U.l<a to focll8 on a factor only obliquely
referred to in tlut DBIS. lD bet, 1t aay not ba Wldaratood iJl lfaabiJl&-
ton, D.C., that there exiata in tb1a area wlutt is referred to locau7
•• tlut "subaiateoce cult~•·· ~hie is • viable litaat7le perticipatad
1Jl b7 a aiSD1t1cant proportiOD of the popuhti.,n of tba· Boaer area.
It lute existed tbro~sbout tlut l1tet1aa of tlut toWD, aDd altlll>ush tbere
era no official t1surea and no toraal aurve7 bas been coDducted (aa
waa doDS in BDSlish 887) to deteraiDe ita exact profile, I would sueaa
it includes at least lutlf of the populatiOD in the outlyiDS area aroWid
Bo .. r which depeDda on Boaer for ita aupplh ., ,jobs aDd aocial activit1ea,
etc.
low, I wo,ld l11ut to heateD to clarif7 Juat wlutt tb1a aubsiateDCe
lifestyle entails. ~here aa7 be the 1apresa1GD back Bast that it is
aiaplJ an •sr .. sbla liteatyle tor thoaa who practice it, aDd tlutt it
a...,-thiDS happened to tba ecODOII7 or to tlut fish aDd alutlltiah reaourcea
upon which we depaad tor food, that we would Juat have to aod1f7 tbia
lifeat7le and find tull-tiae Jobs iD town. ~hia ia a aisunderatdllllin&·
E•en 1t we could sbrus our shoulders aDd turn o~ backs on our cho .. n
••1 ot lite, there 1Jii:: liUT enoup Joba in 11-r to aupport ua. so
tar, a delicate balanoa exists b~twe$1l the two lif,atylea which lutve
characterised Boaar aince ita inception: a conventiODal city-aDd
Job-oriented l1fest7le, aad ODS depeadiDS on a aore dirK~; aDd self-
reliant relationship with the en¥ironaent auppleaentad b7 part-tiaa
8114/or tree-lance eaplOJaent. h atead7 srowtb pror.raasea aDd laDd
8Y81lable fOr @.Btberinl! berl'ie& ana .. ible plantS aDd firewood dwiDdl•,
we look aore to our sardens and are workins enerseticallJ to develop
alternative •~urcea or ener&7 (I live in a psrtialt,. solar bouae and
uae relativel7 little wood and coal tor beat; next apriDS I plan to
build s solar sraenho·Jae which will circulate wsra air tbrooJ&h tlut
ho1ae, aailiD& it virtually coapletel7 aolar). Howe•er, right now
there are sa aaD7 as 30-50 applicants !Jr aaD7 full-tiae la&illed)
joba. In the event or aerio1s depletiJD o! o~ resource• here, due
to actual daaase froa oil apilla or oil slicKs, etc., and /or to
en influx of people encouraged by real estate speculators to expect
•n oil booa here (thio 1o alr·JOd7 b~einning to happen, •• poatas•-•'••P
subdivisiJna proliferHte), not onl7 would the town's eeono117 auffer,
since tile co ... rcial lisbariea and touriaa, o~ principal source of
P-r.e '
Joba and incoae, wu~ld ba amons th• first to be 1apactad, but all of
a audden tbue WQuld ba a huge daaend for eaplo,..ent froa the largo
nuaber of 1'-Sidents previously aarginally eaplo7ed. Bapeci•ll.Y iD
t~e case or an oil apill, we wo.ld be coapletal7 diaantranchiaed. I
aip,ht point out, by •1 of eaphaai&iq •1 point, that the area a' tba
baaa and iaaediat•l7 adJacent to tile Spit aDd the boat harbor ia a
••Jor claa and a118ael bad. I obtain aoat o! •1 proteiD tor the winter
here, risht in town, without ~tv en b ••ing to sa• u1· •1 ear to e .. reb
elaewhere. Thia area wo•Jld, of course, be extreael7 v •lnerable it
the boat harbor ebo~ld be uaad •• an oil auppl7 depot, or even woraa,
a t'traiDal. And then then ia the pipelinfl proposed to Anchor .l'oiDt,
ao close to lecbeaat Ra7, which has been deai8na'ed a critical habitat
aree.
lD a.,...r,., I feel soae lutrd reBearch needs to be dooe un the
aubeiotance econo117 in the Boaer area, and included in tho Bnviro-ntal
Iapact Stet....,t; 1t should auaiDe tile tJpaa or a~baiatence act1v1t7
participated iD aDd the nabar of people iDvohad, the oppor,unitiaa
for r~cover7 rroa .oae sort o! daaese, such MS an oil apill, etc.
Since both the environaent and all aapecte or the Boaar area 'a
econo.,., and that ot the otller area• involved i,. thia lBBae aale 60,
such as Kodiak, which would !ace the spectre o! :»>>Uible oil danlop-
HDt on both side• or the island, are so aario•H7 in JaopardJ as a re-
sult of oil activit7 in SbelUiat Streit and lo•er Cook Inlet I would
concur with the ~ua1tion of the •acheaek aa,. Conservation Bociet7 ••
stated b7 Kenton Blooa, and will do ever,.tbiDS in •1 power, of a
peaceable aDd nonviolent nat~e, to briDS abo~t •• halt to oil da9elop-
aent in thl s wrea. A aucb wis81' course of at"t1011 would be to taka
advantar.e of BoHr'a active interest 1n and developaent of alternati••
eneru • ovrcu, eueb as solar and wind. GovernaeDt 1~~urageaent of
this pror,rtoa in lloaer wo~ld hasten o~ 1ndepeadence • nonr .. newabla
resourcea, protect tbft ~•••ironaent a11<1 tllis area eo rich iD food re-
aourcaa, and provide auch nfleded eaplo,..ent.
~lutnil JOU H>r the opportunity to present .,. viewpoint.
Pasu llcint7re
P.O. Box 1'70<!
Hoaer, Alaeta 9960'
October ,1, 1980
~U.S •• GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981-337"845/8036