Full text of "FWS/0BS"

See other formats

Biological Services Program

FWS/OBS-77/16.5
March 1978

Environmental Planning
for Offshore Oil and Gas

Volume V:

Regional Status Reports

Part 5: Alaska, Washington
and Oregon

DOCUMENT ■

^ COLLECTION

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to supply scientific information and methodologies on
key environmental issues that impact fish and wildlife resources and their
supporting ecosystems. The mission of the program is as follows:

• To strengthen the Fish and Wildlife Service in its role as
a primary source of information on national fish and wild-
life resources, particularly in respect to environmental
Impact assessment.

• To gather, analyze, and present Information that will aid
decisionmakers 1n the identification and resolution of
problems associated with major changes in land and water
use.

• To provide better ecological Information and evaluation
for Department of the Interior development programs, such
as those relating to energy development.

Information developed by the Biological Services Program 1s Intended
for use in the planning and decisionmaking process to prevent or minimize
the impact of development on fish and wildlife. Research activities and
technical assistance services are based on an analysis of the issues a
determination of the decisionmakers Involved and their information needs,
and an evaluation of the state of the art to identify information gaps
and to determine priorities. This 1s a strategy that will ensure that
the products produced and disseminated are timely and useful.

Projects have been initiated in the following areas: coal extraction
and conversion; power plants; geothermal , mineral and oil shale develop-
ment; water resource analysis, including stream alterations and western
water allocation; coastal ecosystems and Outer Continental Shelf develop-
ment; and systems inventory, including National Wetland Inventory,
habitat classification and analysis, and information transfer.

The Biological Services Program consists of the Office of Biological
Services in Washington, D.C., which is responsible for overall planning and
management; National Teams, which provide the Program's central scientific
and technical expertise and arrange for contracting biological services
studies with states, universities, consulting firms, and others; Regional
Staff, who provide a link to problems at the operating level; and staff at
certain Fish and Wildlife Service research facilities, who conduct inhouse
research studies.

■

r8*

^m^^m

^■^^

1 1

g— — -

i i

j—

-^^^^^m

.^__^_

I J

FWS/OBS-77/16.5
March 1978

Environmental Planning
for Offshore Oil and Gas

Volume V: Regional Status Reports
Part 5: Alaska, Washington and Oregon

Marc J. Hershman, Ph.D.

and

James H. Feldmann, Graduate Research Assistant

Coastal Resources Program
Institute for Marine Studies
University of Washington, Seattle

Prepared for

The Conservation Foundation

1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Contract No. 14-16-0008-962

Larry Shanks, Project Officer
National Coastal Ecosystems Team
National Space Technology Laboratories
NSTL Station, Mississippi 39529

Performed for
National Coastal Ecosystems Team
Office of Biological Services

Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas

Volume I: Recovery Technology

Volume II: Effects on Coastal Communities

Volume III: Effects on Living Resources
and Habitats

Volume IV: Regulatory Framework for

Protecting Living Resources

Volume V: Regional Status Reports:

New England

Mid and South Atlantic

Gulf Coast

California

Alaska, Washington and Oregon

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Planning and Impact Assessment Handbook

This report should be cited thusly:

Feldmann, J. H. and M. J. Hershman. 1978. Environmental
Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas. Volume V: Regional
Status Reports. Part 5: Alaska, Washington and Oregon.
The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program.
FWS/OBS-77/16.5. 127 pp.

DISCLAIMER

The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommenda-
tions expressed in this report/product are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use by the Federal government.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS
FOREWORD

This report is one in a series prepared by The Conservation Founda-
tion for the Office of Biological Services of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Contract 14-16-0008-962). The series conveys technical informa-
tion and develops an impact assessment system relating to the recovery
of oil and gas resources beyond the three-mile territorial limit of the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The series is designed to aid Fish and
Wildlife Service personnel in the conduct of environmental reviews and
decisions concerning OCS oil and gas development. In addition, the
reports are intended to be as helpful as possible to the public, the
oil and gas industry, and to all government agencies involved with
resource management and environmental protection.

Oil and gas have been recovered for several decades from the Outer
Continental Shelf of Texas, Louisiana and California. In the future,
the Department of the Interior plans to lease more tracts, not only
off these coasts, but also off the frontier regions of the North, Mid-
and South Atlantic, eastern Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
Within the set of constraints imposed by the international petroleum
market (including supply, demand and price), critical decisions are made
jointly by industry and government on whether it is advisable or not to
move ahead with leasing and development of each of the offshore frontier
areas. Once the decision to develop a field is made, many other deci-
sions are necessary, such as where to locate offshore platforms, where
to locate the onshore support areas, and how to transport hydrocarbons
to market.

Existing facilities and the size of the resource will dictate
which facilities will be needed, what the siting requirements will be,
and where facilities will be sited. If the potential for marketable
resources is moderate, offshore activities may be staged from areas
already having harbor facilities and support industries; therefore,
they may have little impact on the coast adjacent to a frontier area.
An understanding of these options from industry's perspective will
enable Fish and Wildlife Service personnel to anticipate development
activities in various OCS areas and to communicate successfully with
industry to assure that fish and wildlife resources will be protected.

The major purpose of this report is to describe the technological
characteristics and planning strategy of oil and gas development on
the Outer Continental Shelf, and to assess the effects of OCS oil and
gas operations on living resources and their habitats. This approach
should help bridge the gap between a simple reactive mode and effec-
tive advanced planning—planning that will result in a better
understanding of the wide range of OCS activities that directly and
indirectly generate impacts on the environment, and the counter-
measures necessary to protect and enhance living resources.

Development of offshore oil and gas resources is a complex
industrial process that requires extensive advance planning and
coordination of all phases from exploration to processing and ship-
ment. Each of hundreds of system components linking development
and production activities has the potential for adverse environ-
mental effects on coastal water resources. Among the advance
judgements that OCS planning requires are the probable environ-
mental impacts of various courses of action.

The relevant review functions that the Fish and Wildlife Service
is concerned with are: (1) planning for baseline studies and the
leasing of oil and gas tracts offshore and (2) reviewing of permit
applications and evaluation of environmental impact statements (EIS)
that relate to facility development, whether offshore (OCS), near
shore (within territorial limits), or onshore (above the mean high
tidemark). Because the Service is involved with such a broad array
of activities, there is a great deal of private and public interest
in its review functions. Therefore, it is most valuable in advance
to have some of the principles, criteria and standards that provide
the basis for review and decisionmaking. The public, the offshore
petroleum industry, and the appropriate Federal, state, and local
government agencies are thus able to help solve problems associated
with protection of public fish and wildlife resources. With
advanced standards, all interests should be able to gauge the
environmental impacts of each OCS activity.

A number of working assumptions were used to guide various
aspects of the analysis and the preparation of the report series.
The assumptions relating to supply, recovery, and impacts of offshore
oil and gas were:

1. The Federal Government's initiative in accelerated
leasing of OCS tracts will continue, though the pace
may change.

2. OCS oil and gas extractions will continue under private
enterprise with Federal support and with Federal
regulation.

3. No major technological breakthroughs will occur in the near
future which could be expected to significantly change the
environmental impact potential of OCS development.

4. In established onshore refinery and transportation areas,
the significant impacts on fish and wildlife and their
habitats will come from the release of hydrocarbons during
tanker transfers.

5. A significant potential for both direct and indirect impacts
of OCS development on fish and wildlife in frontier areas

is expected from site alterations resulting from develop-
ment of onshore facilities.

6. The potential for onshore impacts on fish and wildlife
generally will increase, at least initially, somewhat in
proportion to the level of onshore OCS development activity.

The assumptions related to assessment of impacts were:

1. There is sufficient knowledge of the effects of OCS develop-
ment activities to anticipate direct and indirect impacts

on fish and wildlife from known oil and gas recovery systems.

2. This knowledge can be used to formulate advance criteria for
conservation of fish and wildlife in relation to specific
OCS development activities.

3. Criteria for the protection of environments affected by
OCS-related facilities may be broadly applied to equivalent
non-OCS-related facilities in the coastal zone.

The products of this project—reported in the series Environ-
mental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas--consist of five technical
report volumes. The five volumes of the technical report series are
briefly described below:

Volume I Reviews the status of oil and gas resources of the
Outer Continental Shelf and programs for their
development; describes the recovery process step-
by-step in relation to existing environmental
regulations and conservation requirements; and
provides a detailed analysis for each of fifteen
OCS activity and facility development projects
ranging from exploration to petroleum processing.

Volume II Discusses growth of coastal communities and effects
on living resources induced by OCS and related
onshore oil and gas development; reports methods
for forecasting characteristics of community develop-
ment; describes employment characteristics for
specific activities and onshore facilities; and
reviews environmental impacts of probable types of
development.

Volume III Describes the potential effects of OCS development
on living resources and habitats; presents an inte-
grated system for assessment of a broad range of
impacts related to location, design, construction,
and operation of OCS-related facilities; provides a
comprehensive review of sources of ecological
disturbance for OCS related primary and secondary
development.

Volume IV Analyzes the regulatory framework related to OCS
impacts; enumerates the various laws governing
development offshore; and describes the regulatory
framework controlling inshore and onshore buildup
in support of OCS development.

Volume V In five parts, reports current and anticipated OCS
development in each of five coastal regions of the
United States: New England; Mid and South Atlantic:
Gulf Coast; California; and Alaska, Washington and
Oregon.

John Clark was The Conservation Foundation's project director for
the OCS project. He was assisted by Dr. Jeffrey Zinn, Charles Terrell
and John Banta. We are grateful to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for its financial support, guidance and assistance in every stage
of the project.

William K. Reilly

President

The Conservation Foundation

_PREFA£t

This report is one of five regional reviews, the fifth volume in a
series af background reports on the impacts of Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). oil and gas recovery sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, .Office of Biological Services, and prepared by The Conservation
Foundation (under Contract 14-16-0008-962). The five reviews are: New
England, Hid and South Atlantic, Gulf Coast, California, and Alaska,
Washington and Oregon. Other volumes in the series and the overall
purposes of the OCS project are described in the Foreword.

The regional reports focus on past and potential impacts on living
resources and on their habitats in each region. They also highlight
prominent coastal resource-related issues associated with proposed OCS
lease sales.

The regional reports present brief overviews of the status of
offshore oil and gas activities and impacts for the selected regions.
They are meant to inform U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees and
other interested persons outside the subject region who wish to be
generally knowledgeable about the status of OCS around the country and
both past and anticipated effects on living resources of the region.

The reports were prepared by analysts who are recognized for their
expertise in OCS impacts or coastal zone management. The contents and
organization of the reports are as consistent as possible given regional
differences in subject matter and differences in the authors' approaches.
Each study has five sections:

1. The initial section of each regional report is a discussion
of past and present OCS production. This provides a
historical perspective that establishes a setting for the
remaining sections. Statistics on lease sales, production
and reserves are important topics in this section.

2. The second section describes OCS development and future
potential , including industry activities, the present
leasing schedule and anticipated future projects. This"
section varies depending upon the amount of anticipatory
investigation completed by public agencies and industry.

3. The third section discusses the effects on living resources
of activities that accompany OCS petroleum development. A
majority of these concerns occur near shore or onshore,
where resource values and high impact potential are
concentrated. The relative importance of particular habitats

and living resources vary by region, For example, shellfish
may be of paramount concern in one region, birds in a second
region, and coastal marshes and weirlanth in a thrrd region.

4. The fourth section concerns socio economic impacts. These
issues are generally treated in less detail, because living
resources is the primary subject of the project and the
socio economic impact information is only to provide a
working background. Since socio economic impacts have been
the subject of many other studies, and interest in most areas
has centered on socio economic rather than living resource
impacts, there is extensive information elsewhere on this
subject. Two major topic areas are included in each report:
effects of anticipated development and regional interest in
OCS.

5. The fifth section is regional information analysis. Publica-
tions of regional import are annotated. Each study lists
about a dozen publications which contain the best regional
research into OCS and related issues.

Each regional report is meant to provide a compilation of
information available for the region through midyear 1976.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

5.1 INTRODUCTION 1

5.2 ALASKA 2

5.2.1 OCS Imoacts in Alaska 7

5.2.2 Northern Gulf of Alaska 10

Description of the Region 10

Petroleum Resources 13

Status of OCS Operations 13

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 17

5.2.3 Lower Cook Inlet 28

Description of the Region 28

Petroleum Resources 31

Status of OCS Operations 31

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 32

5.2.4 Western Gulf of Alaska 43

Description of the Region 43

Petroleum Resources 45

Status of OCS Operations 45

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 48

5.2.5 Beaufort Sea 50

Description of the Region 50

Petroleum Resources 52

Status of OCS Operations 53

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 54

5.2.6 Chukchi Sea (Hone Basin) 57

Description of the Region 57

Petroleum Resources 58

Status of OCS Operations 58

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 59

5.2.7 Bering Sea (St. George Basin) 60

Description of the Region 60

Petroleum Resources 62

Status cf OCS Operations 62

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 64

VI i

Page

5.2.8 Bering Sea (Norton Basin) 65

Description of the Region 65

Petroleum Resources 66

Status of Operations 67

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 67

5.2.9 Southern Aleutian Shelf 68

5.2.10 Bristol Bay 68

Description of the Region 68

Petroleum Resources 69

Status of OCS Operations 70

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 70

5.2.11 Footnotes 72

5.3 WASHINGTON STATE 81

5.3.1 Description of the Region 82

5.3.2 History of OCS Operations 83

5.3.3 Status of OCS Operations 84

5.3.4 Alaskan Oil 87

5.3.5 Footnotes 93

5.4 OREGON 96

5.4.1 Description of the Region 96

5.4.2 History of OCS Operations 98

5.4.3 Status of OCS Development 98

5.4.4 Footnotes 102

5.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 103

5.6 APPENDIX 1: OCS Issues in Alaska 116

5.6.1 Footnotes 119

5.7 APPENDIX 2: Alaska's Response to OCS Development 120

5.7.1 Footnotes 125

5.8 APPENDIX 3: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species

that Occur in Coastal Regions of Washington and Oregon . . . 126

5.9 APPENDIX 4: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species

that Occur in Coastal Regions of Alaska 127

vi n

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1 Potential offshore leasing areas in Alaska. 4

2 Only a few small coastal communities are adjacent

to the Gulf of Alaska. 12

3 The top 15 lease tracts and all tracts drawing

bids are indicated for the April 1976 sale. 16

4 Location of potential support sites adjacent to

Gulf of Alaska lease sale area- 22

5 This is the proposed sale lease area for the

lower Cook Inlet estuary. 29

6 Potential support and supply sites for oil and

gas related activities in lower Cook Inlet area. 38

7 Tracts tentatively selected for leasing in the

western Gulf of Alaska. 47

8 Bering Sea proposed lease area. 63

9 The proposed lease sale area off the Washington-
Oregon coast- 85

10 Potential sites for oil and gas activities in

western Washington. 90

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Alaskan OCS Oil and Gas Activities and Plans 6

2 Schedule and Summary of Investments and Production 18

3 Summary of Basic Assumptions on Oil and Gas
Production in the Gulf of Alaska 20

4 Analysis of Potential Industrial Sites Adjacent

to Gulf of Alaska 23

5 Schedule and Summary of Estimated Investments and
Production for Lower Cook Inlet Lease Area 34

6 Summary of Basic Assumptions Regarding Lower Cook

Inlet Oil and Gas Production 36

7 Anticipated Annual Oil Spillage During Peak Pro-
duction Resulting from the Proposed Sale 41

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are very appreciative to a number of people who assisted with
these reports. We would particularly like to thank the following for
their help and guidance: Dr. Howard Tait and Larry Shanks of the
National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, provided guidance and review. Reviewers who
commented on draft products include: Dr. Bill Van Horn of the Bureau of
Land Management; Mr. Bud Damaburgher of the U.S. Geological Survey and
Mr. Al Powers, U.S. Department of the Interior, OCS Coordinator.

Additional assistance was provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
personnel familiar with the area covered by this report: Leroy Soule
(Washington, D.C.) Office of Biological Services, and Jay Watson and John
Byrne (Portland, Oregon) Office of Biological Services.

Dr. J. Clarence Davies, Executive Vice President, The Conservation
Foundation, provided institutional review and editorial guidance.
Portions of the draft reports were reviewed by staff members Raymond
Tretheway and Claudia Wilson.

5.1 -- INTRODUCTION

This report presents the latest information available (October of
1976) regarding OCS development adjacent to the States of Alaska,
Washington, and Oregon. In response to requests by the users of this
report, the Conservation Foundation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the report focuses on the following:

1. Environmental and socio economic impacts,

2. Current status of OCS operations in the region,

3. History of OCS operations in the region, and

4. Proposed onshore support site and activities.

Although this report is intended as a summary document, it does present
some specific information describing fish and wildlife species and
habitats likely to be adversely affected by OCS development.

5.2 — ALASKA

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) petroleum development is an issue of

immense importance in Alaska. Approximately 60 percent of both U.S.
Outer Continental Shelf lands and potential offshore petroleum resources
lie adjacent to the state. Industry interest in developing the many
potential petroleum basins coupled with national concern over U.S.
energy dependence on foreign petroleum has resulted in strong pressures
to rapidly develop the Alaskan OCS. However, OCS development in Alaska
will encounter hostile ice, weather, and seismic conditions as well as
opposition from many state residents and government officials concerned
about negative environmental economic and social impacts.

Past petroleum development in Alaska has been limited to onshore
lands (e.g., Prudhoe Bay) and state-owned offshore lands (e.g., Cook
Inlet). Prior to April 13, 1976, no leasing had ever taken place on
Alaska's Cuter Continental Shelf. On that date, however, the first of
many proposed lease sales took place, the northern Gulf of Alaska sale.
Exploratory drilling and support activities in the Gulf of Alaska have
only begun as a result of this sale. Despite the great potential of the
Alaskan OCS, no petroleum resources have ever been recovered nor will
they be for several years until exploration and development activities
produce results.

Substantial uncertainty exists concerning the amount of petroleum
present on Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf. Because the Alaskan OCS is
a frontier region lacking previous drilling experience and incomplete
seismic information, it is difficult to estimate potential petroleum
resources. All petroleum thought to exist on the Alaskan OCS is classified

by the USGS and oil companies as undiscovered, recoverable oil and
natural gas resources. Undiscovered, recoverable resources are those
quantities of oil and gas which are reasonably expected to exist in
favorable geologic settings but which have not yet been identified by
drilling. When the existence of recoverable hydrocarbons are confirmed
by exploration, the resources are reclassified as "reserves." Since
June 1975, the U.S. Geological Survey has calculated Alaska OCS petroleum
resources by a series of probability estimates. The undiscovered recover-
able oil resources for offshore Alaska range from 3 to 31 billion barrels
with a mean of 15 billion barrels (there is a 95 percent chance that at_
least 3 billion barrels will be recovered and a 5 percent chance that at_
least 31 billion barrels will be recovered). The range for undiscovered
recoverable natural gas resources is from 8 to 80 trillion cubic feet
with a mean of 44 trillion cubic feet.1

Nine distinct petroleum basins are located on the vast Continental
Shelf surrounding the state (Figure 1). Numerous lease sales are
proposed for these basins, the number and timing of which will depend
upon future seismic information, hydrocarbon finds and socic political
considerations. Presently the Department of Interior has scheduled six
areas for at least one sale. Interior's proposed lease schedule issued
in November 1976) for these Alaskan OCS areas are as follows:

1. Northern Gulf of Alaska - April 1976

2. Lower Cook Inlet - February 1977

3. Western Gulf of Alaska (Kodiak) - November 1977

4. Beaufort Sea - February 1978

5. Beaufort Sea - February 1979

Figure 1. Potential offshore leasing areas in Alaska
(Source: Alaska Industry, October 1975).

Arctic Ocean

\ Bering Sea (Norton Basin

QSauSEsKi^

Aleutian Shalt

1. Cook Inlet (Lower)

2. Gulf of Alaska (Northern)

3. Gulf of Alaska (Western)

4. Bering Sea (St. George Basin)

5. Beaufort Sea

6. Bristol Bay

7. Bering Sea (Norton Basin)

8. Southern Aleutian Shelf

9. Chukchi Sea (Hope Basin)

6. Northern Gulf of Alaska - May 1979

7. Chukchi Sea - December 1979

8. Bering Sea (St. Georges Basin) - May 1980

9. Lower Cook Inlet - August 1980

10. Western Gulf of Alaska (Kodiak) - December 1980
Three other petroleum basins, Bering Sea (Norton Basin), Southern
Aleutian Shelf, and Bristol Bay had been scheduled for leasing by Interior
in July 1975, however, due to opposition from the State of Alaska, lease
sales in these areas have been indefinitely postponed.

Table 1 presents information about past actions and future plans
for developing the Alaskan OCS. Dates predicting future development
activities are only estimates and will be influenced by a host of factors
including date of lease sale, availability of capital, materials and
manpower, worldwide and domestic petroleum markets, and Alaska state
policies and facility siting regulations. Further, most experts agree
that industry is not yet technologically prepared to develop any offshore
areas north of St. George basin except in shallow, protected waters
where artificial earthen islands can be created for working platforms.

As previously mentioned, the State of Alaska has leased several
offshore areas including tracts in the Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet.
The great majority of state offshore activity has and is occurring in
Cook Inlet where since 1959 a total of 1.9 million acres, have been leased
for bonus bids of over $89 million. Cook Inlet Basin (including
onshore lands) has yielded the majority of oil and gas production from
state lands, with 600 million barrels of oil and 1.6 trillion cubic feet
of gas having been produced through 1975. 5 Currently there are 14
offshore platforms operating in Cook Inlet.6

en
c
co
H

P-,

-a

•H
4-1
■H
>
■H
4J

co
o

•H

cn
O
O

ccj
rH

CO
H

c
o

■H

p
x o

id 3

01 TJ

Oh O

-J" CTN
CO CO
ON ON
rH r-i

On
On

co
o

o
On
On

•H

p
P

c
3

•H

ro
p
P

•H

id
P
P

o
c

1
H ft

id o P co

•H rH C ^H
P <U 01 H

•h > g a)

CO 3

ON
t—
On
H

t—

ON
rH

O H
CO CO
ON ON
r-{ rH

ON
t-

O-.

Cfl

J, O

13 co

V On

S: h

-o
On

•H

ro
p
P

o
c

C
■H

ro
p
P

C
•H

id
p
P

bO
■-< 1 C
10 p >i-H
■H O p H
P H O rH
■H ft P -H

c x « P

n [J Q

NO
I—
ON

rH t—

t—

i^ ON

•^ rH

CO ON

t- c—

ON ON
H rH

CO ON
t— C—
ON ON
rH H

CO ON

c— t—
ON O.

rH rH

O CM
CO CO
ON ON

rH rH

CM
CO
ON

•H

ro
p
P

o
c

■H

id
P
P

o
c

•rH

ro
p
P

o
c

co a

10 r-l

a) rd

J co

[-^

on on

•H t-
ON

h -a H

■H C

p. rd >,

ft id
< E

O
CO

NO ON
t— H
ON

cs> 3

&h ^c

t— O
t— CO

On On

rH^ H

s § 6

O CD

CO On
t- t-
ON O,
H ^ H

*' 8*

C» CD

t, ft,

1%
<D

-Q On
E t-
C» ON
O rH
CD

Si rH

01 T-J
P 01
Id C

c o

•H D.
cp p
0) CO

-a o

C 0h

p -a
ro oi
c c

•H o
cp tx

01 p
TJ CO
C 0

P 13

ro oi
c c

•H O
!P ft

01 p
T3 CO

C 0

M PL,

01
OJ
•H

•J

S CO

J l-H
CQ [J

M c
3 id

»--, l/N l--j CO

C^ r-

ON ON

-■ rH •• H

P M
4h id
id c
p. ;H

Q Cn

H -N
3 O
•"3 U3 ^NO

on On

•■ rH ..H

p r*i

cp c
id g

P VN

a &,

NO C—
C— t—
ON ON
H H

t-. CO

On On
•-1 rH

cr.

t-
ON

On O
t— CO
ON On
rH H

C
■H

ro
p
p

o
c

G
■H

id
P
p

C
•H

ro
p
P

•H
P

G
0

•P CO
P

CJ cp O

o> o id

^H p
0) E-
CO

.C CT>

o t-

p ON
Id rH

.c co
o t—
P cn
SI H
e

CD
>,C~-

id on

E rH

E t-

Cl) ON
« H
CD

CO
[^
ON

O CO

P r~
ro cn
E H

•H
Id
P
p
01

o
c
D

•H

id
p
P

o
C

C
•H

Id
P
p
01

o
c

•H

•H P

H t, «

id 0 G

O «H TH

s
o

.a -(■
E.c-

0) ON

> rH

01
,£) UN

e c-

01 ON

p ^-1
ft

OJ
Ul

p CO
(d r-
3 on

C H

1-3

CD NO

O ON
+> rH

O
O

t—

s C~-

01 ON
O rH

•H

id
p
P

C
•H

id
P
P

o
c

•H

id
P
P

^H 1

id id
1 o p
O -H o c

0) WH O
U >> ft-P
-C X P
ft M

•H

OJ
01 p

H id

p p

P 01

•h -a
J o

rH
P
P
•rl
J

01
P

id
P

•a

p ro
oi a,

> CO

•->
p
p

•H
J

OJ
>i CO

oi ro
> a

>N CO

oi ro
> a.

01
r-\
■P
P
•H
►J

G CO
•H 0)
rH *H
01 T3
CO 3
Id P
PQ CO

p
ro
&

0)
13
0

0)
P

01
T3
0

01
r-{
P
P

•H

P
P
•p
►J

P
P

•H

01
H
P

P
•H
J

P
•H

p
p

■H

0)
rH
P
•P
•P
iJ

Cfl ro

ro oi

01 p

►J <

c
p

p cp
p H
O 3

2 O

o
p p

01 01
S rH

o c

rH
01

-C
CO

p nj

01 *H

P Mh T3

CO H O
01 3 i;

01
CO

■H
-C

M
3
.C

0)
Id bO
01 p
C/N 0
01
bOU ^
C C
•H . >H
p P CO

oi co ro

•H
CO

ro ro

01 pq

60 O
C P
■H P
p O
01 2

m -^

C C
P id

OJ «H
J3 P CP
P 3 H
3 0) 01
OH r
CO < CO

•H

5.2.1 PCS Impacts in Alaska

Strong opposition to the Department of Interior's accelerated
leasing program has mounted in Alaska because many fear that negative
environmental and socio economic impacts will outweigh the beneficial
effects of OCS development.7 Many Alaskans are irritated by what they
regard as the insensitivity of Federal officials responsible for the OCS
leasing program to the problems of coastal and onshore impacts.

There are some good reasons for believing that substantial impacts
may result from OCS operations in Alaska. First, extensive petroleum
operations will occur in pristine but hostile environments. Second,
adjacent to future OCS drilling are some of the world's most productive
and valuable fisheries and an abundance of birds and wildlife. Third,
onshore support operations will locate along sparsely settled coastal
regions where even moderate increases in population will tend to overwhelm
present community services and lifestyles. Finally, over half of all
domestic offshore petroleum operations will occur in a state that is
woefully lacking in planning expertise and management authority.

However, for several reasons it is very difficult to predict precisely
the magnitude and location of OCS impacts. First, no one is sure how
much petroleum exists on the Alaskan OCS and where it is. The existence
of petroleum cannot be known with assurance until exploratory drilling
has taken place. As noted earlier, USGS high and low resource estimates
in Alaska vary greatly. Since onshore and offshore development activities
are directly proportional to the amount of petroleum found, it is uncertain
how severe OCS impacts may be. In addition, there are other factors
important in determining impacts. These include the rate at which

petroleum is exploited, the occurrence of other events (e.g., onshore
petroleum finds, natural gas pipeline) and the occurrence of statistically
improbable events (e.g., a massive oil spill during the height of a bird
migration season). Impact prediction is further hindered by limited
information about environmental conditions and processes and by primitive
impact assessment methodologies.

Despite the difficulty of predicting OCS impacts in Alaska, some
general impacts will probably occur.9 These are listed and discussed
briefly as follows:

1. Environmental resources may become contaminated and/or destroyed
by massive and chronic oil spills. Such spills may occur from
well blowouts, transportation and handling mishaps, or pipeline
leaks and breaks.

2. Fisheries and wildlife habitat may be destroyed during the
construction and operation of onshore and nearshore support
facilities. Dredging, filling and effluent discharges all
pose a threat to these resources.

3. Secondary impacts on environmental resources may result from
housing and infrastructure development to accommodate increases
in population. These impacts may be more severe than the
primary impacts from energy facilities.

4. Local economics and lifestyles may be disrupted by the boom
and bust cycle of oil development and production. Population
increases may strain the financial and planning resources of
small towns and villages and the eventual decline in petroleum
operations may leave a depressed economy and high unemployment.

5. Political and social conflicts may result from contact between
the highly paid newcomers and established residents mainly
involved in fishing, hunting, and forestry. Disputes may
arise over the use of port facilities, damage to biological
resources and to fishing gear, and an increase in congestion
and crime.

6. Alaskan natives are worried about cultural impacts resulting
from OCS development.10 In many coastal communities small
native populations may lose their political majorities and
power to incoming residents. Subsistence hunting and tribal
ways may be altered by pollution and by population increases
resulting from OCS operations.

7. OCS operations may provide economic income and jobs to natives
and non-natives. Rental fees, increased sales and commerce,
and employee income are all sources of wealth for coastal
towns and villages.

Some researchers and government officials believe that Alaskan OCS
impacts may be comparable to Scotland's experience with North Sea petro-
leum. In particular, Scotland's tiny Shetland Islands provide some
interesting parallels with Alaska in that they both are located in
regions of severe weather, are sparsely settled, and are facing massive
and rapid offshore petroleum development.11 However, the institutional
differences between the two countries cannot be ignored nor can it be
assumed that Alaska will undertake the same kind of sound planning that
the Shetlanders have been practicing.12

Alaska has a wide range of environmental conditions, hazards,
economic activity and infrastructure development. Considering the size
and diversity of Alaska's environment, OCS impacts will vary considerably
depending upon where development occurs. Consequently this report
examines each of the nine proposed leasing areas separately. Each
leasing area is examined with respect to (1) a brief description of the
area, (2) its petroleum resources, (3) the status of OCS operations, and
(4) environmental and socio economic impacts.

5.2.2 Northern Gulf of Alaska

Description of the Region1 3

The topography of the northern Gulf of Alaska is extremely irregular;
many mountains in the coastal ranges exceed 10,000 ft. and some
of the highest peaks (e.g., Mt. St. Elias - 18,000+ ft) are only 20
miles from the ocean. Only a few inlets intervene from the eastern
extension of the Gulf to Prince William Sound, the most important being
Yakutat Bay. The Continental Shelf of the Gulf is narrow, ranging in
width from 8 to 65 miles

Earthquakes are common in the area. The epicenter of the devastating
Alaskan earthquake in 1964 (8.5) was located about 50 miles west of
Valdez. During the past 75 years, there have been nine earthquakes
which had a magnitude of eight or greater and over 60 with a magnitude
of seven or greater. lk

The Gulf of Alaska is well known for its frequent and violent
storms. Sea heights as great as 70 ft have been recorded during storms
and 15 to 20 ft. seas are common, particularly during the winter months.

The warm north-flowing Alaska Current moderates surface temperatures
and keeps the coast free of ice in the winter except in protected waters.
This counterclockwise current dominates circulation patterns in the Gulf.

Nearshore areas are important spawning and feeding grounds for many
immature fishes and crustaceans. All five species of Pacific salmon are
harvested by U.S. fishermen in the Gulf of Alaska, along with Pacific
halibut, sablefish, and Pacific herring; king, tanner, and dungeness crabs;
and several species of shrimp. Foreign trawl fisheries are also active in
the region, primarily seeking Pacific ocean perch, sablefish, Pacific cod,
walleye pollock and several species of flatfish.

The coastal zone is an important habitat for numerous birds and
marine mammals. More than 100 nesting colonies of alcids, kittiwakes
and other gulls, several numbering in the hundreds of thousands, occur
on the rocky cliffs along the Gulf. Intertidal mud flats are stopover
points for migrant shorebirds that number in the millions. Similarly,
numerous marine mammals live in the region, including harbor seals, sea
lions, several species of baleen and toothed whales and several porpoise
species, all of which congregate in the nearshore waters along the rocky
coasts.

Most of the human population is located in the predominantly non-
native coastal communities of Cordova, Seward, Whittier and Valdez
(Fig. 2). These communities depend on marine and air transportation.
Only Valdez and Seward are directly linked to the state's highway system,
although whittier is connected by rail. Commercial fishing and government
employment are the main sources of income. A number of smaller communities

•u
C
CD

•r—i
T3

CD
M
CO

en
a)

•H

■U

•H •

C CO

3 ^

g cn

B cO

H IW

CO O

en 4_i

CO tH
O 3
O O

rH 01

CO +J
B
w O

3
•H

i
o

also exist and these are mostly populated by Alaska natives - Aleuts,
Eskimos, and Indians (Eyak, Tatitlek, Yakultaga, and Yakutat ) . These
native communities depend on marine and coastal fish and wildlife for
employment and subsistence.

Petroleum Resources

Industry has long regarded the northern Gulf as a prime prospect
for OCS development. In response to a Department of Interior survey,
the petroleum industry selected the Gulf of Alaska as the frontier area
possessing the greatest oil and gas potential.16 Geologists have been
very excited over a 100-mile region from Kayak Island to Icy Bay (see
Fig. 3) where enormous petroleum structures as large as 20 miles long

1 7

and 10 to 15 miles wide have been reported.

However, no one really knows the extent of oil and gas resources
that lie under the waters of the northern Gulf. USGS estimates of
recoverable petroleum resources span a large range, from 100 million to
2.8 billion barrels of oil and 300 billion to 9 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas at the 95 percent and 5 percent probability levels,
respectively. 1 8

Status of OCS Operations

Petroleum industry interest in the northern Gulf of Alaska dates
back to the late 1960's. In 1968, 26 oil companies nominated 4.6 million
acres for leasing in the Gulf in response to a Department of Interior
call for nominations. A lease sale was scheduled in the summer of 1969,
but was cancelled primarily due to events surrounding the Santa Barbara
oil spill.19

Northern Gulf leasing activity began again in 1974 as a result of
the federal accelerated OCS leasing program. The Department of Interior
scheduled an early lease sale in the northern Gulf because of keen oil
industry interest in the area. Another call for nominations was issued
by Interior in November 1974 for about 11.8 million acres and petroleum

• • 2 0

companies responded by nominating approximately 7.2 million acres.

But federal government plans to lease the northern Gulf of Alaska
brought storms of protest from environmentalists and the State of Alaska.
The state urged postponement of the northern Gulf sale until baseline
information was gathered and interpreted, OCS policies were changed to
give the State a greater role, provisions were made for sharing OCS
revenues, and efforts were taken to reduce the risk of adverse impacts.
Governor Hammond made clear the State's intention to go to court to
enjoin the Federal leasing program if the northern Gulf sale was not
delayed and a Federal commitment given to cure the serious defects of
the Alaskan and national OCS programs.21 Alaska's position was bolstered
when the CEQ, EPA and NOAA joined the state in calling for the indefinite
postponement of the northern Gulf sale because of the high risk of

2 2

environmental damage.

Secretary Kleppe, nevertheless, after ordering a reduction in
leasing acreage from 1.8 million to 1.1 million, decided to hold the
lease sale without further delay.23 Against the background of strenuous
state opposition and an unsuccessful state court suit, the Bureau of
Land Management leased the northern Gulf on April 13, 1976. 2h A second
lease sale is scheduled for May 1979.

The petroleum industry led by Shell and Arco offered over $571

million in high bids for leases on 81 of 189 tracts offered in the

25
northern Gulf (Fig. 3). Oil comapny bids failed to reach Interior's

$1 billion pre-sale estimate. Industry claimed the projected high costs
for drilling and development in the northern Gulf were responsible for
the low bids.26

The successful lessees have indicated that they plan to begin
exploratory drilling soon in the northern Gulf. Three companies, Shell,
Arco and Mobil (SAM) hope to begin drilling by the end of 1976. Shell
Oil, operator for the combine, will drill the first well in Block 106
(Tract 4-2) on a structure in the western Icy Bay area.27 Two semi-
submersible rigs are being built by Kaiser Shipyard near San Francisco
specifically for use in the Gulf of Alaska. Other rigs are available in
Japan, the North Sea and Southeast Asia. 8

• 2 9

The rigs under construction at Kaiser are of the Sedco 700 Series.
A Sedco 706 was completed for use by SAM in the fall of 1976 and a 708
will be completed in early 1977. These rigs have been designed for
year-round work in the Gulf of Alaska and will have a drilling capability
of 25,000 ft with an ability to operate in waters up to 1,000 feet.
Operating these rigs will be expensive; current estimates place the cost
at $100,000 per day.30

The Sedco 706 rig will be serviced out of Yakutat, 145 miles east
of the drilling operations (Fig. 2). Support facilities for explora-
tory drilling are currently being built at Yakutat by the SAM consortium.31

Figure 3. The top 15 lease tracts and all tracts drawing bids are
indicated for the April 1976 sale (Source: Oil and Gas Journal,
April 19, 1976).

No.

Block

Amount
bid

Per
acre

Key

Block
No.

Amount
bid

Per

acre

Bidders

o
o
o

162

105

105
16!
163

150

241

J62.756.352

61.880,000

41,104,000
40,799,232
35.345,550
33,683,000

3^326.000

28.196.352

$11,033

10,869

7.220
7.116
6.208
5,916

5,678

4,953

Texaco 64%. Allied Chern. 12%, Champ-
lin 12%, Diamond Shamrock 12%

Shed 59%, ARC0 25%, Oil Dev. Co. of
Texas 6%, Tex. Eastern 10%

ARCO 50%. Shell 50%

Gulf

Amoco 37.5%, Oxy 37.5%, Idemitsu 25%

ARCO 45%, Shell 45%, Oil Oev. Co. of
Texas (00CT) 10%

ShH 55%. ARCO 25%, Tex. Eastern 10%,
OOCT10%

Texaco 50%, Allied Chem 12%. Champ-
lin 12%, Diamond Shamrock 12%.
Acfuitaine 8%. Odeco 6%

G
G
O

329

73
111
110
284
242

411

25.132.032

20,630,000
17.011,500
15,337.500
11,210.000
10,847.200

10,074,100

4,414

3,623
2,988
2,6%
1,969
1,905

1.769

Gulf 35%. Amerada Hess 17.5%, Getty
17.5%, Texasgulf Inc. 10%, PanCana-
dian Pet. 10%, Superior 5%. Canadian
Superior 5%

ARCO 50%, Shell 50%

ARCO 50%. Shell 50%

Exxon

Mobil 15%, Skelly 20%, Cities Service
20%, Sun 20%, Amer. Petrorina 15%.
Hamilton Bros. 10%

Mobil 37%, Skelly 15%, Citi« Service
15%, Sun 18%, Amer. Petrofina 15%

"All in Icy Bay area

oci;

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts32

As previously mentioned the severity of petroleum development
impacts depend in large part upon the volume and rate at which oil and
gas resources are exploited. OCS impact studies, therefore, must make
some estimates regarding future levels of petroleum production. In the
northern Gulf, previous studies have assumed high production scenarios.
These production assumptions are as follows:

(1) The Bureau of Land Management in its final environmental
impact statement assumed the sale area would produce 2.8
billion barrels of oil and 9 trillion cubic feet of gas. The
peak production volume was estimated at 550,000 barrels/day
for oil and at 1 billion cubic feet/day for gas.33

(2) Mathematical Science Northwest's study assumed that a total of
five fields would be discovered in the Gulf of Alaska (not
limited to the northern Gulf Sale area) with a peak production
of oil at 550,000 barrels/day.3"

(3) The CEQ report assumed that peak production in the Gulf of
Alaska (not limited to the northern Gulf Sale area) would
reach a level of 2 million barrels/day and 7.2 billion cubic
feet/day by 1998. 35

Additional estimates of the rate and type of development are also made
by BLM and these are shown in Tables 2 and 3. These tables show that:

(1) At peak production, 22 platforms would be required, 18 oil
platforms and 4 gas platforms.

(2) There would be from 70 to 100 exploratory wells and approximately
800 production wells.

ffi

°sl

ooooooooooooooooo

LnmoomooinLr.ifiinini/iinmifiL'iinLO

H<'C3(NCOOOCnCD^^Ll,3,^[NHOa\CD
HHfSrjHnHHi-IHrlHrlH

^B3

g£u|

csmr~r-Or-icoinooo

^TOOOOOOJr-4t— loom

HtMNniflXOnDT

in in

o o o

m m in

o m m o o
in r^ r^ in in

o in in o o
m r» r— in in

lo in in
cm cm cm

o o o o o o

CO T CO ■"S- \D CO
(N 00 "3" CO

O O O O O O
sr (N O CM OO T

HN (M rl

o o o o o o
(si tt vn \r> r\i (N

(N <f (O ID (N N

<N in tsi rvj in vo co
t o CO CO O 'Jt (N

HriHH

VO UT ^ VO IT 00 ^
H (N N H

iniOr-KlClOHlNinrfUHDMDWOr-iNnriniOMDO;

r.^t^l^r>ccoroo:coraocia3caoooM?>''CfiCiCnoi.T>a\(Ti
cno^cr>cr\CT>^cncno^o^cncr\^^c^CTicri<^a>cr;CT5cna^o^cn

HrlHHHHHHHHr-IHHrlHHrl-JHrlHHHarH

oooooooo

m in o o o o
r^ vd m <«• n <n

h!J3

11) 9) 01
jJ J) Q

o
o

3
C
•H
4J

o
o

'"I >

oooooooo
oooooooo

<NCM(NCM(N<NCN<N

Table 3. Summary of Basic Assumptions on Oil and Gas Production in
the Gulf of Alaska (Source: BLM Northern Gulf Final EIS13)

Activity

This Proposed Sale

Sale acreage offering

Anticipated sale

Oil and gas fields

Average distance of oil fields

from shore
Recoverable oil (5% probabilities)
Recoverable gas (5% probabilities)
Peak production oil

Peak production gas

Platforms

Wells

Pipelines

Total miles of pipeline

Pipeline burial excavation

volume
Offshore terminal facilities
Onshore pipeline acreage required
Onshore terminal facilities
Support/supply facilities
12X3 plant

Onshore land requirements
Offshore land requirements

Petroleum refineries/

platform fabrication
Servicing fleet (boats & ships)
Annual crude shipped by tanker

cu.

t.&

1.8 million acres
1.4 million acres
7

22 miles^

2.8 billion bbls (b.bbls)

9 trillion cubic feet (t.

550,000 bbls/da ?/

2C0 million bbls (rn.bbD/yr-'

1.0 billion cu.ft/da-,

365 billion cu.ft/yr—

22—

2/
900-' (100 exploratory, 800 development)

7 to 14

300 (50 onshore; 250 offshore)

.9 to 2.4 million cu.ft

315 acres

3 (360 acres)

3 (240 acres)

1 (120 acres) i,0 if combined

with terminal—

1,035 acres

800 to 7700 acres (4 to 350 acres

per platform)*

u 2/
20 to 60=-'

200 million bbls/yr

Based on four acres for a jack-up rig and 35C acres for each
serai-submersible rig and offshore terminal, and their attendant
guy lines.

1/ - USDI 1974d
2/ - USDI 1975b

(3) There would be 7 to 14 major pipelines totaling 300 miles in
length, of which 50 miles would be constructed onshore and 250
miles would be submarine.

(4) No petroleum refineries are expected to be constructed in
Alaska as a result of the sale.

(5) Drilling platforms would be built outside of Alaska.

(6) Natural gas would be marketed, and there would be one liquified
natural gas (LNG) plant constructed around 1983.

(7) The fleet required to support and service the offshore platforms
would range between 20 to 60 work boats.

(8) Total onshore land requirements would be 1,035 acres.36

A number of onshore locations have been identified as potential
support sites for northern Gulf OCS operations (Fig. 4). The most
frequently mentioned locations are Yakutat, Anchorage, Cordova, Icy Bay,
Middleton Island, and Kayak Island. Other sites mentioned are Valdez,
Montague Island, Seward, Kenai, Kodiak and Juneau. In selecting onshore
support sites, industry is looking for locations which have deep harbors,
flat adjacent uplands and close proximity to offshore operations and
transportation facilities.37 Alaska's Department of Community and
Regional Affairs has identified potential industrial sites adjacent to
both the northern and western Gulf of Alaska lease sales. Their data,
presented in Table 4 and Figure 4, shows Yakutat Bay, Icy Bay, Cordova,
and Resurrection Bay as being the best sites for locating OCS support
facilities resulting from northern Gulf operations.38

More impact information is available for the northern Gulf than for
any other leasing area in Alaska; yet, even here the amount of hard data

«H

•■-n

CUC^

cfl

(-1

■H

4-1

U-.

i— I

■H

cfl

lt-1

>-.

U-l

■H

•u

14-1

4-1

•n

-a

■u

•u

■H

a- ih

o- <C

•H

N—'

/"— s

«*

•H

4-J

•rl

-J

•

■0)

•H

a-i

•H

i-i

•H

■H

S-i
cd
P.
<U

to
CO

OJ
O

u
o
o

4-1

T-l

4-1

•^

•Hr-~

com

•H

■H

Cfl

4-4

4-1

4-4

Cfl

•rl

•H

4-J

-d

4-1

cfl

>»

4-1

•H

cfl

4-1

vi-

lli

2 c
» 2
O. a

v «

"1V8*JB9y oj «?3iiv

• •••••<-■

O • O i

i <

• <

1 1

i 0 '

i o o

c
o

o
.c

«:

r...i.-i|M^

MIPIM JOqJPH

o
o
o

ojnoM 6u|mox

JoqjCH Jai^o

O000000000»00l

i i

> *

lOHOOOOOOOOOO

ajogs Ji'-JN

1 3

• •OtOtOOKt til

> 4

>9»*000«0«>tt0«

UJ«'J; pU|MUAAO(j

' '

1.1,

•

nr,

1 il

>*iino«ii«;*oi

i *

4 I • • O • O <

• '

IIIOl

luru on l UI6JJ

3DUC1S10 XL*l\

~ E

nr,

'T1

1 II1

► f I. <i O • • • II O I

i «

» i

i 0 o • O • Ol

l • <

HI o «

luaDelpy aDcaJDv

>poo oi
iu33p[pv a6eaJ3V

o
o

C
n

luojjJai«*A\

b o
o o

o ©

47 CO

pajanacis

I <

> (

> 4

ft • A 9 •

i «

i I

> boo • <i •<

> • <

mil

( jaiaujeip)
U|seg 6u|iijn_^

o o
o o

> <

ft 4

> i

Milolol*0<

I 4

l 4

iiiiiironoi

l O <

I 11 o <

MldSQ joqjeH

b b

„ 1

,Jt°l"Wm<

> <

l 4

KllllOllOl
1

» O I

IIIOI

juojjjdit'W

o
o
o

o u

ascn A|ddn^ jco^,

o <

> <

iOOOO»00«OC<

• 4

■ O O O • O 1

• 1

i o • <

oj
>

a
a

T?iJ3|U| ilji'I

o c

1 J

J53J51UJ AjlSn,VJ|

•

O £

uodjiv ox

o <

1 o c

) O O 1

i o o c

i'o o <

i <

• O O O 4

i O 4

ft 1

IC 4

1 4

AliunUjiuo3 oj.

o <

•

I o c

> o o i

► o o c

I o o «

> <

i i

• o o o i

i O <

1 4

ft 4

c <

1 *

>pOQ oi inauelpv

pue~J I3A31

° u

Iff
c
o

c
o

o
c

pajjll^q^

(jaiaujejp)
uisep buiujnj_

luojj.jaie/K

joqjen

spisAenQ

A1|A

1DV 3J»M^J0

01 AjlUJIXOJ^

o
S E

>- z

• o

</l

I-
t/>

c
a

) "

;
j"

►.

3 0

3
C .

- >

- r

>
1

: c

3 C

3
t -

- 3

•g »

V -

- J
5'

?
>.

;

LI
J .

L .

i "

D
J I

1 f

>-
J

■

1 u
a

s (

I (-

a i

n -

1
i

a
J

?■

•-
i I

3 f

£ <
i c

□

i-
c

J c
* 1

■q

c
a

» !

!i?

) ID c

) X 0

: c 1

J 3
) o

1 1/1 (J

i E

- i 5

D V
J u

: c

I L

b a. o

j I

i i

5 I

: c

( j

u (
> t

- 0
3 •

: c

- c

■

1
J E

a
3

2 (

5 '

3 T

f ^
-1 j

Q Q

;

! l

: i
- u

-
) <

1 a

; '

: o
i ;

i '
i

* i

3 ;
) *

. U

•- :

D "

i a
: (

3 i

i i

. 1

j :

a
r m

"<
a

i <
I -

- :
i '

: (

i '

i i
j i

i u
i i

: a

1 V

a.
> <t

I
\\

3 R

3 -
\ C

i n
» C
J 4

? r

. 4

■
a

:
u
1

a
a

i
c
<

- ■

a
j

• i

i
j

] 3

9 *
i \

: [

i „

0 K

! I

- i

N C

- r

! »

' J

> i
' j

;

: i

> •

4 f

1
5 '

- (

3 T

e j

• i\

- f

1 1
« *

n i
If J

* r

( "•

| W

: ;

: "

j a

1 R

3 r
> Z

t J

j 1

) J

1-3

' C

) u

" :

^ -

i «

■'
I

]

B C
■» r

■ ■

« r

5
)

ns
■p

•a
c
to
u

<u
•a

c
o

•4->

■a
cu

4->
O

available concerning potential impacts is small and unsatisfactory.
Most information concerning OCS impacts has come from two studies, BLM's
environmental impact statement and Mathematical Science's report prepared
for the Gulf of Alaska Operator's Committee.

Exploration of the northern Gulf OCS is expected to take from 4 to 7
years. During this period storage depots, work cargoes, port facilities
and roads will be constructed onshore. Peak employment levels should
reach 1,000 to 2,000 jobs and occur in 1978 or 1979. Because petroleum
personnel work 2-week shifts most new employees will probably live in
the Anchorage area. But several hundred employees may settle in the
small coastal towns adjacent to offshore activities. Even a population
increase of this size will strain the capabilities of towns like Yakutat
to provide necessary public services. Exploration activities will also
increase land prices, affect small community lifestyles, and increase
pressures on fish, wildlife and recreational resources.

Pollution from exploratory drilling will occur from discharges of
muds, drill cuttings, and petroleum. There is also risk of well blowouts
given the harsh climate, and earthquake hazards of the region. Marine
and terrestrial wildlife will be affected by disturbances from seismic

• • 3 9

blasting and pollution from sewage, solid wastes, and oil spills.

The risk of well blowouts and offshore impacts from the discharge
of drilling muds and cuttings will increase during the development phase
when from 900 to 1,800 development wells will be drilled. The discharge of
drilling muds and cuttings may damage the marine environment by increasing
turbidity, smothering benthic life, and contaminating lower organisms of
the food chain.

The development phase will see a sharp increase in onshore activity
and construction operations. BLM's final impact statement predicts the

construction of from 3 to 8 support/supply installations, one LNG plant and
one loading facility but Alaskan officials feel these estimates are too
low given the Bureau's assumptions about petroleum production. State
officials believe twice as many facilities may be built.1*0

Direct employment will peak during the development phase at from
2,000 to 4,000 workers around 1985. Major increases in population will
occur in the small towns along the Gulf even though the majority of
newcomers (over 60 percent) will settle in Anchorage. Population increases
will be even greater if concrete platforms are used instead of steel
platforms (about 1,000 workers per platform constructed).

This large influx of population will severely strain the financial
and planning capabilities of adjacent coastal communities. The infra-
structures of these towns are primitive and ill-equipped to accomodate a
doubling or tripling of the present census. Boom town conditions may
lead to runaway inflation, housing shortages, poor sanitary conditions,
increases in the crime rate, considerable traffic congestion, and
displacement of established activities. Similar impacts have occurred
in Valdez and Fairbanks as a result of the trans-Alaskan pipeline.

State and local governments will need considerable sums of money to
provide important municipal services. An Alaskan Department of Revenue
study concluded that the northern Gulf of Alaska lease sale will cost
each resident of the state between $271 and $304. The 20-year cash-flow
model used in the report indicated that the state would receive benefits
only during a 7-year period starting in 1985. Before 1985 and after
1991, the model showed 22 years of net losses to Alaska from OCS
development . "* 1

OCS activities may interfere with the large Gulf of Alaska fishing
industry. Biological resources may be reduced as a result of oil spills
and habitat destruction. Commercial and sport fishing activities may be
curtailed by the presence of platforms and there may be a risk of nets
fouling on various obstructions. Further, the existence of well-paying
petroleum-related jobs may depress the commercial fishing industry and
associated ways of life. Competition for port facilities may lead to a
migration of fishing vessels out of areas active with OCS support
vessels to more remote ports.

Alaskan Natives are greatly concerned about cultural impacts
resulting from OCS operations. Subsistence and smalltown lifestyles may
be threatened by OCS operations. Native political and economic power
now being asserted and consolidated under the Native Claims Settlement
Act may be thwarted by large numbers of newcomers who hold different
social values and beliefs.

Substantial habitat destruction may result from dredging and filling
operations for harbor modifications, pipeline installations and residential
and industrial development. Considerable amounts of gravel will be
required for most kinds of onshore construction which will entail further
dredging.

Employment during the production phase is expected to stabilize at
from 1,200 to 2,500 jobs until the fields are depleted. These cutbacks
from peak development phase employment could lead to unemployment and
fiscal problems for local communities.

Tanker traffic will increase during the production phase and become
a prime source of oil spills. Oil spills may also result from blowouts,

pipeline breaks, platform fires, storage tank failures and casing leaks.
The Bureau of Land Management has estimated that 43,873 barrels of oil
will be spilled annually in the Gulf. Many state officials and environ-
mentalists fear the figure will be higher. In addition, they fear the
occurrence of massive oil spills resulting from the regions' stormy
weather and active seismic conditions. The counter clockwise direction
of the Alaska Current makes it very likely (particularly in the summer)
that much of this oil would reach the shoreline. Wildlife in the area
particularly vulnerable to acute and chronic oil spills include the
peregrine falcon, trumpeter swan, dunlin, Aleutian tern, Glacier (black)
bear, brown bear, Dusky Canadian goose, rock ptarmigan, osprey, sea otter,
fur seal, sea lion, and bald eagle. Oil spills would also cause air
pollution and inhibit recreational activities.

In addition to these OCS impacts, two other major projects in the
Northern Gulf may significantly affect the region. They are a liquefied
natural gas (LNG) plant and marine terminal proposed by the El Paso
Alaska Company at Gravina Point in Prince William Sound and the terminus
of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline at Valdez. The proposed LNG plant
and auxiliary facilities would require 1,200 acres of land and take
7-years to build. Construction impacts from this facility would be

substantial; for example, by 1979 Cordova's population is projected to
increase by over 8,000 new residents as a result of activity from both
the northern Gulf lease sale and the LNG terminal.1*3

Once the Alaska Pipeline is completed, from 1.2 to 2.0 million barrels
per day (bpd) of crude oil will be shipped by tankers from Valdez to the
West Coast. Twenty tankers with deadweight tonnage of 1,390,000 tons

and a turn-around time of Ik. 5 to 15.5 days will be required to transport
the initial 1.2 million bpd of crude oil. Tanker traffic and congestion
will increase even more if the El Paso LNG proposal is approved. The
transportation of LNG may create a significant safety hazard due to the
highly flammable nature of the substance.'*''

OCS impacts will not disappear when the oil fields stop producing.
Excess infrastructure capacity will exist and welfare transfer payments
are likely to increase. Per capita income levels could fall as unemploy-
ment levels grow. Wildlife, fish, and marine life damaged by OCS related
activities will be slow to repopulate to former numbers. Sea life, in
particular, will probably be impacted for years after production has
ceased due to the persistence of oil in the environment.

Many local communities and native citizens living on the northern
Gulf do not want OCS operations to occur because of the many environmental
and social costs of OCS development.1*5 Some communities, however, have
indicated an interest in accommodating the oil industry. Two, in particular,
are Cordova and Juneau.1*6
5.2.3 Lower Cook Inlet

Description of the Region **7

Located in southcentral Alaska, Cook Inlet is a large tidal estuary
which flows into the Gulf of Alaska (Fig. 5). This estuary is shallow,
averaging only 200 ft. deep. Cook Inlet is surrounded on three sides
by four major mountain ranges. Five active volcanoes border the inlet
to the west making tsunamic and volcanic risk a problem. Earthquakes
are also a hazard.

Figure 5. This is the proposed sale lease area for the lower
Cook Inlet estuary (Source: BLM Lower Cook Inlet Draft EIS) .

6oc

59c

Sea state within the inlet is a factor of tidal currents and wind
rather than storm tracts and sea currents. The area has some of the
fastest tidal currents and most extreme tides in the world. Seas can
often be steep and rough when currents run opposite the wind.

King and tanner crab are abundant in lower Cook Inlet with major
concentrations approximately midway between Augustine Island and the
Barren Islands (Fig. 5). The dungeness crab also inhabits the area.
Five species of shrimp are commercially abundant with largest concentra-
tions found in Kachemak Bay and midway between Augustine Island and the
Barren Islands. Scallops also are found in the same waters in midinlet.
Halibut inhabit the lower inlet from May through August , and all five
species of Pacific salmon utilize streams entering Cook Inlet for
spawning. Major sockeye salmon spawning systems are the Kenai-Russion,
Kasilof, Susitna Rivers and Fish Creek.

Approximately 105 species of birds have been observed in Cook Inlet
and along the shores. Most abundant are fulmars, scoters, eiders,
black-legged kittiwakes, tufted puffins, glaucous-winged gulls and
common murres. Several species of marine mammals also inhabit the inlet
including sea otters, seals, steller sea lions, killer whales, porpoises
and beluga whales.

The Cook Inlet region has Alaska's most diversified and developed
economy. Anchorage, at the head of the inlet, is the government, military
and economic center of Alaska. Homer, Kenai and Soldotna are important
subregional centers of population and commerce and have large non-Native
populations (Fig. 2). Kenai is an important industrial center based
on Cook Inlet oil and gas. Port Graham, Seldovia, English Bay, Ninilchik

and Kasilof are predominantly Native villages, consisting of Tanaina
Indians and Chugach Eskimos. These villages have a mixed economy;
commercial fishing for crab, shrimp and salmon, as well as tourism are
very important .

Petroleum Resources

Geologically, the lower portion of Cook Inlet is similar to the
upper portion1*8 where four offshore oil fields and one onshore field
have yielded almost 0.6 billion barrels of oil and 1.6 trillion cubic
feet of gas.1*9 This may explain why industry interest in Federal (and
state) leasing initiatives in the area has been so keen.50 The U.S.
Geological Survey has estimated minimum and maximum recoverable oil and
gas resources within the proposed sale areas at from 0.9-2.6 billion bar-
rels of oil and from 0.6 to 3.3 trillion cubic feet of gas. Translating
these figures into crude market values using $11 a barrel oil and
0.95 MCF gas resource values will vary between 0.99 to 28.6 billion
dollars for oil and 0.57 to 3.1 billion dollars for gas.51

Status of PCS Operations

The Bureau of Land Management has scheduled two lease sales for
lower Cook Inlet. The first will be held in February 1977 (Fig. 5) and
the second will occur in August 1980.

Since the June 1975 Supreme Court decision awarding lower Cook
Inlet to the Federal government the BLM has moved quickly to offer the
inlet for sale. In September of 1975, the Bureau of Land Management
called for nominations on about 450 tracts covering 2.3 million acres
and received a heavy response from the oil industry. ' But state and

Federal agencies, local communities and commercial fishing organizations
opposed the leasing of more than half of these offshore lands.53 In
March of 1976 the BLM selected 152 tracts totalling 865,364 acres for
oil and gas lease sale in lower Cook Inlet.51* A draft EIS was prepared
by July of 1976 and the final EIS is due out the end of the year.

Detailed exploratory data has not yet been collected by industry
for lower Cook Inlet. At least two offshore drilling proposals have
been made by industry to improve the geological data. Exploration
Services proposes to drill a 12,000 ft. COST well in 532 feet of water
at 14°s-22°w and ARCCT proposes to drill a COST well southeast of St.
Augustine Island. The purpose of the offshore drilling work would be to
develop stratigraphic information in previously undrilled territory.55

In contrast with the northern Gulf sale, state officials agree with
the Interior Department officials on a 1977 lease sale in lower Cook
Inlet. Although state officials are concerned about OCS development in
the Inlet, they believe that the environmental and socio economic problems
of the lower Cook Inlet are less severe than in the Gulf. In addition
experience with offshore petroleum in upper Cook Inlet has shown that
industry can operate safely in the area.5' Finally, some offshore
pipelines, refinery and LNG facilities are already present or proposed
onshore .

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts57

The only comprehensive impact study done to date for lower Cook
Inlet has been BLM's draft environmental impact statement. This EIS is
is thorough and presents more useable data than the northern Gulf
statements. Alaska officials, in general, found this EIS to be superior

to the northern Gulf statements. Although state reviewers pointed out
gaps and contradictions in the analysis, they generally concurred with
the employment and population projections given BLM's assumptions about
petroleum production.

As with the northern Gulf EIS, BLM assumed high petroleum finds for
purposes of their impact analysis. The Bureau estimated that the sale
area would produce 2.6 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas. They assumed peak production volumes for oil at
930,000 barrels/day and 465 million cubic feet/day for gas. Oil production
will peak in 1984, natural gas production will peak from 1986 to 2000. 5
According to USGS there is only a 5 percent probability of recover-
ing this much petroleum.

Additional estimates of the rate and type of development are also
made by BLM and these are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Assumptions for the
for the lower Cook Inlet are:

(1) At peak production, 23 platforms would be required, 21 oil
platforms and 2 gas platforms.

(2) There would be 84 exploratory wells, 80 service wells, and 440
production wells drilled.

(3) There would be pipelines totalling 300 miles in length, of
which 100 miles would be constructed onshore and 200 miles
would be submarine.

(4) No petroleum refineries or platforms would be constructed in
Alaska as a result of the sale.

(5) Natural gas would be marketed and there would be one liquified
natural gas (LNG) plant constructed around 1984.

U
0

4-1

14-1

■H

«J

•H

■H

<fi

4-1

~rj

cfl

•H

■u

/^s

[fl

14H

ctj

4-1

IT)

4-1

N-r*

OJ
H

o
o

[fl

•

■H

■n

-h

-H

t-l

oj o
> u

4->
C 4J

■H O

o. o

u
z o

n CO

n o

c u

■H \

II H HI

C 01 <l

u o. -I

fl >H -H

►J c ?:

inoinooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrMODfM

TNM^^mriiaionHOfflhtfui'fOn

.H fN fl fN ON CN rH rH »H rH rH

ifi ffl n
t^ r* r* n o rH o
r^^min^inminoo

hHCD(TIHHrl<rifitfi

I I I ! I I I I

in in in o
in in o <r*

■h m

o o cm o o o
t* o r- o «r >»
id r~ o r-i

CD
VD

I
O

in
H

-H

(T.

in
r-

O
ID

in
r-

in
in

o o o o

o co id ca r^

ui H n n m

I I I I I

o o o o o

ID <N ^ VD CO

H (N IN H

o o

ID ID

I I

o o

ooooooco

rllflfNPlOMfiOlM

r-i

i/l

-h

ro m v£ vo m m

r- r-

r- r-t iH

(D OH

in in ^
l i i l l l I I

mm mmmoom

CNmOOm^fMrH

r~t .H M «H CO *» m

in H M N H

r- co en o -h cn n
r- r^ r- co o co co

CT* CT> 0^ C?> OT"Cn OS

m>i>r^cocnOrHrjri^mvor-cocr>
cocococococr*cr>cncT>c^cncr>cncncri

«j

■H

•-t

-H

o o o o
r- rn cn rH

CD IN CO O
IN N H H

•3B

o _

en ui
o o

w o

01 •

c o
o z

10 01
OJ 0

c o

a- ai <u

J a. s:

03
O

r»
I

CN
CO

o
o

o
o
n

a
3

o ±J

-i- a

tn cu

C Kl

O H

■H

-H

o
in

-a

3
C
•H
4J

c
o
o

(1)

B-<

0< m

-s

O r-l

.H rH

01 01

> »

OMCNr-t^u-vot--
oooooooo
oooooooo

(NN(NfN(NN(N(S

■H

o
m

n
1

o
m

■h

01
rH

•

■B

cil

Q
en

•H

Table 6. Summary of Basic Assumptions Regarding Lower Cook Inlet Oil
and Gas Production (Source: BLM Lower Cook Inlet Draft EIS)

Activity

This Proposed Sale

Sale acreage offering
Anticipated sale
Recoverable oil (maximum)
Recoverable gas (maximum)
Peak production oil

Peak production gas

Plat; orms
Wells

Pipelines

Pipeline burial excavation

volume
Onshore pipeline acreage required

Onshore oil terminal facilities
number and acreage required

Support/supply facilities
number and acreage required

LNG plant and terminal

Production treatment facilities

Total direct land requirements
Petroleum refineries
Platform fabrication
Supply and support boats
Annual crude shipped by tanker

865,000 acres (350,000 hectares)

692,000 acres (280,000 hectares)

2.6 billion barrels 1/

3.3 trillion cubic ft. 1/

930,000 bbls/day 1/

340 million bbls/year 1/

465 million cf/day 1/

170 billion cf/year 1/

23 (21 oil; 2 gas) 1/

604 (84 exploratory; 80 service;

440 production)
300 miles (200 miles offshore;
100 miles onshore 1/
3000 to 8000 yards/mile 1/

630 acres (255 hectares) permanent

right-of-way

2; 240 acres (97 hectares); 120 acres

(49 hectares) each 1/

3; 120-240 acres (49-97 hectares); 40-80

(16-32 hectares) each 1/

1; 60-120 acres (24-49 hectares)

2; 160 acres (65 hectares) ; 80 acres

(32 hectares) each

1339-1519 acres (542-615 hectares)

0 1/

6-24

Up to 340 million bbls/year 1/

USDI 1976

(6) The fleet required to support and service the offshore rigs
would range from 3 to 18 boats during exploration to about 21
boats during the peak development phase.

(7) Total onshore land requirements would be from 1,339 to 1,519
acres.

(8) Two new onshore terminals and two production treatment facilities
would be constructed. The remaining petroleum production

would be handled by existing facilities.60
The location of support and supply facilities, crude oil terminal
sites, and onshore production treatment facilities in lower Cook Inlet
will depend upon the location of producing oil and gas fields. Potential
support and supply facilities will likely be sited in the Homer, Kenai,
the Seldovia-Port Graham areas, and at Seward (Fig. 6). Potential crude
oil terminal and treatment facilities will likely be located in the
Seldovia-English Bay-Port Graham area and in the Cape Douglas area for
discoveries in the southern part of the lease sale area. For discoveries
in the northern part of the sale area, crude oil terminal and treatment
facilities will probably be located in the Anchor Point area and on the
west side of the Inlet. Present terminal and storage facilities at
Nikinki and Drift River may also be used if oil and gas is produced in
the northern part of the leasing area. A proposed (by Pacific
Alaska LNG Co.) LNG facility near Kenai could also be used to transship
lower Cook natural gas.

There will be substantial increases in population and employment
resulting from the development of lower Cook Inlet petroleum resources.
Particularly hard hit will be the small towns and villages located in

Figure 6. Potential support and supply sites for oil
and gas related activities in lower Cook Inlet area
(Source: BLM Lower Cook Inlet Draft EIS) .

1541

153°

the Kenai-Cook Inlet area. Population in this region will increase 50
percent (or 10,882) by 1983 as the result of OCS development in lower
Cook Inlet. Local and state finances will probably be hard put to meet
subsequent demands for more schools, housing and social services. A
large number of social and cultural impacts may occur including an
increase in crime, a change in smalltown and rural atmosphere, and an
alteration of native subsistence culture. Competition for ports, land,
and labor is likely to be acute during the development boom, particularly
between the fishing and oil industry.

A significant portion of the projected increase in population and
employment will occur in the Anchorage area (about 5,100 by 1983). This
will add to the already fast growth rate of the region. However, while
employment and population increases will be large in absolute numbers,
they will be small in comparison to the size of Anchorage's labor pool,
population and infrastructure. In 1983, the Anchorage area is projected
to have a total population of 261,000 and a workforce of 127,000.

Projected employment and population increases from lower Cook Inlet
development are similar, to the increase that occurred during the develop-
ment of upper Cook Inlet fields in Alaska. During 1964 to 1972 the Kenai
and Seldovia areas underwent major economic and cultural changes.
Regional employment increased rapidly by 73 percent from 1966 to 1968 and
significant in-migration occurred during the development boom. However,
the economic boom disappeared as rapidly as it appeared. After the
completion of major offshore development and onshore construction activi-
ties, petroleum employment decreased substantially and from 1970 to 1971

unemployment levels increased in the region. In short, upper Cook Inlet
experienced an intense but temporary boom in development drilling and
construction activity.

Coastal and marine ecosystems will be degraded by acute and chronic
oil spills and onshore development and operation activities. Fish and
wildlife will primarily be affected by: (1) pollution, (2) habitat
destruction, and (3) increased sport fishing and hunting pressures.

BLM estimates that 71,600 barrels of crude oil will be spilled
during the height of oil production activity in the lower Cook Inlet and
along the transport route (Table 7). Oil spill trajectory analysis
shows that large amounts of oil will reach coastal and onshore habitats.
A worst case scenario would be a large oil spill reaching the shoreline
during the growing season in one day. Damage would be especially
significant in the Bluff Point area, the south eastern margins of the
Kenai Peninsula, Chinitna Bay to Tuxedni Bay, and Kachemak Bay.

Sea otters, fur seals and sea lions will be quite susceptible to oil
pollution and human disturbance impacts. The installation of offshore
platforms, pipelines, and the noise associated with supporting aircraft
and vessel traffic may cause abandonment of traditional fur seal, sea lion
or sea otter breeding grounds. A major spill during pupping season
could eliminate large numbers of sea lions and harbor seals. In addition,
local populations of commercially valuable otters, mink, muskrat and
beaver will be vulnerable to oil pollution because they use aquatic
systems for foraging, transportation, and refuge.

Sea otters will be the most vulnerable marine mammal in lower Cook
Inlet to impacts resulting from OCS development. According to Dame's

Table 7. Anticipated Annual Oil Spillage During Peak Production
Resulting from the Proposed Sale (Sources: CEQ 1974,
Lower Cook Inlet Draft EIS)

Maximum Annual

Cumulative 25

Spillage

Year Total

Location

Sources (Barrels)

(Barrels3)

Lower Cook Inlet

Pipeline accidents

5,800

48,000

Formation Water*

780

19,500

Spills from Platform

Fires

9,900

82,000

Overflow, malfunction,

or rupture

185

1,500

Minor spills (less than

50 bbls-all sources
Subtotal

550

13,750

17,215

164,750

Transportation

Route

Tankers

54,400

450,000

Total

71,615

614,750

a The cumulative totals are not based on peak year production spillaqe
rates, but on the yearly projected production.

and Moore's oil spill trajectory analysis there is a 99 percent chance
that oil spills originating within the proposed leasing area will impact
sea otter concentrations on the Kenai Peninsula, Barren Islands, and
Kachemak and Kamishak Bay areas. Further, potential marine support
facilities on the tip of the Kenai Peninsula and Cape Douglas will very
likely eliminate critical habitat and concentrations of sea otters
because of human disturbances and chronic oil pollution.

But the greatest threat to wildlife from oil spills and human
disturbance will be to the 40 to 50 species of diving birds, colony
nesting birds, and water roosting birds in the area. Coastal bird
habitats that will be most threatened by oil pollution are Augustine
Island, Stevenson Entrance, the Barren Islands, and the area from Tuxedi
Bay to Iliamna Bay. Dames and Moore oil spill trajectory analysis shows
that there is a 100 percent chance that oil spills originating within
the proposed lease sale area will impact marine bird nesting, resting or
foraging areas. Birdlife will be most vulnerable to oil spills during
the summer nesting season and during spring and fall migration periods.

Oil spills will also negatively affect coastal fisheries and their

associated marine ecosystems. Acute and chronic spillage of oil would

decrease local finfish populations and salmon and herring spawning

areas. Also shallow subtidal filter feeding invertebrates such as clams

will be affected by petroleum hydrocarbons. The most vulnerable clam

populations, primarily razor clams, exist in the Clam Gulch and Polly

Creek areas. There is also a strong possibility that commercially

valuable populations of king, snow and dungeness crab will be reduced by

activities associated with OCS development. Egg and larval forms will

be the most susceptible to oil pollution.

BLM's EIS did not explain, in detail, potential impacts, resulting
from secondary development. Large population increases will stimulate
commercial, residential, and public utility development. Dredging,
filling, and effluent discharges from these activities may result in
greater impacts than those arising from oil pollution and habitat
destruction from primary petroleum activities. In addition OCS development
may act as a stimulus for much greater regional growth in the future.
This would probably greatly alter the character and environment of the
area.

5.2.4 Western Gulf of Alaska

Description of the Region6 J

The western Gulf of Alaska extends from Middleton Island south of
Prince William Sound to the south side of the Kodiak Island archipelago.
The coastal region encircling the western Gulf of Alaska typically is
rugged with a fjord-indented coastline. Few narrow Ibeaches interrrupt
the generally steep, rocky shore. However, along the southwestern part
of Kodiak Island the coastline is relatively smooth with no major fjord
indentations.

The coastal zone fror^ Prince William Sound westward is prone to
frequent and severe earthquakes. During the last 70 years, eight
seismic events have equalled or exceeded a magnitude of 8.

Circulation in the western Gulf of Alaska is generally westward,
influenced by the counterclockwise gyre in the gulf proper. Surface
currents are influenced greatly by strong winds associated with frequent

storms in the gulf and by tidal action, particularly in nearshore areas.
Heavy rip-tides occur at many points along the coast, particularly
adjacent to the Kodiak Islands.

The marine waters and associated continental shelf of the western
Gulf of Alaska are among the most productive in the North Pacific. This
area supports major fisheries for king, dungeness, and tanner crabs;
shrimp; and a variety of bottomfish, including Alaska pollock, Pacific
cod, blackcod, Pacific halibut, and a variety of other flatfish. Waters
over the shelf also abound with Pacific salmon and all five species are
found in abundance. Spring and summer freshwater runoff and offshore
upwelling are primarily responsible for the great productivity of the region.
Shorelines and tidal flats also provide extensive habitats for intertidal
plants and animals.

Many species of marine birds pass through the region in spring,
migrating to nesting grounds in northern Alaska. In addition, at least
24 seabird colonies have been identified adjacent to the proposed lease
area in the western Gulf. Major colonies exist at Boulder Bay and
Chiniak Island. Black-legged kittiwakes and tufted puffins are the most
abundant, with glaucous-winged gulls, cormorants and pigeon guillemots
the next most common. Many thousands of ducks also assemble along the
shoreline during the winter.

Critical marine mammal habitat enclosed or bordering the proposed
lease area include at least 13 sea lion rookeries and hauling grounds,
with a maximum herd of over 15,000 individuals reported for Marmot

Island. Sea otter populations are also present, with primary concentra-
tions in the Perenosa Bay area and east of Shuyak Island. Harbor seals
and harbor porpoises, Dall porpoises and killer whales are also common.

The city of Kodiak (population 9,000) is the major center of
population, commerce, trade, and transportation of the region, and has a
large non-Native population. Some 15 outlying Eskimo communities along
the coasts and islands have varying degrees of social and economic
dependence on the city and are served by tranportation based in Kodiak.
Fish and shellfish harvesting and production exceed that of any other
industry and strongly affect the pattern of community development . The
importance of the fishing industry, with its inherent seasonality, is
one reason for the relatively high unemployment in the region.

Petroleum Resources

The USGS has yet to issue estimates of undiscovered recoverable

petroleum resources for the western Gulf of Alaska, but Alaska's Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) has forecast high and low scenarios for the
region. For the low scenario, DNR calculated a figure of 372 million
barrels of oil and 2.3 billion cubic feet of gas and for the high scenario,
DNR estimated 2.5 billion barrels of oil and 8 trillion cubic feet of
gas. The Department did not specify the probability of either scenario.

Status of PCS Operations

BLM will make the western Gulf the third frontier area leased off

Alaska in November of 1977. This sale may offer as much as 3 million

acres off the east coast of Kodiak Island. Before any sale can take

place, though, the BLM will have to complete and circulate the environ-
mental impact statement they are currently working on for this area. A
second sale is scheduled to be held in December of 1980.

In May of 1976, BLM tentatively selected 564 tracts totalling about
3.17 million acres for leasing in the western Gulf (Fig. 7). The list
of 564 was picked from an original department call that included 2,915
tracts covering about 16 million acres of which industry had nominated
12.8 million acres. The selected tracts lie in an area south and east
of Kodiak Island and southwest of Montague Island. They range from 4 to
115 miles offshore in an area about 430 miles long and 60 miles wide in
waters from 90 to 900 feet deep.63

Alaskan officials submitted negative nominations for three areas
they considered environmentally sensitive — Albatross Bank, Marmot Flats
and Portlock Bank because of the presence of tanner and king crab,
shrimp, and marine mammals. 61* They asked for the exclusion of these
areas from the lease sale; areas that comprised about 25 percent of the
original lands called for by the Bureau of Land Management.65 BLM's
tentative selections, however, included tracts from within these three
areas . 6 6

State officials are particularly concerned about potential environ-
mental impacts and marine use conflicts resulting from a lease sale in
the western Gulf of Alaska. 0CS development in this region will endanger
"the most intensive and valuable shellfish fisheries in Alaskan waters"
as well as major populations of herring, salmon, seabirds and marine
mammals. State officials are worried about the extreme seismic risk

Figure 7. Tracts tentatively selected for leasing in the western Gulf of
Alaska (Source: Oil and Gas Journal, May 10, 1976).

ALASKA PENINSULA'

<^1 Chirikof Island
156° r 154°

152°

58°

Bounds of
nominating area

GULF OF ALASKA

Legend

Initial trod teletffom

0 25 50 M.

■ ■ '

80 Km

56'

150c

148L

OGI

within the proposed leasing area and believe that onshore socio-economic
impacts may be as severe as those predicted for the northern Gulf.67

An extensive coring program in the western Gulf of Alaska is
currently underway by several oil companies to improve geological data
prior to the lease sale. Five oil companies have contracted Exploration
Services Company to drill up to ten 4,000 ft. holes in the proposed
leasing area.68 In addition, Atlantic Richfield Company plans to drill
a 7,500 ft. stratigraphic test well on the Kodiak shelf about 50 miles
east of the city of Kodiak.69

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts

No major OCS impact studies are presently available for the western
Gulf of Alaska. Several studies, however, are in progress and will be
completed in the near future. These include: (1) a draft and final
environmental impact statement by the BLM, (2) a socio economic impact
study under contract for several oil companies by Mathematical Sciences
Northwest, and (3) onshore planning and coastal impact-studies conducted
by Alaska's Department of Community and Regional Affairs.

Some work, already completed, by 0' Conner and Dobey predicts the
rate and amount of offshore and onshore OCS development for two different
production scenarios resulting from the proposed Kodiak lease sale.70
Their findings are grouped into two distinct categories, one for a low
production scenario (372 million barrels of oil and 2.3 billion cubic
feet of gas) and one for a high production scenario (2.5 billion barrels
of oil and 8 trillion cubic feet of gas). They estimate a high production
scenario would result in:

(1) An average of 60 exploratory wells drilled from 1977-1982.

(2) Seven fields discovered with initial commercial production
beginning in 1982 and peak production occurring in 1991 at a
rate of 560,000 barrels/day.

(3) Acquisition or construction of offices, housing, and docks
beginning in 1977.

(4) Construction of tanker, loading, oil storage, and camp facil-
ities beginning in 1979.

(5) Construction of production platforms beginning in 1980; San
Francisco Bay shipyards may be the site of construction.71

Another report, written by Bob Waldrop, examines in very general
terms, potential impacts arising from 0CS development in the western
Gulf of Alaska.72 Waldrop assumes that from 3.6-9.2 billion barrels of
oil will be recovered from the western Gulf. This estimate seems high
given USGS estimates for the entire State of Alaska. Nevertheless,
under this production assumption the report predicted that:

(1) From 7 to 10 exploratory rigs will be used directly
employing 1,050 to 1,500 people.

(2) The western Gulf will need 1.3 times the onshore facilities
required for the northern Gulf of Alaska.

(3) Petroleum facilities will require 2,000 to 3,200 acres of
land.

(U) Approximately 300 miles of pipeline will be constructed.
(5) Onshore staging areas will probably be located at existing
ports and airstrips.

(6) Petroleum will directly employ about 4,200 workers during the
height of the development phase. This will drop to 2,500
workers during the production phase.

(7) Total oil spilled in the Kodiak area may reach 250,000 to
640,000 barrels with 3.6 billion barrels recovered, or up to

10.8 to 24.6 million barrels with 9.2 billion barrels recovered.73
Potential onshore sites supporting offshore development in the
western Gulf have been identified by Alaska's Department of Community
and Regional Affairs (Table 4 and Fig. 4). Fourteen sites in three
areas, Resurrection Bay, Kenai Peninsula, and Kodiak Island are the
prime candidates for onshore facilities in the area.71* One of these
sites, Cape Chiniak, has received considerable attention as a likely
staging area (particularly for exploratory activities). Located 40
miles from the city of Kodiak, Chiniak is owned by the Koniag native
corporation.75 Unlike most native corporations in the northern Gulf,
Koniag favors prompt leasing of 0CS lands.76 Further, Koniag is hoping
to work out a deal with the oil industry, trading them rights to use
Chiniak and other sites for a share of royalties of all oil handled by
any Kodiak Island port or refinery.77

5.2.5 Beaufort Sea

Description of the Region78

The Beaufort Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean, has a very narrow
continental shelf which extends 30 to 60 miles off the northern coast of
Alaska. The onshore region is characterized by flat lowlands, numerous

marshes, and thaw lakes. Barrier islands are the distinctive feature of
this region. Estuarine waters exist between the islands and the coast.

Ocean currents in the Beaufort Sea flow westward between Mackenzie
Bay and Point Barrow. Along this section of coast, the slow westerly
drift formed by the clockwise Beaufort Gyral flows directly against the
continental land mass. Local winds, however, may reverse the westward
drift and send the current easterly in nearshore reaches. Storms are
frequent, particularly during summer, and occasionally generate storm
surges that strongly impact the Arctic coast.

Ice cover in the Beaufort Sea is essentially complete in winter
except for tLeads. Large chunks of floating sea ice, occasional pieces
of broken ice islands, and deep keels of pressure ridges often become
grounded in the shelf sediments which form deep gouges in the sea
floor. Freezeup and breakup dates are variable and unpredictable. At
Point Barrow, freezeup may occur anytime between early September and
late November. Breakup has occurred as early as mid- June and as late as
late August. Air temperature may be as high as 20C in the summer and
as low as minus 55C during winter.

Biologically, the shallow coastal environment along and within the
barrier island chain is more productive than the open sea. About 71
species of fish live in the estuaries and marine areas of the Beaufort
Sea. Arctic cisco, least cisco, broad and humpbacked whitefish, char,
fourhorned sculpins and arctic flounders are abundant in inshore areas.
A small commercial fishery for cisco and whitefish occurs in the Colville
River delta.

The nearshore waters are critical to most waterfowl in the Arctic.
This habitat is the first marine water open in spring and is used by
waterfowl for feeding and resting throughout the short summer. The
protected lagoons behind the barrier islands are particularly important
since two-thirds of the bird populations of the Canadian Arctic islands
pass this way. Almost -all of the 163 species of birds in the area are
present only from May to September.

Approximately 22 terrestrial and 17 marine mammal species occur in
the region, including most conspicuously, polar bears, barren ground
carribou, ringed, bearded and harbor seals and six species of whales.
Significant numbers of mammals are present year-round.

The population centers of Alaska's Arctic slope are largely along
the coast at sites historically occupied for subsistence livelihood.
Villages are predominantly Eskimo. Barrow is the seat of the North
Slope Borough and a distribution center for the region. The exceptions
are the new petroleum development camp settlements at Prudhoe Bay and
Deadhorse. Steady employment has increased in the Arctic slope since
World War II, and some natives are able to work in state and federal
agencies and in pipeline related activities to supplement their traditional
lifestyle.

Petroleum Resources

Geologists believe the chances of finding large amounts of petroleum
under the Beaufort Sea are very good. Best prospects are thought to be
located on the 20,000 square miles of territory adjacent to the coast

\ 7 9

and large onshore accumulations of oil (e.g., Prudhoe Bay).

The USGS has not released figures concerning undiscovered recover-
able petroleum resources on Beaufort's OCS. However, Alaska has estimated
that state-held offshore resources in the Beaufort Sea area will yield
2.7 billion barrels of oil and 13.5 billion cubic feet of gas.80 If
these figures are accurate, recoverable oil and gas resources from
Beaufort's OCS are probably even larger.

Status of OCS Operations

BLM has scheduled two Beaufort Sea lease sales, a joint Federal-
state sale in February 1978 and a second federal sale in February 1979.
To date the Bureau has not indicated what areas it will call for tract
nominations from industry.

Early in 197 5, Alaska had planned to hold a state lease sale in the
Beaufort Sea. State officials had proposed the sale to raise money to
cover projected budget deficits during the fiscal years of 1976 and
1977. But the sale was suddenly and indefinitely delayed by Governor
Hammond in July 1975 when the state's fiscal position brightened with
passage in the legislature of a reserve's tax on oil and gas.

Alaska's interest in leasing state lands in the Beaufort Sea resulted
in an increase in geophysical activity and exploratory drilling in the
region. A half dozen surveys were run during the summer of 1975 making
the nearshore regions of the Beaufort Sea one of the more thoroughly
explored frontier regions off Alaska. Development wells north of Prudhoe
Bay and an exploratory well on Flaxman Island have further improved
geological information.82

Several jurisdictional problems exist in the Beaufort Sea that may
hinder leasing. One is the international boundary between the U.S. and
Canada in the eastern Beaufort Sea which will involve negotiations
between the two countries to clarify ownership.8 The second involves a
dispute between Alaska and the Federal government over the ownership of
a narrow strip of offshore lands, between the barrier islands and the
coast. 8t* This dispute will probably be taken to court soon, once either
side actually holds a lease sale.

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts

Information concerning potential OCS impacts from the development
of Beaufort Sea petroleum resources is sparse. Much of what is available
was written in response to the state's leasing proposal.

Ice is the most serious hazard facing petroleum operations in the
Beaufort Sea. Its frequent, forceful, and unpredictable movement
demands drilling technology only partially available. Present technology

Q C

can only exploit petroleum resources in shallow waters of up to 60 feet.
Technology capable of exploring and developing oil and gas resources in
60-200 feet of water has been estimated to be about 5-10 years away.86

Four shallow water drilling methods are among those currently
available: (1) slant drilling from onshore sites (good for up to 1 mile
offshore), (2) drilling from artifical gravel islands, (3) drilling from
artificial ice islands, and (4) drilling from sunken flat barges. In
the latter three cases standard land rigs are used on artificial pads.
Of these drilling technologies, gravel islands are the most likely to be
used on Beaufort's OCS.87

Permafrost is another hazard facing industry in the Beaufort Sea.
Because of significant ice scouring caused by ice flows, pipelines will
have to be buried deep into subsea permafrost . Not much is known about
how this environment will react to development or what the impact of
pipeline burial will be.88

Besides ice hazards and subsea permafrost, two other features of
Beaufort's nearshore environment may constrain or pose risks to oil
development activities and facilities. These are: (1) a limited supply
of freshwater and (2) a scarcity of gravel. Environmental damage caused
by extracting gravel and/or hauling it long distances could be substantial.

The risk of a well blowout is a particularly serious problem in the
Beaufort Sea. If one occurred it could continue uncontrolled for more
than a year before a relief well could be drilled to bring it under
control due to the severe weather conditions of the Beaufort Sea.
Under these circumstances, considerable amounts of oil would be spilled
and eventually pollute the leads or strips of open water that form
within the offshore ice at spring breakup. Oil pollution in these leads
would probably trap thousands of mammals- -whales, seals, polar bears,
and Arctic foxes, and countless waterfowl.91 Oil-spill countermeasures
available in 1976 would not greatly decrease the impact of such a spill
on wildlife92 and biodegradation of the oil would be slow in the Arctic
environment. A study prepared by the Canadian Department of Environment
estimated the probability of a well blowout in Arctic waters at from 1
in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000. 93

Three other kinds of impacts to Beaufort's environment would
accompany oil development activities. Losses would occur from (1) chronic

and cumulative pollution from oil spills and sewage, (2) changes in
currents, inshore ice action, salinity and the sedimentation of nearshore
areas from development (particularly gravel islands and causeways), and

• • • 9 4

(3) disturbances of wildlife from acute or persistent human activity.

The most likely sources of risk to bird populations include disturb-
ance or elimination of island-nesting terns, gulls, and eiders, and
direct mortality to waterfowl and seabirds from oil spills. Mammals
most likely to be affected are polar bears, which den in the area,
and ringed seals. Fish populations risk mortality from seismic detonations
and oil spills, and may suffer habitat losses from gravel removal and
siltation. Plankton and invertebrates, basic food sources in the marine
ecosystem, could suffer temporary or long-term losses from large oil
spills, cumulative buildup of oil and other toxic compounds in muds or

• • 9 5

waters, and changes in nearshore currents and salinity.

OCS development in the Beaufort Sea would continue the present
trend of substituting a modern cash economy for the more traditional
lifestyle of many north slope residents. Major community infrastructure
and economic impacts may arise from the creation of a permanent, residential
community in the Prudhoe Bay area.

Alaska has argued that several factors favor leasing in the Beaufort
Sea over leasing in the Gulf of Alaska or Cook Inlet. Governor Hammond
listed these factors as:

(1) An existing transportation system--the trans-Alaska pipeline--
which could speedily move oil and gas resources to market.

(2) The avoidance of massive community and regional impacts both
economic and social.

(3) Existing onshore support facilities at Prudhoe Bay.

(4) Smaller environmental risks both offshore and onshore.

(5) The absence of major commercial fisheries in the Beaufort
Sea.97

These arguments, of course, reflect Alaska's desire to justify offshore
leasing on state-owned lands in the Beaufort Sea.

5.2.6 Chukchi Sea (Hope Basin)

Description of the Region98

The Chukchi Sea is a shallow body of water lying between the Arctic
Ocean and Bering Strait averaging about 145 to 180 ft. in depth. The
onshore region is low and marshy with numerous lakes and small streams
and is underlain by permafrost.

Ocean currents in the Bering Strait flow predominately northward
from the Bering Sea into the Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean. Sea ice
coverage in the Chukchi varies greatly from year to year and is not a
solid mass; polynyas and leads are present in both the polar and winter
pack, and in summer open water areas become extensive along the entire
coast, especially in the southern part of the region. The presence or
absence of ice affects fish, bird, and mammal movement and behavior in
this area.

Fishery resources of the area are primarily benthic or demersal.
Arctic cod, Bering flounder, and sculpins are the predominant species.
Salmon runs in the Chukchi support a commercial fishery centered in the
Kotzebue area with major escapements to the Kobuk and Noatak river
systems.

Coastal lagoons of the Chukchi Sea are important feeding and
resting areas for migrating birds. Marshes on the Seward Peninsula and
adjacent to Kotzebue Sound are nesting grounds for numerous water birds
and shorebirds.

The Chukchi Sea provides habitat for marine mammals that tend to
follow the edge of the pack ice in its seasonal advance and retreat.
Polar bears, walrus, and seals, mainly bearded, ringed, and harbor
seals, are abundant along the edge of the ice pack and the coast.

Most residents of the Chukchi Sea are Eskimos, although Kotzebue
and Barrow, the largest population centers, have substantial non-native
populations. Nearly all residents of the Chukchi Sea coast depend
heavily on marine resources, particularly walrus, seal, and whale,
although considerable commerce and industry occur at both Kotzebue and
Barrow. Subsistence fisheries are most important in the area south of
Cape Lisburne. Residents of the small villages earn some cash income
from jobs elsewhere in Alaska, at Air Force stations along the coast,
and from some commercial activities at Kotzebue.

Petroleum Resources

USGS estimates of recoverable oil and gas resources for the
Chukchi Sea have not been released.

Status of PCS Operations

The western boundary of the Chukchi Sea has not yet been defined,
The United States and Russia will have to negotiate an acceptible
international boundary.

The Bureau of Land Management plans to lease offshore acreage in
Kotzebue Sound in December of 1979, making the Chukchi Sea the fifth
frontier area leased off Alaska.

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts

Waldrop's 1975 study of OCS impacts in the Chukchi Sea is the only
information currently available." His findings are:

1. There will be 2.1 to 5.4 billion barrels of oil recovered from
the Chukchi Sea.

2. Seven to ten exploratory rigs may be expected with direct
employment totalling 1,050 to 1,500.

3. Requirements for onshore facilities will be about one-third
less than for the northern Gulf of Alaska leasing area.

4. Two hundred miles of pipeline will be constructed.

5. Nome and Kotzebue will be the major transportation centers.

6. Direct employment will peak during the development phase at
2,400 workers. This will drop to 1,440 workers during the
production phase.

7. A new trans-Alaska pipeline may have to be built to transport
the oil to market.

8. Total oil spills will range from 141,000 to 16,200,000 barrels
over the life of the field.

9. Noise, physical disturbance, and other activities associated
with OCS development may have negative impacts on traditional
native subsistence culture in the area.

10. Birdlife most likely to be impacted by OCS development are
the: American widgeon, pintail, scaup, oldsquaw, scoters,
whistling swan, cackling Canada goose, black brant, white-
fronted goose, emperor goose, yellow-billed loon, sandhill
crane, and the gyrfalcon. Many bird species have adapted
to be strictly dependent on estuarine habitat; no alterna-
tive habitat will suffice. 00

5.2.7 Bering Sea (St. George Basin)

Description of the Region1 ° 1

The Bering Sea is a large, relatively confined area of 550,000
square miles. The continental shelf, accounting for 44 percent of the
total Bering Sea area, is one of the largest in the world and extends
more than 375 miles offshore in the northeast sector. It is a flat
gently sloping plain with an average depth of less than 325 feet.
The St. George region of the Bering Sea is situated within a
portion of the northeastern Pacific Ocean dominated by subarctic
Pacific waters. The major ocean circulation pattern of the Bering
Sea is cyclonic, flowing eastward along the north side of the Aleutians,
northward in the eastern portions of the Bering Sea and southward along
the Siberian coast. Locally, the surface currents are influenced by
prevailing winds and, therefore, vary greatly depending upon the weather.

Generally, the maximum southern limit of sea ice in the Bering Sea
is from Bristol Bay to the vicinity of St. George Island in the Pribilofs,
North of this boundary the Bering Sea has a 50 percent ice cover for
5 months of the year. Ice formation begins in this area in early

winter and is at its maximum in February and March. Sea conditions are
rough in the ice-free season when waves are generated by severe local
storms.

Fisheries in the Bering Sea are very productive. Large stocks of
Pacific herring, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean perch, sable-
fish, and several species of flatfish support lucrative commercial
fisheries. All five species of Pacific salmon migrate through this area.
Shrimp abound in isolated areas near the Pribilof Islands, and Japanese
fishing vessels trap several species of edible marine snails in the area.

Offshore , marine mammals are not as abundant as in the coastal
areas. The Pribilof Islands, though, have large populations of fur
seals, sea otters and sea lions.

Major seabird colonies in the Pribilof Islands are inhabited by
crested auklets, common and thick-billed murres, red-legged and black-
legged kittiwakes, red-faced and pelagic commorants, and tufted and
horned puffins. In addition, offshore waters are populated by slender-
billed shearwaters, northern fulmars and forked-tailed petrels.

Communities bordering the St. George basin are small, predominantly
Aleut coastal villages. They include St. George and St. Paul on the
Pribilof Islands, and the villages of Nikolski, Unalaska, Akuton, False
Pass, and Nelson Lagoon on the Alaskan Peninsula. Sealing, fishing and
berry-picking form the traditional subsistence base of the Pribilof
Islands. Hunting and trapping are also important on the Peninsula. The
traditional subsistence economy has been modified over the last 100
years and a cash economy now dominates. This is particularly true in
the Pribilofs where natives harvest and process seals for subsistence as

well as for the world market. Employment throughout the region is
seasonal in character, there are few permanent jobs, little regular
transportation between villages, and there are no deepwater ports.

Petroleum Resources

Little is currently known about the petroleum geology of this
region, but some experts in industry believe that the Bering Sea is an
area of great promise.10' USGS estimates regarding petroleum
resources in this area are not presently available.

Status of PCS Operations

St. George Basin in the Bering Sea is scheduled by the Department
of the Interior to be leased in May of 1980. BLM has tentatively chosen
299 tracts totalling some 1.6 million acres for leasing. The selected
tracts are between 35 and 125 miles offshore in sub-Arctic waters 345-
460 ft. deep. The tracts generally lie on a northwest-southeast line
between the Pribilof Islands and the eastern end of the Aleutian Island
chain (Fig. 8). 103

The present list of tracts to be leased is a sharp cutback from the
original 3,600 tracts and 20.6 million acres submitted to Industry for
nominations by BLM and the 16.5 million acres nominated for inclusion in
the sale by Industry.10"* BLM sharply limited the acreage because of the
major commercial fisheries that exist in the area. The Bureau noted
also that the area has many migratory routes and breeding grounds for
fishes, mammals, and birds and is regarded by scientists as among the most

productive waters in the world.105

Figure 8. Bering Sea proposed lease area (Source: Oil and Gas Journal,
22 March 1976).

PRIBILOF
ISLANDS

*3^

OGJ

Last July, Atlantic Richfield Company, started a 15,000 ft.
strategraphic test well for a 20-company group on BLM tract 459. This
test will give the oil industry valuable subsurface geological data in
advance of the proposed lease sale. A semisubmersible rig, the Ocean
Ranger, is drilling the $16.5 million hole in 440 feet of water midway
between the Pribilof Islands and Dutch Harbor. The test, located off-
structure to avoid encountering oil and gas, is the first to be drilled
in the Bering Sea. Three 200 ft. supply boats are operating out of
Captain's Bay on Unalaska Island to service the rig. Personnel and
light supplies are being transported by helicopter from Dutch Harbor,
117 miles to the southeast.106

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts

Little information exists concerning potential impacts from developing
the St. George Basin in the Bering Sea. All that exists are Waldrop's 1975
general impact predictions.107 These are:

(1) There will be 2.0 to 5.2 billion barrels of oil recovered from
St. George Basin.

(2) From three to five exploratory rigs will be used directly
employing 500 to 7 50 people.

(3) One to three support/supply installations and one LNG plant
will be constructed onshore during the development phase.

(4) 750 to 1,200 acres of land will be needed to locate energy-
related facilities.

(5) Direct employment will peak during the development phase at
2,300 workers. This will drop to 1,400 workers during the
production phase of operation.

(6) Onshore staging areas will probably be located near existing
airstrips and docks.

(7) Total oil spills will range from 140,000 to 15,600,000 barrels
over the life of the field.108

5.2.8 Bering Sea (Norton Basin)

Description of the Region1 °9

The northern Bering Sea is bounded on the south by Nunivak and St.
Matthew Islands, on the west by Siberia's Gulf of Anadyr, and on the
north and east by Bering Strait and Norton Sound respectively. Shorelines
along Norton Sound and the Seward Peninsula are generally abrupt with
steep bluffs interspersed with small stretches of low- lying sandy or
silty beaches. The entire region is underlain by discontinuous permafrost,
which becomes continuous north of the mountainous backbone of the Seward
Peninsula.

The northern Bering Sea is entirely continental shelf and is
generally shallow and of low relief. Norton Sound is a subarctic
embayment averaging 65 feet deep. Surface currents reflect the general
northward drift of water toward Bering Strait. Sea ice is a common
condition covering the entire area from late autumn through early spring.

The presence or absence of ice profoundly affects fish, bird and
marine mammal movement and behavior in this area. Many of these species
congregate near the edge of the pack ice and move in response to ice
motion. Plankton, invertebrates, and fishes that thrive at the ice edge
in great abundance provide food for the concentrations of marine birds
and mammals.

Predominant demersal fish in Norton Sound are members of the flat
fish family. All five species of Pacific salmon inhabit this area.
Large pink salmon runs occur in the Staktoolik, Uralokleet , Ungalik,
Inglutalik, and Niukluk Rivers.

Coastal marshlands along the south coast of the Seward Peninsula,
especially near Solomon, Golovin, Koyuk, and Shaktoolik, are important
stopovers for migrating swans, snow geese, Canada geese, sandhill cranes,
and shorebirds. In offshore areas, murres, guillemots, puffins, auklets,
jaegers, fulmars, and others feed in and beneath the ice edge.

Over 20 coastal villages are inhabited by Eskimos where traditional
subsistence ways predominate. These people depend on the marine resources
of the Bering Sea for most of their livelihood. Sealing, walrus hunting
and fishing are the subsistence base of the area. Nome (pop. 2,500) on
Norton Sound is the major town and has a large non-native population,
but few permanent jobs exist in Nome or in the smaller villages.
Fisheries-related seasonal employment is high, but few families earn
enough in the short period to survive on a cash economy basis.

Petroleum Resources

Little seismic work has been done for Norton Basin in the northern
Bering Sea. Nevertheless, oil companies are optimistic about the petroleum
potential of the region based upon available geophysical data.

At the present time it is sheer speculation as to how much oil is
present on Norton Basin. USGS estimates of recoverable petroleum
resources probably won't be available for a while.

Status of PCS Operations

BLM had originally scheduled the Norton Basin for leasing in August
of 1978 but Interior's October 1976 proposed leasing schedule indefinitely
postponed any sales in this area.

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts

Information concerning OCS impacts resulting from development of
Norton Basin in the Bering Sea is limited to Waldrop's 1975 general
impact predictions. 00 These are:

1. Recoverable oil should range from 4.6 to 12.0 billion barrels
for the Norton Basin.

2. Ten to fifteen exploratory rigs may be expected with direct
employment totalling 1,500 to 2,250.

3. Roughly 1.5 times the onshore facilities will be needed for
Norton Basin as is required for the northern Gulf of Alaska.
Frozen seas from October to May may require substantially more
onshore storage, a long pipeline to an ice- free ocean, or
cnother trans-Alaska pipeline.

4. About 450 miles of pipeline may be needed to connect wells and
storage loading facilities for Norton Sound production.

5. Direct employment will peak during the development phase at
5,400 workers. This will drop to 3,200 workers during the
production phase. This does not include secondary employment.

6. If tankers are used, tanker traffic may reach two to three per
day. Service vessels will number from 30 to 90 for Norton Basin.

7. Total oil spills will range from 574,000 to 64,200,000 barrels
over the life of the field.

8. Sea mammals, fish, and migratory birds, all of which constitute
a significant subsistence resource, will be vulnerable to
depletion via oil contamination, excessive human activity, or
onshore facilities.111

5.2.9 Southern Aleutian Shelf

Information regarding the southern Aleutian Shelf is quite scarce
(except for individual fishery and oceanography studies). A lease sale
originally scheduled for October 1978 has now been indefinitely postponed
by the BLM.

The southern Aleutian shelf is characterized by intense storms,
high precipitation, moderate temperatures and a fjord coastline. The
Aleutian Islands are sparsely populated by Aleuts and Eskimos who rely
on subsistence hunting and fishing. Cold Bay is the major town and
transportation hub for the Aleutian chain.

5.2.10 Bristol Bay

Description of the Region1 l 2

Bristol Bay is a large, comparatively shallow bay surrounded by a
combination of lowlands and various mountain systems. The coastline is
characterized by sandy beaches but includes a few cliffs, hills and
ridges along the shore between Cape Newenham and Kulukak Bay.

Ice is a problem in this area, particularly close to shore. Ice
formation begins in mid-October and often persists into late spring.

The frequency of storms and gales is comparable to that in the Gulf
of Alaska. However, due to a limited fetch, Bristol Bay waves do not
generally attain the height of those in the Gulf of Alaska.

Bristol Bay has the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery. The
other four species of Pacific salmon are also abundant and tanner crab
and king crab are commercially important.

The coastal lagoons support one of the densest populations of
waterbirds in the world. Nesting seabirds such as kittiwakes, guillemots,
murres, gulls, auklets, and puffins comprise the largest seabird rookeries.

Marine mammals of the Bristol Bay coast are diverse and numerous .
The Steller sea lion occurs all along the rocky coast of outer Bristol
Bay, while the harbor seal prefers the gentler slopes and sandy beaches.
The formerly endangered sea otter is common along southern Bristol Bay,
especially close to shore near kelp beds.

Some twenty villages and small towns are situated along the shores
of Bristol Bay. Half of the region's population lives in the Bristol
Bay Borough (Naknek, King Salmon, and South Nakned) and in Dillingham.
The population is two-thirds native of which some 60 percent is Eskimo.
The majority of the non-native population is located around the Air
Force Base at King Salmon. Outside the main population centers, which
are important hubs of transportation and communication, the economy is
based on fishing, hunting, and trapping.

Petroleum Resources

In Interior's 1974 industry-wide survey of frontier leasing areas,
Bristol Bay ranked fourth in potential production behind the Gulf of
Alaska, central Gulf of Mexico and Beaufort Sea.113 The oil industry,
however, had little more than coarse grid seismic information upon which

to base this optimistic forecast. To date USGS estimates have not

been released regarding undiscovered recoverable petroleum resources for

Bristol Bay.

Status of PCS Operations

Industry has been conducting exploratory activities in Bristol Bay
to improve its geophysical data. During the summer of 1975, 33 companies
headed by Skelly Oil Co. conducted a "group shoot" of the region to
provide detailed information of previously mapped areas and regional
mapping where little or no previous seismic work had been done.114 In
addition ARCO has plans to drill a stratigraphic test well in Bristol
Bay.115

BLM had originally scheduled a lease sale for Bristol Bay in
December of 1977 but has since indefinitely postponed this sale.

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts

Information regarding OCS impacts from a Bristol Bay sale is
limited to Waldrop's general impact predictions.116 These are:

1. There will be 4.0 to 10.2 billion barrels of oil recovered
from Bristol Bay.

2. Seven to ten exploratory rigs will be used directly employing
500 to 700 people.

3. Three to five support/supply installations and one LNG plant
will be constructed onshore during the development phase.

4. 1,500 to 2,400 acres of land will be needed to site energy-
related facilities.

5. Four hundred and fifty miles of pipeline will be constructed.

6. Direct employment will peak during the development phase at
4 600 workers. This will drop to 1,400 workers during the
production phase of operations.

7. Onshore staging areas will probably be located near existing
airstrips and docks .

8. The shallow waters of Bristol Bay may force storage and
loading operations to be done entirely offshore. The alterna-
tives to this is massive dredging.

9. Total oil spills will range from 280,000 to 30,000,000 barrels
over the life of the field.117

5.2.11 Footnotes

^.S. Geological Survey. No date. Geological Estimates of
Undiscovered Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources in the United States.
USGS Circular 725. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. pp. 26-32.

There is disagreement between USGS and State of Alaska estimates
concerning the magnitude of oil underlying the Alaskan OCS. State
experts estimate that Alaskan OCS oil reserves total about 50 billion
barrels of recoverable oil (from untitled manuscript, John Williams,
pp. 2).

2Coastal Zone Management. November 3, 1976. Vol. 7, No. 44.
Nautilas Press Inc., Washington, D.C. pp. 2.

3Edmondson, C. A. October 1975. Offshore Oil: Activity
Stepping Up Though Conflicts Remain. Alaska Industry, Anchorage, AK.
pp. 48-49.

^No author. September 1975. The State in the Far North Has
Produced Oil Since 1895. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 96-97.

One of these lease sales, the 1973 Kachemak Bay sale (near
the mouth of Cook Inlet) sparked a bitter conflict between fish-
ing and oil interests that may portend similar difficulties with
future OCS development, Fishing and conservation groups fought
to void a $25 million lease sale in Kachemak Bay, an area widely
acknowledged to be one of the most biologically productive bodies
of water in the world. Opponents argued that the state, under
the Egan administration, ignored scientific evidence about the
bay's ecological importance while also preventing citizen input
prior to the lease sale. This conflict reached a fever pitch
in the summer of 1976 after the destruction of some local fish-
ing gear by oil exploration activities and after a small but
dramatic 30,000-gallon spill from a drilling rig mired in the
Bay. The spill created a slick more than 2 miles long which
proved to be very difficult to clean up. Faced with a dangerous
political and environmental situation, the Alaska state legis-
lature enacted a law authorizing the governor to buy back the
Kachemak Bay acreage either through negotiation with oil officials
or by condemnation after a period of one year.

5U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
July 1976. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Lower Cook
Inlet . Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. pp. 23-28.

60p. cit. The State in the Far North Has Produced Oil
Since 1895. pp. 97.

U.S. House of Representatives Hearings. August 5-7, 1975.
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1975. Part 2,
H.R.6218. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

8Anchorage Times. February 4, 1975. Drilling Called
Invasion: Shelf Proposals Stirs Fuel vs. Food Debate. Anchorage
Times, Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 1-2.

9A number of sources are useful for identifying general OCS
impacts in Alaska. These are: Final Environmental Statement,
Proposed Increase in Oil and Gas Leasing on the Outer Continental
Shelf, Dept. of Interior, Vol. I-II. Volume III is particularly
useful as it contains the coastal states and federal agency
responses to BLM's draft statement (subsequently referred to as
Programmatic EIS) .

Council on Environmental Quality. April 1974. OCS Oil and
Gas — An Environmental Assessment, Volume 1. Council on Environ-
mental Quality, Washington, D.C.

Op. cit. Williams. pp. 18-27.

10Mallott, B. October 31, 1975. Report on the Probable
Impacts on Native People Both Beneficial and Adverse Resulting
from Offshore (OCS) Federal Oil and Gas Leases Using Yakutat
as a Case Study. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Juneau, Alaska.

^Southeast Alaska Empire. August 19, 1975. Coastal Alaska,
Scotland Share Similar Oil Impact. Southeast Alaska Empire. pp. 1.

12Baldwin, P. L. and M. F. Baldwin. 1975. Onshore Planning
and Offshore Oil — Lessons from Scotland. The Conservation Founda-
tion, Washington, D.C.

1 information for this subsection is taken from two sources:
Physical, Biological and Human Environments of the Alaskan Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Areas. Arctic Environmental Information
and Data Center, March 1976 (Subsequently referred to as the AEIDC
Report) and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Northern Gulf of
Alaska. Bureau of Land Management, January 1976, Vol. I (Sub-
sequently referred to as Northern Gulf Final EIS) .

ll+Carmichael, J. September 1975. Four Offshore Areas Dominate
Geology for State of Alaska. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 102.

15Thake, S. September 1975. Drilling Rigs Will Have a Tough
Go Off Alaska Due to Weather. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 102.

16No author. April 1976. Gulf of Alaska Again Eyed by Wild-
catters. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 4. pp. 52.

17Wilson, H. M. December 2, 1974. Pending Burst of Leasing
Spells Big Alaskan Search. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 72, No. 48.
pp. 26.

74
180p. cit. Northern Gulf Final EIS. pp. 6-7.
19Ibid. pp. 25.
20Ibid.

- Hammond, J. Governor. December 4, 1975. Letter to Thomas
S. Kleppe. Office of the Governor, Juneau. pp. 2.

-2Anchorage Times. January 19, 1976. Agencies Resist Leasing
in Gulf. Anchorage Times, Anchorage, Alaska.

!3Seattle Times. February 19, 1976. Alaska Oil-Lease Sale
Gets Approval. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington. pp. 1.

24Rintoul, B. May 1976. The Gulf of Alaska Lures Explorers
with Prime Structures. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 246.

!5Wilson, H. M. April 19, 1976. Shell, ARCO Top Bidders at
Gulf of Alaska Sale. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 16. pp. 21.

The Bureau of Land Management rejected the high bonus offers on
five of the 81 tracts which industry sought to buy in the Gulf
because the bids were far below the evaluations of government geo-
logists (Blocks 410, 409, 151, 116, 318). BLM Rejects Five Bonus
Bids in Gulf of Alaska Lease Sale. Oil and Gas Journal. May 3,
1976. pp. 128.

26Ibid. pp. 21.

!7No author. June 28, 1976. Alaska Gulf Leases Due First
Test This Fall. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 24. pp. 62.

28Wilson, H. M. March 15, 1976. Industry Near Long-Sought
Crack at Gulf of Alaska. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 11.
pp. 55.

29Todd, F. March 1976. Semi-submersible Drilling Rigs to
Brave Gulf. Alaska Industry. Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 37, 40,
42, 53-54.

The Sedco 706 is designed to withstand 102 foot waves at 17
second intervals and 114 knot winds.

30Op. cit. Industry Near Long-Sought Crack at Gulf of Alaska,
pp. 51-58.

310p. cit. Alaska Gulf Leases Due First Test This Fall,
pp. 62.

32Material for this subsection is taken from the following
sources: An Economic and Social Impact Study of Oil Related
Activities in the Gulf of Alaska, Mathematical Science Northwest,
May 5, 1975; Report on Potential Impacts to National Parks, Refuges
and Forests by PCS Oil and Gas Development in Alaska, Bob Waldrop,
June 4, 1975; Report on the Probable Impacts on Native People Both
Beneficial and Adverse Resulting from Offshore (PCS) Federal Oil
and Gas Leases, Using Yakutat as a Case Study. Byron L. Mallott,
October 31, 1975; op. cit., Northern Gulf Final EIS, Vols. I-II;
op. cit., CEQ Report, Vols. I and IV.

330p. cit. Northern Gulf Final EIS. Volume I. pp. 12.

340p. cit. Mathematical Sciences Report, pp. II-3.

350p. cit. CEQ Report. Volume IV. pp. 7-6.

360p. cit. Northern Gulf Final EIS. Volume I. pp. 15-18.

37Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.
June 10, 1976. Methodology for Facility Siting. State of Alaska
Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau, Alaska.

38Ibid.

390p. cit. Waldrop. pp. 5-20.

"State of Alaska. January 1976. Comments on the Proposed
Oil and Gas Leasing in the Northern Gulf of Alaska. Northern Gulf
Final EIS. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, D.C. pp. 125-353.

"Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. September 16, 1975. State
Computes PCS Costs at Near $300 per Alaskan. Fairbanks Daily
News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska. pp. 1.

For details on how the study was done see Economic Assess-
ment of the Northern Gulf of Alaska Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Sale, No. 39. State of Alaska, Department of
Revenue. 1975.

"op. cit. Northern Gulf EIS. Volume 2. pp. 515.

"ibid. pp. 515-516, 522, 528.

"ibid, pp. 517-520.

"Seattle Times. June 20, 1976. History Puts Shock of Oil
Boom into Focus. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington. pp. D-3.

46Southeast Alaska Empire. August 21, 1975. Juneau: Offshore
Oil Support Site? Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. pp. 1.

Paul, T. March 1976. Offshore Oil: The State-Federal Tug of
War. Alaska Industry, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 36.

l+7Two sources were used for this subsection, Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Lower Cook Inlet. Bureau of Land Management, July
1976 (subsequently referred to as Lower Cook Inlet Draft EIS) , and
op. cit., AEIDC Report.

48Rintosil, B. September 1975. Gulf of Alaska May Offer Best
Prospects for Oil and Gas. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 90.

49Magoon, L. B., et. al. June 7, 1976. USGS Rates Oil Potential
of S. Cook Inlet. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 23. pp. 172.

50No author. March 8, 1976. Interior Picks 152 Tracts for Fall
Lower Cook Inlet Lease Sale. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 10.
pp. 29.

Op. cit. Lower Cook Inlet Draft EIS. pp. 4-5.

520p. cit. BLM Seeks Input on Tracts that May be Sold in Lower
Cook Inlet. pp. 68.

53No author. May 1976. Offshore Drilling Sought as Prelude
to PCS Sale. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 271.

540p. cit. Interior Picks 152 Tracts for Fall Lower Cook Lease
Sale. pp. 29.

550p. cit. Offshore Drilling Sought as Prelude to PCS Sale,
pp. 271.

56No author. May 1976. Cook Inlet Wins Clean Bill in Govern-
ment Oil Spill Study. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 282.

57Information for this subsection was derived from three sources,
op. cit., Lower Cook Inlet Draft EIS, op. cit., Waldrop, and State of
Alaska Comments Regarding BLM's Lower Cook Inlet Draft EIS. State of
Alaska, September 1976. (Subsequently referred to as Alaska's Comments
on the Cook Inlet EIS.)

580p. cit. Alaska's Comments on the Cook Inlet EIS.

590p. cit. Lower Cook Inlet Draft EIS. pp. 10-11.

60Ibid. pp. 13-16.

61 Information for this subsection was taken from two sources,
op. cit., AEIDC Report, and Response to Call for Nominations in the
Western Gulf of Alaska. State of Alaska, March 9, 1976, Appendix B
(Subsequently referred to as Alaska's Response to Western Gulf
Nominations.) .

620'Connor, F. R. and P. L. Dobey. No date. An Analysis of
Future Petroleum Development on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf,
Kodiak Area. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources,
pp. 2-4 (Subsequently referred to as the O'Connor and Dobey Report.)

63No author. May 10, 1976. Interior Picks 564 Tracts for
Western Gulf of Alaska Sale. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 19.
pp. 40.

64 lb id.

650p. cit. Alaska's Response to Western Gulf Nominations,
pp. 2.

660p. cit. Interior Picks 564 Tracts for Western Gulf of
Alaska Sale, pp. 40.

6 Op. cit. Alaska's Response to Western Gulf Nominations,
pp. 1-3

68No author. June 7, 1976. Coring of Kodiak Shelf Tracts
Due in Early July. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 23. pp. 57.

69No author. June 5, 1976. Tracts Selected for Intense
Environmental Study. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 6. pp. 112.

70Op. cit. O'Connor and Dobey Report.

71Ibid. pp. 4-15.

720p. cit. Waldrop. pp. 2-30.

73Ibid. pp. 21.

71+0p. cit. Methodology for Facility Siting, pp. 5-6.

75Alaska Industry. March 1976. Kodiak: Surrounded by Troubled
Waters. Alaska Industry, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 34.

76Anchorage Times. March' 9, 1976. Koniag Officials Ask for
Hearing. Anchorage Times, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 1.

77Ibid.

78 Information for this subsection is taken from, op cit.,
AEIDC Report and Beaufort Sea Environmental Impact Statement.
State of Alaska 1975 (Subsequently referred to as Beaufort EIS)

79Rintoul, B. September 1975. Gulf of Alaska May Offer
Best Prospects for Oil and Gas. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 10.
pp. 86.

80Op cit. Beaufort EIS. pp. 488.

For more information refer to the following articles:

No author. January 20, 1975. Shift in Leasing Priority
to Beaufort Sea Sought. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 3.
pp. 56.

No author. February 17, 1975. Alaska Pushes for Early
Sale in Beaufort Sea. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 7.
pp. 36.

No author. June 2, 1975. Wildcatters Poised for Beaufort
Sea. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 23. pp. 98-102.

No author. August 18, 1975. Beaufort Sea State Lease Sale
Definite for 1976. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 33. pp. 38.

Southeast Alaska Empire. August 12, 1975. State Will Lease
in Beaufort Sea. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska, pp. 1.

820p. cit. Gulf of Alaska May Offer Best Prospects for Oil
and Gas, pp. 87.

830p. cit. Offshore Oil; Activity Stepping up Though Con-
flicts Remain. pp. 95.

81+Southeast Alaska Empire. June 26, 1975. Inlet Decision
Hurts Beaufort. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska, pp. 10.

850p. cit. Wildcatters Poised for Beaufort Sea. pp. 102.

86No author. March 1975. 5-10 Years Needed for R&D of
Beaufort Sea. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 3. pp. 54.

870p. cit. Wildcatters Poised for Beaufort Sea, pp. 102.

880p. cit. Beaufort EIS. pp. 19.

89Ibid. pp. 18-19.

90Carter, L. J. March 5, 1976. Oil Drilling in the Beaufort
Sea; Leaving it to Luck and Technology. Science. Vol. 191.
pp. 930.

91 Ibid.

92No author. February 2, 1976. Chance of Beaufrot Sea Oil
Spill Seen Remote. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 5. pp. 35.

930p. cit. Oil Drilling in the Beaufort Sea; Leaving it to
Luck and Technology, pp. 930.

3h0p. cit. Beaufort EIS. pp. 17.

95Ibid.

96Ibid. pp. 16.

970p. cit. State Will Lease in Beaufort Sea, pp. 1.

980p. cit. AEIDC Report.

990p. cit. Waldrop. pp. 45-50.

100Ibid. pp. 45-46, 48.

1 ° information for this subsection was taken from, op. cit.
AEIDC Report.

102No author. July 5, 1976. Beaufort, Bering Seas Seen Top
Virgin Areas. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 27. pp. 54.

103No author. March 22, 1976. Bering Sea Tracts Due Tough
Environmental Study. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 12. pp. 46.

10l+No author. May 1976. Sale of Bering Sea Tracts is Sharply
Reduced by Interior. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 307.

105Op. cit. Bering Sea Tracts Due Tough Environmental Study.

106No author. July 12, 1976. ARCO Spuds South Bering Sea
Strat Test. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 28. pp. 36.

107Op. cit. Waldrop. pp. 32-38.

108Ibid. pp. 33-34.

109Op. cit. AEIDC Report.

110Op. cit. Waldrop. pp. 39-43.

inIbid. pp. 39-41.

1 12Information for yhis subsection comes from the following
sources: op. cit., AEIDC Report, op. cit. Drilling Rigs Will
Have a Tough Go Off Alaska Due to Weather and op. cit. Four Off-
shore Areas Dominate Geology for State of Alaska.

1130p. cit. Gulf of Alaska May Offer Best Prospects for Oil
and Gas, pp. 89.

lll+No author. May 19, 1975. Group Shoot Begins in Bristol
Bay. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 19. pp. 59.

115No author. June 21, 1976. World's Largest Semi Heads
for Bristol Bay Strat Test. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 25.
pp. 95.

1160p. cit. Waldrop. pp. 32-37.

117Ibid. pp. 33-34,

5.3 — WASHINGTON STATE

Outer Continental Shelf development is, presently, not a major
issue in Washington State. There are two reasons for this. One, BLM's
initial lease sale off the coast of Washington is not scheduled until
late 1978. Being 2 years away, most state residents and government
officials are preoccupied with more immediate issues and problems. And
two, the prospects of finding large amounts of oil and gas on Washington's
OCS are not favorable. Since the oil industry has judged the Washington-
Oregon area as having the least potential for petroleum development of
any domestic offshore region being considered by Interior's accelerated
leasing program, the prospects of large-scale impacts resulting from
leasing seem remote.

Alaskan OCS development may have a greater impact on Washington
State than OCS operations adjacent to its coast. The economies of both
states are tied closely together and development of large amounts of
Alaskan OCS petroleum will no doubt stimulate economic activity in
western Washington. In addition, once production begins large amounts
of offshore Alaska crude could be transshipped and/or processed in
Washington State which may result in environmental impacts such as oil
spills and air pollution in the state. However, even if large amounts
of petroleum are found on Alaska's OCS it will take several years of
exploratory drilling before large-scale development and construction
activities can begin and it will be close to a decade before large
amounts of OCS petroleum could be transshipped to Washington State.
Thus while Alaska OCS development may become an important issue in the
future in Washington State, it is not a matter of immediate concern.

5.3.1 Description of the Region1

Fish and wildlife resources are diverse and varied along the coastal
shoreline and continental shelf of Washington State. The region is
characterized by a relatively narrow continental shelf and large inland
bays and estuaries .

Washington State has 2,337 miles of coastline comprising 157 miles
along the Pacific and 2,180 miles along inland waterways and estuaries.
Further, it has the largest estuaries on the Pacific Coast. The most
important of Washington's estuaries are Willapa Bay (70,400 acres),
Grays Harbor (61,400 acres), and Puget Sound (1.6 million acres). These
estuaries are migration and spawning areas for commercially and recreation-
ally important fish and shell fish.

Salmon (coho, sockeye, chinook, pink and chum) are the most important
fishery resource in Washington State. Flounder, rockfish, ling cod, hake,
halibut, Pacific herring, and Pacific ocean perch are also commercially
important. In addition, razor clams are a major recreational resource (8.6
million harvested annually between 1967 and 1971). Dungeness crabs and
bay clams also contribute to the sport harvest. In 1972, 500,000 sport
fishermen landed 5 million pounds of shellfish valued at $3.8 million.

A number of marine mammals inhabit the State's coastal waters. The
California sea lion, Steller sea lion, fur seal and harbor seal all live
and breed along Washington's ocean coast. Destruction Island is a major
harbor seal pupping area. Further, much of the shallow shelf is used by
the endangered gray and Pacific right whales.

Washington State is on the Pacific flyway for waterfowl. Virtually
the entire coastal area, including harbors and offshore islands is used

by most, if not all, of the waterfowl and shorebird species found in the
flyway. Each fall about 10 million ducks and one million geese use the
flyway coming from their summer breeding grounds in Alaska and Canada to
winter in the interior portions of California. The large protected
saltwater area of Puget Sound with extensive shoreline and shoal water
estuaries, mud flats, and marsh vegetation provides ideal feeding and
resting areas for these waterfowl.

The ocean coast of Washington State has large stretches of undeveloped
shoreline. However, the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area is intensely
developed with residential and commercial- industrial-transportation
facilities. The proximity of the Coast Range (Olympic Mountains) to the
ocean shore limits the area available for development. Most development
has occurred between the Coast Range and the more inland Cascade Range
on or near Puget Sound. Numerous recreation areas are located along the
ocean coast in areas of sandy beach. A part of Olympic National Park is
also located along the ocean coast.

5.3.2 History of PCS Operations

Between 1960 and 1964 several oil industry groups engaged in
exploratory operations on Washington State's outer continental shelf and
found, by geophysical surveys, numerous promising structures on the
shelf. In October 1964 the Federal government offered a total of 1,090,000
acres for oil and gas leasing in 11 separate areas off Washington and
Oregon.2 Six major oil companies spent more than 7.7 million dollars in
acquiring offshore leases adjacent to Washington.3

Six exploratory wells were subsequently drilled on the continental
shelf off Washington. However, commercial quantities of oil were not

found as a result of this exploratory activity. Eventually the leases
on these lands expired on December 1, 1969, and reverted to Federal
ownership.1*

The failure of the oil industry to find petroleum in the 1960's is
largely responsible for their lack of enthusiasm regarding future leasing
in the area.5 Nevertheless many structures were left untouched by the
relatively small amount of exploratory drilling that occurred in the
region. Some geologists and state officials are still optimistic that
substantial amounts of recoverable petroleum may exist on the OCS off
Washington.

5.3.3 Status of OCS Operations

The Bureau of Land Management has scheduled a lease sale on the
Washington-Oregon Continental Shelf for October of 1978 (Figure 9), and
another lease sale in November of 1980. This sale will be combined with
a lease sale off the northern coast of California. BLM's schedule for
the Washington-Oregon area is to:

1. Begin baseline studies by December of 1976.

2. Call for nominations from industry in August of 1977.

3. Select tentative leasing tracts by December of 1977.

4. Issue a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in March 1978.

5. Hold a public hearing in May of 1978.

6. Complete the final impact statement by August of 1978.

7. Hold the lease sale in October of 1978.

OCS-related activity in Washington has been limited, to date, to two
studies now in progress. The first study, being done by the Arthur D.
Little Co. under contract from Washington's Department of Ecology (DOE),

Figure 9. The proposed lease sale area off the Washington-Oregon coasts
(Source: BLM Final Programmatic EIS) .

!••• in> i»e in* >»••

.»•

B 1 4^3r s**ra# » T" "

•e

;!/:/ Portend ** \ f

A/ / c^

M } \-

.#/ ; /

V j£ San Franoaco \ '

«e

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION S S \ ^'x..
FOR LEASING 1 1 (

WIST COAST MGION V \. 1

0 30 100 MO JOO 400 HHai rV-J \* \

6 »00 ^00 100 400 500 too BHaMian N. V \

Department of the Interior ^^ \ \

Bureau of Land Management ^\ V \

111 \

is examining potential onshore impacts in Washington State from OCS
development off Alaska and Washington as well as the impacts resulting
from the transshippment of Alaskan and foreign crude to the state. A
draft of this $110,000 study will be ready by February 1977. DOE is
also financing a second study to gather baseline data in northern Puget
Sound in order to evaluate the effects of oil on coastal marine life.
June 1977 is the deadline for this $570,000 study.

Some onshore support activity related to OCS development is occur-
ring in Washington State. The Tacoma Boatbuilding Co., located in
Tacoma, Washington, has helped construct a Mariner semi- submersible rig
for Santa Fe International Inc. The 4,200-ton, 270-ft. long vessel may
soon be drilling exploratory wells off the Coast of West Africa.7 And
Kaiser Steel Corp. has proposed a second and much larger OCS-related
project in Grays Harbor County. Kaiser plans to construct an offshore
drilling platform assembly plant on a 45-acre site at the mouth of the
Hoquiam River. If built, the plant may employ as many as 500 persons.8

The Department of Ecology is the principal state agency in Washington
involved in OCS and coastal management and will be in charge of allocating
the substantial amounts of federal monies under the 1976 Coastal Management
Act Amendments. They also have responsibility for managing many marine
and coastal environmental baseline studies and the department heads the
state's oil spill prevention program. In addition, DOE has considerable
expertise and authority in water pollution and water resource management
activities.

The State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is another
important entity in Washington State. Since March of 1976, any developer

wanting to site a petroleum-related facility has been required to get a
permit from the Site Evaluation Council. The Council is comprised of 14
members, many of which are heads of other state agencies including the
Director of the State Energy Office who acts as chairman of the Council.
Washington State has 'substantial authority and expertise to manage
onshore and coastal impacts resulting from OCS development. The state
has been a leader in environmental legislation and was the first state
in the nation to complete a federally approved coastal zone management
program. Further, Washington has had experience since the 1950' s
regulating oil and gas facilities. In recent years, both the Governor
and the state legislature have been willing to impose controversial
regulations on the oil industry. The latest such action involved the
banning of supertankers over 125,000 tons in Puget Sound, a law which is
currently being contested in the courts.

5.3.4 Alaskan Oil

Alaska may soon become the foremost petroleum producing state in the
United States. The USGS has estimated total recoverable petroleum resources
in Alaska, both onshore and offshore, at from 28.3 to 65.3 billion barrels
of oil and from 75.6 to 178.7 trillion cubic feet of gas.10 If these
resources are developed, large amounts of petroleum will have to be
transported from Alaska to consumer markets in the lower 48. Much of
this oil will come in tankers traveling from Valdez to west coast ports.

Development of onshore and offshore Alaskan petroleum resources
will have important implications for Washington State. Ports located on
Puget Sound in western Washington are considered by the oil industry to
be prime candidates for receiving large amounts of Alaskan oil by tanker

due to their proximity to Alaska and midwest markets, their deep and
protected harbors, and the existing petroleum infrastructure in the
region ( including four large refineries ) . But many Washingtonians are
against the prospect of Puget Sound becoming a major transshippment
terminus for Alaskan oil because of the risk of damaging oil spills.
Puget Sound's recreational and natural resources are substantial; the
value of fishery resources (principally salmon) in the region is estimated
at between $80 to $100 million a year. In addition, Puget Sound has five
National Wildlife Refuges, four of which lie along an important oil
tanker route through the Rosario Straits.11

Prior to 1972 most of the oil refined in Washington State (300,000
barrels/day) came from Canada and the Trans-Mountain pipeline. Only
30,000 barrels a day were transported by tanker. Now this figure has
risen to 150,000 barrels per day as a result of recent cutback in Canadian
petroleum exports and will increase to the entire 300,000 barrels with
the elimination of Canadian exports in 1978. 12 Presently other sources
of crude (Alaska Cook Inlet, California, and foreign oil) are making up
the difference.13 And soon Prudhoe Bay oil (around mid-1977) will be a
major source of crude for the region's refineries.

The oil industry has predicted a surplus of oil on the west coast
once the Alaskan pipeline is completed.11* Given the impending shortages
of petroleum in the mid-west, several proposals have been made by industry
to transport surplus Alaskan crude to Midwest refineries.15 One proposal,
made by the Northern Tier Pipeline Co., would build a pipeline from
western Washington to Clearbrook, Minnesota, in order to transship

800,000 barrels a day to mid-west refineries.16 If the Northern Tier
pipeline is built, petroleum throughput by oil tanker in Washington
State would jump to 1,100,000 barrels per day.17

Debate surrounding the environmental impact of oil tankers in Puget
Sound has focused on the threat of massive oil spills in the productive
and intensely used waters of the Sound. Many observers believe that
such spills could be very damaging to the Sound's wide variety of economic,
ecological, and recreational activities.18 Among the uses of Puget
Sound that would probably suffer the greatest impact in the event of an
oil spill are (1) a large sport and commercial fishery, (2) a multi-
million dollar recreation, tourist and boating industry, and (3) fish
(salmon and shellfish beds) and wildlife (wintering waterfowl) populations
and habitat .

The principal issue of controversy, however, has been where to land
the oil from tankers in western Washington. Four alternative sites have
been the most frequently mentioned: (1) a common-use terminal at or
west of Port Angeles; (2) a common-use crude terminal at Burrows Bay;
(3) the independent development of deepwater berths at the four existing
major refineries at Anacortes and Cherry Point and (4) a common-use
terminal at Cherry Point.19 The last three alternatives would all
require tankering petroleum into Puget Sound, through Rosario or Haro
Straits to an east sound location (Figure 10). The Port Angeles
alternative would avoid the risk of transporting oil along this route.
A 1974 study by the Oceanographic Commission of Washington estimated a
Port Angeles terminal to be 6 to 7 times safer in terms of tanker accidents
and oil spills than a terminal on the east side of the Sound.20 But

Figure 10. Potential sites for oil and gas activities in western Washington
(Source: Washington Cooperative Extension Service).

Grays Harbor

Washington's Department of Commerce and Economic Development has estimated
that the Port Angeles alternative would cost about $300 million more
than the expansion of existing Puget Sound terminal facilities.21 The
oil industry and Governor-elect Dixy Lee Ray favor the cheaper alternative
of expanding east side terminals.22 Environmentalists, and Senators
Jackson and Magnuson, on the other hand, favor the environmentally safer
alternative at Port Angeles.23 Washington's coastal management program
also specifically incorporates the policy of a single transfer facility
at Port Angeles.21*

If western Washington does become a major transshipment point most
of the petroleum over the next 10 years will come from Alaska's Prudhoe
Bay and Cook Inlet and foreign imports. Alaskan OCS petroleum will not
be on line before the middle 1980 's. But if large petroleum finds do
occur on the Alaska OCS, this may eventually increase tanker traffic and
petroleum facility operations in western Washington. It is possible
that Washington State might expand transshipment and refining operations
to accommodate the increase in Alaskan oil.

Alaskan OCS petroleum development has another important impact on
Washington State. As previously mentioned, Washington and Alaska
economies are closely interrelated; an economic boom in Alaska will
probably stimulate support and secondary industries in Washington.
Puget Sound ports and businesses have noted a considerable increase in
business to Alaska since construction of the Alaska pipeline began.
Extensive OCS development in Alaska may well act as a similar stimulus.
But information regarding the magnitude of future OCS-related activity

in Washington is sketchy at present. The CEQ in their 1974 OCS study-
estimated 32,000 new jobs for the Puget Sound area by the year 2000
under high OCS development assumptions. These figures assume that 1 to 3
new refineries and three petrochemical complexes will be built between
1985 and 2000 in the state.25 However, the accuracy of the CEQ employment
estimates have been questioned by other studies and federal agencies. 6

5.3.5 Footnotes

^V.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
July 1975. Proposed Increases in Oil and Gas Leasing on the
Outer Continental Shelf, Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Vol. 1. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. pp. 271-
338, 588-657, 734-743.

2Braislin, D. B., D. D. Hastings, and P. D. Snavely, Jr.
1970. Petroleum of Western Oregon and Washington and Adjacent
Continental Margins. AAPG Memoir #15. pp. 230.

3Ran, W. W. and H. C. Wagner. 1974. Oil and Gas in Washington.
Energy Resources of Washington. State of Washington, Department of
Natural Resources, Seattle, pp. 28.

^Op. cit. Braislin et al. pp. 230.

5Seattle Times. November 14, 1974. Oil Drilling Eyed Off
State Coast. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.

60p. cit. Ran and Wagner, pp. 78.

7Tacoma News Tribune. October 19, 1975. Unusual Oil Rig
Takes Shape. Tacoma News Tribune. Tacoma, Washington, pp. D-9.

8Marine Digest. August 14, 1976. Plant EIS Review Set.
Marine Digest, Inc., Seattle, Washington.

9Seattle Times. October 1, 1976. Supertanker Dispute Hits
Temporary Calm. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington, pp. 3-10.

This law was declared null and void by U.S. District Court
in September 1976 because it pre-empted federal law, most notably
the U.S. Ports and Waterways Safety Act. This decision is on
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

10U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Geo-
logical Estimates of Undiscovered Removable Oil and Gas Resources
In the United States. USGS Circular 725. U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C. pp. 26-32.

1 Baldwin, M. F. and P. L. Baldwin. 1973. Oil and Puget
Sound . The Living Wilderness. Autumn. Wilderness Society,
Washington, D.C. pp. 20.

12Seattle Past-Intelligencer. January 4, 1976. The Tanker
Boom Has Already Arrived. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Seattle,
Washington, pp. H-8.

130p. cit. Oil and Puget Sound, pp. 16.

11+Wilson, H. M. March 1, 1976. Size of West Market for
Prudhoe Crude Still Fuzzy. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 9.
pp. 55-58.

15Bonner and Moore Associates, Inc. July 1976. Crude Supply
Alternatives for the Northern Tier States. Bonner and Moore
Associates, Inc. pp. 24.

16No author*. May 1976. Terminal for Puget Sound. Offshore.
Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 427.

No author. December 8, 1975. Northern Tier Proceeds with
Planning for New Crude Line. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 49.
pp. 27.

No author. June 14, 1976. Northern Tier Wants Permits, then
Oil Buyer. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 24. pp. 27.

17Murray, J. Senator. January 16, 1976. That the State Develop
an Oil Transportation Policy NOW. Argus. pp. 6.

18Washington State University. March 1974. Oil on Northern
Puget Sound. Cooperative Extension Service, Washington State
University, Pullman, Washington.

19Pacific Northwest Sea. 1975-76. OPTS Report: Findings
Review. Pacific Northwest Sea. Oceanographic Commission of
Washington, Seattle. Winter. pp. 5.

°Oceanographic Commission of Washington. December 16, 1974.
Offshore Petroleum Transfer Systems for Washington State: A Feas-
ibility Study. Oceanographic Commission of Washington, Office of
the Governor, Seattle.

2 Washington Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
January 27, 1976. Assessment of Alternative Crude Oil Marine
Terminal Locations in Washington State. Washington State Depart-
ment of Commerce and Economic Development. Olympia.

22Pacific Northwest Sea. 1975-76. Oil Update '76. Pacific
Northwest Sea. Oceanographic Commission of Washington, Seattle.
Winter.

No author. February 23, 1976. Texaco Hits Puget Sound
Superport Plan. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 8. pp. 57.

23Pacific Northwest Sea. 1975-76. Three on Oil. Pacific
Northwest Sea. Oceanographic Commission of Washington, Seattle.
Winter.

21+Evans, D. J. Governor. 1976. A Policy Statement by
Governor Daniel J. Evans on the Siting of a Single, Major Crude
Petroleum Transfer Site at Port Angeles. Office of the Governor.
Olympia.

25Council on Environmental Quality. April 1974. PCS Oil and
Gas - An Environmental Assessment . Vol. 1. Council on Environ-
mental Quality, Washington, D.C. pp. 145-147.

26Congressional Research Service. March 1976. Effects of
Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development on the Coastal Zone.
Congressional Research Service. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.

Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. March 14,
17, 18, April 8-9, 1975. PCS Lands Act Amendments and Coastal
Zone Management Act Amendments. United States Senate Office
Building, Washington, D.C.

5.4 — OREGON

Two OCS leasing areas lie adjacent to the coast of Oregon, the
Washington-Oregon area off the north coast and the northern California
area off the south coast (Figure 9). The Bureau of Land Management
plans to lease both of these areas at the same time in 1978 and in 1980.
However, outer continental shelf petroleum development is not yet an
important issue in Oregon. Leasing is still 2 years away and Oregon's
government and citizens are more concerned about other more immediate
problems .

5.4.1 Description of the Region1

The Oregon Coast has 500 miles of shoreline comprising 352 miles
along the Pacific Ocean proper and 148 miles of bay/estuary coastline.
Three hundred miles of shoreline are beach (60 percent), with the remainder
consisting of rocky headlands, marsh areas, bulkheads and revetments.
Most of the Oregon coast is bordered by mountains with the Oregon Coast
Range occurring in the northern portion and the Klamath Mountains and
Siskiyou Mountains along the southern coast.

Oregon has 14 separate estuary systems but they only total about
56,000 acres. The largest estuaries are the Columbia River (15,000
acres), Coos Bay (9,543 acres), Tillamook Bay (8,839 acres) and Umpqua-
Winchester Bay (5,712 acres). Oregon's estuaries are valuable for their
production of clams, oysters and crabs. The state annually harvests
about 160,000 razor clams, 1.8 million bay clams, and 225,000 dungeness
crabs .

A mild maritime climate characterizes the Oregon coast. It is an
area of high precipitation (up to 100 inches annually). Frequent winter
storms bring gale force winds and heavy precipitation. Fog is a common
occurrence along the coast.

Many species of marine mammals inhabit the Oregon coast. The fur
and harbor seal are abundant on small offshore rocks and islands. These
islands are also important breeding areas for marine mammals along the
coast. About 1,000 northern sea lions are observed annually on these
islands.

By far the most important commercial fisheries resource in Oregon
are salmon. Important salmon species harvested are coho, sockeye, chinook,
pink and chum. Other important fisheries harvested are flounders, rock-
fishes, albacore, Pacific hake, halibut, Pacific herring, ling cod> and
Pacific ocean perch.

Many sea birds utilize the coastal waters of Oregon. Shearwaters
and falmors are particularly numerous along the coast during their
seasonal migration. Eighteen species of colonial sea birds have been
observed off the Oregon coast . The most common of these in order of
abundance are: Leaches petrel, common murre, fork-tailed petrel, western
gull, tufted puffin, and pigeon guillemont. The total breeding population
of sea birds off Oregon is approximately 1,500,000 and the annual sea
bird production has been estimated to be 400,000 individuals.

Only a narrow strip of land lies between the ocean and the Coast
Range in Oregon. As a r'esult most development in the state has occurred
further inland. About one-fifth of the Oregon coastline has not been

developed. In addition, Oregon's scenic shoreline and beaches have long
attracted tourists from throughout the country. Over 40 percent of the
coast is used for public recreation while 16 percent is used as private
recreation lands.

5.4.2 History of PCS Operations

Vigorous OCS exploration began in 1961 off the coast of Oregon.
After 3 years of promising geophysical work, the BLM, in October of
1964, leased 101 tracts off the coast of Oregon and Washington for $43
million in bonus bids. Following this sale eight exploratory wells were
drilled but none found commercial quantitites of petroleum. Discouraged
by these results, the oil industry diverted their efforts away from
Oregon to pursue discoveries off Alaska and California.2 In 1969 all
leases sold in the 1964 sale reverted back to the Federal government.

During the 1960 's, Astoria, Coos Bay and Newport were the headquarters
for supplies and services for the seismic and drilling fleets. The
fleet used for these offshore activities consisted of: 1 floating
platform, 1 heavy drilling ship, 6 light ships, 7 supply ships, 12
auxiliary boats, and 14 seismic boats. OCS operations contributed about
$30 million directly to Oregon's economy in the 1960 's.3

5.4.3 Status of OCS Development

BLM has announced the schedule of pre-leasing activities for the
OCS sales off Oregon's coast. Both the northern California sale and the
Washington-Oregon sale have the same schedule as follows:

1. Baseline studies will begin in December of 1976.

2. Interior will call for nominations in August of 1977.

3. Tentative leasing tracts will be selected in December of 1977.

4. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be issued by March
of 1978.

5. A public hearing will be held in May of 1978.

6. The final impact statement will be completed by August of
1978.

7. Both areas will be leased in October of 1978.

A second sale has been scheduled for November 1980. Only one preleasing
study is underway in Oregon, to date. Oregon's Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) is examining the institutional capability
of the state to manage OCS development.

Two OCS-related facilities have been proposed by industry in
Oregon. The first involves a proposal by Brown S Root to build a plat-
form fabrication yard near Astoria, Oregon.1* This fabrication yard
would be located on 400 acres of land 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean on
the Columbia River.5 The company plans to build platforms capable of
operating in water depths of up to 1,000 feet for use off the coasts of
Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California.6 Platform fabrication could
begin as early as 1977 and employ as many as 1,200 persons.7 Pacific
Northwest Natural Gas has proposed the other facility, an LNG storage
facility near Newport, Oregon. This facility will probably require the
regular service of LNG tankers.8 Neither the LNG facility or the platform
fabrication proposal have obtained the necessary permits yet.

Oregon has only one small refinery in the state, a 14,000 b/d plant
at Portland.9 However, three refinery proposals along the Columbia
River have recently received approval to begin construction from Oregon's

Department of Environmental Quality. Of these proposals one company,
Columbia Independent Refinery, Inc., has since cancelled its plans to
build a 50,000 b/d plant at Portland.10 A second firm, Charter Energy
Co., has not decided whether to build a 52,400 b/d refinery at St.
Helens.11 But a third company, Cascade Energy, has announced that it
will begin construction of a 30,000 b/d refinery on an 85-acre site
acquired from the Port of St. Helens by the end of 1976. The Cascade
refinery will process crude oil brought in by tanker and will have
docking facilities capable of handling 230,000 bbl vessels.12 The
refinery will be equipped with desulfurization units and may use Alaskan
north slope crude.13

Tho Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) is the
principal state agency in Oregon involved in OCS and coastal management.
The Commission has formulated some draft goals and guidelines dealing
with petroleum development on the continental shelf. These goals and
guidelines recommend:

(1) Giving clear priority to the management and protection of
renewable resources over the development of non-renewable
resources like petroleum.

(2) Establishing permit-review procedures which require a developer
wanting to explore, extract, store or transfer petroleum on
the continental shelf to (1) specify the methods and equipment
to be used; (2) finance the cost of monitoring and inspecting
such operations; (3) use the best pollution abatement technology
available; (4) be held liable for individual or public damage;

100

and (5) describe the extent and magnitude of onshore support
and operation facilities and their social, economic, and
environmental impacts on the Oregon coast.11*
The LCDC's future role in OCS management may diminish, however. The
LCDC has recommended to Governor Straub that a new OCS office be established
within the Office of the Governor to assume principal responsibility for
OCS-related matters.

Finally, Oregon will probably have a Federally approved coastal
management program prior to OCS leasing adjacent to its coast. The
state is well advanced in its coastal program and a draft EIS proposing
Federal approval of its program was issued in February of 1976. Once
Oregon's program is approved, the federal consistency provisions of the
1972 Coastal Zone Management Act will go into effect which may provide
added leverage for the state in managing OCS development.

101

5.4.4 Footnotes

lrrhis section is based on material from Proposed Increase in
Oil and Gas Leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf, Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement. July 1975. Vol. 1. pp. 271-338, 558-657,
734-743.

2Newton, V.C., Jr. February 1967. Summary of Oil and Gas
Exploration Off the Coast of Oregon and Washington, 1961-1966.
Ore Bin. Volume 29, No. 2. pp. 17-32.

3Ibid. pp. 19-23.

The Oregonian. September 13, 1975. Astoria May Hold Ace in
Offshore Oil Venture. The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon. pp. A-13.

5Compass Publications, Inc. July 1976. Brown & Root Sub-
sidiary to Build Offshore Structures. Vol. 74, No. 22. Sea
Technology, Arlington, Virginia. pp. 33.

5No author. May 31, 1976. Platform Yard Goes Up in Oregon.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 22. pp. 40.

7Ibid.

8No author. November 1975. Exploring for Gas and Oil in
Oregon. Portland Magazine, Portland, Oregon. pp. 36.

9No author. March 3, 1975. Three Refiners Expect Oregon
Plant - Construction Permits. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73,
No. 9. pp. 43.

10The Oregonian. January 15, 1976. Port Loses Rivergate
Oil Refinery. The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon. pp. 1.

No author. March 17, 1975. Oregon Okays Two of Three
Refineries. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 11. pp. 69.

nNo author. May 24, 1976. Permits Issued for 30,000-b/d
Grass-Roots Refinery in Oregon. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74,
No. 21. pp. 52.

Ibid.

130p. cit. Three Refiners Expect Oregon Plant-Construction
Permits. pp. 43.

14U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment. February 1976. State of Oregon Coastal Zone Management
Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Office of Coastal
Zone Management, Washington, D.C. pp. 8-9 and Appendix 4.

102

5.5 — BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography is organized and prepared as received by author.

Alaska (General)

No author. July 1975. The Most Intensive Scientific Study of Alaska's
Outer Continental Shelf. Alaska. Vol. XLI, No. 7. pp. 26-2 7.

No author. March 1975. PCS Hearings Generate Profound Statements.
Alaska Construction and Oil. Seattle, Washington, pp. 16-18.

Alaska Consultants, Inc. May 1976. Marine Service Bases for Offshore
Oil Development .

No author. November 1975. State's Coastal Zone Management Program

Revamped by Governor. Alaska Industry, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 9, 60.

Alaska Sea Grant Program. December 1975. Proceedings of the Conference
to Review the Draft Study Plan for Social and Economic Impact Assess-
ment of Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Development. Sea
Grant Report 75-14.

. December 1975. Social and Economic Impact Assessment of

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Development. Sea Grant 75-15,

Anchorage Times. August 29, 1976. Coastal Zone Bill Needs Support.
Anchorage Times, Anchorage, Alaska.

. January 21, 1976. Coastal Zone Bill Must Wait Turn.

Anchorage Times, Anchorage, Alaska.
. February 4, 1975. Drilling Called Invasion: Shelf Proposal

Stirs Fuel vs. Food Debate. Anchorage Times, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 1-2,
. February 13, 1976. Natives Want to Control Land. Anchorage

Times, Anchorage, Alaska. p. 1.
. June 16, 1975. Oilman, Fisherman Take Sides. Anchorage Times,

Anchorage, Alaska. p. 1-2.

Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. March 1976. Physical,
Biological and Human Environments of the Alaskan Outer Continental
Shelf Lease Areas. (unpublished manuscript).

Council on Environmental Quality. April 1974. PCS Oil and Gas: An
Environmental Assessment. Vols. IV and V. Council on Environmental
Quality, Washington, D.C.

Edmondson, A. October 1975. Offshore Oil: Activity Stepping up Though
Conflicts Remain. Alaska Industry, Anchorage, ALaska. pp. 48-50, 92-95.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. November 20, 1975. Alaska Suffers While
Nation Benefits? Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, .Alaska. p. 1.

103

September 18, 1975. Hammond Sets Down OCS Policies. Fairbanks

Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska. p. A-5.

August 28, 1975. OCS Chief Reports Research Progress

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska, pp. 3-5.
. January 14, 1976. Parr Introduces OCS Fee Legislation.

Fairbanks, Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska, p. 1.

Thobe, S. September 1975. Drilling Rigs Will Have a Tough Go Off Alaska
Due to Weather. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 102-104.

Ca -michael, J. September 1975. Four Offshore Areas Dominate Geology for
State of Alaska. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 98-101.

Rintoul, B. September 1975. Gulf of Alaska May Offer Best Prospect for
Oil and Gas. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 82-90.

Doerner, K. September 1975. Political Conflict May Delay Future Offshore
Ploy. Offshore, Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 91-95.

No author. February 1976. Alaskans Proposing New Taxes on Oil. Oil and
Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 5. p. 35.

No author. March 8, 1976. ARCO Slates Deep Strat Tests Off Alaska.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 10. p. 27.

Wilson, H.M. June 14, 1976. Beefed-up Tanker Fleets Readied for N. Slope
Oil. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 24. p. 23-26.

No author. October 20, 1975. Glacier Poses Possible Threat to Valdez
Tanker Movement. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 42. p. 44.

No author. June 7, 1976. Moderate Tax Policy Vital to Alaska's Oil
Future. Editorial. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 23. p. 51.

Wilson, H. M. December 2, 1974. Pending Burst of Leasing Spells Big
Alaskan Search. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 72, No. 48. pp. 25-28.

No author. June 7, 1976. Prospective Basins Included in Alaska OCS
Sale Plans. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 23. pp. 126-130.

Paul, T. March 1976. Offshore Oil: The State-Federal Tug of War.
Alaska Industry. Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 35-36, 43-44.

Resource Planning Associates. November 1975. Onshore Impacts of Oil
and Gas Development . Vols. I and II. Cambridge, Mass.

No author. July 9, 1976. Kachemak Bay: Oil Spill Leads Alaska to
Reverse Drilling OK. Science. 'Vol. 193, No. 4248. p. 131.

No author. July 18, 1975. Offshore Drilling: Fishermen and Oilmen Clash
in Alaska. Science. Vol. 189, No. 4198. pp. 204-206.

Seattle Times. February 6, 1975. Offshore-Oil Ban Sought for Alaska.
Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.

104

Southeast Alaska Empire. May 9, 1975. Beaufort Lease Sale Held Back.
Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska.

. August 19, 1975. Coastal Alaska, Scotland Share Similar

Oil Impact. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska.
. May 5, 1975. Coast Zone Bill Opposition Strong. Southeast

Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska.

April 28, 1976. DEC Leader Satisfied with Tanker Bill.

Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska, p. 1
. March 23, 1976. Kachemak Bay Oil Risk Higher. Southeast

Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. p. 1.
. May 17, 1976. Kachemak Moratorium Gets the Nod. Southeast

Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. p. 1.

May 12, 1976. Nothing Working in Cleanup of Kachemak Bay

Fuel Spills. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. p. 1.
. May 7, 1975. Panel Strips Authority from Coast Zone Bill.

Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. p. 1.

State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. June 10,
1976. Methodology for Facility Siting. State of Alaska, Juneau.

State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1976.
Platform Fabrication. State of Alaska, Juneau.

State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. N.D.
Summary of Recent Involvement in Coastal Community and PCS Planning.
State of Alaska, Juneau.

State of Alaska, Division of Policy Development and Planning. June 1,
1976. Alaska Coastal Management Program: Status Report. State of
Alaska, Office of Coastal Management Programs.

State of Alaska, Division of Policy Development and Planning. November 26,
1975. An Inventory of Existing Land Management Tools in Alaska. Part I
and II. State of Alaska, Office of Coastal Management Programs.

State of Alaska, Office of the Governor. December 5, 1975. Governor
Hammond Issues Strongest PCS Statement to Date. Juneau.

Tundra Times. June 23, 1976. What Needs Should Alaska Coastal Management
Program Meet? Tundra Times, Fairbanks, Alaska. p. 3.

U.S. House of Representatives Hearings. 1975. Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act Amendments of 1975, Part 2. H.R. 6218. August 5, 1975,
Yakutat, Alaska; August 6, 1975, Cordova, Alaska; August 7, 1975,
Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Waldrop, B. June 4, 1975. Report on Potential Impacts to National Parks,
Refuges and Forests by PCS Oil and Gas Development in Alaska. Alaska
Department of Community and Regional Affairs.

105

Williams, J. Untitled manuscript. Draft 1976.

Alaska (Beaufort Sea)

Alaska District Corps of Engineers. June 1974. Background Studies of
Available Information: Alaskan Arctic Coast.

Fairbarks Daily News-Miner. August 19, 1975. Beaufort Offered as Gulf

of Alaska Alternate. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska, p. 1.

. January 2, 1976. Beaufort Oil Lease Revenues May Be Set

Aside. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska. pp. 1,3.

No aut ior. March, 1975. 5-10 Years Needed for R & D of Beaufort Sea.
Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 3. pp. 54-56.

No author. February 17, 1975. Alaska Pushes for Early Sale in Beaufort
Se . Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 7. p. 36.

No author. August 18, 1975. Beaufort Sea State Lease Sale Definite
for '76. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 33. p. 38.

No author. February 2, 1976. Chance of Beaufort Sea Oil Spill Seen
Remote. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 5. p. 35.

No author. January 20, 1975. Shift in Leasing Priority to Beaufort Sea
Sought. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 3. p. 56.

No author. June 2, 1975. Wildcatters Poised for Beaufort Sea. Oil and
Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 22. pp. 98-102.

No author. March 5, 1976. Oil Drilling in the Beaufort Sea: Leaving
It to Luck and Technology. Science. Vol. 191, No. 4230. pp. 929-931.

S attle Post-Intelligencer. July 11, 1976. Eskimo Warns on Drilling

in Beaufort Sea. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle, Washington, p.A-9.

. August 12, 1975. Beaufort Sale. Editorial. Seattle Post-

Intelligencer, Seattle, Washington. p. 2.

S utheast Alaska Empire. May 29, 1975. Beaufort Will Be Sold. Southeast
Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska.

. June 26, 1975. Inlet Decision Hurts Beaufort. Southeast

Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. p. 10.
. August 12, 1975. State Will Lease in Beaufort Sea. Southeast

Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska, p. 1.

State of Alaska, Division of Policy Development and Planning. April 4,
1975. Proposed Beaufort Sea Nearshore Petroleum Leasing. Draft
Environmental Assessment. State of Alaska.

106

Alaska (Bering Sea)

No author. August 1976. Bering Sea Readies for Drilling. Offshore.
Vol. 36, No. 9. p. 94.

No author. May, 1976. Sale of Bering Sea Tracts is Sharply Reduced by
Interior. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5. p. 307.

No author. July 12, 1976. ARCO Spuds South Bering Sea Strat Test. Oil
and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 28. p. 36.

No author. July 5, 1976. Beaufort, Bering Sea Seen Top Virgin Areas.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 27. p. 54.

No author. March 22, 1976. Bering Sea Tracts Due Tough Environmental
Study. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 12. p. 46.

No author. December 30, 1974. Interior Seeking Nominations for Bering
Sea Sale. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 72, No. 52. pp. 92-93.

Alaska (Bristol Bay)

Alaska District Corps of Engineers. February, 1974. Background Studies
of Available Information: Bristol Bay Environment.

No author. May 12, 1975. Group Shoot Begins in Bristol Bay. Oil and
Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 19. p. 59.

No author. June 21, 1976. World's Largest Semi Heads for Bristol Bay
Strat Test. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 25. p. 95.

Alaska (Cook Inlet)

No author. November 1975. BLM Seeks Input on Tracts That May Be Sold
in Lower Cook Inlet. Alaska Construction and Oil, Seattle, Washington.
pp. 68-72.

Alaska District Corps of Engineers. September 1974. Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Anchorage, Alaska.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. September 19, 1975. Cook Inlet Lease Sale

Offered by Hammond. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska. p. 1,

. January 8, 1976. NOAA Buttresses State Cook Inlet Lease

Stand. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska, p. 1.

Suit, J. October 1975. Cook Inlet Presents Unique Shipping Difficulties,
Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 11. pp. 154-159.

107

No author. May 1976. Cook Inlet Tracts Chosen for Future Sale Offerings.
Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5. p. 232.

No author. May 1976. Cook Inlet Wins Clean Bill in Government Oil Spill
Study. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5. p. 282.

No author. May 1976. Offshore Drilling Sought as Prelude to PCS Sale.
Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5. p. 271.

No author. June 30, 1975. U.S. Given Rights to Lease Lower Cook Inlet.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 26. p. 52.

Magoon, L.B. June 7, 1976. USGS Rates Oil Potential of S. Cook Inlet.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 23. pp. 166-172.

Seattle Times. June 23, 1975. High Court Rejects Alaska Oil Claim.
Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington. p. 1.

Southeast Alaska Empire. June 24, 1975. State to Fight Inlet Ruling?
Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. p. 1.

State of Alaska, Office of the Governor. September 10, 1976. Comments
on the BLM Lower Cook Inlet Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Alaska (Northern Gulf of Alaska)

No author. March 1976. Oil and Gas Schedule Outlined for Gulf of Alaska,
Alaska Construction and Oil, Seattle, Washington, pp. 57-68.

No author. 1975. Yakutat : The Turbulent Crescent. Alaska Geographic,
Anchorage, Alaska. Vol. 2, No. 4. pp. 76-82.

Anchorage Times. Janyary 19, 1976. Agencies Resist Leasing in Gulf.
Anchorage Times, Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 1-2.

. June 18, 1976. Gulf Drilling to Bring Few Men. Anchorage

Times, Anchorage, Alaska. p. 25.
. December 7, 1975. Lease Action Threatened: Governor Would

Sue for Sale Delay. Anchorage Times, Anchorage, Alaska, p. 1.
. April 13, 1976. Protesters Claim Sale is Illegal. Anchorage

Times, Anchorage, Alaska. p. 2,

April 19, 1976. State Sale is Unlikely; Firm Stand on Gulf

Oil to Continue. Anchorage Times, Anchorage, Alaska, p. 1.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1976. Northern
Gulf of Alaska Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vols. 1-4. Bureau
of Land Management, Washington, D.C.

Corrigan, R. August 1974. Oil Companies Eye Gulf of Alaska. Marine
Technology Society Journal. Vol. 8, No. 7. pp. 3-8.

108

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. June 27, 1975. Alaska Sea Mammals and Fish
May Be Threatened. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska. p. 1.

. September 16, 1975. State Computes PCS Costs at Near $300 per

Alaskan. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, Alaska, pp. 1,3.

Mallott, B. October 31, 1975. Report on the Probable Impacts on Native
People Both Beneficial and Adverse Resulting from Offshore (PCS) Federal
Oil and Gas Leases Using Yakutat as a Case Study. Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Juneau, Alaska.

Mathematical Sciences Northwest and Human Resources Planning Institute, Inc.
May 5, 1975. An Economic and Social Impact Study of Oil Related Activi-
ties in the Gulf of Alaska. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management,
Belleview, Washington.

No author. June 5, 1976. Alaskan Village Meets Progress. Offshore.
Vol. 36, No. 6. p. 84.

No author. April 1976. Gulf of Alaska Again Eyed by Wildcatters. Off-
shore. Vol. 36, No. 4. pp. 52-54.

Rintoul, B. May 1976. The Gulf of Alaska Lures Explorers with Prime
Structures. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 240-246.

No author. June 28, 1976. Alaskan Gulf Leases Due First Test This Fall.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 26. p. 62.

No author. July 7, 1975. Alaska Gulf Sale May Be 2 Years Away. Gil and
Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 27. pp. 28-29.

No author. June 2, 1975. Big Plans on Tap for Two Alaskan Wildcat Areas.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 22. pp. 104-109.

No author. May 3, 1976. BLM Rejects Five Bonus Bids in Gulf of Alaska
Lease Sale. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 18. p. 128.

No author. February 10, 1975. Delay in Leasing of Gulf of Alaska Asked.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 6. p. 23.

Wilson, H.M. March 15, 1976. Industry Near Long-Sought Crack at Gulf
of Alaska. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 11. pp. 55-58.

April 19, 1976. Shell, ARCO Top Bidders at Gulf of Alaska

Sale. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 16. pp. 21-23.

No author. February 23, 1976. Smaller Gulf of Alaska Sale Gets Green
Light. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 8. p. 72.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer. August 7, 1975. Alaska Village is Split Over
Oils Impact. Seattle Post-Intelligencer^ Seattle, Washington.

December 31, 1975. Delay Alaska Oil Leases - EPA Chief.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle, Washington. p. A-14.

109

Seattle Times. February 19, 1976. Alaska Oil-Lease Sale Gets Approval,
Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington. p. 1.

. August 3, 1975. Gulf of Alaska is Next Big Oil Arena in

Alaska. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.

June 20, 1976. History Puts Shock of Oil Boom into Focus.

Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington, pp. 1-3.

June 20, 1976. New Oil Exploration Splits Alaska City.

Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington, p. 1.

July 11, 1976. Yakutat: Oil Debate Fires Up Tembers. Seattle

Times, Seattle, Washington, p. B-ll,

Southeast Alaska Empire. April 6, 1976. Gulf Leases: State Presents Sale
Delay Case. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. p. 1.

August 21, 1975. Juneau: Offshore Oil Support Site? South-

east Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. p. 1,
. June 30, 1976. Yakutat Tug-of-War Beginning. Southeast

Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska.

State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. April 1976.
How the State is Preparing to Respond to the Onshore Impacts Brought About
by Oil and Gas Development in the Gulf of Alaska. State of Alaska, Divi-
sion of Community Planning.

December, 1975. Supply Boat and Port Facility Scenario:

PCS Sale No. 39 - Northern Gulf of Alaska.

Todd, F. March 1976. Semi-submersible Drilling Rigs to Brave Gulf.
Alaska Industry. Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 37-43, 53-54.

Alaska - Western Gulf of Alaska (Kodiak Sale)

Anchorage Times. March 9, 1976. Koniag Officials Ask for Hearing.
Anchorage Times, Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 1-2.

McKinney, V. March 1976. Kodiak: Surrounded by Troubled Waters. Alaska
Industry. Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 32-34, 45-50.

O'Connor, F.R. and P.L. Dobey. N.D. An Analysis of Future Petroleum

Development on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf, Kodiak Area. State
of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources.

No author. June 5, 1976. Tracts Selected for Intense Environmental Study.
Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 6. p. 112.

No author. June 7, 1976. Coring of Kodiak Shelf Tracts Due in Early July.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 23. p. 57.

110

No author. May 10, 1976. Interior Picks 564 Tracts for Western Gulf of
Alaska Sale. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 19. p. 40.

No author. February 16, 1976. Western Gulf of Alaska Tracts Nominated.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 7. p. 52.

Southeast Alaska Empire. April 26, 1976. Alaska May Back Off from PCS
Lease Battle. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska.

April 30, 1976. Offshore Oil Lease Delayed, Says Kodiak

Native Leader. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska, p. 1.

State of Alaska, Office of the Governor. March 9, 1976. Comments on the

Acreage Proposal for Leasing on the Western Gulf of Alaska Continental
Shelf. Juneau, Alaska.

Oregon

Newton, V.C. Jr. February 1967. Summary of Oil and Gas Exploration Off

the Coast of Oregon and Washington. Ore Bin. Vol. 29, No. 2. pp. 17-32.

No author. March 17, 1975. Oregon Okays Two of Three Refineries. Oil
and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 11. p. 69.

No author. May 24, 1976. Permits Issued for 30,000-b/d Grass-Roots
Refinery in Oregon. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 21. p. 52.

No author. May 31, 1976. Platform Yard Goes Up in Oregon. Oil and Gas
Journal. Vol. 74, No. 22. p. 40.

No author. March 3, 1975. Three Refiners Expect Oregon Plant Construction
Permits. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 9. p. 43.

Ore Bin. Vol. 38, No. 1. January 1976. pp. 8-9.

Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. February 1976.
Oregon Coastal Management Program.

No author. July 1976. Brown & Root Subsidiary to Build Offshore Structures,
Sea Technology. Vol. 17, No. 7. p. 33.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer. December 28, 1974. Refiners Want OK to Build
Along Columbia. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle, Washington. p. A-5.

Seattle Times. November 22, 1974. Oregon to Join Suit on Drilling.
Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.

Shavelson, J.L. 1968. The Administration of Offshore Mineral Leasing
Statutes in the Pacific Southwest (California, Oregon and Hawaii) .
Natural Resources Lawyer. Chicago, Illinois.

The Oregonian. September 13, 1975. Astoria May Hold Ace in Offshore
Oil Venture. The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon, p. A-13.

Ill

Washington State

Baldwin, M.F. and P.L. Baldwin. Autumn 1973. Oil and Puget Sound. The
Living Wilderness. Washington, D.C. pp. 14-23.

Bellingham Herald. March 23, 1976. New Group Opposed to Super Port.
Bellingham Herald, Bellingham, Washington. p. 1.

. September 28, 1975. New Oil Tanker Law Criticized.

Bellingham Herald, Bellingham, Washington, p. 1.
. February 26, 1976. Oil Port Won't Solve Problems. Bellingham

Herald, Bellingham, Washington, pp. 1, 7.
. Whatcom Development Council Opposes Port Angeles Oil Plan.

Bellingham Herald, Bellingham, Washington.

Bonner and Moore Associates, Inc. July 1976. Crude Supply Alternatives
for the Northern Tier State, p. 24.

Braislin, D.B., D.D. Hastings, and P.D. Snavely, Jr. 1970. Petroleum
of Western Oregon and Washington and Adjacent Continental Margins.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir //15. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Federal Energy Administration. August, 1976. Crude Oil Supply Alternatives
for the Northern Tier States. Federal Energy Administration, Washington,
D.C.

Green Rage. April-May 1976. Coalition Endorses Oil Transfer Facility,
p. 4.

Murray, J. State Senator. January 16, 1976. Resolved: That the State
Develop an Oil Transportation Policy NOW. Argus. pp. 1, 6, 12.

Oceanographic Commission of Washington. December 16, 1974. Offshore
Petroleum Transfer Systems for Washington State: A Feasibility Study.
Seattle, Washington.

Office of the Governor. 1976. A Policy Statement by Governor Daniel J.
Evans on the Siting of a Single, Major Crude Petroleum Transfer Site at
Port Angeles. Olympia, Washington.

No author. May 1976. Terminal for Puget Sound. Offshore. Vol. 36, No. 5.
p. 427.

No author. August 9, 1976. FEA: Hand Off N. Tier Supply Problem. Oil
and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 32. p. 36.

No author. December 8, 1975. Northern Tier Proceeds with Planning for
New Crude Line. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 49. p. 27.

No author. March 1, 1976. Northern Tier Relocates West Terminal. Oil
and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 9. p. 72.

112

No author. June 14, 1976. Northern Tier Wants Permits, Then Oil Buyers.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 24. p. 27.

Wilson, H.M. March 1, 1976. Size of West Market for Prudhoe Crude Still
Fuzzy. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 9. pp. 55-58.

No author. February 23, 1976. Texaco Hits Puget Sound Superport Plan.
Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 8. p. 57.

Pacific Northwest Sea. Winter 1975/76. An Oil Policy Proposed. Oceano-
graphic Commission of Washington. Seattle, Washington, pp. 3-4.

. Winter 1975/76. Crossing Admiralty Inlet. Oceanographic

Commission of Washington. Seattle, Washington, pp. 9-11.

Winter 1975/76. Oil Update '76. Oceanographic Commission of

Washington. Seattle, Washington, pp. 16-21,
. Winter 1975/76. OPTA Report: Findings Review. Oceanographic

Commission of Washington. Seattle, Washington. pp. 5-8.
. Winter 1975/76. Three on Oil: Evans, Jackson and Magnuson.

Oceanographic Commission of Washington. Seattle, Washington, pp. 26-30.

Ran, W.W. and H.C. Wagner. 1974. Oil and Gas in Washington. Energy
Resources of Washington. State of Washington, Department of Natural
Resources.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer. May 14, 1975. House Votes Halt on Oil
Terminal. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle, Washington, p. 1.

January 4, 1976. The Tanker Boom Has Already Arrived.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle, Washington, p. H-8.

Seattle Times. November 23, 1974. Delay in Drilling Sought. Seattle
Times, Seattle, Washington.

August 1, 1976. Evans Cracks Whip on Oil-Port Issue.

Editorial. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington,

July 30, 1976. Evans Tells Why He Intervened in Oilport

Issue. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.

December 14, 1975. Four Groups to Enter Supertanker Case,

Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington. p. A-6.

November 14, 1974. Oil Drilling Eyed Off State Coast,

Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington,

December 3, 1975. Oil Source for Pipeline Still a Mystery.

Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington. p. A-15,
. June 25, 1975. Sale of Oil Leases Off State Coast Set

in 1978. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.

113

January 11, 1976. 75 Residents Oppose Oil Terminal. Seattle

Times, Seattle, Washington. p. A-17.

. July 27, 1976. State Again Rejects Pipeline, Port

Application. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.
. July 28, 1976. State May Be Safe from Alaska Oil. Seattle

Times, Seattle, Washington.

September 24, 1976. State Supertanker Ban Overturned.

Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.
. August 4, 1976. State Will Protect Sound, Official Pledges,

Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.

July 29, 1976. Superport Foes Say Evans Pressured Council

into 'Yes'. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.
. October 1, 1976. Supertanker Dispute Hits a Temporary Calm.

Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington.

December 18, 1975. Three Sites Proposed for Oil Tanker

Moorage. Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington. p. E-16.

Tacoma News Tribune. October 19, 1975. Unusual Oil Rig Takes Shape.
Tacoma News Tribune, Tacoma, Washington. p. D-9.

Washington State Department of Commerce and Economic Development.

January 27, 1976. Assessment of Alternative Crude Oil Marine Terminal
Locations in Washington State.

Offshore Oil (General)

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. July 1975.

Proposed Increase in Oil and Gas Leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf,
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, D.C.

Congressional Research Service. March 1976. Effects of Offshore Oil and
Natural Gas Development on the Coastal Zone. U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington, D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality. April 1974. PCS Oil and Gas - An

Environmental Assessment. Vol. I, II. Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington, D.C.

Franssen, H.T. May 1976. Onshore Impact of Offshore Development Needs
to Be Handled with Care and Planning. Offshore, pp. 352-376.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management. January
1975. Coastal Management Aspects of PCS Oil and Gas Developments.
Office of Coastal Zone Management, Rockville, Maryland.

114

No author. July 26, 1976. House Votes Sweeping Change on PCS. Oil and
Gas Journal. Vol. 74, No. 30. p. 96.

Kinney, G.T. February 17, 1975. Long Delay Possible for U.S. Virgin-Areas
Search. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 7. pp. 33-35.

National Ocean Policy Study. December 1975. Energy Facility Siting in
Coastal Areas. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

November 1974. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Develop-
ment and the Coastal Zone. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.

. October 1974. North Sea Oil and Gas Development and Coastal

Zone Management. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Pimlott, D.H. Autumn 1974. The Arctic Offshore Gamble. The Living
Wilderness. pp. 16-25.

No author. July 12, 1974. Oil and Gas Resources: Did USGS Gush Too High?
Science. Vol. 185, No. 4146. pp. 127-130.

U.S. Geological Survey. June 20, 1975. Geological Estimates of Undis-
covered Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources in the United States.
USGS Circular 725. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

115

5.6 — APPENDIX 1: OCS ISSUES IN ALASKA

Numerous issues surround the development of petroleum resources on
the Alaskan OCS. The most serious controversies have arisen from disputes
between state and Federal officials. While both state and Federal
officials favor developing Alaska's offshore petroleum resources, there
is substantial disagreement over how to proceed. Basically the Federal
government, with the full support of industry, wants to develop all nine
of Alaska's OCS petroleum basins as rapidly as possible under present
OCS law. State officials, on the other hand, favor a much more cautious
and deliberate approach to OCS development and under a system which
provides for a greater state management role and a share in OCS revenues.
The specific conflicts between federal and Alaska officials are:

1. Offshore land ownership,

2. Adequacy of petroleum technology,

3. Alaska's role in OCS decision makings and

4. Revenue sharing.

Several offshore areas have been subject to land ownership disputes
between Alaska and the Federal government. The major court decision to
date involved the ownership of lower Cook Inlet. In 1967 the United
States and the State of Alaska began litigation when the state proposed
leasing tracts in this region. The state claimed jurisdiction over the
submerged lands of lower Cook Inlet based upon the historic bay doctrine.
Despite rulings supporting Alaska's claim by the U.S. District Court and
the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, in June 1975, rejected
Alaska's claim in maintaining that the state did not prove historic

116

title to lower Cook Inlet.1 The decision gave the U.S. Government
paramount authority over these lands and rights to all royalties, currently
estimated at $1 billion.2

A Federal-state jurisdictional conflict is also brewing over submerged
lands in the Beaufort Sea. The dispute involves the ownership of 80,000
acreas between the coast and a chain of barrier islands seven to eight
miles offshore. Since the state owns only the submerged lands for three
miles around the islands under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, there is
a one- to two-mile strip of land between the coast and islands claimed
by both governments. The state had originally planned to challenge the
Federal government's claim to the strip using the historic bay argument
but have altered their strategy after the recent Supreme Court decision
regarding ownership of the lower Cook Inlet . Instead two other arguments
may be made; the first may involve the use of the "straight base-line
boundary" concept which is a method by which nations sometimes draw
their offshore boundaries, and the second approach may argue that a
barrier of shoals off these islands should be used as the state's coast-
line.3 Although the amount of land in question is small, the revenues
from leasing may be considerable. The disputed territory lies just
north of Prudhoe Bay and many geologists believe these lands are prime
propects for petroleum development.1*

Another second area of disagreement concerns the adequacy of OCS
technology. Here worries are greatest about offshore production and
drilling technologies where there is the danger of a major oil spill
from natural or human causes. In particular, many doubt if industry can
operate safely in an environment where storm swells sometimes exceed

117

70 feet (Gulf of Alaska) and sea ice flows with great force (all areas

north of St. George Basin). Federal regulations have not been vigilant

or timely enough to suit Alaskans who want to see OCS operating orders

strengthened and safety provisions provided within the leasing agreements.

Many state officials want technology problems ironed out prior to leasing

while Federal officials see plenty of time after leasing has occurred.

Alaska also wants a greater role in the leasing program. The

state's role has been limited to reviewing environmental impact statements

and advising Federal agencies on the wisdom of pre-leasing policies and

actions. Under the provisions of the 1953 OCS Lands Act, the state has

no real authority prior to leasing. A case in point was the bitter

state-Federal dispute over the northern Gulf of Alaska sale where

Interior Secretary Kleppe held the 1.1 million acre lease sale over the

strong objections of the State. It is not surprising, therefore, that

Alaska (along with most coastal states) advocates amending the 1953 OCS

Lands Act to give it some authority prior to leasing.

Ultimately, though, much of the state's dissatisfaction with the

Federal OCS program can be traced to its monetary arrangements. Alaska

is resentful at not receiving any royalties or bonuses from OCS leases

while at the same time having to finance many of the public services to

support such operations. Not surpisingly, the state strongly supported

the revenue-sharing provisions of the recently enacted Coastal Zone

Management Act Amendments. The state views these monies as critical to

their managing OCS impacts as considerable sums of money will be needed

to help finance public services and infrastructure, to conduct environmental

and planning studies, and to hire the requisite planning and management

expertise.

118

5.6.1 Footnotes

Alaska Construction and Oil. November 1975. BLM Seeks
Impact on Tracts That May Be Sold in Lower Cook Inlet. Alaska
Construction and Oil. pp. 70.

The court cited prior ruling in boundary cases against
Louisiana and California. These found that a coastal nation
must have traditionally asserted and maintained dominion with
the acquiscence of foreign nations in order for a body of water
to be considered a historic bay. In its 6-2 majority ruling,
the court rejected the state's claim that acquiscence of foreigr
nations was proved by the failure of any foreign nations to
protest, calling it "meaningless".

2Southeast Alaska Empire. June 24, 1975. State to Fight
Inlet Ruling. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska. pp. 1.

3Doener, K. , III. September 1975. Political Conflict May
Delay Future Offshore Play. Offshore. Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 91.

^No author. February 17, 1975. Alaska Pushes for Early
Sale in Beaufort Sea. Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 73, No. 7,
pp. 36.

119

5.7 -- APPENDIX 2: ALASKA'S RESPONSE TO OCS DEVELOPMENT

Although limited by funds and personnel, Alaska is actively dealing
with OCS development. Much credit should rest with the Hammond administra-
tion. Politically the Governor is pro-environment and is an active
supporter of fishing interests.1

State officials have carefully pointed out that while the state
opposes the Federal OCS accelerated leasing program, Alaska is not
opposed to prudent offshore petroleum development. More specifically,
Governor Hammond's administration has adopted the following policies
with regard to OCS development:

1. Development of OCS resources must be designed and implemented
in such a manner as to protect to the fullest extent Alaska's
high degree of environmental quality, quality of life, abundant
fish and wildlife, and present and potential marine food
production.

2. A national energy policy must be developed that relates the
energy needs of the nation, of the western region of the
United States, and of the state of the nation's supply.

3. Oil exploration should be separated from oil development.

4. The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act must
be fully implemented.

5. The state must be a full participant in all levels of planning
and management regarding OCS resources. Alaska must be involved
in decisions regarding when, where, and whether to lease
certain areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, where renewable

120

resources of fish and wildlife exceed the value of the oil
and gas contained there.

6. Prime consideration must be given to onshore impacts; manage-
ment and planning for onshore impacts must precede the ini-
tiation of exploration activities.

7. Development of the oil and gas resources of the outer conti-
nental shelf must pay its own way.

Within the state, Governor Hammond has given high priority to enact-
ing a state coastal management act. Two quite different coastal manage-
ment proposals have been submitted by the Governor but both have failed
to pass the state legislature. The first proposal, submitted during the
1975 Legislative Session, would have established a strong state planning
and regulatory role in coastal management, but this bill was politically
very unpopular. Native corporations, oil and economic development
interests, and local governments all opposed passage of the bill. As a
result the Governor revamped and submitted a coastal management bill
during the 1976 season that stressed public participation, local management,
and data gathering activities.5 Although opposition to this bill was less
intense, it also failed to pass the state legislature.

In general, the state legislature has not directed much attention
toward the issue of OCS development. Most petroleum related legislation
proposed during the last two sessions has dealt with the Alaskan pipe-
line. The legislature did pass a tanker safety act that may directly
affect OCS operations in Alaska. This Act provides monetary incentives
to the oil industry to equip large tankers with safety controls not
presently required in recent petroleum transportation regulations issued

by the Coast Guard.6

121

Numerous state agencies have some management responsibility related
to OCS development; in Alaska, but the following four departments have
principal management responsibility: (1) the Department of Fish and
Game, (2) the Department of Natural Resources, (3) the Department of
Environmental Conservation, and (4) the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs. Currently all four departments are doing impact
studies involving OCS development.7 The role of each department is
summarized below.

1. Department of Fish and Game. The mandate of Fish and Game is
to manage, maintain and improve the fish, game and aquatic
resources of the state. Their powers include planning, per-
mitting, review and enforcement authority over designated
land and water areas of the state.

2. Department of Natural Resources . The responsibilities of
DNR include: (1) the leasing of minerals, tidelands, and
submerged lands (includes the granting of right-of-way leases),

(2) the regulation of oil and gas operations on state lands,

(3) the selection of state lands under the 1958 Statehood Act,

(4) the classification of state lands by appropriate uses,

(5) the regulation of fresh water use, (6) zoning unorganized
borough lands,9 (7) the acquisition and management of state
parks, and (8) the regulation of all material sales (e.g., sand
and gravel ) .

3. Department of Environmental Conservation. The DEC is principally
concerned with preventing and abating air, water, and solid
waste pollution. To accomplish these goals, the Department has

122

the authority to (1) issue effluent permits, (2) formulate
air and water classification systems, (3) develop a water
pollution control plan, and (4) establish safe water and
hygiene sewage disposal facilities.
4. Department of Community and Regional Affairs. The CRA is the

principal agency involved in OCS onshore planning. The Depart-
ment provides information, funding (HUD 701 and state funds)
and planning expertise to local governments. The Department
of Community and Regional Affairs will play an important role
in formulating onshore and coastal development policies even
though they have no regulatory power at this point.
Two other state entities have important roles to play. The first is the
Alaska Coastal Management Office within the Division of Policy Development
and Planning. This office will allocate the substantial amounts of
Federal CZM monies and coordinate policies and programs involving
Alaska's coastal zone. At present, the state's number one issue in
coastal planning is preparing for OCS impacts.10 And second, the state
has formed an OCS Task Force which is comprised of high level state
officials to fund, review and modify Department of Community and Regional
Affairs planning efforts and submit approved OCS policies and plans to
the Governor.

Finally, there are two features in Alaska which deserve special
mention as they will be important to OCS operation. First and fore-
most has been the creation of Regional and village native corporations
under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This Act provides
for conveyence of 40 million acres (as well as monies) to Alaska natives,

123

land which is currently being selected by the regional and village
corporations. Tentative selections made so far have included many
potential OCS onshore support sites (as well as many mineral and resource
rich lands). This Act is transforming Alaskan natives into a powerful
political and economic force in the state. Land is also being transferred
from Federal to state holdings as a result of the Alaska Statehood Act.
Under the provisions of this Act, Alaska is entitled to choose 104,450,000
acres of land within 25 years of statehood. To date a great deal of land
still remains to be selected by the Department of Natural Resources.
Future state land selections will be made with an interest in obtaining
potential OCS onshore support sites.11

124

5.7.1 Footnotes

Hammond narrowly defeated former Governor Egan for the
Governorship in 1974.

2Fairbanks Daily News — Miner. September 18, 197 5. Hammond
Sets Down PCS Policies. Fairbanks Daily News — Miner, Fairbanks,
Alaska. pp. A-5.

Southeast Alaska Empire. May 7, 1975. Panel Strips
Authority from Coast Zone Bill. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau,
Alaska. pp. 1.

This bill would have established a statewide planning council
and given powers to issue permits for development along the coast
to municipalities. In the unorganized boroughs, the Department of
Environmental Conservation would have held permit power after
adoption of the Coastal Plan in 1978.

^Southeast Alaska Empire. May 5, 1975. Coast Zone Bill
Opposition Strong. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau, Alaska,
pp. 1.

5Alaska Industry. November 1975. State Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program Revamped by Governor. Alaska Industry, Anchorage,
Alaska. pp. 9, 60.

Southeast Alaska Empire. Apirl 28, 1976. DEC Leader
Satisfied With Tanker Bill. Southeast Alaska Empire, Juneau,
Alaska.

7Untitled manuscript. John Williams. pp. 35.

8November 26, 1975. Inventory of Existing Land Management
Tools in Alaska. Part I and II. Alaska Coastal Management
Program.

9 A large part of Alaska's coastal zone is outside of local
jurisdiction.

10Op. cit. Williams. p. 34.

^Interview with Bob Waldrop. September 16, 1976.

125

o
o
w
Pi
o

z
o

I— I

o
w
Pi

H
CO
<

Pi
1=)
u
o
o

M
U
W
Ph
CA)

t-l
►J

Q
W
Z
W

Q
Z

Q z

-J m

Pi ffi

O <

w
Pi

i
i

01
-
■P
TO
+J
CO

Ph
O

4-1

C
O
CO
(0
0)

»*

•H

•

■

-P

•H

■H

•H

•

e_>

•H

■P

-p

P
rO
■P
CO

-p
c

<D
•H

O
CO

m
x:
o

p
ro

•H

rQ
rfl
X

•^>

Iz;

•H

»
§

bO
- P
• -H

a p
o c

a, ^

to
K

•^ -^

rQ V-J

« 03

rQ
^ £

co en

•H

rfl

•H

0')

0
M

C -H

o >

■H Pi

■H

P 3

O CO

■P

T3 pi

•H

■H

O <-{

U 3

P.T3

CD CO

Pi C

O CO

P-,

to
ro

cO
cj

rfl

•H

■rH

CO
Si

IX.

"tt

M CO

03 K

££

PX 2

O CO

M 3

Sh rQ

r£ o

(1)

c c

rO O

O O

H -H

Pi ro

<D ip

ro
P1

P.
X
CD
I

Pi
CD
>
O

CO
(0
O
CJ

•H

•H
O

rO
Pi

0) CO

C13 CO

<3 3

•H

&
X

CD
I

Pi
CD
>
O

CO
rfl
O

•H
CJ
rO

QJ CO
+i 3
PX^

s «
«-§

T-Jl PX

.Y
O
rfl

C
O

•H
P

rfl

P,
X

CO
rfl
O
O

•H
O

rfl

CD
CO

C
O
•H
-P
rO
■P

CD
I

Ph
CD
>

CO
rfl
O

•H

rfl

M
O
rfl

rQ
Ph

c
o

•H

rH
Ph

CD
I

Ph
CD
>
O

P
CO
rfl
O

•H
O
rO

r~i

03 CO

•ri

4^s M

« s

t~~i

PXl-o

s^ ts

Q «

03 03

■t5

fi 03

■^ a

03 P^

PX ri

r-i

G O

a o

t-5

^ rQ

<3> c

C*H

rfl
X

126

co
z

H
CO

u
Z

M
Pi

Cm
5

LCI

p
CO
P
CO

rH
o

c
o
co
CO
CD

c
o

•H

,3
•H
is
P
CO
•H
Q

3
4->

CO
P

■H

cp
•P
P

c
o

o
o

CD O

3 CD

ft
CO

X> ft
CO

*»

» 3

•H

0) CO

N— '

c — -

•rH

•H

•P

•H

r-H

rH CO

•H

•rH

•H

•P

•H

•r-1

O CD

CD X)

>-,

•rH

XI -P

•rH

•H

•P

•rH

•P

•H

•P

•H

C -P

3 P

O P

r-{

r-t

O CO

•rH

•P CO

•H U

•H

,£3

•H

P CD

ro a

(0 13

t-j c

3 O

<D CO

ex p

ft p

CO
A!

P
CO
CO

3.
CD
P

ft
CO
CD

CO cO

•

A< -H

CO 3

c •

CO 3

CO p

co co

•

H O

nl CO

rH •

< ip

rH P

CO 3

•

•H

< 3

1— 1

•

O rH

•H cO

13 CO

C 3

•

•H

P O

CD >-<

CO (D

•H -p

3 cO

•H

■H

•H

•P

■H

•P

cO P.

-P CO

•rH

< -n

•rH CO

3 CD

I cO

•H

•rH

■H

•H

•P

CJ CD

<D J2

•z.

3 CQ

CO 3

•r*

-W

t»

•ri

r-~i

•^

•<^

3
•■ci

CD CO

rH CO

•P O

CO P.

P P

•H

1 CO

P .3

r< rH

•H

O <

CD
3
•P

CX 3

O CJ

•P rH

P co

CD
3
•H

CD
CX

3 3
CO O
O O

•P rH

Ch cO
CD Pm

CD
ft
CO

CO
XI

3
•H
Cu,

•P
CD
CO

CO
X

M
O
CO

,3
ft
E
3

Ml
•P
Oi

•P
X!

x)
cO
CD
X

E-

•ri

T-i

r-i

<3>

C^<

rCl

•ri

•«

r-i

rCl

■tS

•ti

•ri

r-i

rH *t»

ca m

Cl,

g CO

G S

fx,

CO §

r«

3 &

r-i

co ca

rSj

G
CQ

tin

rH
CO
CD

rH
CD
•H
O

»U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:! 978 -745-U21/ k 48 5 REGION NO. 4

127

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "FWS/0BS"

See other formats