Kachemak Bay, a status report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

GC
59
A4
K33
1975

ii'k

- - --------- --

.5TAmruS

US of Coromarce
-=v.4-ces Conter Library
;o@i ..I.v--nue
Charleston, SC 25405-2413

KACHEMAK BAY

Status Report

M.P. Wennekens, PhD - Program Supervisor
Pollution Biology - Marine Ecosystems Protection

L.B. Flagg
Fisheries Biology - Marine Ecosystems Protection

L..Trasky
Marine Biology - Marine Ecosystems Protection

D.C. Burbank
Technical Supervisor - Transport Measurements

R. Rosenthal
Marine Botany (Consultant) - Macrophyte Ecosystems

F.F. Wright, PhD
Oceanographic Consultant Transport Measurements

Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Habitat Protection Section
Coastal Habitat Protection Programs
Q-A) Anchorage

December 1975

KACHEMAK BAY

STATUS REPORT

Table of Contents

Abstract

Introduction page

Section I The Marine Environment of Kachemak Bay I-1
General Description I-1
Circulation 1-4
Drift Card Studies 1-33
Seasonal Properties of Kachemak Bay
Marine Waters 1-43

Section II Environmental and Biological Attributes of Kachemak
Bay
Macrophyte Ecology Summer 1974-Spring 1975 11-8
Commercial Fisheries of Kachemak Bay,
An Overview 11-23
Crustacean Larval Biology 11-60

Section III Sensitivities of Kachemak Bay to Man's Impacts III-1
Pollutional Aspects of Hydrocarbon Intrusion
into th e Kachemak Bay Marine Environment 111-8
Anatomy and Potential Impacts of an Oil Spill
upon Kachemak Bay 111-14
A - Behavior and Fate of Spilled Oil 111-16
B - Ecological Impacts 111-41

Section IV Conservancy and Protection of the Renewable Energy
Resources of Kachemak Bay IV-1
Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat IV-8
Environmental Protection, How Effective? IV-14

Section V Kachemak Bay: Perspective and Overview V-1

Bibliography

ABSTRACT

Results from continuous radar tracking of current drogues for
periods as long as three weeks, show that the Bay has a complex
circulation characterized by rather rapid flushing of the "Crab
Sanctuary" and by a semi-permanent small counterclockwise eddy and
larger clockwise eddy southward of a line drawn directly westwards
from the tip of Homer Spit. Residence time of the waters within
the Bay appears to be 20 days at the most and-the Bay must be
considered as an input-output system with respect to the dispersal
and settling of crustacedns larvae. Preliminary considerations of
the transport processes strongly suggest that crustacean larvae
spawned outside the Bay will settle in the Bay and that larvae spawned
in the Bay will be flushed to settle outside the Bay.
Preliminary results of sampling to determine the extent and
patterns of settling of the first benthic stages of king crab larvae
suggest a strong preference by the post larvae to settle on stony
bottoms heavily encrusted with bryozoams (Flustrella) sponges, hydroids
and other epifaunal mats.
The macrophyte ecosystem studies show diverse, abundant red,
brown, green algal assemblages exhibiting well defined intertidal and
subtidal zonations. Preliminary results show marked seasonal variations
in growth and densitities of Alaria and other species, as well as in the
utilization of the macrophyte environment by juveniles and adult
ki.ng crabs, pandalid shrimps, dungeness crabs, and various fishes
usually closely associated with the algal environment.
Analysis of current literature shows that sufficient information
is available to describe the potential behavior, fate and impacts
of various types of spilled petroleum products. The 250,000 barrels
METULA spill of August 1975 in the Straits of Magellan, in a marine
environment very similar tothe Kachemak Bay - Lower Cook Inlet
one, can be used to directlygauge the magnitude and extent of impact
that could accrue from mishap involving the 125,000 to 500,000 barrels
capacity of tankers presently plying the waters of Cook Inlet.
Analysis of current agencies statutory and regulatory practices
indicate that, while technology is presently available and the body of
environmental protection laws considerable, application of such
technologies and laws is not as effective as it should be to protect.
and maintain the quality of the marine environment.
The fate of Kachemak Bay cannot be divorced from the fate of Lower
Cook Inlet; both areas form an environmental/ecological unit of prime
quality and productivity. The long term attributes of the biological
resources and of their rapidly accruing values to the citizens of.the
state must be viewed in terms of a total "energy budget" between "non-
renewable (oil and gas) energy resources" and "renewable (biological)
ene.rgy resources."

LIST OF FIGURES

page

Fig. 1 - General Bathymetry - Cook Inlet 1-2

Fig. 2 - General Bathymetry - Kachemak Bay and Approaches 1-3

Fig. 3 - Tidal Heights - May-August 1975 1-7

Fig. 4 - Drogue Drift, 27-31 May 1975 1-8

Fig. 5 - Drogue Drift, 8-24 July 1975 1-9

Fig. 6 - Drogue Drift, 9-18 July 1975 1-10

:Fig. 7 - Drogue Drift, 8-11 May 1975 1-11

Fig. 8 - Drogue Trajectories, 27 May - 3 June 1975 1-12

Fig. 9 - Circulation Patterns - Kachemak Bay 1-13
27 May-3 June 1975

Fig. 10 - Drogue Trajectories, 8-24 July 1975 1-15

Fig. 11 - Drogue Trajectories, 8-24 July 1975 1-16

Fig. 12 - Circulation Patterns - Kachemak Bay 1-17
July 7-25, 1975

Fig. 13 - Drogue Drift, 16-24 July 1975 1-18

Fig. 14 - Drogue Trajectories, 7-12 August 1975 1-19

Fig. 15 - Circulation Patterns - Kachemak Bay 1-20
7-12 August 1975

Fig. 16 - Drogue Drift, 4-8 September 1975 1-22

Fig. 17 - Drogue Drift, 4-9 September 1975 1-25

Fig. 18 - Drogue Drift 10-17 November 1975 1-27

Fig. 19 - Drogue Trajectories, 10-17 November 1975 1-28

Fig. 20 - Drogue Drift, 18-20 November 1975 1-30

Fig. 21 - Drogue Trajectories, 18-20 November 1975 1-31

Fig. 22 - Inferred Net Circulation - Cook Inlet 1-34
(From Burbank, 1974)

Fig. 23 - Drift Card Recoveries Site A 1-35
(Vessels Holding and Anchoring Area)
Fig. 24 - Drift Card Recoveries 1-37
Site B (Homer Spit)
Site C (Yukon Island)
Fig. 25 - Drift Card Recoveries - Site D 1-38
(Point Pogibshi)
Fig. 26 - Drift Card Recoveries 1-40
Site E (Shell, SoCal Drill Site)
Site F (Bluff Point)
Fig. 27 - Drift Card Recoveries 1-41
Site G (Anchor Point)
Site H (Cape Kasilof -
SoCal Drill Site)

.Fig. 28 - Seasonal Tem
p. Regime (Bright et al 1969) 1-44
Kachemak Bay

Fig. 29 - Seasonal Run Off Regime For Selected Drainage 1-45
(Knull 1969)

Fig. 30 - Longitudinal Density Stratification April 1969 1-46
(Knull and Williamson - 1969)

Fig. 31 - Cro ss Channel Density Stratification April 1969 1-48
(Knull and Williamson - 1969)

Fig. 32 - Longitudinal and Cross Channel Distribution of 1-49
Density - July 1969 (Knull and Williamson - 1969)

Fig. 33 - Cross Channel Distribution of Density, Lower Cook 1-51
Inlet (NOOA/NOS 1973) July 1973.

Fig. 34 - Longitudinal Distribution of Density - October 1969 1-52
(Knull and Williamson - 1969)

Fig. 35 - Kachemak Bay - Environmental-Biological Attributes 11-3

Fig. 36 - Selected Bottom T.V. Observations - 11-6
(Westinghouse Ocean Research Lab - March 1969)

Fig. 37 - Shrimp Catches (lbs) From Trawl Investigation 11-7
Kachemak Bay. (National Marine Fisheries - 1972)

Fig. 38 - Kachemak Bay salmon streams and commercial salmon 11-30
catch zones. A Upper Kachemak B Tutka
C Seldovia D Port Graham

Fig. 39 - Kachemak Bay tanner crab size frequencies. 11-44
(Carapace width). 1970-1974

Fig. 40 Average monthly commercial trawl catch of pink II-53a
and humpy shrimp Kachemak Bay, May 1970 through
September 1973.

Fig. 41 Average monthly commercial trawl catch of coonstripe II-53b
and sidestripe shrimp, 1(achemak Bay, May 1970
through September 1973.

Fig. 42 Kachemak Bay, major herring spawn and commercial 11-59
catch zone.

Fig. 43 - Net transport velocities through Kachemak Bay as 11-63
derived from drogue data.

Fig. 44 - Planktonic Occurence of Crustacean Larvae 11-64

Fig. 45 - NMFS Sampling Stations for Zoea Larvae 11-67

Fig. 46 - Kachemak Bay king crab larval periods, 1972 11-70

Fig. 47 - Schematic Model of the effects of the two types of 111-6
pollution - (From Odum, 1971)

Fig. 48 - METULA oil spill - Straits of Magellan - 9 August III-10
1975 (Gunnerson, 1975)

Fig. 49 - Processes controlling the fate of spilled crude 1 11-15
oil in the ocean. (Burwood and Speers - 1974)

Fig. 50 - Spreading of an oil slick 111-21

Fig. 51 - Inferred oil spill trajectories for Kachemak Bay. 111-24
(Miller and Britch - 1975)

Fig. 52 - Observed persistence of petroleum substances in 111-38
various marine habitats following actual oil spills.
Maximum times shown do not necessarily imply complete
removal of oil, but may represent author's estimate
of persistence or termination of study.
(CEO Report, OCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental
Assessment, 1974)

Fig. 53 - Composition of crude oil and toxicity of its fraction 111-43
(Blumer, 1969)
Fig. 54 - Potential impacts of an oil spill upon Kachemak Bay 111-55

Fig. 55 - State of Alaska 28th Oil and Gas Lease Sale V-2

Fig. 56 - Proposed BLM/OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Lower V-4
Cook Inlet

Fig. 57 From: Albrecht, W. A. 1971 V-9
Physical, Chemical and Biological
Changes in Soil Community -
In: Man's Impact on Environment
pp. 395 - 418

Fi-g.-58 - Energy subsidies for various food crops. The V-11
energy history of the U.S. food system is shown
for comparison. (Steinhart and Steinhart, 1974)

Fig. 59 - Cook Inlet: Inferred circulation and pollutant V-13
transport

Fig. 60 - Cook Inlet Marine Sanctuary and Critical Habitats V-14

LIST OF TABLES

page

Table 1. Kachemak Bay, Cook Inlet, Commercial Fisheries 11-26
Harvest, 1966-75.

Table 2. Estimated Value in Millions of Dollars of Kachemak 11-27
Bay Commercial Fisheries in 1973.

Table 3. Percent of Total Cook Inlet Shellfish Production 11-28
(pounds) Contributed by Kachemak Bay, 1964-1974.

Table 4. Kachemak Bay District Salmon catch, by species, 11-31
1954-1975.

Table 5. Kachemak Bay@district pink salmon catch by area. 11-33

Table 6. Kachemak Bay area, estimated pink salmon escapements 11-34
in thousands of fish.

Table 7. (A & B) Kachemak Bay, King Crab Landing, by Month, 11-38
in Pounds 1960-1966.

Table 8. Kachemak Bay, king crab landings; 1960-1974. 11-39

Table 9. Comparative measurements of king crab carapace 11-40
lengths-in percent for winter and summer commercially
caught crab in Kachemak Bay.

Table 10. Average weight of king crab for Kachemak Bay, Cook 11-41
Inlet, 1960-1974.

Table 11. Kachemak Bay, Tanner Crab Landing, by Month, in 11-43
Pounds, 1962-1974.

Table 12. (A & B) Kachemak Bay, dungeness crab catch by 11-46-47
month, 1961-1974.

Table 13. Shrimp trawl catches by month for Kachemak Bay, 11-49
1969-1975.

Table 14. Trawl shrimp catches in pounds per drag hour for two 11-50
vessels in Kachemak Bay, 1969-1975.

Table 15. Average species composition of the commercial trawl 11-52
catch from Kachemak Bay - May 1970 through September
1973.

Table 16. Kachemak Bay Pot Shrimp catches, 1971-1974. 11-55

Table 17. Kachemak Bay historical herring catch, 1914-1928. 11-57

Table 18. Kachemak Bay herring catches in pounds, 1969-1974. 11-58

Table 19. Estimates of total abundance of king crab zoea 11-71
for each semi-monthly sampling period in Kachemak
Bay, Alaska, March-June, 1972.

Table 20. Estimates of instantaneous mortality and seasonal 11-71
survival rates for king crab zoea stages I, II, and
III collected in Kachemak Bay, Alaska, 1972.

Table 21. Estimates of survival of king crab zoea per 100,000 11-71
individuals released in Kachemak @ay, Alaska, 1972.

Table 22. Basic Data For Oil Composition Model. 111-19

Table. 23. Estimated % of Composition (by weight) and Comparison 111-50
of Solubilities for Various Petroleum Substances.

Table 24. Summary of Toxicity Data 111-51

Table 25. Alternative approaches to key legislative issues in IV-21
water pollution control.

Table 26. (A & B) Water Quality Criteria for Waters of the IV-22-23
State of Alaska

INTRODUCTION

Kachemak Bay, an area rich in scenic beauty and natural resources,

has become a center of symptomatic controversies between environmental,

fisheries and oil and gas interests, symptomatic because the story of

Kachemak Bay will be the story of many other areas of coastal Alaska, as

the quest for nearshore and offshore mineral resources development escalates.

Kachemak Bay is unique in that, within a few hundred square miles of

coastal waters are concentrated high natural scenic beauty, rich and -diverse

biological resources, sheltered waters that can accomodate large ocean

going vessels as well as rowboats, recreational facilities easily accessible

from Alaska's largest metropolitan area, potentially highly renumerative

oil, gas and coal deposits, thriving shellfish and fin fish fisheries, all

within sight of a potentially eruptive volcano.

Kachemak Bay is not quite the kind of-"pristine' coastal-environment

readily found within a few miles from its shore, but is an area of still

prime environmental quality and productivity. Human impacts are localized

and minimal, and much of current human activities can still assimilate within

the natural, controlling environmental processes. Human impacts are visible,

but again localized and with proper planning, foresight and fortitude can

easily be repaired and controlled.

The intent of the present status report, the first of a series dealing

with environmental and resources management, conservancy and protection issues

for the Kachemak Bay - Lower Cook Inlet area, is to discuss and summarize
salient findings emerging from ongoing field'studies and analysis of current

literature as they relate to man's disruption of the marine environment,

especially by oil and gas related activities.

The present document reports on some of the results of work in progress,

with the realization that, with the rapidly escalating tempo of oil and gas

activities in the Lower Cook Inlet area, the continuing needs for "real time"

management, protection and control actions necessitate immediate application

of best integrated available knowledge, without. waiting for the benefit of

completed studies.

Environmental studies, such as transport mechanisms as they affect the

distribution of crusteacean larvae or of pollutants, require not less than one

full seasonal cycle of observations or about 18 months of measurements before

some assessment of the dynamics of the system can be made. The first results

of the Kachemak Bay studies initiated during the summer of 1974 are beginning

to emerge. The results are rewarding as they already challenge some of the

prevailing concepts on the mechanisms of distribution of crustacean larvae in

the@@area. The results are challenging in that current published knowledge can

provide for a pragmatic assessment of fate, behavior and impact of petroleum

intruding into the environment of the Bay. The results are especially

challenging in that they can already point at a course of Action that can

effectively protect the quality of the Bay as well as provide for a com-

prehensive management of its resources.

Marine Research in Kachemak Bay

A number of investigations have been conducted in Kach,emak Bay by

various agencies including the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau

of Commercial Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, University

of Southern California, University of Alaska, and the Alaska Department

of Fish and Game. Most of the research was until recently aimed at

stock assessment. The Kachemak Bay Program'has started the initial

emphasis towards establishing an ecosystem approach to assessment of

conditions and ecological relationships. A brief listing and description

of some of the studies which have taken place in Kachemak Bay follows:

Year Agency Project

1941 USFWS Otter trawl survey located areas with

commercial potential for king crab, tanner

crab, and dungeness crab. Also noted bottom

fish concentrations.

1957-59 University of King crab research - studied movements and

Southern migrations; basic life history in Kachemak Bay.

California

1058;63 BCF Shrimp exploration - located commercial popu-

lations of pandalid shrimp in Kachemak Bay

1961-63 BCF, ADF&G King crab research - tagging operation in

Kachemak Bay and lower Cook Inlet. Determined

stock mixing and migration. Crab from Shelikof

Straits recovered in Kachemak Bay during

breeding season.

1962-75 ADF&G Pink salmon escapement/return relationships

studied, forecast program developed.

1963 ADF&G Dungeness crab tagging; determined movements

between upper and outer Kachemak Bay.

Year Agency Project

1968 ADF&G; BCF Scallop exploration in Kachemak Bay, revealed

scallops present but not abundant in quantities

to support large trawl operation.

1969 Westinghouse Underwater TV survey in Kachemak Bay, scallop

Research Lab bed located plus a reas of shrimp concentration.

1970-75 NMFS; ADF&G Annual trawl surveys for shrimp species composition,

distribution, and abundance.

1971-72 NMFS Studied distribution of larval shellfish forms in

Kachemak Bay. Bluff Point found to be major larval

release and rearing area for king crab, shrimp,

and tanner crab.

1971-75 ADF&G King and tanner crab tagging to determine movements

and migration patterns. Adult crab, after breeding

in Kachemak Bay, moved to other areas in lower Cook

Inlet.

1971-75 University of Basic research on king crab physiology.

Alaska

1972-75 ADF&G (F.R.E.D.) Assessed potential for saltwater rearing of salmon

in Kachemak Bay.

1972 ADF&G Tagging of pink salmon in Kachemak Bay to determine

movements and migration rates.

1973-75 NMFS Basic research to describe larval forms of Pandalid.

shrimp.

1974-75 ADF&G King and tanner crab pot index surveys for distribution

relative abundance of stocks, and year class strength.

1974 ADF&G Scallop exploration in Kachemak Bay. General infor-

mation on distribution obtained.

Year Agency Project

1974 ADF&G (S.F. Div.) Hardshell clam inventory and distribution study

in Kachemak Bay.

1974 Halibut Comm. Distribution and relative abundance of halibut

studied through trawl survey.

1974-75 ADF&G (Dames & Ecological relationships studied in intertidal and

Moore) near shore subtidal areas of Kachemak Bay with

emphasis on macrophyte (kelp) communities. Base-

line date collected.

1974-75 ADF&G Current movements studied in Kachemak Bay as

related to larval transport. Show more complex

and variable circulation patterns than previously

assumed.

1974-75 NMFS/r4%uke Bay Bioassays performed on juvenil.e shellfish usi,-.g

Cook Inlet crude oil. Low levels of oil induced

mortalities on early life forms.

1975 ADF&G Larval timing and distribution; benthic biology

studied. Early settling stage king crab found in

Bluff Point area as well as south side Kachemak Bay.

1975 USFWS; Rutgers Study of salt marsh communities in Kachemak Bay.

University The senior scientist, Dr. Crow stated that on a

per unit area basis, Kachemak Bay is one of richest

areas he has ever studied.

This list is by no means complete; however, it provides for an overview

of the main ecological/biological investigative programs presently in Kachemak

Bay. It is interesting to note that very little research has been directed

toward herring, bottom fish, or clam resources in Kachemak Bay.

I .

SECTION I
0 THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

KACHEMAK BAY

SECTION I

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF KACHEMAK BAY

General Description

Kachemak Bay is an elongated embayment contiguous to the southeastern

entrance to Cook Inlet (Fig. 1 ). The bay is about 45 miles long (about 67 km)

and about 22 miles wide (about 33 km) at*its western approaches between Anchor

Point and Pt. Pogibshi. The narrow, 4 miles long (about 7 km) Homer Spit projects

about 1/2 way through the central width of the bay, separating the bay into an outer

and inner bay.

The sea floor and shore topography of Kachemak Bay reflects the sudden

transition between the mountainous, highly indented coastal terrains of

the Gulf of Alaska Coast, and the gently rolling coastal terrain bordering

the eastern side of Cook Inlet.

The northern shore of the bay is fronted by an extensive shallow

platform, well defined (in the outer bay) by the 20-30 fathoms contours and by

the 10-20 fathoms contours (in the inner bay) (Fig. 2). Extensive tidal

sh.allows and mudflats are found along the eroding - slumping cliffs and

bluffs of the northern shore.

The inner head of the bay is characterized by the extensive tidal flats,

braided drainages and marshlands of the Fox River complex, a major drainage

outlet for the mountainous terrain and ice fields bordering the coast; the

greatest portion of the drainage from the SW sector of the Kenai Mountains

separating Kachemak Bay from the Gulf of Alaska flows into Kachemak Bay,

an important factor which greatly controls the seasonality of the estuarine

regime of the bay.

1-2

154* 1520 1500
Susitno R.
Boluga R. nik Arm
v
a ANCHORAGE
COOK INLET ALASKA
RANGE
30 N.M.

DrIf t KENAI

I IS.
KENAI
MOUNTAINS

60 ALEUTIAN
RANGE HO

0
4
OOK
1 LET
110

Alaska
GULF OF
ALASKA

Shollk f KODIAK IS.
St.
DEPTH IN FATHOMS

Fig. i GENERAL BATHYMETRY -COOK INLET

1-3

@5,

IJk
00" 7:.
A

AA
N

At, I.,
01
slo
41

'.Cron r-,-
J-

A;7

VIA

Fig. 2 Ceneral Bathymetry XachemAk Day and approacbes

The southern shore of the bay is characterized by a mountainous, dissected

coast, fronted by the remnant of a glacially carved trough; depths in excess of

30 fathoms.extend from almost the head of the bay to the main channel

of Cook Inlet.

The deepest waters of Kachemak Bay center between Halibut Cove and

Yukon Island. Depths slightly in excess of 80 fathoms are found off Gull Island,

SW from the tip of Homer Spit and about 95 fathoms, the deepest portion of the

bay is found off Cohen Island.

Circulation

The circulation of Kachemak Bay has been variously investigated by Bright

et al (1960), Knull and Williamson (1969), NOAA (1973, 1974), ADF&G (1974,

1975). The direct flow measurements usually fall into two main sampling

techniques: Lagrangian (pathlines) performed with drifting devices (drift

cards, current drogues), and Eularian (single point) performed with moored

current meters.

Apart from the recent current measurements performed by NOOA and ADF&G,

most of the available data were of short duration, encompassing at best a

few hours to a few tidal cycles. The 1973 NOOA Eularian measurements collected

at the entrance of Kachemak Bay at a location midway between Anchor Point and

Pt. Pogibshi covered a period of about 18 days of continuous measurement of

surface, midwater and near bottom currents. ADF&G Lagrangian measurements to date

continuously sampled over periods in excess of 23 days.

1-5

The ADF&G studies initiated in 1974, are specifically designed to

better define the long terms transport mechanisms of the bay. The prime

objective is to correlate the onset of spawning, duration of planktonic

larval stages and timing of first bottom settling of crustacean larvae. The

Kachemak Bay area, especially the outer bay, is well recognized as being one

of the most important breeding, spawning and reproduction center for

commercially important crustaceans. Much inferences have been made about the

occurrence of a "gyre" that,concentrates the spawn and larvae and the

ADF&G long term transport measurements were specifically designed to update

the rather fragmentary information on the local circulation.

.To overcome the problems of vessels availability, scheduling, costs

and sea keeping capabilities a shore based radar tracking technique

of "current drogues" is being used. The technique consists of con-

tinuously tracking, by means of a standard marine radar (Decca), the

motion of radar reflectors mounted on a surface float tethered to either

6' X 6' canvas biplanes or to personnel or cargo parachutes deployed

at various depths. The technique has proven to be highly effective

for continuous monitoring of the.circulation over the entire bay.

The radar is mounted on a truck and can moved from location to location

in accordance with changes in tracking requirements.

Tracking offshore drogues, Bluff Point

Early morning radar watch

1-6

A highway overlook at Bluff Point has proven to be a most advantageous

location, the elevation enabling better than a 25 mile range for tracking

of drogue reflectors. Better than 8 drogues, each programmed to sense currents

at different levels, can easily be tracked, around the clock. Tidal Periods

continuously sampled during the course of the present investigation are

shown in figure 3.

The results obtained so far, show that the circulations of the bay is

complex reflecting the combined influence of the diurnal and monthly lunar

inequalities of the tidal.forces, seasonal changes in tidal regime,
meteorological effects and runoff fluctuations. (Fig. 4, 5, 6)

Preliminary analysis of the drogues data show:

Period 8 - 11 May 1975

Drogue trajectories for this period are shown in Fig. 7. The surface

drogues released in and near the mouth to the inner bay moved rapidly seawards,

drifting in a northwestern along the northern shore of the outer bay. The

drogue movement near the mouth of the bay may reflect a general net outflow

of relatively fresh water at the surface, and the net inflow of more

saline water at depth. Such a circulation is typical of many estuaries,

particularly during periods of high runoff. Subsequent drift up coast

developed a sawtooth pattern as a result of the flood and ebb impulses

superimposed upon the net northwestward transport of surface waters.

Pe-ri6d'27 May -m'3 June 1975

The generalized drogue trajectories.and the inferred circulation for

this period are shown in figures 8, 9, and 10. Tides were changing from
spring to neap (figure 3). Although the period of observation was short,

evidence is strong to support the presence of a counterclockwise gyre

extending throughout the water column of the outer bay. Surface waters

ingressed into the bay along the southern shore moving seawards along the

1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
20 -RA DAR-
15
MAY 101

0
V V V U

2C
RADAR A A
15
JUNE 10

5
0--
u v V u
20 RADAR-----'-
15
JULY 100

5
TIDE
IN v
FEET
20 AD --- - ----
15

AUGLISTIO
5

Fig. 3 TIDAL HEIGHTS
MAY - AUGUST 1975
AR

RADAR TRACKING DARK

151 OW
31 MAY 590 40'. -
0 RADAR

H MER

30 MAY

30MAY
(SURF)-
31 MAY

I JUNE
JUNE 30MAY V
I At
731 MAY 1>29MAY
27MAYOOOFT)
9 14:15
3 JUNE
(SURF)
28MAY

3 JUNE"'

I JUNE 2 JUNE

30 MAY 31 MAY IWO
10:50 %3 N
(SURF)
3

KACHEMAK BAY
Fig. Drogue Drift, 27-31 May 1975 CURRENT DROGUES

02 (SURF.) RETRIEVEO ABOUT
24 JULY 18:00 9JULY 17:00
10:00

%%
RETRIEYEO

12,30

0
OQ %9
LOST RETPIEVED
% Is
% it:od@i* [email protected]
20

%%
% ORADAR

Is
F-i 4t.7(SURF) 01(75-) 17 R@ @RIEVED
%0 10:53 10:48. 09 0
e JULY *4 06:0
15 *5(501
16 09:10
14 a JULY 9
12 %W 6 (1501
08:35
14 12 8 JULY

10 11

3
9 11
f Na
10

#3 (1001) 4#2 (SURE) 10
12:05 12 * 15
8 JULY a JULY
N,

I-10

%% % %% BLUFF POINT
--00:00
% 18 JULY RADAR
-(D-

00:00
17JULY

COOK % KACHEMAK BAY
INLET 14:25
9 JULY

00:00
16 JULY 00:00
14 JU

00:00
10 JGL-y
00-00
00:00
00:00 HJU
13 JULY 15JULY

SELDOVIA

00:00
12 JULY

Fig. 6 Drogue Drift, 9-18 July 1975

151 4 OrW 151* 3dW
22:00

KACHEMAK BAY

SURFACE TRAJECTORY
I I MAY75 12.100
:-*Oo:oo 20:00 BLUFF PT. I I MAY 1975
J. 0 RADAR
o lo,: 75 * (BLUFF)
13:00 \,O 590
40N
14:37 106:00
\22:00
tv 700:00 H MER
2 2.- 0 0
0
20:00

18:00 HOMER
SPIT 14:3
OG:oA, 16:00
00

RADAR SMAY75
14:OOW (SPIT)
lf-J 02
18:00 02:0 15:00
18:35 %-,,,, 12:0O\
Ln 16:00 O8-.K,',5 -%20'00
00 8 MAY 00 9MAY 00 IOMAY 00 IIMAY 00 V,_06:00 '%OO:Oo
20 22:00i% 10, V0000 3
14:06 0 % a MAY75 - 00:00
2
0:00, ,.oo-'.,, - 9MAY7
18:00
15 SIR 12:00

-10
10 10:00 0:00 00:00
5 9MAY75
O@
TIDAL PERIOD SAMPLED

GENERALIZED DROGUE TRAJECTORIES

FOR PERIOD 27 MAY - 3 JUNE
19T5
4-
co 31
HOMER

0
30

31 29

30
n 2TMAY
rt 31
0
29

ID
2
2.; % % 28
3 Y C.
3 2 MAYO

30 MAY

r
31 2
a

30MAY
Ln

SURFACE

1-13

HOMER

SURFACE
27MAY-3 JUNE 1975

HOMER

-IOOFT.

27MAY-3JUNE 1975

Fig- 9 CIRCULATION PATTERNS - KACHEMAK SAY
HOMER

27 MAY - -3 JUNE 1975

1-14

northern shore.

Subsurface circulation in the gyre appears considerably more sluggish

than at the surface. The period (time required for transport once around

the gyre) for the subsurface gyre (at 100' depth) appeared to be approximately

10-12 days, in contrast to about 5-6 days at the surface.

Period 8 - 24 July 1975

Generalized drogue trajectories and inferred circulation for this period

are shown in figures 11, 12, and 13. During the period 8-20 July, the

existence of a counterclockwise rotating gyre in the outer bay was evident,

the gyre however, having moved several miles eastward into the bay;

accompanying this was a larger clockwise rotating gyre to the west. This

pattern persisted through the spring and neap tidal phases. However,

with-the onset of the following spring tide (21-24 July), the outer

clockwise rotating surface gyre became enlarged and moved farther east-

ward into the outer bay, inducing a southwestward transport of surface

waters to develop along the southern shore. The inner counterclockwise

rotating surface gyre was either eradicted or displaced farther eastward

into the outer bay; however data are insufficient to determine the

exact sequence of events.

The heights or ranges of the two spring tides did not appear to be

significantaly different to account for the observed variation in

the current pattern, suggesting that other variables, as yet undefined,

are probably quite important in determining the circulation pattern.

The subsurface gyre persisted throughout the period 8-24 July.

Period -7-.*-- 12 August 1975

The spring tides amplitudes for this period were significantly larger

GENERAUZED SURFACE DROGUE TRAJECTORIES

FOR PERIOD 8 - 24 JULY 1975

+ 4-

HOMER

16
9

15
0 SJULY
oQ 10
r_ 24 17
8 JULY Zn
9JULY 12
9JULY
13 0 1 14 11
0
14 Is
m 2 16 19
co is 10 21 is
22
C-4
SJU
12 22

GENERALIZED DROGUE TRAJECTORIES V70R 50-.150 FEET
FOR PERIODS- 24 JULY 1975.

DROGUE DEPTH INDICATED IN PARENTHESES

9
20

19 H ER

GJULY(-75') 17 16
15 CA
m 9 JULY (-501) SJULY
n -9 14 (-50')
rr - JULY(-5
0 9
21 SJULY(-150)
21
12 13

co
12
C-4 10 11

10
4
Ln 8 JULY
Woo')

1-17

SURFACE
8- 20 JULY 75

SURFACE
21-24JULY75

/00 50F -loonk,
8 - 4 JULY75"@
@
UARFAC
_ OJ
8 2 U
LY 75

Fig. 12 - CIRCULATION PATTERNS - KACHEMAK BAY

JULY 7 25 1975

SURFACE DROGUE TRAJECTORIES FOR DROGUES
0 104 DURING PERIOD IS - 24 JULY 1975.
THE INFERRED TRACK (DASHED LINE) FOR * 4
WAS DEAD-RECKONED DURING A PERIOD IN
WHICH THE FEFLECTOR COULD NOT BE
TRACKED.

+ +

cQ HOMER

0 co
OQ

20
4 19
4is

23
#4 17
21
18

3
22 21 17
A' 22

--- INFERRED TRACK

KACHEMAK SAY

GENERALIZED DROGUE TRAJECTORIES

FOR PERIOD 7-12 AUGUST 1975
ftl
H.
T +
12 +
12
tl HOMER
0

rl
0

f X9 ".12
7-SAU 10
UG
7-9 AUG
10

10 7 AUG

@j
Ln
7-9AUG

SUR CE

-50FEET

1-20

SURFACE
10 - 12 AUGUST 75

- 50 FEET
7 - 12 AUGUST 75

07
Fig. 15 CIRCULATION PATTERNS - KACHEMAK BAY
7-12 AUGUST 1975

1-21

during the height of the spring tides. A well defined clockwise gyre

was also present in the southeastern sector of the outer bay during the

early phases of the spring tide, the resulting flow becoming incorporated

into the general northward movement of the surface waters as shown in

figure 13. Significant differences in flow patterns between the surface

and the subsurface waters were observed during the period of large amplitude

spring tides. In contrast to the events observed in the surface waters,

the southeasterly subsurface counterclockwise gyre persisted throughout the
period and showed no evidence of breaking down. A subsurface (50'),

figure 14, drogue released farther offshore, along the margin-of the clock-

wise gyre, moved eastwards and became incorporated into the inner counter-

clockwise gyre. The reverse of this flow transfer between gyres was

observed during the 8-24 July period when a surface drogue transected

from the inner to the outer gyre in the region where the two gyres

coalesced (figure 15.).

Period 4 - 8 September 1975

During the sampling period a southwesterly gale with average wind

velocities of approximately 20-30 kts developed on the evening of 4

September and continued unabated for three days until about midnight of

7 September. The actual drogue trajectories-are shown in figure 16 and

drogues B, 2, 51 6 released into the outermost reaches of the Bay,

tended to.remain in the area for a longer period than those re leased

further eastwards in the more central portion of the outer bay, suggesting

the presence of an eddy in the outer bay, or at least a more sluggish

water movement in the outer reaches as compared to the inner portion of

the outer bay. Drogues A, 1, 4 & 7 released in the eastern part of the

1-22

1* 4
8 SEPT

CAPE STARICHKOF

SEPTEMBER 1975

4
20

41
I ANCHOR PT ul 10 -
I Lu
U.
RADAR - 5-
,7 SEP 8 SEPT. 'X-
00-

TIDAL RANGE
%%%
4, %%
% EPT
*5r, '%%%%%c6S
oe
SEPT
445 15 SEPT
44 6 8 SEPT
SE BLUFF HOMER
POINT
ZRADAR
0
L ST
6 SEPT
5 SEPT

SURFACE
0*5 50'--
SURFACIF, SEPT 4 W
14:00 12:15
4 SEPT
4 SEPT.
5 SEPT
5 SEPT

SELDOVIA

Fig. 16 - Drogue Drift, 4-8 September 1975

1-23
outer bay moved rapidly northwards and their drift behavior gave no

indication of the counterclockwise gyre previously observed in the area.

Drift patterns suggest that by 6 September the southwesterly gale

had induced a considerable acceleration in the northerly movement of the

surface water down to at least 50', inducing net drogue movements as

high a-s 10 n. mi./day. Direct wind drag upon the observed drift

of the drogue; it is interesting to note however, that the drogue,

responded well to the cyclic reversal of the tidal flow.

The trajectories of drogues 5 and 6 are of particular interest. Both

5 and 6 were set at 50' and were being carried north well offshore when

lost from radar view at approximately 1500 hrs on 6 and 5 September

respectively. Both drogues, however, evidently reversed direction during the

height of the gale and were carried southeast to Bluff Point where they

washed ashore. (Aircraft reconnaissance located #6, washed ashore, on

8 September, and although # 5 was@:.,not located until 15 September (by

local hunters), it's lack of detection by the 8 of September aircraft

reconnaissance was apparently due only to its almost total destruction
in the surf). Although exacting meterological data for the period of

the gale have not yet been analyzed, it is unlikely that a change in wind

direction could have induced the southeastward movement of the deeper

drogues since the surface drogues in the same vicinity were not similarly

affected. An interpretation of the observed drift patterns must await

more'detailed analysis of the meterol-ogical conditions imposed upon the

Cook Inlet during the period of the survey. Such a compensatory current

logically would intensify as the gale forced a Dileup of surface waters

in upper Cook Inlet. If such is the case, the southward flowing subsurface

compensatory current was apprently strong enough by 6 or 7 September to
carry the 50' drogues (5 and 6) south and east back into outer Kachemak

1-24

Bay with eventual grounding near Bluff Point. That the surface drogues

in the same vicinity were not carried southeast also is strong evidence

that the drogue movements were not dominated by wind influence on the

ab ove surface reflectors, but rather were produced by current drag on

the drogues themselves. Why drogues 1 and 4 (both 50') were not similarly

affected as 5 and 6 is not known. The grounding of the float reflector

components of drogues 1 and 4 is undoubtedly due to the fact that their

closer proximity to shore caused loss of their drogue assembly as they

grounded over the shore fronting Anchor Point.

As shown in the inset of figure 17, drogue # 2 (surface) was again

located by radar after the gale subsided and was observed to be moving in

a westerly direction fron Ninilchik. Further observations of #2 however

were curtailed due to radar malfunction. (Drogue/reflectors A, 2 and 7

have not yet been located or retHeved as of 4 October).

Present observations strongly suggests that winds have a profound

effect on the net circulation of Kachemak Bay and Cook Inlet, and that

transient events such as a gale may be most significant in controlling

the transport and dispersal of planktonic larvae and pollutants.

1-25

#2 A; 8 SEPT.
RADAR MCDONALD FLATS

21:20
8 SE

4
8 SEP
011:30 0 .45 NINILCHIK
9 SEPT 41 McDONALD
RADAR FLATS
fIf

*4
CAPE STARICHKOF
ANCHOR PT ]fit 11 -j
SE RADAR 0 5 10
8 SEPT ANCHOR NAUT. Mi.
RADAR POINT
A.
4416 5 6
I : 0. %%\ RADA HOM
% 5 EPT
5SEP . #7
%
% 2-30
% %% r-7
.5 5 SEPT.
16:0 ' 6 6 SEPT.
.6 SEPT.5- BLUFF HOMER
PCI NT
6 SEPT. RADAR

6 SEPT

5
SE
5 SEPT 17
@1151: 0 rO ls:OO
M/4 SEPT. 4 SEPT

SELDOVIA

Fig. 17 Drogue Drift, 4-9 September 1975

1-26

Period 10-17 November 1975

Weather during the period 10-17 November was characterized by moderate

(approximately 10 kts) westerly to southwesterly winds, interrupted by a

period of strong (20-30 kt) westerly to southwesterly winds beginning the

evening of 13 November and subsiding early on 15 November. Direct and

indirect influence of the wind on drogue assembly drift was probably sig-

nificant during the entire period of observations, however, weather data

for the outer bay have not as yet been fully analyzed.

Drogue trajectories are shown in Figure 18. Southward movement of

drogues 8 and 9 suggest the possible existence of a clockwise gyre in the

southwestern outer bay, (figure 19), although its size is much smaller

than that of clockwise gyres previously ovserved. Within 3-4 nautical

miles of the southern shore, an obvious eastward movement of surface and

subsurface waters was observed.

In the entrance to the upper'bay, the surface water exhibited a pre-.

dominant NE-SW oscillation (with no significant net movement) in synchronism

with the flood and ebb of the tides; the surface drogue (#3) remained in

the same vicinity for approximately 7 days before transgressing into the

Homer small boat harbor. Water movement at 100 feet differed markedly from

the surface movement, as evidenced by a rapid southwestward drift out of

the entrance to the bay.

Drogues I and 23, released in the northwestern*portion of the outer bay

redffirmed a unique differentiation between the surface and subsurface currents

observed earlier. in the season (4-8 Sept.) during a southwesterly gale of

3 days duration. The strong (20-30 kt) westerly to southwesterly winds

which developed a few hours after the release of drogues 1 and 23 drove the

surface drogue (#l) rapidly to the north, whereas the subsurface drogue
(#23) was carried rapidly east. More' definitive explanation of the

observed transport must however await further detailed analysis of the

records.

22--00 2Z.00 15
#3 13
12 NOV. 15
06.0 AGR
IN so
HARS R
13 Toll 06:00
LJOST 17 NOV.
0% 12:00
14 NOV.
x4e)-pArf .9
BLUFF PT + 59040'
I-A
00 1 14 oRADAR 151 * 30'W
RETRIEVE HOMER
08:0016%
14
0 AGROUND SEE INSET FOR CONTINUATION
00 12:40 #1 (SURF.) 18:30 14 NOV.
ft23 12:20 OF 4# 3 TRAJECTORY
m w 13 NOV.
0 12
*3 SURF) &,@0501
1-h C
10 NOV.

*S(SURF)
o 11:00 IONOV.'
.0 CLT 13
18:3015
c 12
m 6
*a LDST

12
ko rm 0*4 12 NOV
1 (501 10 NOV. >
Ln 14; 00 12 #9 14 IVY
RE
LJOST *8 1
12 12
*11(SURF.) 15
11:45
10 NOV 0
RETRIEVED 1
*10(50') 12:00 AGROUND 12
10 NOV.

.SELDOVIA
'2
0
-O@'
13 V@
OUND
AT
0
@BL 3U F

1-28

SURFACE CURRENTSj 10- 17 NOVEMBER '75

LUFF PT.
HOMER

4-
AQ

SELDOVIA

SUBSURFACE (56) CURRENTS
10 - 17 NOVEMBER '75

BLUFF PT
HOMER

--SELDOVIA

Fig. 19 Drogue Trajectories, 10-17 November 1975

1-29

Period 18-20 November 1975

Weather during this period was characterized by steady 20-30 kt north-

easterly winds which abated for a short period on the morning of the 19th
(2200, 18 November - 0600, 19 November). Surface and subsurface drogue

movements in the upper bay (figure 20) was generally WSW, in the direction of

the wind field, until the drogues were within a few miles of Homer Spit, at

which time they were carried around the tip of the spit. In addition to the

general counterclockwise movement observed in the southwestern region of the

upper bay, smaller gyres (1-2 miles in diameter) were observed near the tip

of Homer Spit; these consisted of a subsurface (50') counterclockwise gyre on

the north side and a surface clockwise gyre on the south side.

Of particular interest is the movement of drogue #10 during the period

0200-0400 on 19 November. Although the tide was ebbing from 0134-0713, drogue

movement during the first 2-3 hours of the ebb tide was easterly up bay.

."Following this period of calm, northeasterly winds of 10-20 kts pre-

vailed for the duration of the tracking period. The resultant water movement

in the outer bay was generally westward and at an unusually high velocity.

The waters tended to spread out laterally, with a particularly noticeable

northward component along the northern shore. Inferred circulation, based

upon drogue movements, is shown in figure

Wind influence, both direct (wind drag on the above-surface reflector)

and indirect (surface water transport induced by wind drag on the

water surface), was no doubt significant during most of this period.

However, it is difficult to differentiate between the magnitudes of each

factor with respect to surface drogue movements. However, a measure of
the direct wind influence*on the exposed reflector of subsurface (50')

drogues was obtained by comparing the drift of a standard 6.foot square
canvas biplane (#26) and with that of*a personnel parachute (#19) (ratio of

cross-sectional areas, approximately 1:12.6 respectively.)

151040'W 151* 20! W

59" 40'N

RADAR

*3 SURF is NOV. Is Nov.
HOMER 17,20
19 *26 W
19 tA *19 BIPLANE
wcHurE K, 35
010
VCJiUTE *SSURF.
*26 -13-20 1415
t:l RETRIEVED
0 Lo
()Q -* 19 LOST 2:00 CD
r- RETRIEVED 15:00 00:10
(D 10:30 20 NOV. vs Nov. aa NOV. RADAR
03 LOST
20 22*30 -"1',

rt 19

&30RS
co
0:00
t" :9 NOV.
0 4010
t4 RETRIEVED
0

IOLOO 20 NOV. *-30RG
12:00
m 19 NOV.
pi LOST
15100
19 NOV.

Cie)

0 1 2 3

NAUTICAL MILES
59* 30'N

SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE, CURRENTS

18-20 NOVEMBER 1975

BLUFF PT.
OQ

HOMER

E CCW GYRE
CW-- GYR
urface at 50' only
only'-*,

0 1 2 3
NAUT'ICAL 'MILES

1-32

The results, to date have shown:

I. The stages of the tide during which a given larvae pollutant or

object is introduced into the water column plays a controlling

role in determining the eventual net trajectory. For example,

figure 13 shows the trajectories of two surface drogues which were

set adrift at the same position but at different stages of the

same tidal cycle. Number 1 was set adrift at 0820 hrs. on 16

July at high tide, while number 4 was set adrift at 1415 hrs.,

about six hours later, at low tide. Number 4 escaped from the inner

gyre and was transported 13 n. mi. farther offshore, to the western

edge of the outer gyre. Number 1 remained within the in ner gyre,

although its pattern of drift suggested that it might also have

transected further offshore to the west. Such differences in net

transport from a singular geographical position may be even greater

in the westernmost reaches of the outer bay, where t.idally induced

current osciliations of as much as 11 n. mi. in amplitude are

observed during each tidal cycle.

2. During the periods of small (neap) tides, effects from non-tidal

factors, such as variations in winds and runoff may induce profound

perturbations in the circulation regime in the outer bay.

3. In the westernmost reaches of the outer bay, the large amplitudes

in tidal current oscilations exert a major control upon dispersal

and mixing processes, as shown by the lack and/or weakness of the

density stratification in Cook Inlet proper.

4. Present observations strongly suggest that winds have a profound

effect on the net circulation of Kachemak Bay and Cook Inlet, and

that transient events such as a gale may be most significant in

controlling the transport and dispersal of planktonic larvae and

pollutants.

1-33

Drift Card Studies

Drift cards were released at several locations in an attempt to obtain

further insights on long term patterns of dispersals of waterborne com-

ponents. The general circulation of Cook Inlet is still not well understood,

but certain general features appear to dominate the movement and distribution

of sea. water properties throughout the area. An inferred net surface circulation

for Cook Inlet is illustrated in Fig.*22, from the works of Anderson et al

(1973) and Wright and Sharma (1973).

The inferred model,.based upon water mass characteristics, turbidity and

imergency from ERTS Satellites (Burbank 1974), indicate strong influx of

saline, relatively clear coastal shelf water along the eastern shore and

strong outflow of brackish, turbid water along the western shore.

During August and September of 1974, a total of about 10,100 drift cards

were released at selected points in Kachemak Bay and southern Cook Inlet.

The results are summarized and illustrated as follows:

Site A (Vessel Holding orAnchoring Area) Figure 23

Recoveries from this site were extrememly good, averaging 15%;

Drift cards from this site tended to move raDidly seawards Dast the end

of Homer Spit. The majority of recoveries occured within a week, usually from

along the seaward side of Homer Spit (probably one of the most intensively

beachcombed area of Cook Inlet). During a persistent period of

westerly winds at the time of a drop, significant numbers of cards

were carried to the south side of Kachemak Bay, particularly in the

China Poot Bay area. No cards released at thi s site A were reported north

of Bluff Point; a single card was recovered from Amakdedori Beach directly

west across the Inlet from Kachemak Bay, two months after the drop. The

finding of this card, on the Kamishak side of the inlet is in close agreement

with the observations of local mariners who suggest that objects adrift in

upper Kachemak Bay tend to come ashore either in the vicinity of the Spit or

on the Amakdedori Beach side.

1-34

1550 154* 153* 1520 1510 1500 1490

a TURBID WATER ANCHORAGE
N.FORELAN .00
z*SEA WATER 610

DRIFT RIVER KENAI

SNUG
HARSO E NINILCHIK 600

4ers
ILIAMNA SAY HOMER
ell.

SELDOVIA
PT GRkHAM
PTtHATAM

590

.Fig. 22 - INFERRED NET CIRCULATION - COOK INLET

F.mm Burbank, 1974).

1-35
1550 1540 1530 1520 1510 Lr)OO 1490

TURBID WATER jj
TER
a-# SEAWA MORAGE
N.FORELAN ",.V
-610

DRIFT RIVER KENAI

-CAPE NINILCHIK 600

ILIAMNA BAY HOME5.,

V
SELDOM

Cb
590

Fig..23 Drift Card Recoveries Site A
(Vessels Holding and Anchoring Area)

1-36

Site B (Homer Spit) Figure 24

To correlate the information from Site A, cards were released at the

end of Homer Spit. Returns were much poorer than from Site A, averaging

3.5%, but the pattern was quite similar. Most recoveries were on the Spit or

from the Northwest shore towards Anchor Point. One card was recovered from

Eldred Passage on the south shore of Kachemak Bay.

Site C (Yukon Island) F igure 24

This site, one mile north of Yukon Island, was selected to characterize

water movements along the south side of Kachemak Bay. It was anticipated

that drift would be rapid, to the northeast into the upper bay. This
apparently did not happen, for returns were poor (averaging 1.1%), and en-

tirely from the north, along the Kenai Peninsula, or west in Kamishak Bay.

Site D. (Point Pogibshi) Figure 25

it was anticipated that drift of cards released off Pt. Pogibshi

could either move directly north toward Anchor Point or ENE along the

southern shore of Kachemak Bay. Returns from this station were adequate,
averaging 2M for five separate drops, and definitely indicate that

waters from Point Pogibshi follow both routes. On one occasion, August 11,

cards were recovered from Homer Spit within a week and at Kalgin Island

within two weeks from the time of release.

1-37

1550 154* 153P 1520 1510 1500 149*
-4@ TURBID WATER x ORJI GE
SEAWATER
N. FORMAN
A '"'610

DRIFT RIVER KENAI
f

SNUG HAR R
APE NINILCHIK 600

ILIAMNA 8
OMg
LDOVI

590

TURBID WATER
C-* SEAWATER CHORAGE
N. FORELAN -610

DRIFT RINVER KENAI

It
SNUG HARBO
:CAPE NINILCHIK 600

IUAMNA 8
MER

ELDOVI

-590

Fig. 24 -Drift Card Recoveries
Site B (Homer Spit)
Site C (Yukon Island)

1-38

k"o 1540 1530 1520 1510 15CP 1490

--4 TURBID WATER
wm@ SEAWAFER CHORAGE
N.FORELAND 610

DRIFT RIVER KENAI

V t

SNUG HARBOR CAPE NINILCHIK 610

ILIAMNA BAYw All HOMER@

kl-DOVI

--.PT--CHATHAM
a C.
590

le
tv

Fig.'25 Drift Card Recoveries Site D
(Point Pogibshi)

1-39

Site E (Shell, SoCal Exploratory Drill Site) Figure 26

The proposed Shell Oil drilling site in the middle of outer Kachemak Bay was

regarded as particularly important, for it was believed to lie in the center

of.a crusteacean nursery area. Over 3000 cards were released here upon six

different occasions, but returns were porr, averaging less than 1%. Recoveries

were recorded from Anchor Point, Augustine Island, Kamishak Bay, and several

of the most distant discovery points along Shelikof Strait. One card was

returned from Wide Bay on the Alaska Peninsula west on the north shore of Shelikof

Strait, the most distant authenticated return to date. This card must have

traveled at least 250 and more likely 350 nautical miles in less than 2-1/2

months.

Sites F & G (Bluff Point Anchor Point) Figures 26, 27

Returns from these two sites averaged only less than 1%. On three separate

occasions no cards were recovered. Site F (midway between Bluff Point and

Site E had returns only from Anchor Point and from Augustine Island. From

Site G (1.5 miles west of Anchor Point), cards were returned from near Bluff

Point (to the east, possibly a result of drift along the beach), from the

Anchor Point-Cape Starichkof shore nearby, and from Spiridon Bay, on the Kodiak

Island side of Shelikof Strait.

Site H (Cape Kasilof - SoCal Exploratory Drill Site) Figure 27

This release.point was located almost 5O.miles north of Kachemak Bay, one

nautical mile NW of the Sisters, off Cape Kasilof, the site of a

Standard Oil of California exploratory well. Recoveries from this site

were about average, 2.8%. A high recovery qf 8.7% occurred on one occasion
during a period of persistent onshore (WNW) wind, the only significant card

recoveries from the Kenai Peninsula shore. In general the drift cards

1-40

1550 1540 153* 1520 1510 150 1490

TURSIDWATER p NCHORAGE
SEAWATER N.FORELAND 610

DRIFT RIVER 141 KENAI
t

SNUG HARBOR 600
LCHIK
APE NINILCHIK

ILIAMNA B &ER

ELDOVIA

59P

Ab
Ile

IDE
SAY UGANIK
ISL.

TURBID WATER NCHORAGE
SEAWATER
N.FORE Gr
A

DR11Fr RIVER KENAI

SNUG HARBOR"
APE NIINILCHIK 600

ILIAMMA 8 MER

E LD OMA 1.1

590

Fig. 26 - Drift Card Recoveries
Site E (Shell, SoCal Drill Site)
Site F (Bluff Point)

1-41

1550 154* 1530 1520 1510 150* 1490

--4 TURBID WATER
SEAWATER CHORAGE
WFORELAND 610

DRIFT RIVER P KENAI

SNUG HARBO IR- V :CAPE NINILCHIK 600

ILIAMNA B
HOMER,

g. EL

-590

SPIRIDON
BAY

---),TURBID WATER NCHORAGE
SEAWATER A
N.FORELAND, -610

'A
DRIFT RIVE j*i I KENAI

SNUG HAR 80 CAPE NINILCHIK 600

ILIAMNA B
MER

@SEL A

-590

ie f*,%,

UGANIK
ISL. Fig. 27 Drift Card Recoveries
Site G (Anchor Point)
Sitc H (Cape Kasilof
SoCal Drill Site)

1-42

released off Cape Kasilof were recovered at Kalgin Island or along the

west side of the Inlet. There were recoveries from Ursus Cove, Augustine

Island, and a single card from Uganik Island, south of Shelikof Strait.

1-43

Seasonal_Properties of Kachemak Bay Marine Waters

The marine waters of Kachemak Bay exhibits marked seasonal variations

in temperature, salinity, density and oxygen distribution. The seasonality

of water mass properties can best be*described from the work of Knull and

Williamson (1969) and from the earlier studies of Bright et al (1960).

Present information shows that the water temperatures of the bay respond to

both seasonal as well as year to year variations in warming and cooling processes,

as illustrated in figure 28. Of interest are the low temperatures recorded

for the winter and early spring of 1959.

As previously mentioned, Kachemak Bay receives the greatest portion of

the drainage from the surrounding mountainous area thus the yearly regime

of the runoff controls much of the estuarine properties of the bay. Figure 29

illustrates the seasonality of influx of fresh water into the bay.

The seasonal regime of sea water properties can be summarized as follows:
1. Late Winter - Early Spring

The "oceanographic winter", characterized mostly by low water temperatures,

occurs betweenfebruary and April. Salinities usually remain fairly

high and stable, at about 32%. Prior to breakup, in February and March,

the entire bay is relatively well mixed, as reflected by a near uniform

dissolved oxygen content of about 9 ml/l.

The onset of breakup brings about increased influx of fresh water, which,

coupled with the warming trend, develops a marked density stratification,

making the bay a more typical two layered positive estuary.

The interplay between warming of surface layers, and mixing processes

results in the build up of a rather Complex densit structure as
y

illustrated in Figure 30. The basic density structure can be subdivided into:

1-44
is-
is-
14-
13-
12-
11- '*,%
10- %
0 9-
CL: 8-
2 7-
w 6-
5.
4-
3'
2-
1
0

S N M J s
A M JrAN
1957 1 1958 1 1959
@A I% MEAN MONTHLY SURFACE TEMP. FOR KACHEMAK BAY

15-
14-
13-
12-

o 10-
9-
a: 0-
2
W 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-

%
0 %
-1
S N JAN M M J i I Ails I i N
1957 1 1958 1 1959

MEAN MONT"LY BOTTOM TEMP. FOR KACHEMAK SAY

UPPER BAY
--- LOWER SAY
Fig. 28 SEASONAL TEMPERATURE REGIME
WRIGHT ET AL 1969)

ANCHOR RIVER

800-

600- PRECIPITATION
LL
LL IN BASIN
0
z 400-
M

0 200 RUN OFF

Fj
:v JUL. AUG. SEP
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN.
OCT NOV. DEC.
1967
90 1966

ko
C,
171 1200- BRADLEY RIVER GAUGE
0 RUN OFF

cn
m 1000-
@-j 6
m

r?
800-

600-

0
z 400 PRECIPITATION

IN BASIN
200

0
OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. M AY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP
*IF

1966 1967

1-46

CHOR PT.
10 FATHOM LINE

BLUFF PT. f
'Ile
HOMER

16 13

SEL IA

1 2 3 4 a 10 13 16 21 24 29 35A 36

10-
20-

40-
E
60

Go-

100- SIGMA- t CONTOURS

120-

INNER BAY OUTER BAY COOK INLET

1 2 3 4 8 10 13 16 20 25 28 37
10-
20- ------

40-

E 61D

so-

100-
SIGMA-t CONIOURS
120-

2 4 6 9 10, 12 14 16 IS 20 22 24 26 28 30
NAUTICAL MILES

Fig. 30 Longitudinal Density Stratification April 1969
(Knull and Williamson - 1969)

1-47

a. The inner bay, with its well defined two layer "wedge".

b. The outer bay, with a more complex but still well defined

two layer system.

C. Cook Inlet with its typically more uniformly top to bottom

mixed water column.

The cross channel density distribution (figure 31) reflects the control

of the Coriolis force forging the net outflow of the less saline waters to

flow to the right against the northern shore, and the inflow of more saline

waters to flow along the southern shore. The density distribution clearly

shows that Kachemak Bay becomes a typical two layered positive estuary as

soon as breakup sets in.

2. Late Spring to Early Fall

At warming progresses, the fresh water influx into the bay increases

and, combined with the increase in surface heating, induces the

formation of a well developed thermocline. The net result is the

build up of a well developed shallow density stratification; in

July, sharp density gradients are usually found between 5 and 10 m.

(15-30 ft.) in the inner bay, deepening to 10-20 m. (30-60 ft.)

in the outer bay., An example of the well developed two layer density

structure of the bay is shown in figure. 32. Of interest is the

relationship of the density structure of.Kachemak Bay to that

of Cook Inlet. Figure 33 illustrates what can be considered as a

representative conditions for July. The main channel of Cook Inlet

exhibits no horizonal stratification, as a result of intense mostly

tidally induced mixing; the brackish outflow of Kachemak Bay, com-

bined with the discharge from the Anchor River contributes to the

shallow*stratified cell.observed along the eastern shore.

1-48

ANCHOR PT.

-----10 FATHOM LINE

BLUFF PT
HOMER 6

14
2

SELDOVIA

STATION
.22 21 20

to-
20-

40-

60-

w so

100- SIGMA-t CONTOURS

NORTH SOUTH
STATION STATION
6 7 8 9 12 13 14

10 10.

40- 40-

60- 60

E 80 - so-

100 - 100-

w
a 120 - SIGMA- tCONTOURS 120 SIGMA- t
140 140 CONTOURS
@
@TQ70URS\,
r
Co@@j
Fig. 31 -.Cross Channel Density Stratification April 1969
(Knull and Williamson 1969)

1-49

HOMER 20

IP5

MAP OF KACNEMAK BAY
PROFILE STATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 to 11 12 13. 1
to
20.

40-

So -

so.
ILI 100- SIGMA- t
FLOODING TIDE
120-

INNER BAY OUTER SAY COOK
INLET

STATION
36 3T 38 39 40 41
10
20

E 40
3@
SO-

U1 80

100

SIGMA-f EBBING TIDE
STATION
15 7 16
STATION 10-
20 19 Is 17 20
40
10
E2 so-
E so-
CL
60- x 100-

1PO

140 -

MILES

Fig. 32 Longitudinal and Cross Channel Distribution of
Density - July 1969 (Knull and Williamson 1969)
------------

SIGMA t
FL ODING TIDE

1-50

As expected, the, greatest vertical gradients in temperature correlate

with the periods of sharpest vertical density stratification. Data

from Knull (1969) show that temperature will vary from about 12'c at

the surface to Vc at the bottom of the thermocline (at about 15 m.).

Similarly, salinities in the inner bay will vary from about 25-28% at

the surface to 31-31.5% at the bottom of the thermocline or a change

of about 10 salinity units within 10-15 m.. Salinities in the deeper

waters are more uniform, ranging between 31.5 and 31.8% throughout

the bay. Dissolved oxygen concentrations also reflect the patterns

of density stratification, ranging from about 6 ml/l at the surface

to about 8 ml/l in the deeper waters.

3. Late Fall and Early Winter

By October, surface cooling wind and tidal mixing and reduction in runoff

considerably weakens the sharpness of the density strall.-ification. A

temperature inversion develops, the upper, slightly less saline waters

becoming colder (less than 80c as observed by Knull in 1969), the

deeper more saline waters being warmer (above 8.50c). While no data

are presently available forwinter temperature distribution in the bay,

it can be assumed that the temperature inversion, colder water at the

surface, warmer waters at depth, will prevail through much of the

period between freezing and thawing. (Figure 34)

Convective cooling has been observed at a number of inshore locations of

the Gulf of Alaska coast, and it can be postulated at this time that

extensive surface cooling during cold snaps will induce convective

mixing of the shallower waters of the inner bay. Such convective mixing

will contribute to the oxygenation of the entire bay.

- ;X'-
az 7.

t
k

W ... ......

I GMA-T

Wit J%ij-m' mulst W Suff-Us

On to

lot
04S tit
110 1430 048 Its

Its-

Fig. 33 Cross Channel Distribution of Density, Lower Cook Inlet
July 1973. (NOOAINOS 1973)

1-52

10 FATHOM LINE

/.-o

HOMER
If*."0

0
0 0 0 _@6

ELDOVIA

MAP OF KACHEMAK SAY
STATION CHART

STATION NO.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 If

20 1

40-

60-

so-
w
C, 100- 1

120
SIGMA- t

14MO

INNER BAY OUTER BAY COOK
INLET

Fig. 34 Longitudinal Distribution of Density October 1969
(Knull.and Williamson 1969)

SECTION II

EM -,ENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES

KACHEVIAK BAY

SECTION II

ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES

KACHEMAK BAY

One of the first approach to gauge the biological importance of

an area is usually to look at some fisheries statistics. To put it in

perspective, Kachemak Bay comprises only 2.6% of the marine waters of

Cook Inlet, yet yields 62% of the shellfish harvest, and, it undoubtedly

harbors important life stages of shellfish ultimately harvested in

other areas outside the bay.

In 1973 the total salmon harvest in the Kachemak Bay was 126,407

fish. The king crab catch for 1973 was 2.1 million pounds, tanner crab

3.8 million pounds, shrimp 5.0 million pounds, and dungeness crab

300,000 pounds. 407,500 pounds of herring were also taken in 1973 in the

Kachemak Bay area. The estimatedi..value of these catches of salmon to

fishermen was $200,000; first wholesale value was $400,000. The king

crab value to fishermen was $1.7 million; first wholesale value being

$3.3 million. Tanner crab value to fishermen was $700,000; first wholesale

value $1.7 million. Shrimp value to fishermen was $400,000; first

wholesale $1.5 million. Dungeness crab'value to fishermen was $200,000;

first wholesale value $400,000. Herring value to fishermen was $30,000;

first wholesale value $60,000. The total value of the 1973 Kachemak Bay

commercial fisheries harvest, as mentioned earler, was $3.2 million

to fishermen and $7.3 million first wholesale value.

The Bluff Point Sanctuary was established by the Board of Fish and Game

in 1970 to prohibit king crab fishing during a critical part of their life

cycle when breeding, moulting and egg hatching occur. This Sanctuary has

U-2

been closed each year from the middle of January until the end of the king

crab season. ADF&G and National Marine Fisheries studies have shown that

this area is also a very critical area for not only the adult, but also

the juvenile and larval forms.

While the fisheries statistics for the Kachemak Bay area are an

eloquant expression of its productivity and values, they only express a

partial insight upon the total biological attributes of an area. Also,

while statistics might relate to number of fish and poundage of crus-

taceans, expressing the number of pounds of crabs or shrimps does not

provide for a meaningful concept of their abundance.

To better express the combined environmental - biological attributes

and values of Kachemak Bay, the following chart was prepared to under-

score the attributes of Kachemak Bay in toto. (Figure 35)

First to consider is the fact that the environmental values of the

area were recognized through the creation of the Kachemak Bay State Park

(which includes Chugashik Island along the SE border of the Fog River

tidal flats) in 1970.

The biological.values of Kachemak Bay were recognized by the creation

of the Fox River Flat Critical Habitat in 1972 to protect extensive

waterfowl populations. The Bluff Point Crab Sanctuary was, as previously

mentioned, established in 1970 by the Board of Fish and Game to protect

critical reproduction.area.

KACHEMAK BAY
ANCM 9@eZENVIRONMENTAL- BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
PARTIAL ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE OF BIOLOGICAL POPULATIONS
HARBOR SEAL CONCENTRATIONS 1,0096 '00.
SALMON SPAWNING GROUNDS OCARS

A MARINE BIRD NESTING AREAS

FOX RIVER FLAT
CRITICAL
HABITAT
CRAB '74 20,00,04 WATrRMK
Ire
SANCTUARY co,
@@z m/1 f. ION
w DUNGENESS CRABS HOMER C G HIK ISL.
f-n "I - - jVjA il KACH. SAY STATE PARK
f. MILLION44 KINO CRABS
3-5 A41WOiv- to 0
C+ Z-1 s /
ct r) rANNER CRAYS
rD I MOUNrAIN S*ArS
160 C's
C+ Lip -ro ,I
(D j, HALIBur S/ 44 0 A'
ROCK SOLE
NE HALIBUT
YELLOWrIN SOLE COVE
SCAL40PS
Oil
m
kA CiyeJ4
SELDOVI
-5 SEA PT POGISSHI RICH, D 4 re AAr a
VERSE VrE S7'
0 MACROPHY 4
a E P4pk
rD

C+
PORT
GRAHAM k4 Cjy
S 74 7-,p e4f4
0

0
OLIS
300 V, Ifq -- ss
'00 O)vS ms Ape'4
0 SALAf F
9'**N,N LOWER REACHES

rq;Fm WOO

OA@

-VA
VIM

Aff

Isow, 0

At,

'S@
;' "-ff

Nesting marine birds, Gull Island

11-5

in 1974, the entire Kachamak Bay area, eastwards from a line drawn

between Anchor Point and Point Pogibshi was legislatively set aside as a

crucial critical habitat area.

While the progressive setting aside of State parks and critical

habitat underscores the public awareness of the environmental/biological

values. of the area, it still does not focus on the acutal extent of the

biological richness and intensity of biological utilization of the area.

The estimate of the average numbers of individuals comprising what can

be considered as the standing crop prior to harvest, is shown on the map

of Fig. 35.

The combined sheer number of individuals, shrimps, craps, herrings,

salmon, marine birds, puts a greater emphasis upon the biological attributes

of the system. It must be underscored at this time that such figures

are only a partial estimate of the amount of marine life utilizing or

living in the bay.

The large numbers of shrimps suggest that certain areas of the

bottom must be blanketed by individuals. Several studies can serve to

illustrate the extent of bottom occupancy by various types of invertebrates.

In March 1969, Westingouse Ocean Research Laboratory, San Diego, California

while performing other duties in the Cook Inlet area, undertook for the

benefit of ADF&G and other interested parties, to conduct a brief T.V.

survey of selected bottom areas in Kachemak Bay. Some results of the

T.V. observations are illustrated in Fig. 36. The studies conducted by

NMFS indicating the total shrimp poundage per I mile drag can also

serves to illustrate the abundance of crustacean life upon the sea floor

(Fig. 37). One should note here that shrimps feed actively, and in view

of their large numbers competition for food must be fierce; but to date

no information is available on the spectrum of thier diet.

AINCHOR PT

Zooplankton abundant in the whter column. Along the
bottom were dense aggregations of pink shrimp and
unidentified larger striped shrimp, also oriented
tail into the current. Tanner crabs, hermit crabs, /*
a cottid fish and two large scallops were observed.
Lumps of coal were also seen in this area.

N
W

BLUFF PT 5904d -

M Large white sea pens very a6mundant. 01mall HOMER
n 11>ttom. Ile A
rt number of pink shrimp sighted along the
0 M N
rt HALIBUT
)j. td
0 a -I COVE
M r?
TUARY
::r r? L. . . . .5ING CRAB SANC-
0 0 - - - - - - - - -

0 4
0
M
K A
M
cn -4 observed a large bed of scallops (in depressions). Richest shrimp bed located during the survey.
M 0) many sea pens and a small number of pink shrimp. Pink and coonstripe shrimp occurred in dense
aggregations. Tanner crabs also sighted.
n 0
-Ir 0 (%^.- r
W we 30, -

SELDOVIA
C%

.40' 151* 30' 20' to, 1510

ANCHOR POINT

10
37,
3 10
/17 79
58
10 FATHOM LLNE BLUFF POINT 590406-
12 Ile
H ER
203
/* 15 191
0 14 3752
T 10 94 289
J,

T so 275 614 882 521
T
697 109 642 465 .00--
561 30 76
4 35
2 4444 050 TO 76 .,1- ./i.
f? En *
Fa. -.@ 272 344 46 15F
0 666 5t rl
50 a k.
T 8001632 102 9 i3l
0 153 306 12
14 415
12
0 KACHEMAK BAY SHRIMP
12
STUDIES, MAY 1972
Cn < Total shrimp catch (pounds)
:r (D SELDOVIA
(D CO per I mile drag
M0Q hung up
w0
r?
IF4
0 Vx

To convert to average number
of shrimp per mile, multiply
59020-
pounds by 102.

152t 151* 40'* 151-120- 1510

11-8

Macrophyte Ecology -- Summer 1974 - Spring 1975

One of the most conspicuous features of Kachemak Bay is'the

macrophyte bel t. It is especially well-pronounced along the southern

shoreline. The term macrophyte is generally used when referring to larget

attached marine plants, such as seaweeds and seagrasses. The macrophyte

zone usually extends from the highest reach of the tide down to about

30m below the sea surface. The plants and animals that live within this

zone a.re separated into two distinct environments, namely the intertidal

and the subtidal. However, because of the interaction of physical and

biological processes within these zones, a separation of the two habitats
often becomes som@what subjective..

Marine plant communiti*es are highly diverse, and are known to

be among some of the more productiVe systems on e a r '%,.h (Dawson, 1966; Mann,
'1973). Besides the plants, these assemblages provide shelter, food and

living substrate for countl-ess numbers of nearsh ore organisms. In Alaskan

waters, the macrophyte zone is often utilized by species of.present day

ComIllercial importance such as crab, shrimp and herring.

Stands of attached marine plants are found throughout the in-
shore waters of southern Alaska. Some occur near areas of human popula-
tion. Despite this wide' distribution.'and nearshore occurrence these
algal associations are among 'the most poorly understood. Because of an

apparent sensitivity to changes in water quality and environmental stress,
o
these habitats could be abused or severely impacte@ by man. The macrophyte
zone is probably a cornerstone' in tile Kachemak Bay ecosyst em, and any per-
turbation or disturbance to the plant connunity could affect the overall
health and vitality of the Bay.

H-9

ANCHOR PT

. . . . . . . . . . .
SLU F
M
ER;:

SULL L

T:
COHEN L

YUKON L

HESKETH L

SELDOVIA PT.

SELDOVLA

tto:: :t

INDICATES LOCATION OF PERMANENT STUDY SITE
10%-Nt I N D I C AT ES LOCATION OF MAJOR KELP BED

-tzt-

...%
j, t....
io@ <1

Kachemak Agal Belt Studies

U-10

Study Sites and Observations

GULL ISLAND (Semi-protected Intertidal)

Located less than 2 miles off the Homer Spit. The island is

.composed of sedimentary rock that rises to an elevation of 93 feet above

.sea level. Seaweeds formed a border around the lower margin of the

island; at higher elevations terrestrial plants.such as grasses and wild

cel.ery were found.

Transect lines and quadrats were placed in the intertidal zone

at opposite ends (west-east) of the island. The stakes were replaced in

May 1975-by more permanent stainless steel bolts and hydraulic cement.

--A pneumatic drill and masonry bit were used in drilling the holes for
eacfi bolt. .1he distance between each marker and their respective eleva-

tions were determined by metric tape and surveyor's transit and rod. On

the western end of Gull Island the intertidal transect extends from the

fucoid or rockweed belt to'the edge of the Laminaria belt. The shoreline

is irregular and the width of each algal belt appears to be highly depen-

dent upon tidal elevation and exposure

Al"ong the eastern end of the island the transect lines were 10m

.and 18m in overall length; differences in elevation were 4.25m and 5.47m,

respectively. Scuba dives have been made in the sublittoral waters that

encircle Gull Island.

A li,st of the plants and animals that inhabit the. intertidal

zone was started; representative algal species were collected and identi-
fied Fixed quadrats '(0.25m2) were photographed with 35mm film,

and a drawing was made of the biota living within the borders of each

quadrat. Particular attention was given to the plant and animal assem-

blages that adhere to rock surfaces. Percent coverage was estimated..
Haphazard (random) casts were made with 0.25m2 quadrats at different

tidal' elevations. This information will be used in determining the dens-

ity and distribution of the conspicuous intertidal organisms.

During spring and-summer the island becomes an important-rook-

ery for sea birds such as puffin, gull, kittiwake, murre, and cormorant.

Besides their physical presence, the birds appeared to play a key ecologi-
cal role in the intertidal macrophyte system. In some nearshore systems,

marine birds interact-in a casual or limit ed way. However, at Gull Island,

there was strong evidence to support the conjecture that sea birds, par-
..ticularly glaucous gulls, entered the intertid@l fo6d chain. Gulls preyed

heavily upon the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droba-chlensis, during

lovi tide cycles. Predation seemed to affect not only the density and size

structure of the intertidal sea urchin population but alsd the

vertical distribution of some species of macroalgae. Sea urchins are herb-

ivorous, and are known to exploit algal resources in other parts of

Kachemak Bay. Therefore predation on herbivores such as the sea urchin

possibly reduced grazing pressure on the marine vegetation.

..The most notable change in the intertidal zone from season to
seasoh (1974-75) was the change in algal abundance. For example, during
summer, major "dominapt" species of algae such as fucus distichus and
Alaria (Praelon9a) covered as much as 90 percent of the rock surface-.

However, by fall most of the Alaria was 'abraided and reduced in areal
tie cover, During the winter survey (February-March 1975), adult Alaria were
rare in this location, and only immature sporophytes (2-6 cm in height)

11-12

were found in the intertidal zone. By late spring these same plants had
grown to cover an estimated 80-95 percent of the available substratum in

the low intertidal.

..'Conspicuous invertebrates, such as Thais lamellosa (snail) and
troc@elii, displayed-seasonal variation in dis-
.the sea star Evasterias
tribution. During summer, Evasterias density was estimated at 1.34 ind./M2

on the southwest, end of the i sl and. However, the same area in winter had
a meaddensity of 0.075 ind,./m2. Both,Evasterias. and Thais had 'shifted

their center of distribution into the shallow subtidal zone during fall

and winter.

SELDOM POINT (Exposed Intertidal)

'.Seldovia Point is a prominent land projection on the southern
side of Kachemak Bay. The intertidal zone is composed of 'cobbles, boulders,

some bench or pavement substrata. A cliff, approximately 200 feet in

elevation, rises vertically-from the narrow shoreline. Seldovia Point is

strategically located in terms of exposure to the waters of lower Cook

Inlet.

A*50m transect line was staked into the intertidal zone running

vertically from the high intertidal down to about 3m below MLLW. Eleva-

tions and zonation patterns were recorded along the transect. Fixed
quadrats (0.25m2) were photographed and mapped, percent algal coverage

estimated, and numerical counts were* made of the "characteristic" epi-

faunal invertebrates. Characteristic epifauna "were those species that

were seen, and that dominated the habitat, both numerically and in terms

of their demand ana impact on it," (Fager. 1968).

Macrophyte sampling transect
IW

11-13

At the seaward end of the transect, dense patches of green sea
urchins.were found. Samples of the intertidal sea urchin population were
taken from these tidal elevations, and size frequency distributions were
plotted Macrophytes were rare in the low intertidal, and
biological factor's such as grazing appeared to be one reason for the ab-
sence.of fleshy algae. Sea birds were uncommon in this.location, so the

area makes an excellent control site for the predator hypothesis we pro-
posed for Gull Island. The larger size'classes.(>39mm) of sea urchins

that were found to be a major part of the intertidal population at

Seldovia Point were a minor constituent of the Gull Island population.

The undersides of the rocks and boulders had a reoccurring

assemblage of macro-invertebrates. The associatiofi was composed of iso-

*id amphipods, sn
.pods, gammar ails, sea cucumbers, sea urchfns and sea

sUrs. Snailfish and cottids were major members of the ichthyofauna.

An important predator in this association is the "6-raiyed star,"

Leptasterias. We have begun to quantify its diet in this location, and
of the 255 sea stars examined for food items, 24 were feeding on littor-
ines, 23 balanoid barnacles and 8 mussels. As many as 25 sea stars/0'.25m2

have been observed under one rock in this location.

There was anoticdable change in the distribution and abundance

of the intertidal. snail*, Littorina sitkana, from August 1974 to May 1975.

During the summer, Littorina was found in dense concentrations in the high
intertidal zone. These aggregations were highly visible, and some con-

2
tained as many as 2,000 ind./O.25m . However, by fall most had moved to

more cryptic locations such as the cracks and crevices in the pavement or

11-14

boulder field. The.dense aggregations of snails had not appeared by May

1975. Possibly the distribution and density change was in response to
changes in the physical environment associated with storms, freezing or

low ambient light level.

JAKOLOF'BAY (Semi-protected Subtidal)

At the constricted entrance to Jakolof Bay, we established a

fixed 25m transect line in a bed of.ribbon kelp, Alaria fistulosa. The
transect was placed al'ong a- shallow reef that' consisted of pavement,

boulders and coarse sand. Most of the study area was between 5m and 10m

below.the sea surface. A great deal.of water movement, in the form of

tidal currents, is typi'cal of this location. For example, on a flooding

or ebbing tide, the floating kelp canopy was usuall y pulled completely

beneath the sea surface. The currents*generated during extreme I.Ades

were.estimated at between 2.and 3 knots, and the angle of plant deflec-
tion approached 300 with respect to the sea floor.

kelp plants were tagged and their positions*plotted along

the Im x 25m transect line. Adults-are those individuals with reproductive

blades or sporophylls. During July 1974, there were 60 adult,Alaria pre-
.Sent. along the transect for a mean density of 2.4/m2 BY

October that number had been reduced-to 41 plants. Concurrently, the

floati'ng canopy was reduced from an estimated 50-75 percent cover at slack

tide, to 20 percent in October 1974. Adult plants were still attached
along the transect; however, most had lost portions of their vegetative

and/or reproductive blades. therefore, many of the kelps no longer

reached the sea surface and contributed to the floating canopy. By early

11-15

Harch 1975, the number df adult Alaria .on the transe@t was 24 and the
40 density was 0.'96 ind./m2. When we returned to the study site in May 1975,
there were only three surviving adult Alaria. However, Alaria fistulosa
ha.d recruited the entire area with heavy germination along the transect
line. Many of the young plants had either reached, or were approaching,

the sea surface within the two-month time interval. The surface canopy

now covered an estimated 50-60 percent of the underlying transect line.
The ribbon kelp density along the transect was now 18.7 ind./m2. The

algal understory was also dense and was composed mainly of Laminaria,
Agar6m, Desmarestia and foliose reds.

Two additional underwater study plots were added in the spring;

a total of 22 Alaria were measured and their positions recorded within

.each of' the plots.. This information could be useful in determining growth,
m6rtality and recruitment.

An inventory of the biota that inhabit the reef and associated

kelp bed was started. Many of the reef dwelling organisms have been

photographed for future reference. -Information on species abundance,

..patterns of- distribution, and size frequency was also recorded. The food

habits of a number of invertebrate species are an integral part of the in-

formation being gathered in*this location. Major predators on the ree*f

-are the sea stars. A total of 432 sea stars, representing.7 species,

have been examined underwater for food items. The major constituents

in their diet were mussels, clams, sea urchins, sea.cucumbers and anemones.

During summer months, smelt or eulachon have been observed to

school in the kelp bed and feed during slack tide. Other fishes, such

11-16

as greenling and sculpin, inhabit the underlyini reef; however, very little
is known' about'their movements or food habits.

To date the activities of the logging mill located near the head
of Jakolof Bay have been poorly understood. Steel bands and bark from the
rafted logs have been seen along the sea floor. For example, during a 20-
minute swim we counted 15 steel bands scattered along the'bottom at depths
of 6m to. 12m below the sea surface. Apparently the strong tidal currents
help to keep this part of the bottom relatively free of debris, since even

more bark and steel bands were found seaward of the reef.

early March 1975, we found juvenile king crabs hiding under

bark and within the rock-vegetation understory approximately 100m north-

west of the kelp bed. -Species of pandalid and hippolytid shrimp were

also important constituents of the understory habitat.

In summary, the underlying reef supported an interesting array

of benthic organisms. Most of "the inhabitants are morphologically adapted

to take full advantage of the extremes in water movement. Possibly this

location is one of the more productive shallow water areas in Kachemak

Bay.

SADIE COVE (Semi-protected Subtidal)

At the head of Sadie Cove, we established a fixed subtidal sta-

tion just above the 16-fathom contour. Two transec.ts, each 25m inlength,

Were placed-on the bottom at depths'of 5m and 8m below the sea surface.

An additional station was added in October 1974 at a depth of 30m within

the basin.

11-17

The study area consisted of sand, silt and mud. Clam shells

provided most of the available solid substratum. Low statured kelps such
as laminaria saccharina either drifted along the bottom, or remained loosely
attached to shells and small stones. During the summer these kelps were

bleached and flaccid in. appearance; however, by fall most were robust and

..fertile.

In the summer 1974, the cove was an important habitat Of tanner
crab, dungeness crab, 'horse crab and decorator crabs. Pandalid shrimp were

abundant both along the slope and within the 16-fathom basin. Most of the

shrimp used either clam shells or kelp debris for cover. Cancer magister

.was seen in the shallow (4m-15m) portions of Sadie Cove, either p@rtially

buried in the sediment or hiding under the macrophytic understory. Most

were adul t mal es; however, a f ew females-were collected and-released during
the fall survey. The horse crab, Telmessus*cheiragonus, was the most abun-.

.-dant crab seen in the Cove during July-August. Usuall' this species was
y

closely associated with the near bottom kelps. For instance, of the 80
@-Telmessus observed either along the transect lines or within the study area,

67 or 84 percent were using the kel*ps for either forage or cover. During

and August 1974, we counted 19 mating pairs of Telmessus; density was
2
estimated at 0.24 ind./m In October there were only a few pairs of

horse crab observed in the area, and by winter there were no horse crabs

seen along the transect lines. Telmessus was returning to the study site

the spring 1975 survey.

Dungeness crab exhibited a similar change in distribution and

abundance. This is a ubiquitous animal in this location during the summer

11-18

and fall; however, -by late February' 1975, only two individuals were seen

throughout the entire study site. Adult dungeness crab had returned to

the shallow water flats in Sadie Cove by May 1975.

Another readily apparent seasonal change was the appearance of

the king crab during the winter study period. . While diving along the 16-

fathom contour on February 26, 1975, we encountered two pods of king crab

sitting along the bottom. Each aggregation was composed of between 30-50

crabs; the sex ratio was not determined. This was the first encounter
wiih adult king cr abs in Kachemak Bay, and these in situ observations in

Sadie Cove agree with the migration findings of Bright (1967).

Another conspicuous group of animals in this shallow water assem-
blage are the bivalve clams. The.gaper clam, Tresus capax was the most
clam seen on the shelf. Esti a-es of clam density were ma
abundant de

along both of the fixed transects. Tresus was usually visible because
of the siphon*that extended above. the substratum. Other conmon bivalves

in this location were the -cockle, Clinocardium, and the butter clam,

Saxidomus. The sea stars, Pycnopodia. and Evasterias, prey upon the var-

Sadie Cove. Both are capable of removing the clams
ious clam species in

from *the substratum by digging. Upon completion of a feeding, the'empty

shells are discarded along the bottom. These. shells not,only provided

attachment sites for the macroalgae, but also substrate and cover for

invertebrates and fishes alike.

One of the major objectives in this location is to document

habitat requirements and energy flow in this near bottom kelp ecosystem.

H-19

SELDOVIA POINT (Exposed Subtidall
'The 1*argest and most conspicuous kelp bed i'n Kachemak Bay 'was
Jound in the vicinity of Seldovia Point. A major part of the b&d was
located off the northeast side of the Point. There is historical evidence

for the occurrence 'of the Seldovia kelp bed since the early 20th Century
(Cameron, 1915).

During July and,August 1974, the floating kelp canopy was com-
posed of two species of algae, Alaria fistulosa and Nereocystis luetkaena.

Hereocystis, orbull kelp, occurred predominantly nearshore, and Alaria

was more abundant on the outside edge of the bed. The summer canopy

covered an'estimated 80-90 percent of the underlying sea floor.

A 25m transect line was placed in lOm-l@m of water during July
.104. The bottom was composed of cobbles, boulders, pavem'ent 'and sand.

Individual kelp plants were tagged and their positions were plotted along

the transect. In July th&e.werb 103 kelp plants present within this 25m

"Strip of sea floor; however, by October all of the plants had disappeared.

Alaria was the most abundant kelp in the floating can6py during

summer. By'October the kelp most often seen on the sea surface was

Hereocystis. There were attached Alaria plants in the study site; however,

most had abraided fronds or blades that no longer reached the surface of

.the water.

Another transect line was added to the sampling array in October.
This line was 15m in length and was located'approximately 100m inshore

from the other transect. The position of the kelps was mapped along the
line, and the composition of the algal unders.tory was r6corded....

i r1i

op@

4111 -

Fucus zone, upper intertidal level
ZK

11-20

..,,-Conspicuous plants and animals were either. collected or identi-
fied. The food habits of a number of species were recorded and photographs

were taken. Night dives were also made during the hours of 2100-2300.

Pandalid shrimps were extremely abundant on the understory kelps and

associated rocks in the eveqing hours. Kelp holdfa.sts were examined

underwater, and most were found to contain small crabs and shrimps.

CRAB SANCTUART(Exposed Subtid-al)

A series of dives were made in the kelp beds that fall within

the boundary of the crab sanctuary off Anchor-Bluff Point. The dives

were made during July and August 1974 at depths between 8m and 25m below

the surface. The sea floor consisted of flat.pavement, large boulders

and patches of sand. Coralline algae encrusted much of the solid sub-

St,ratum. A fixed'transect line and marker buoy were placed at.a depth

of 1O.m to 12m below MLLW. When the tin veneer of encrusting algae was

penetrated by the transect stakes, it exposed an underlying layer of coal.

The marine plant community was "dominated" by Alaria fistulosa.
The-estimated mean density of adult Alaria was,2.2 ind./m2 and 5.2/m2 for

plants without sporophylls The other member of the floating

canopy was Nereocystis. This species was not as abun dant, and we estimated
the density at 0.1/m2.

-The alg'al understory consisted mainly of Laminaria and Agarum.

Str ngylocentrotus droebachiensis was very abundant. The size structure

of the urchin population was remarkably similar to the inter'-

tidal population at Seldovia Point. Density estimates ranged from 27
ind./m2 to 31 ind./m2, depending on the sampling method.

11-21

Further offshore the bottom was composed of more boulders and

rock outcroppings. The Alaria bed was less pronounced at a depth of 15m.

The algal understory is more luxuriant and robust. Laminaria, Agarum and

folios6 reds "dominate" the macrophytic understory. In some areas, par-

ticularly along the shoreward edge of the "Standard Oil Lease," the sea

urdhins have grazed the macrophytes down to a coralline pavement. This

is an area of high water-motion. Sabel-lid worm tubes carpeted the sea

floor. Desmarestia viridis and D. ligulata were found growing on the worm
tubes. --The invertebrate assemblage reflected this high water motion envi-

ronment. The bottom supported an extremely diverse biota; conspicuous

forms such as polychaete worms, bryozoans, sea anemones, tunicates, barna-

cles and sponges formed the epifaunal crust.

-COHEN ISLAND (Semi-protected Intertidal)

A small islet off the northwest end of Cohen Island was the loca

tion*of this study site. A 25m transect line was established in the rocky

intertidal zone. The line ran from the high intertidal down to MLLW.
Plants and animals were collected and photographed; fixed 0.25m2 quadrats

-were mapped and photographed. Numerical information on biomass, consptcu-

ous invertebrates present, size frequency distributions, and usage of the
macro.phyte belt by adult and/or juvenile crustaceans were recorded. tohen

Island and Gull Island 'appeared to be similar in terms of plant and animal

c6mponents of the intertidal ecosystem

ARCHIMANDRITOF SHOALS

Approximately I mile off the Homer Spit is a shoal area known
as Archimandritof.. Bull kelp, Nereocystis, grows along this area, and

-ADM

Guarding the nest

"06 -

lei"
-@ zo

4,- - -

Camouflage

11-22

during August 1974 we estimated, fr6m an aerial survey of Kachemak Bay,

that this kelp bed was approximately 1-1.5 miles in length and between

100-200 meters wide. During low or slack tide, the floating canopy was

visible on the sea surface. In the fall 1974, we made a reconnaissance

dive in the kelp bed. Mature bull kelp was. growing 5-6m below the sea

iurface on solid substratum overlain by unconsolidated fines such as silt

and sand.. Silt covered not'only the rocks but also most of the low sta-

tured macrophytes. The algal understory was dominated by Laminaria

Green sea urchins grazed on both the
.9roelandica and Agarum cribrosum.

understory and the holdfasts of the attached bull kelp. Juvenile tanner

crabs and pandalid shrimp's were extremely abundant in this location.
Juvenile pandalids were estimated at betVieen 8-10 ind.1m2; most of the

tanner crabs were seen on soft substratum adjacent to rock. Many of the

urchins had abraided spines and-tests.

Other common i.nvertebrates in this location were the sea star,

Evasterias; rock jingle, Pododesmus cepio; sea star, Crossaster papposus;

whelk, Fusitriton oregonensis; and the clam, Mya truncata.

SUMMARY

During the summer and fall 1974 and winter 1975 field surveys,

89 spqcies of macroalgae were collected within Kachemak Bay. Many of

these species represent geographical range extensions.

11-23

Commercial Fisheries of Kachemak Bay An Overview

Kachdmak Bay, located in lower Cook Inlet, is 35 miles long, averag-
ing ten miles in width and totalling about 350 square miles (Figure J).

It is one of the most highly productive marine environments in the state
Pf Alaska and probably one of .tfie richest bays in the world on a per unit

of area basis. Commercial fisheries harvest data and research results

from marine investigations are supportive of this statement.

Salmon were first ha rvested commercially from the Bay near the turn
of the century and were the@main species taken until 1914 when a commercial
herring fishery started up. The herring fishery which was centered in
the Halibut Cove area was active for 15 years during which time nearly 90
million pounds of herring were produced in Kachemak Bay. At the conclusion
of the herring fishery in 1928 salmon again were the mainstay of the
Commercial fishery until 19.51 when a sustained commercial effort began
on king crab. Since 1951 over 40 million pounds of king crab have been
harvested from Kachemak Bay and the Bay presently has an annual quota of
2.0 million pounds.
Shrimp was the next commercial fishery to start on a sustained basis
in Kachemak Bay in 1959 followed by dungeness crab in 1961 an d tanner crab
in 1968. There had also been some sporadic effort on dungeness in the 1950's.

11-24

Pacific halibut have also been taken commercially in Kachemak Bay for a
'number of years, however, records kept by the Halibut Commission do not

show a breakdown between Kachemak Bay and the adjacent lower Cook Inlet

area.

In addition to commercial fisheries there are substantial subsistence

and sports fisheries in Kachemak Bay which harvest all of the above men-

tioned species plus several species of bottom fish and clams. The subsistence

fishery is the highest use subsistence fishery in the Cook Inlet area and
probably in the state of Alaska although accurate records -are not kept state-

wide to determine this. The Kachemak Bay sports fishery in terms of man

days of e ffort expen ded was the highest use sports fishery in the state in

1973. Over 31,000 man days of effort was recorded between June and
@September. (Sports Fish Investigations of Alaska, 1974 Report)
Kachemak Bay is not only uniqde as Judged by it greatly diverse and

highly productive marine fisheries. It is unique in many other ways. At

various seasons of the year. the Bay harbors'tremendous concentrations of
shore;birds, sea birds5- and waterfowl. There are several species of marine

mammals including harbor seals, porpoises, sea otters, sea lions and

several species of whales which.are common in the Bay. Several major big

-game species including black bear, brown bear, moose, mountain goats, and

Dall sheep inhabit the shore line and adjacent mountainous area around

Kachemak Bay. All of the above forms of life are found elsewhere in the

state of Alaska. But no where else in the state can one find the diver-

sity and abundapce of life all together in one place as it is in the Kach-

emak Bay area. You add to this the fantastic s cenic qualities of the

area and this is what makes Kachemak Bay so unique.

11-25

This report will attempt to document the biological values of

Kachemak Bay by summarizing the commercial catch and production figures

as well as some of the various marine research projects which have taken

place.and are currently taking place in Kachemak Bay.

11.* COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

Commercial fisheries in Kachemak..Bay take place on five species of
Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus), five species of shrimp (Pandalid , three
species of crab .(king, -tanner and dungeness), Pacific herring, and Pacific

halibut. All catch.records are kept by the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game* except for halibut which is tallied by the Pacific Halibut Commission.
During the last five years. (1970-75) the total production in pounds for

'all commercial soecies in Kachemak Bay has averaged just over 11 million
.,poun'ds per year (Table 1). The annual value to fishermen and the first

wholesale-value to processors fluctuates tremendously with market conditions
and prices. The peak year during the last five"years was 1973 when a

total harvest of more than 12.0 million pounds was worth about $3.2 million

to fishermen-and about $7.3 million on a first wholesale basis (Table 2).

The importance of Kachemak Bay-to the entire Cook Inlet area shellfisheries

is exemplified in Table 3 which shows -the percent of total Cook Inlet

-shellfish production by species, contributed by Kachemak Bay. Since

1964 nearly 60 percent of all shellfish harvested have come from Kachemak

Bay.

The number of vessels participating in the various Kachemak Bay

commercial fisheries during 1973 was as follows: King crab-56, tanner crab-

80, dungeness crab-53, pot shrimp-40, trawl shrimp-8, herring-12, a.nd

salmon-60. Figures for halibut are not available, however, a conservative

11-26

Table-I..'. Kachemak Bay, Cook Inlet, Commercial

Fisheries Harvest, 1966-75

Year Kings Reds Cohos Pinks Chums Total

1966 60 12,192 4,535 177,544 28,754 223,085
1967 173 26,350 2,393 95,100 23,416 147,432
1968 61 18,716 4,671 154,033 4,518 181,999
1969 59 12,578 485 70,753 2,600 86,475
1970 91 12,245 3,705 208,174 8,174 232,389
1971 41 18,403 3,151 50,066 .2,857 74,518
1972 69 31,34.5' 1,283 9,126 4,936 46,759
1973 1@9 24,072 1,241 97,574 3,588 126,614
1974 182 27,029 3,054 48,875 2,725 81,865
1975 138 27,385 1,240 866,335 5,411 900,509

Shellfish (Pounds)

Year Kin& Crab Tanner Crab Shrimp Dungeness Crab

1966 1,910,364 309,676 12,523
1967 1,279,708 741,438 7,168
1968 . 996,520 146,491 26,030 484,452
1969 1,302,554 1,436,680 1,849,710 49,894
3.970 1,501,288 1,152,609 5,815,268 209,819
1971 1,251,142 1,186,488 5,438,091 97,161
1972 1,900,006 2,942,082 5,450,493 38,930
1973 2,114,841 3,763,060 4,709,486 308,777
1974 2/ 1,609,53 0 1,106,263 5,740,647 721,183
1975 -

Herring

1969 1.1 Million Pounds
1970 .5.4 Million Pounds
.1971 25,000 Pounds
1972 2,000 Pounds
1973 407,500 Pounds
1974 219,359 Pounds
1975.1/ 48,833 Pounds

1975 data preliminary.

2/ Shellfish seasons still in progress.

11-27

TABLE 2,' ESTIMATED VALUE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF KACHEMAK BAY
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN 1973

.-SPECIES VALUE TO FISHERIMEN FIRST WHOLESALE VALUE

SALMON 2 4'

KING CRAB 1,7 33

TANNER CRAB` s7 lo7

SHRIMP A 1,5,

DUNGENESS CRAB s2

HER' R ING .03 :106

TOTAL .3,2. 7,3

11-28

Ole 3. Percent.of Total Cook Inlet Shellfish Production (pounds)
Contributed by Kachemak Bay, 1964-1974.

Year Dungeness Crab King Crab Tanner Crab Shrimp Total
1
1964 94.9 26.0 98.1 35.3

1965 100.0 65.3 100.0 67.0

1966 10.5 48.4 100.0 51.0

1967 100.0 41.2 100.0 52.6

1968 99.3' 25.1 97.A 98.1 35.7

1969 100.0 45.6 98.7 100.0 74.7

1970. 100.0 38.5 86.9 99.9 77.2

1971 100.0 29.8 55.9 99.8 67.3

.1972 99.4' 41.3 61.2 98.3 68.9

1973 .98.5 47.7 46.4 97.4 61.9

1974 99.9 34.8 .14.4 99.8 49.2

AVERAGE 94.4% 38.6% 45.8% 99.1% 59.8%

11-29

estimate would be that about ten halibut vessels fished in Kachemak Bay
during 1973. From one to four crewmen assist the skipper on each vessel
depending on the size of the vessel and the fishery engaged in, although,
most fishing boats in Kachemak Bay utilize a crew of two in addition to
the skipper. Using the above figures one can get a general idea of the
number of fithermen who utilize Kachemak Bay, however, it is difficult

to come up with an exact figure since some fishermen engage in several

different fisheries. There are. four major and several minor fish pro-
cessors who depend on product from Kachemak Bay for their operations.
Maj& processors are Alaska Seafoods (Homer), Whitney Fidalgo (Homer and
Port Graham), Wakefield Seafoods (Seldovia), and Seward Fisheries
(receiving station in Homer). A general discussion On each of the major

commercial fisheries follows.

Salmon The major portion of salmon taken in Kachemak Bay are taken

with seine gear and the major species caught are pink salmon. Pink salmon

have made up 82.7 percent of the catch since 1954 followed by Chum salmon
(8.2 percent), sockeye salmon (7.8 percent), coho salmon (1.2 percent)
and king salmon (.1 percent). The average total salmon catch for Kachemak
Bay since 1954 is 248,886 (Table 4).

Kachemak Bay is separated into four major catch zones with each zone

contai.ning one of the four major pink salmon streams (Figure Z). Zone A,

upper Kachemak Bay, contains Humpy Creek and the yearly catch in this

area has averaged 67 thousand pink salmon since 1961. Zone B. contains

Tutka Creek and has produced an average pink catch of 64 thousand since

1961. Seldovia River is the main producer in Zone C and this area has

averaged 53 thousand pink salmon since 1961. Area D contains Port Graham

stream and this area has averaged 8 thousand pink salmon s.ince 1961.

11-30

Z.
ARCRDR irl

Y-'i 4,;
ik

41, 30,

GULL t);'-
P,@

COHEN t1t

. . . . . . . . . . . .

SAO
tESKETH 1 C>2

W(AF

SELDOV144 Vt/

4E! QV."
.5

FLAT"
3.

0
M@
h r. @,I

cal@:!@ tud

Figure3.8 Xachemak Bay salmon streams and commercial salmon catch zones.
A Upper Kachemak B Tutka C Sildovia D Port Graham

11-31

Table 4.

Kachemak Bay District

Salmon catch, by species,.1954-1975

Year Kings Sockeyes Cohos Pinks Chums Total

1954 1,522 22,913 12,235 180,977 150,769 368,426
1955 562 30,848 3,230 565,216 24,398 624,254
1956 310 33,054 4,693 150,486 53,515 242,058

1957 286 19,4 '31 1,507 130,511 57,403 209,138
1958 119 17s731 1,713 209,798 24,096 253,457
1959 7 4 10,026 709 50,076 15,278 76,163

1960 12 12,292 1.1237 250,818 4,100 268,459
1.961 39 10,180 1,161 191,911 .2,924 206,215
3.962 '58 16,569 2,095 564,050 9,089 591,861

1963 88 13,142 4,020 99,829 7,695 124,774
-1964 84 17,283 8,905 266,489 11,529 304,290
1965 10 11,229 733 90,330 2,459 104,761

1966 60 12,192 4,535 177,544 28,754 223,085
1967 173 26,350 95,100 23,416 147,432
1968 61 18,716 4,671 154,033 4,518 181,999

1969 59 12,578 485 70,753 2,600 86,475
-1970 91 12,245 3,705 208,174 8,174 232,389
1971 41 18,403 3,151 50,066 2,857 74,518

1972 69 31,345 1,283 9,126 4,936 46,759
1973 139 24,072 1,241 97,574 3,588 126,614
1974 182 27,029 3,054 48,875 2,725 81,865
1975 Y .138 27,385 1,240 866,335 5,411 900,509

TOTAL 4,177 425,013 67,996 4,528,071 .450,234 5,475,491

AVERAGE 190 19,319.. 3,091 .205,821. 20,465 248,886

PERCENT .1 .7.8 1.2 82.7 8.2 100.0

Preliminary Alaska Department of Fish and Game fish ticket count.

11-32

Port Graham is capable of producing many more fish, however, stream

-stabilization and rehabilitation are needed. The catches for the four zones

described above, by year since 1961, appear in Table 5.

Preliminary catch figures for Kachemak Bay for 1975 indicate it will

be the highest year on record with a total salmon catch of over 900 thousand.
The bulk of this year's catch were pink salmon (866,335). The peak escape-

ment-counts in 1975 for the pink salmon run to Kachemak Bay totaled 120
thousand to the four major streams (Table 6). Final escapement has not yet

been.tabulated, however, as a general rule the peak counts tallied in the

streams at the height of the pink run usually account for about 60 percent

of the total season's escapement. If this rule holds true for 1975 the total

pink salmon escapement in the Kachemak Bay area will reach about 200 thousand

thus making a total run to the bay of over one million pink salmon.

The record pink run is attributed to a conservative management approach

in the past and excellent stream and ocean survival conditions. The maintenance
of a pollution free and undisturbed habitat will be a critical.factor in

determining whether Kachemak Bay can produce runs of this magnitude in
6ture years. Since much of the spawning takes place in the intertidal areas
.of the streams and since juvenile salmon spend the first few months after

stream emergence in nearby areas, it is especially important to the survival
of salmon that the waters of the bay maintain their high quality.

11-33

Tab le 5. Kachemak Bay district pink salmon catch by area.

A D
Upper B C Port
Year Kachemak Tutka Seldovia Graham

1961 68 .107 16 1

1962 110 291 145 10

1963 58 38 2 2

1964 83 101 44 36

1965- 14 6 19 10

1966 42 54 59 7

1967 40 36 12 4

1968 46 29 56 19

1969 1 37 31 2

1970 114 45 29-

1971 11 10- 27

1972 .3 .2 .9

1973 44 20 19 13

1974 35 5 3 3

1975 342 173 334 6

TOTAL 1,011 957 796 126

AVERAGE 67 64 53 8

1/ See Figure-2 for catch zones.

2/ Preliminary Alaska Department of Fish and Came fish ticket count.

Table 6. Kachemak Bay area, estimated pink salmon escapements in-thousands of fish*

Stream 1962 1963 1964 196*5 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 !J

11=PY 56.0 34.7 18.5 28.0. 30-0. 25.0 24.7 5.4 55.2 45i'O 13.8 36.9 17.4 39.7

Tutka 30.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 12.0 7.0 7.9 6.5 6.5 16.7 1.5 6.5 2.6 .20.1

Seldovia 50.0 15.0 60.0 30.0 b6.0 55.0 53.2 60.0 23.0 -31.1 5.8. 14.5 13.7 37.6

rt4 Graham 50.0 2.0 '16.0 1.5 24.0 2.0 24.4 4.0 16.6 13.2 2.4 7.0 2.8 22.6

TOTAL 186.0 61.7.'. 114.5 79.5 152.0 89.0 110.2 75.9 101.3 106.0 23.5 64.9 36.5 120.0

Peak stream count for 1975. Total escapement has not yet been determined, however, is estimated at 200 thousand.

11-35

-King Crab
The king crab fishery in Cook Inlet started on a commercial basis in 1951.
Both trawls and pots were used and effort was concentrated in Kachemak Bay.
A total of 6,619 pounds of king crab was landed. In 1952 there was very little
effort and the catch was only 2,900 pounds, -occurring in the late summer.
1953 was the first year of any considerable production of king crab in Kachemak
BAy, 6s effort was accelerated and 1.3 million pounds were taken. Pots,
trawls, and tangle-nets were used and effort was concentrated in August and

September. About 12 boats participated in the fishery.

The fishery developed slowly between 1953 and 1959 and the average

produ ction during this period was 1.4 million pounds, nearly all caught in

Kachemak Bay.
-A jump in production occurred in 1960 when 60 boats registered for king
trab. Although only 35 of these boats participated inthe fishery at any one
time, the catch jumped up to 4.3 million pounds. Prior to 1961 nearly all

of the king crab catch in Cook-Inlet came from Kachemak Bay. In 1961 the

bay was still the main producer with 3.0 million pounds, however, 1.3 million

pounds were also taken in Kamishak and the Outer districts. Throughout the

1960's Kachemak Bay averaged about 2.0 million pounds of king crab annually

and in 1969 the Alaska Board of Fish and Game established a 2.0 annual million

pound quota which is still in effect. The fishing season was also reduced

tremendously with the season established from August 1 to February 28 to protect

king crab during their breeding, molting, and soTt shell period. The season was
changed again in 1973 when the closing date was extended two weeks to March 15.

In 1973 a total of 56 different vessels landed 2.1 million pounds of king crab

from Kachemak Bay. In 1974 there were a total of 133 king crab vessel

registrations in the Cook Inlet area. Of these.,76 vessels landed 1.6 million

Table 7.'

Kachemak Bay'

King Crab`-'Landing, by Month, in Pounds

1960-1966

Month 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

January 336,917 237,660 .131,304 114,941 105,657 149,128 51,935

February 997,617 544,190 238,135 515,029 192,473 52,243 272,776

March 475,197 221,137 494,653 91,042 238,594 512,206 332,233

April 425,820 266,240 162,820 .189994 43,655 118,246 236,820

May 648,515 389,287 135,833 316,078 55,360 111,923 5,879

June 298,768 622,736 85,350 526,617 246,200 97,291 113,731
July*..' 545,863 530,088 150,469 459,757 630,416 330,877 426,599
August 439,518 171,097 258,023 153,320 333,045 414,190 331,370
September 10,641. 7,025 42,879 167,791 80,001 66,107 78,983
October 3,856 856 182,187 42,169 71,247 694 5,225

November 663 14,430 43,771 6,763' 7,003 9,137 6,764
t
December 56,400 27,670 43,556 78,028 29,269 17,911 48,049

TOTALS 4,239,775 39032,416 1,968,980 29490,529 2,032,920 1,879,953 1,910,364

11-37

pounds from Kachemak Bay. From January 1 through mid-March in 1975 a total of
668 thousand pounds of king crab were caught in the bay. The season was

scheduled to reopen on August 1, however, due to a fishermen's strike there

has been no fishing as of late August.

TablEs 7through 10 contain catch and biological data collected from the

Kachemak Bay commercial king crab fishery.

Table 7. cont.

Kachemak Bay

King Crab Landing, by Month, in Pounds

1967-1974

Month 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1.972 1973 1974

January 20,456- 14,725 23,913 36,697 107,782 359,169 93,459 123,479
February 134,217 222,196 88,927 127,456 343,560 308,347 152,084
March 282,286 115,693 79,039 352,631 150,254 134,651

April 71,499 5,840

00
May 6,467

June
5,682

July 412,588

August 298t523 4779168 5970235 1,016,501 552,378 .404,416 10102t2ll 6710381
September .29,174 98,507 459,065 153,925 160,163 117,351 193,788 3249135
October 11,503 8,764 93,751 12,876 39,836 18tl74 61,,477 51,653
November. 3,605 20,908 14,566 35,109 97,707 110,909 49,672
December 9,390 32,719 39,663 27,873 149,379' 201,316 9 4,396 102,475

TOTALS 1,279,708 996,520 i,302,554 1,501,288 1,251,142 1,900,006 2.,114,841 1,609,530

11-39

Table 8. Kachemak Bay king crab landinggs; 1960-1974.

'Crab Per
Year Landings Crab Landing

1960 2,434 455,000 187

1961 2,619 364,045 139

1962 1,843 296,123 160

1963 1,435 347,096 241

1964 1,019 299,165 225

1965 742 217,544 293

1966. 681 226,557 332

1967 705 164,335 233

.1968 659 128,720 195

1969 681 196,2350 288

1970 700 206,471 295

1971 857, 1530856 179

1972 1,011 238,092 236

1973 1,070 284,543 266

1974 1,175 223,454 190

TOTAL 17,631 3,731,351@ 3*459

15 Year
-Average 1,175 248,757 231

11-40

Table 9. Comparative measurements of king crab carapace lengths
in percent for winter and su=er commercial caught crab
in Kachemak Bay.

KACMUNK BAY

WINTER

Carapace
Size Range 1962 1963 1966 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Ave.

140-159 mm 4 21 16 33 20 11 31 35 5 20
160-179 mm 59 52 65 56 68 69 52 55 63 60
180+ mm 37 27 19 11 12 20 17 .10 32 20

SUMER

Carapace
Size RanZe 1963 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 .1974 Ave..

140-159 mm 69 58 65 65 40 56 60 58 59
160-179 mm 28 38 32 -34 52 38 34 39 36
180+ 3 4 4 1 8 6 6 4 5

z4"

11-41

Table 10. Average weight of king crab for Kachemak Bay,
0
Cook Inlet, 1960-1974.

KACHEMAK BAY
YEAR AVE-Ru%GE WEIGHT

1960 9.2

1961 8.5

1962 8.2

1963 8.1

1964 T.9

1965 8.2

1966 8.5

1967 7.9

1968 8.3

1969 7.2

1970 @7..2

1971 8.0

1972 8.0

1973 7.3

1974 7,7

Average 8.0

11-42

Tanner Crab

Tanner crab were first harvested commercially in Cook Inlet in 1968 when

165 thousand pounds were taken in Kachemak Bay. The fishery has expanded

rapidly since then and tanners are now harvested throughout lower Cook Inlet.
Tanner crab appear to be -more ubiquitous and abundant than any other commercial

shellfish species in the lower Cook Inlet area.

The commercial catch of tanner crab in Kachemak Bay from 1968 through

1974 has Averaged 1.7 million pounds. The peak year of production occurred

in-1973 when 3,763,060 pounds were landed. A total of 80 vessels landed

tanner crab from Cook Inlet waters. in 1973 and most of these vessels fished

Kachemak Bay during the peak of the season.
There was a decline in'the Kachemak Bay tanner catch during 1974 as only

-1.1 million pounds of tanners were landed. The- poor catch was attributed

partially to less effort and also a general decline in the stock. The 1975

catch through June was 936 thousand pounds and this low catch can be attributed

largely to a lack of effort due to poor market conditions. The 1973 catch

was probably above the rate the bay is capable of producing on a sustained

basis. The Board of Fish and Game established a 3.0 million pound quota for
Kachemak Bay in 1974. The tanner crab season'was also reduced and is presently

set from December I through June 15. The closure was established to protect

tanners during their molting, reproductive, and soft shell periods.

Table 11 shows the tanner crab catch, by month in Kachemak Bay since

1968 and Figure 37shows the size distribution in the commercial catch from

1970 through 1974.

Table 110

Xachemak Bay

Tanner Crab Landing, by Month, in Pounds.
1962-1974.

Month 1962 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

January 38,893 51,789 26,545 81,104 223,061 210,684
February 2,515 115,496 156,672 107,832 163,554 550,652 95,014
March 8,613 298,678 289,044 227,506 642,638 747,590 222,613
April .35,215 474,234 362,576 358,024 593,642 558,530 325,896
May 3,404 80,070 161,753 256,017 231,751 618,143 336,687 222,779

June 5,420 288,752 21,824 82,357 272,748 229,504

July 41,950 3,024 9,527 144

August 608 1,688

September 490 728 3,226 60

October 1,570 7,692 19304 602 13,645

November 1,514 595 569992 252,529 829,119
December 10,476 9,232 12,788 91,127 289,638 287,713 29,277

TOTALS 146,491 12436,680 1-1152,609 1,186,488 '-2,942,082 3,763,060 1,106,263

11-44

1971'

33
1 70

30 1 2
1973 19 4

64
41 15

970
5. ..1974

1971
1972.
is
i0o 9B73
roup. 1972
Millimeter

120 130 140 150 160 170 - 180
kiguro 39. Kachemak Bay tanner crab size.frequencies. (Carapace width). 1970-1974.

M 46

? Y_
*4010

Kemp

4Ww

bow -GOP

-ALM
Am

-N

@Alr;

lip

-Ado

di.
04 -
77

Juveniles

11-45

Dungeness_Crab

The dungeness crab commercial fishery started on a sustained basis in

Kachemak Bay in 1961 after some sporatic attempts in the 1950's. Ten boats

fished out of Seldovia and Homer in 1961 and all processing was aboard a

floating cannery anchored in Halibut Cove. The primary months fished were

during October and November and a total of 191 thousand pounds were taken

mostly from above.the Homer Spit. In 1962 processing was conducted in Seldovia

as well as Halibut Cove and 460 thousand pounds were landed from Kachemak Bay.

The peak year of.production occurred in 1963 when 1.7 million pounds were

landed from the bay. In 1964 a total of 400 thousand pounds were taken and
then during the next three years (65-67) the fishery fell off drastically due

to a lack of processing facilities following the 64 earthquake and a decliriing

market.

In 1968 a processing plant was opened in Homer (Alioto Fish Company) and

378 thousand pounds were taken from the! bay, most of this production from four
boats. Since 1969 the dungeness fishery has been sporadic in Kachemak Bay with

an average annual yield of 235 thousand pounds. The highest year of production

since 1964 was in 1974 when 721 thousand pounds were landed from the bay. A

total of 36 vessels participated in the 1974 fishery and made a total of

609 landings. The bulk of'the catch was made in the Bluff Point area between

July and November.
Dungeness crab landings'by month for Kachemak Bay from 1961 through 1974

.appear in Table 12.

Table 12. Kachemak Bay dungeness crab-catch by month,.1961-1974.

Month 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967. 1968 1969

January 699 3,379 1,492 488

February 10,090 609 170 25

March 37,240 1,984. 335

April 250 36,165 3,004 1,346

17,672 466 2,836 1,776 1,833
May 664 1,963 .226,922
June 442 11,502 262,645 66,979 11,029 7,651 1,471 3,987

July 30,167 291,664 62,587 13,389 84,480 13,898

August 67,811 247,915 73,807 7,607 182,393 14,876

September 165,407 271,376 .118,709 .'-,"27;192 1,183 90 120,240 13,106

October 54,965 188,317 258,062 64,346 9,318 3,831 66,841

November 136,623 21,868 24$665 6,255 4,008 853 30,482
December-' 6,645 4,957 1,202 16

TOTALS 193,683 503,770 1,665,599 417,005 74,211 12,523 71,168 484,452 49,894

11-47

Table 12 continued. Xachemak Bay dungeness crab catch by month, 1961-1974.

Month 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

January 60 3,555@ 3,899

February 1,620 615 975

March 115 36 158 2,969

April 4,032 468

May 1,745 11,429 5,374

June 7,889 11,271 1,715 12,742 16,185

July 15,009 21,818 5,336 7,861 110,855

August 379597 17,049 3,568 8,224- 2179'570,'!

September 95,571 20,.287 5,085 36,G69 201,839

October 529265 15,951 4,517 147,502' 98,803

November 1,373 7,221 7,031 68,203 43,781

'December 1,819- -9,962 8,387 4,192

TOTALS 209,819 97,161 38,930 308,777 706,910

fib

Cancer Magister at home

11-48
Trawl-Shrimp

.The first attempt at establishment of a permanent shrimp fishery in
Kachemak Bay occurred in 1959 when two processing facilities were established

in Seldovia. Records are not available separating the Kachemak Bay shrimp catch.

from the remainder of the Cook Inlet Management area for the first three years

of the fishery (1959-1961), however, 5.2 million pounds were taken during this.
time period and indications are that most of this catch was from Kachemak Bay

with smaller catches coming from Nuka Bay, Resurrection Bay, and Day Harbor.

From 1962 through 1964 the average shrimp harvest from Kachemak Bay was 800

thousand pounds. From 1965 through 1968 the fishery suffered from poor market

conditions and lack of processing facilities in the area. The average catch

during this period was 276 thousand pounds.
The Kachemak Bay shrimp fishery began to stabilize in 1969 when a new
processing plant owned by Ala@kan Seafoods went into operation at the end of the

Hom.er Spit. Two boats participated in the fishery in 1969 and 1.8 million

pounds of shrimp were landed from the bay. The trawl shrimp catch from 1970
through 1�74 averaged 5.2 million pounds for the Bay.

The trawl shrimp season presently runs from June 1 through March 31. At

present, the waters of Kachemak Bay inside a line from Anchor Point to Point

Pogibski are on two guideline harvest level periods, June 1 - October 31 and

November I - March 31, of 2.5 million pounds each for a total quota of 5.0

million pounds.

The trawl shrimp catch from Kachemak Bay by month since 1969 appears in

Table 13. Since 1969 a log book program has been maintained on the Kachemak

Bay shrimp trawl fishery and catch per unit of effort (C.P.U.E.) data from

this program appears in Table 14. It is interesting to note that since 1969

there has'been no decline in C.P.U.E. observed, in fact there has been a

general increase during the last few years indicating a very healthy stock.

Table 13. Shrimp trawl catchis'by'month for Xachemak Bayo 1969-19750

LIonth 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1914 105 -average

January 11130 215,036 102,836 .405,730 450,873 1.9209,366 592,535 494,396

February 31274 448,856 446,'136 641,653 .-443,266 156@,524 572,648 451,514

March 1,870 -494,894 979,136 170,868 102,614 328j332 506,505 430,392

A ril 11,927 550,731 -466,265 77,133- 49,625 285,939
p

May 4,661 3380599 160,617 77,318. 192,178

June 104,026 665,715 434,045 539,482 -615,078 4370331 538,330

July 158,178 852,126 484,362 544,454- "1 1-613-ij 168 716,091

August 249,924 7679600 590,623 569,364 727,595 '478,953 626,827

September 3459296 603,127 624,752 -471,9121 73,137 789,933 512,574

October 4-32,848 324@360 488,492 651,547 193,139 414,385

November 219,791 3869357 457,822 618s781 431,023 431,827 465,162

December -314,227 77t287 160,030 608,930 -570,249 424,901 -368,279

Totals 1,847,152 5,724,688 -5,395,116 -5,377,181 4,549,804 -__--52063,474 1,661,688 -5z496,067

Preliminary data.

11-50
Tabl e 14@ Trawl shrimp catches in ounds per drag hour for two vess&ls
in.Kachemak gay, 1969-1975 jj.
West of Spit East.of Spit Rest of Spit
A B A B A B

96 1973 Jan. 3027 2193
9 July '2243 1795
Au@. -1523 2440 660 862' Feb. 3996 4710
Sept. 3651 Mar. Closed --
Oct. 3630 2321 1964 April Closed
Nov. 1863 1695 May Closed --
Dec. 2543 2046 June 3126 2115
July 3088 2859
Aug. 3876 3541
1970 Jan. 2897 2672 Sept. 5882 4113
Feb. 2798 2769 Oct. Closed --
Mar. 2733 3017 NoV. 4331 4470
Apri 1 2581 2440 1903 2078 Dec. 6234 6049.
2811 2207
June 1562 1216
July 2289 1837
Aug. 2253 1730 1974 Jan. 6157 .5179
Sept. 2281 2048 Feb. 11641 12150
Oct. 2580 2198 1619 1740 Mar. 15558 22193
Nov. 3338 2547 1272 1309 April Closed
Dec. .1396 1585 1167 May Closed --
June 3579 2489
July 3150 2669
1 Jan. 4015 1651 1101 1112 Aug. 2760 2902
Feb. 4187 3446 3050 Sept. 5374 5591
Mar. 7409 10850 Oct. 4151 4993
April 1888 2630 Nov. 5047 5179
May 1516 1727 Dec. 6572 6504
1462 1151
June
July 813 821 715
Aug. 2097 2320 839
Sept. 3658 2811 1975 Jan. 6440 5999
Oct. 3114 -2728 Feb. 5708 ..5651
Nov.. 2692 2844 Mar. 9039 8276
Dec.. 2959 2938

1972 Jan. 5801 4709'
Feb. 4861 5763
Mar. 12279 8295
April 3150 2940
May 2756 1923
June 2182 5346
July 1694 1688
Aug. 2757. 3259-
Sept. 4772 4281
Oct. 4530 4765
Nov. 2616 3531
Dec. 2917 2842

These two vessels have been in the fishery the longest and are used
as indicators in changes in CPUE.

11-51

The average C.P.U.E. for the Kachemak Bay trawl shrimp fishery is the highest

in the state, surpassing even the most productive areas in the Kodiak region.

It is als*o higher than the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Maine where major

trawl fisheries on shrimp also occur. The C.P.U.E. in the Kachemak Bay trawl

fishery is probably the highest in the United States and may be the highest

in-the world.

Table 15-and Figures 40 and 41 provide or depict an index of the species
composition of the commercial trawl catch between May of 1970, when sampling

of the commercial catch began, through September of 1973. As can be seen

from Table 15 and Figure 40 pink shrimp dominate catches (57.1%) followed by

humpy shrimp (36.3%). Coonstripe and sidestripe shrimp make up a relatively

small percent of the trawl catch. 1974-1975 data which is presently being

worked up will show a similar composi,tion. The.re are annual differences in

species composition of commercial catches as well as variations between

months. More information on the biology of the shrimp will appear in the

research section of this report.-

11-52

TableM' Average species composition of the comercial
trawl catch from Kachemak Bay I'May 1970
through September 1973.

Percent by Species

P. Borealis P. Soniurus P. hv2cinotus 11. dispar
Month Pink HI-anov Coonstripe Sidestrioe

11.5
1. 7

Feb.. 55.3 20.9 -7.5 26.3

'3.5
Mar,". 34*5. 58.5 3.5

2.5
72 5 24.0 1.0
Apr..

38.5 0* 2

Jun. 1.4
71.9 23.7 3.0

@Jul. 56.4 41.0 1.5

48 2 50.0 I.T. 0.6
.-.Aug

57.4
-,Sep. -41.

.Oct. 51.2 47.3 0.7 0.8

Nov. 62.5 ..22.6 6.9 .8. 0*

60.0 34.0 2.0 4.o.

57.1 -36.3
4.o 3.4

liata based on weekly random samples of the commercial catch.

I I -53a

too

-7@7

140

7 -7-
130

-7
7 7 L
120

.7
7.
sic

==7:

7==- 7
=777 7
100 k

-7
00

7Z-.

=77 7.7 -Z:--!
so
5 7 lfK

A
-z-=
to
_g7
TI

4
a Ao
%
Me an 6.3

30 7

-7

Z.
7 --7
77z=-

7--
7-

SOMY FLBRUART MARCH APRIL PAY JUNE JULY AUCUST SUMMER WCUR NOVEMBER MINUR

19--Month

Visure40. Average monthly commercial trawl catch of pink and humpy shrimp.
Kachemak Bay, May 1970 through September 1973.

II-53b

14P

.77.-Z -7: 7@

'14 P
-77 ---7 =77='

6.
r

:7 7

lip
L

7: Strine
A=
= 7 ==E
7.

7@
':7:
z 4 =71.
A
7@
::7
80

7=. Z

CS
10

-7

60
7

.4.P Ir

7-7

-7
-240

'71
:'N qW
Am= IT FrM-CRY MARCH AP,71 to., I JUNE JULY AUCUST SPIVA-SER GCTC21R XZ'VEMIE)t tTCE93-fA
19_j1opth

.'Figure /it. Average monthly cor ercial trawl catch of coonstripe and sidestripe
shrimp, Kachemak Bay, @Lay_1970 through September 1973
HE I P;-=--
rM r-

11-54

Pot Shrimp_
The're is also a Pot shrimp fishery in Kachemak Bay. This fishery did

not start up on a significant basis until 1971 when 55,665 pounds were landed.

The 1974 catch of 678,097 pounds was the highest on record and the fishery

presently appears to be in a very healthy sta.te. A slight increase occurred

in the number of vessels participating in the fishery from 41 in 1973 to 46

in 1974. The number of landings made was 1,249, a 65 percent increase from

1973.

A good abundance of pot shrimp, which are over 90 percent coonstripes,

and a fairly steady market and increased effort have caused the significant

increase in catches during the past two years.

A sampling program has been initiated to monitor the pot shrimp fishery.

Sampling will determine species and age class composition of the catch as well

as the area being fished. An attempt will be made to determine C.P.M. in

pounds per pot.
Table 16 shows the Kachemak-Bay pot shrimp catches by month from 1971 through
1974. There is presently a 600,000 pound quota on pot caught shrimp in

Kachemak Bay.

11-55

Table 16. Kachemak Bay Pot Shrimp catches, 1971-1974.

Month 1971 1972 1973 1974_

January 1,494 13,883 60,793

February 1,463 35,235 47,955

March 11,764- 18,634 203,161

April 960 6,434 32,115 259,209

May 3,680 7,257 22,081 28,065
June. 25872 23,063 20,239 15,423

July 260 24,191 11,946 15,517

August 4,945 11,752 20,036 8,600

September 759 16,241 10,960 5,210

October 13,251 3,242 33,738 8,067

November 26,720 29,288 66,864 10,898

December 2;218 29,752 38,380 15,180

Total 55,665 165,941 .324,111 678,078

ol Ar
A

Kachemak Bay Renewable Wealth

11-56

Herri nq

Pacific herring have undergone two periods of exploitation in Kachemak

Bay. The first period was from 1914 through 1928 when a saltery fishery was

centered in the Halibut Cove area. A total of nearly 90 million pounds of

herring were harvested during this time period*(Table 17). The second fishery

on herring in Kachemak Bay started in 1969 when a sac roe market developed.

Since 1969 a total of 7.2 million pounds have been harvested from Kachemak

Bay. The peak year was 1970 when 11 vessels landed 5.4 million pounds (Table 18).
The herring fishery occurs during May and early June in the Kachemak Bay

area and most of the catch comes from the Halibut Cove - Glacier Spit and

Mallard Bay areas. (Figure 42). The annual sustained yield is not known at

the present time and research into stock status is needed.

11-57

Table 17. Kachemak Bay historical herring catch, 1914-191-8.

Year Millions of Pounds Tons

1914 0.3 150

1915 0.03 15

1916 0.1 50

1917 1.9 950

1918 4.0 2,000

1919 5.3 2,650

1920 1.9 950

1921 5.2 2,600

1922 1.0 500

'1923 7.6 3,800

1924 14.1 7,050

1925 19.2 .9,600

1926 14.3. 7,150

1927 7.2 3,600

1928 4.3 2,150

11-58

Table 18. Rachemak Bay herring catches in pounds, 1969 1974.

Year Pounds Landings Vessels

1969 1,103,041 41 5

1970 5,417,385 104 11

1971 25,050 4' 2

1972 2,046 1 1

1973 407,533 20 12

1974. 219,359 19 11

tI
Anew
""Tr'n" V;
in

0
N M 'h ig /411
Awo,j@
A, spit

Yo
j
T 6 S,
A
k?
W cluff P rit
Pj

Cl
AP

"OP lsmallolA?x.
al PoInt Pet&

ell) 1171
_n IsI.X91
A
A@js 0
Yuk
Islan

@Ies et
X

'H
,@srjbars Nubble pajV?@
ciynp 1$41
Seldovis Pqiz
rt
"Y
Po
-eel
h
#.PIP
Post i4n."

so""m C-

g ve I/
N
" Uv

FUO 'e
Pa ssa ee Ij - 0
n
clat
F.A h n. Fo.4 IV,, A
_m. AIrl 'Al
!_jL

11-60
Crustacean Larval Biology

In 1971 the NMFS began a comprehensive study of the larvae of king

crab and shrimp in Kachemak Bay. In general, the study was designed to

determine the distribution,, abundance, and survival of larvae. The

first requirement of the study was to determine locations in Kachemak

Bay where larvae are released and their subsequent dispersal from the

releasing areas. Preliminary sampling began in the spring of 1971 to

standardize techniques and to verify the expected seasonal occurrence of

larval release. Sampling in 1972 was more intensive and designed to

determine more precisely the areas of release and the patterns of dispersal

of larvae from the releasing areas. The preliminary results of the 1972

studies have recently been received by the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game. The following are some excerpts from that report which testify to

the critical nature of the Bluff Point area, which was also the major

area of interest in the oil and gas lease sale.

The patterns of larval abundance and distribution in Kachemak Bay

in 1972 can be summarized as follows: king crab zoea (which is

the initial stage larvae after the eggs hatch) were released in Kachemak

Bay primarily in the Bluff Point area. Many larvae remained in the

release area throughout their planktonic or free floating existence.

The remaining larvae were rapidly displaced from the releasing area by

tidal action along primarily two routes, one southwestward toward Cook

Inlet and the other.souteastward toward Tutka Bay and Sadie Cove.

Larvae first occurred in the plankton samples during the latter

half of Apr'il. The area of greatest abudance occurred in the Bluff

Point area. Abundance decreased rapidly on either side of this area.

During the latter half of May larvae were distributed throughout Kachemak

11-61

Bay. The most obvious feature of larval distribution at this time was

the band of highest abundance which extended across the outer bay south

of Anchor Point to Seldovia Bay. Abundance decreased rapidly seaward of

this band but remained relatively high shoreward throughout most of the

inner bay. Both distribution and abundance of larvae continued to

changq throughout the Bay during the first half of June. Two centers of

abundance existed in the outer bay. The first centered around the Bluff

Point area and extended as a tail in a southwesterly direction from the

Bluff Point area. Another extended as a band of abundance from the

Homer Spit southward to Kasitsna Bay. In general, the concentrations of

larvae from April through June provide evidence of the location of

releasing sites. The initial occurrence and higher abundance of these

larvae.off Bluff Point indicate that this area is a major releasing area

in Kachemak Bay for king crab zoea-larvae. This assumption is supported

by studies of female king crab bythe Alaska Department of Fish and

Game. These studies show that egg bearing king crab congregate in this

area during spring for the purpose of releasing larvae. Further studies

by the NMFS also indicated that the Bluff Point area is a major settling

area for king crab larvae.

During the king crab larvae study, notes were also kept on other

crustacean larvae such as shrimp and tanner crab. Preliminary information

indicates that the area of greatest abundance of these species was also

in the Bluff Point area. If so, then the area off Bluff Point is critical

for release and subsequent settling of several species of economically

important shellfish larvae.
The above summary of theiarvae biology and inferred role played by

the Bluff Point site in the reproduction and larvae biology is to date

the.prevelant point of view.

11-62

The newly acquired information on the circulation of Kachemak Bay,

together with some preliminary estimate of the residence time of a water

parcel as it swings through the system, does not quite tally with the

assumption that the larvae will tend to remain and settle in the Bluff

Point'area and/or would be redistributed southwards towards the south

shore.

Fig. 43 illustrates the more recurrent transport pattern as derived

from the drogues trajectories. Preliminary analysis of the drogue data

indicates that the two gyres seem to remain somewhat south of an east-

west line drawn across the tip of Homer SDit. Much of the crab sanctuary

area appears to lie mostly across the path of a rather steady net outgoing

flow. That the Bluff Point area is a center for the spawning of king

crab is already documented. What happens to the larvae spawned in the

area is, based upon the present preliminary results of the drift studies

open to speculation.

Perhaps, to best relate the knowledge gained from the circulation
studies with the larval life history of the various crustacean known to

spawn in Kachemak Bay, one should refer to the diagram of Fig. 44. The

diagram shows the length of time through which crustacean larvae will be

observed in the plankton. Major spawning periods for the various species

are indicated.

Developing king crab larvae will be planktonic for about 30 to 40

days, Tanner crab larvae for about 60 days, dungeness crabs are for the

present unknown, and pandlid shrimps for about 60 days.

Based upon the present preliminary estimate for.a water parcel

residence time within the Bay, most of the larvae spawned in the Bay

ought to be transported out of the Bay before they have reached the

settling stage.

11-63

HOMER

-8 DA

Fig. 43 NET TRANSPORT VELOCITIES THROUGH KACHEMAK BAY
AS DERIVED FROM DROGUE DATA

MONTH

F M A m J J A S 0 N Q,

KING CRAB .......

TANNER CRAB

0)
DUNGENESS CRAB
C

PANDALID SHRIMP
-3

CRUSTACEAN LARVAL BIOLOGY

LARVAE IN PLANNTON

FIRST DEMERSAL-BENTHIC
SETTLING
PEAK SPAWNING
PERIODS- KACHEMAK BAY

Fig. 44 Planktonic Occurence of Crustacean Larvae

11-65

Various unpublished data report by Haynes (NMFS Lab. Kasistna Bay)

and others discuss recent observations on various phases of larval

biology. The following insert summarizes their findings.
dare'ful analysis of the material of indicates that our present

understanding of various stages of larvae development in Kachemak Bay

is very incomplete. Observations are obtained at a network of fixed

stations, but no one can give any assurances that the same population

is being repeatedly sampled. The nature of the circulation indicate

that Kachemak Bay is an input-output system, suggesting that much of

the larvae sampled at any one given time might have been spawned

outside the Bay.

Work is presently underway to reevaluate all basic data in terms of

new knowledge on transport mechanism being gathered by the long term

drift measurements program.

11-66

Preliminary results of larval distribution,

abundance, and survival studies in Kachemak

Bay, 1972 (Abstract)

KING CRAB ZOEA

Plankton tows were made semi-monthly in Kachemak Bay beginning the latter

half of March and extending through June, 1972. Preliminary sampling in 1971

had indicated that king crab zoea occurred in the bay during these months.

Samples were collected using the National Marine Fisheries Service research

vessel R/V Sablefish except during the latter half of May when a few plankton

tows were made with the University of Washington's research vessel R/V Commando.

Sampling terminated at the end of June unintentionally; zoea were still present

in the water at that time.

The station pattern consisted of 24 stations distributed somewhat evenly

over an area of about 688 kilometers (428 square miles) (Figure 45). Not all

stations were occupied during each semi-monthly period due to inclement weather

especially at the beginning of the sampling season.

Plankton tows were made with Miller High-Speed samplers (Miller, 1961).

Nets of #0 mesh were used throughout.the study.

Zoea first occurred in the plankton samples during the latter half of

April. Area of greatest abundance occurred as a band extending seaward from

off Bluff Point to station 17. Abundance decreased rapidly on either side of

this band.

During the first half'of May, zoea abundance increased markedly in the

outer bay. Greatest abundance occurred in the northern half of the outer bay

11-67

go
%3

A
ClIort poINT w
N

'Woo.
Cc/
'YO
no.
Q,
j

If C0.4s.
ON

Iro
0 VLA

'Po A'.
-b5>C

P OF CAY
P0 T Gn

40
is

Fig. 45. NMFS Sampling Stations for Zoea Larvae
-A

11-68

-and was centered at station 17. Dispersal of abundance extended from the

center eastward to Homer Spit and then southeastward to China Poot. Lower

levels of abundance were found throughout the remainder of the outer bay

and at the entrance to the inner bay. A few zoeae were also caught at the.
head of the bay (station 1). No zoeae were.caught during this sampling period

in either Tutka Bay or Sadie Cove.
During the latter half of May, zoeae were caught at all stations except
one (station 21) but abundance remained highest in the outer bay. The most

obvious feature of zoeal distribution at this time was the band of highest

abu.ndance that extended across the outer bay from south of Anchor Point to

Seldovia Bay... Abundance decreased rapidly seaward of this band but remained
relatively high shoreward and throughout most of'the inner bay.

Both distribution and abundance of zoeae continued to change throughout

the bay during the first half of June. Two centers of abundance existed in
the outer bay, one that included stations 16 and 17 (in the center of the bay)

and extended as a tail in a southwesterly direction to include station 24 and

another that extended as a band of abundance from Homer Spit southward to

Kasitsna Bay. High abundance occurred between these two areas, in Sadie Cove

and in the inner bay. Zoeal abundance along the outer transect of stations

was again low except at stations 23 and 24 where high abundance reflected the

dispersal of zoeae from stations 16 and 17.

A -strikin'g change in zoeal distribution and abundance occurred during the
latter half of June in the northern portion.of the outer bay between Anchor Point
and Homer Spit. In this area,. zoeal abundance had increased markedly, particularly
at stations 12,* 13, 17, and 18. 'Catches of zoeae throughout the remainder of the

outer bay, although still high, had decreased from the previous sampling period,

especially along the southern shore.

11-69

In general, concentrations of stage 1 larvae provide evidence of the
location of r*eleasing sites. In this study, the zoeae caught during April

and nearly all those caught during the first half of May were stage 1. The

initial occurrence and high abundance of these zoeae off Bluff Point indicate

that this area is the-major releasing area in Kachemak Bay for king crab
zoeae,.* This assumption is supported by stu@ies of female king crab in

Kacheipak Bay by the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These

studies show that egg bearing king crab congregate in this area during spring

for the purpose of releasing zoeae.

The patterns of zoeal abundance and distribution in Kachemak Bay in 1972

can be summarized as follows. King crab zoeae were released in Kachemak Bay

primarily in an area that extended from Bluff Point seaward to at least the
location of station 17. Many zoeae remained ih-the releasing area, expecially

in the vicinity of stations 16 and 17, throughout the ir plankt6nic existence.

The remaining zoeae were distributed rapidly from the releasing area by tidal

action along primarily two routes, one southwestward toward Cook Inlet, the

other southeastward toward Tutka Bay and Sadie Cove. A large number of late

stage zoeae were carried into the bay along the northern shore during the

latter half of June. Settling of glaucothoe likely occurred throughout the
b@y but primarily in the outer bay in the vicinity of the releasing area.

Figure46 shows the king crab larval periods by stage in Kachemak Bay from

April 15 to June 30, 1972. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show estimates of king crab

zoeae releaded, estimates of mortality, and estimates of survival in

Kachemak Bay based on data collected during the study.

11-70

KING CRAB
WEAL STAGEI5 II nL I v
100

0
Apr May May June June
15-30 1-15 16-31 1-15 16-30

Fig. 46. Kachemak Bay king crab larval periods, 1972.

11-71

Table 11 Estimates of total abundat ice or kinp cr.-.I) zoeic (x 109
for each swi-Trondily ,)crind iri Yadicwak I'ay, Alaska,
11-irc 1972.
!I-JLMC

S.W. ling I4ocal sta.@,C
period
.Mar. u U. U
Apr. I-IS 0 0 0 .0
Apr. 16-30 8.85 0 0 0
flay 1-15 12S.59 2.34 0
May 16-31 331. Sri 13S.SO 3.59 0
Jima 1-15 39.16 331.7S 252.34 27.16
Jtuic 16-30 0 7.66 01.01 135.25
507AS 477.S8 347.01 162.41

Tthle 20 Estimates or iv;tantancoLLs rior-
.tality (i) aild seasonal survivil (s) rates
for klng crnt) zoeal sta@@cs 1, 11, and III
collected in K-tchei;iak i'ay, Alaska, 1972.
=ar va
@S t an
gCS s

0.3193 0.7266
III-IV 'S(,4 0.4680

Table 9,1 Estinates of survival o; kin-@. crab zoeac pur 100,000 in-
dividuals rclcasc(1 in 1,achentak lla@ , Alaski, 1972. (--*-' estimatcs
probably greatly undcrostiiiiatcd).

urk
Duraf 1C 11 iZr
beturcei, @s ti;,.jted
Larval sta!@C@; abul. ixicc ZGC
s2d
$tape (x -.0, relca

477.58
37.0
347.01 722661)*

16?.41

11-72

BRACHYURA ZOEAE

zoeae first occurred in the samples in the latter half of April but

only in insignificant numbers.

Numbers of zoeae increased during the first half of-Maybut only

@slightly - greatest number of zoeae at. any -one station was only 22. During
the latter half of May abundance of zoeae increased markedly. Greatest

abundance occurred.in a band of zoeae that extended from station 17 to Homer

Spit.' The renidinder of the Kachemak Bay had intermediate abundance of

zoeae (10-100 zoeae per station) except the outermost area of the bay

where abundance was lowest (1-10 zoeae per station).

The band-. of greatest abundance found during the latter half of May
..persisted throughout the first half of June and consisted of at least a

five-fold increase in zoeae. Zoeal abundance in the remainder of the outer

bay-was high, including the outermost stations. The inner bay had a

relatively low level of abundance (10-100 zoeae per station).'

Zoeal abundance was high throughout the outer bay but conspicuously

so at station 17 during the latter half of June. Samples for the inner bay

forAhe. latter half of June were not -processed due to lack.of time 6nd

the assumption, based upon prior sampling, that zoeal abundance was low.

The above-pattern of Brachyuran zoeal abundance is strikingly similar
C.
to that.of king crab and Pandalid shrimp zoeae from the same sampling

period. The most noteworthy feature for all three groups of zoeae is that

zoeal, abundance originates and remains consistently high - in the vicinity
of -station 17. Also, zoeal abundance 'of all three groups was consistently

greater in the outer bay than the inner bay. Apparently the inner bay is
not a major nursery area for these forms as originally supposed.

11-73

PANDALID ZOEAE

Pandalid zoeae were f irst caught in 1972 during the first half of
April - at station 17 and 13 (Figure 1). During the latter half of April

abundance at-thesetwo stations had increased about thifty-fold. Lower

levels of zoeal abundance (100 zoeae per station) occurred throughout

the-remainder-of the.bay.
During the: first half' of p4ay, zoeal abundance -was generally high

In
-throughout -the'. outer bay but. still low- the inner bay. Zoeal abundance

at, station 17 was very high, having increased. from 208 zoeae during the

latter half of April. to nearly 5,000 zoeae during the first half of May.

Zoeal abundance shifted slightly toward the -inner bay diring the second

half of May, being highest at station 13. Abundance had dropped considerably

-along the outer sample transect.

Zoeal.abundance during the first half!of June.was essentially identical

to the previous sampling period except for a band of high abundance extend-
C,

ing from the center of Kachemak Bay toward th6 southern entrance of the bay.

During.the.latter half of June, zoeal abundance was markedly higher off

Bluff Point toirard Anchor Point and low elsewhere in the bay.

The'above pattern of zoeal distribution is markedly similar to that

of king crab zoeae during the same sampling period. Pandalid zoeae apparently
were released primarily in outer Kachemak Bay in the vicinity of station 17.

:.The zoeae were carried toviard the inner bay only slightly before some of

the zoeae were carried toirard the southern entrance of the bay. Abundance

of zoeae remained consistently higher in about the center of the bay through-

out the sampling period. Apparently an influx of zoeae occurred during the

latter half of
June alona the northern entrance to the bay. The inner

bay is not likely a major rearing area for Pandalid zoeae.

SECTION III

. I SENSITIVITIES OF KACHEMAK BAY TO
0 MAN'S IMPACTS -

SECTION III

SENSITIVITIES OF KACHEMAK BAY TO MAN'S IMPACTS

As previously mentioned, Kachemak Bay is not the kind of "pristine"

environment readily found within a few miles from its shore; the Kamishak

side of Cook Inlet can be considered as having more of a "pristine"

status than Kachemak Bay.

Kachemak Bay has and still is being subjected to an ever increasing

spectrum of human encroachment: increasing population, increasing sewage

discharge, increasing small boat traffic, increasing ocean going traffic,

increasing use of its sheltered waters as emergency harbor of refuge to

repair and salvage various types of damaged vessels and floating structures,

increasing recreational pressures upon wildlife and fishes, increasing

logging activities.

Man's impacts upon Kachemak Bay can be viewed from two standpoints:

1. Impacts Resulting From Harvest of Renewable Resources

The fishing harvest impacts primarily upon the adult,

reproductive segment of the population. Fisheries

management constantly strive to maintain a commercial

level of "sustained yield" to be harvested with a minimum

level of effort. However, recurrent removal of large number

of crabs, shrimps, herrings,.salmons, from a restricted coastal

area is bound to have a substantial impact upon the ecosystem, a

facet of human impact upon the Kachemak Bay resources hardly

investigated. For example, there is strong suggestions that

in the Bering Sea, large scale harvest of pollocks and other

commercial species are significantly altering the species

composition, reduced harvest species being replaced by

competitors previously held in check by the species being

fished. Indication also are that reduction of the number

111-2

of harvest species significantly affect the food supply

of fur seal and some marine birds. Thus the impact of perhaps

removing even a small excess of mature adults, upon the overall

ecology of Kachemak Bay should be carefully considered.

2. Impacts From Disruption of the Natural Geo-Bio-Physical - Chemical

Processes

The harvest of specific species and the disruption of the spectrum

of species diversity of Kachemak Bay does not per se impair the

ability of the environment to perform its life sustaining

functions. However, recurrent addition and/or constant release

of seemingly small quantities of substances foreign to the

natural system, at rates and concentrations in excess of the

natural ability of environmental processes to cope with the

influx, usually Alter the ability of the system to sustain life.

A brief discussion on the meaning of the term "pollution"

seems apropos at this time. The term pollution is widely used,

but seldom defined. Webster's definition show that the word

11pollution" is a derivation of the middle English word

11pollucion" meaning "emission of semen at other time than in -coition,

defilement, uncleanliness." Webster's definition hardly conveys

the intended meaning of the word, as currently used.

111-3

A definition of pollution is given as.:

"An undesirable change in the physical, chemical or
biological characteristics of our air, land and
water, that may or will harmfully affect human
life or that any other desirable species, or
industrial processes, living conditions, or
cultural assets; or that may or will waste or
deteriorate our raw material resources". ("Waste
Management and Control", Committee on Pollution,
Natural Academy of Sciences, Natural Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1966).

The definition is highly anthropocentric, but conveys some of

the complexities of man induced impacts.

The State statutory definition of pollution reads as follows:

(15) "Pollution" means the contamination or altering
of waters, land or subsurface land of the state in
a manner which creates a nuisance or makes waters,
land or subsurface land unclean, or noxious, or im-
pure, or unfit so that they are actually or.potentially
harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health,
safety or welfare, to domestic, commercial industrial,
or recreational use, or to livestock, wild animals,
bird, fish, or other aquatic life;

From an ecosystem viewpoint, it is essential'to recognize two

basic types of pollutants.

a. Nondegradable Pollutants

Materials and poisons, such as aluminum cans, mercurial salts,

long chain phenolic chemicals, DDT and other compounds that

either do not degrade or degrade only very slowly in the

natural environment; in other words, substances for which

there are no evolved natural "assimilative" processes that

can keep up with the rate at which man injects them into

the ecosystem. Such non degradable pollutants not only

accumulate but are often "biologically magnified" as they

111-4

translocate through the food chain.

Removal of such pollutants, once introduced into the biosphere

is difficult and costly; the easiest control is to initially prevent

their dumpings into the environment, or at least strictly control

their rate of influx to avoid toxic build ups. An important factor

is that such pollutants can be biologically harmful or even biocidals

at concentrations which tax the ability to detect and measure them.

b. Degradable Pollutants

Pollutants, such as domestic sewage, that can readily be de-

composed by natural processes or by engineered systems (treatment

plants). Such pollutants include substances for which there

exist natural "assimilative" processes. Problems arise when the

input into the environment overcomes the "assimilative" capacity.

In contrast to pollution by toxic, non degradable substances,

pollution by degradable pollutants can be controlled by

combinations of mechnical and biologcal processes.

Odum (1971) interestingly points out that there are limits to

the total amount of organic matter than can be decomposed within

a given area and that, to avoid exceeding the overall limits of

111-5

the biosphere, something like 4 to 5 acres of biologically

productive land-fresh water space per person (plus the ocean)

must be preserved.

The concept of the two basic kinds of pollution, as it applies

to Kachemak Bay, can be expressed in terms of pollutional

effects upon system energetics, as illustrated in the schematic

model of Fig. 47. The diagram shows that, as long as the rate

of input is moderate, degradable substances provide energy

(organic matter) or nutrients (phosphate, nitrates) and selec-

tively increase the productivity of the system by providing

an*energy subsidy. At high input rate, a critical range is

reached that is frequently characterized by severe biological

fluctuations (e.g. algal blooms).. At still higher rates of

inputs, the system essentially becomes poisoned by the over-

whelming influx of degradable substances. In contrast, the

diagram shows that non-degradable, toxic materials, stress

the biological systems from the beginning, increasingly

epressing productivity as their amounts increase; however,

the effects can be hard to detect at low or chronic levels

.of influx.

The pollutional status of Kachemak Bay, for the present, lies

close to the ordinate. Of great importance however, to the

long term ecological quality of the bay, is the rate of inputs

of ubiquitious toxic material which can induce long term

biological changes, changes difficult to detect above the natural

spectrum of fluctuations.

111-6

THE ENERGETICS OF POLLUTION

INPUT ACTS AS AN CRITICAL INPUT BECOMES
ENERGY SUBSIDY RANGE- AN ENERGY DRAIN
DANGEROUS OR STRESS
OSCILLATIONS
-C LIKELY
Ca

0 <
-y-

W
-j

0 LETHAL LEVEL
INPUT OF USABLE ENERGY OR NUTRIENTS

W
W

,LETHAL LEVEL.
0
INPUT OF TOXIC MATERIALS

Fig. 47. Schematic Model of the Effects of the Two Types
of Pollution. (from Odum, 1971)
Fill

111-7

Kachemak Bay is the recipient of a mix of discharges emanating from

various forms of human activities. An identification of the type of

wastes entering the Kachemak Bay marine environment can be schematized

as follows:

Degradable Non-Degradable

Municipal Sewage

Solid Wastes

Municipal Storm Runoff

Natural Runoff

Household Discharges

Food Processing Wastes

Sanitary Vessel*Discharges

Bilge Discharges

Loggi ng Debris

Aquaculture Wastes

Spilled Crude Oil -------

Spilled Bunker

Spilled Gasoline

POLLUTIONAL ASPECTS OF HYDROCARBONS INTRUSION

INTO THE KACHEMAK BAY MARINE ENVIRONMENT

The basic issues of the Kachemak Bay fisheries - oil interests centers

upon the public concerns on the impacts of oil upon the prime environment

of the Bay.

Much of the concern relate to the hazards from oil spill, usually

defined as a dramatic, large sudden release of either crude or refined oil

by drilling or shipping activities. A moderate to large spill is a

psychologically stirring event, highly visible and with readily observable

dramatic effects upon all surface dwellers (marine birds, mammals), shoreline,

beaches, pleasure crafts and beach dwellers. Not as psychologically stirring

however are the constant, steady dripping and small spills of petroleum pro-

ducts in harbor, out of exhausts of outboard motors, or overboard pumping of

bilges.

A large spill is a dramatic and usually locally catastrophic event,

especially if it occurs in an area rich in birds, mammals and other marine

life. If the spill occurs near population centers, public outcry and concern

is great. Spills occurring in more remote areas, usually do not enqender the

same high levels of public clamour for protective action, as for example, in

the recent grounding of the suoertanker METULA in the Straits of Magellan.

Attempting to develop a predictive impact scenario for oil in Kachemak

Bay can be somewhat speculative; however, a little Dublicized event, the

spill resulting from the grounding of Royal Dutch Shell supertanker "METULA"

in the Straits of Magellan on August 9, 1974, can s-erve as a documentable

insight on the anatomy and aftermath of an oil spill in an environment very

similar to the Kachemak Bay Lower Cook Inlet environment. The following
narrative by C.G. Gunnarson, summarizing preliminary on-site assessment of

the impact of the spill underscores salient events:

111-9

The "Metula" Oil Spill

(C.G. Gunnarson - 1975)

(NOAA Marine Ecosystems Analysis Program Office)

Background
On 9 August 1974, the 206,000 ton supertanker "Metula",
transiting the Strait of Magellan (Figure ), at 14 1/2 knots
ran aground. The ship stopped in a distance of 260 feet (80
!neters), a small fraction of the two or three miles (3 to 5 km),
ordinarily required to come to a halt. The METULA, owned by one
subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, operated by a second, and
leased to a third was carrying oil owned by the Chilean National
Petroleum Authority (ENAP). The Government of Chile requested
and received assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard who, in
Icooperation with the owner's salvage forces, transferred most
of the oil to smaller tankers. The METULA floated free on 25
September 1974, after 51,500 tons of Saudi Arabian crude and
.2,000 tons of Bunker-C had been spilled. The spill area is
isolated (Figure48) and no cleanup procedures were attempted.

Physical Geography of the Strait of Magellan

Discovered in 1520 by Ferdinand Magellan, the Strait lies
between Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego and since then, has
served as an alternate shipping lane to the dangerous and longer
route around Cape Horn through Drake Passage.

The southern Andean Cordillera, composed of granitic,
volcanic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks lies along the
Pacific Coast. Along the Atlantic, the area is one of glacial
moraine with low hills and periglacial sediments of sizes
varying from coarse'sand to boulders along the shoreline and
extensive loess deposits back from the coast. The ground
surface often has strong parallel ridges, with some elongate
salt pans, lined up with the prevailing westerly to
northwesterly winds.

Mean air temperature near the Atlantic is 6.70C (460F)
varyin g from 2.50C (360F) in July to 11.7'C (530F) in January.
Annual rainfall is about 300mm (12 in) along the Atlantic Coast
to over 1500mm (60 in) in the higher cordillera. Winds are
almost always westerly to northwesterly and commonly exceed
40 knots (75 km/h). Storm winds exceed 100 knots (185 km/h).
During the spill, 70 knot (110 km/h) winds frequestly occured
and once exceeded 115 knots (200 km/h).

Water currents in the spill area are mostly due to tides
with average ranges of 7.6m (25 ft) at the eastern entrance to
about 0.8m (2.5 ft) near Punta Arenas. Maximum currents occur
in the narrows where the cross sectional area of the water is
reduced (see Figure ). Currents calculated from tide table
data durin the spill period are as much as 4.4 to 4.8m/sec
(9.3 knots@ in the First Narrows, depending on the tidal
range. 9 knot (16 kn/h) currents have been measured in the

50 KM OIL SPILL ON
BEACHES
BAHI'O 40M Arge@tina
South America POSESSION 3OKM 20KMk
Continent
77. K
Chile
PUNTA
Chile POSESSION 05/r 0
8 0
So IWILE's
BEACH IlWpACr
PUNTA
KM PUNTA DUNGENES
FIRST ANEGADA
NARROWS
BIOLOGICAL PUNTA
CONTROL BANCO CATALINA
STE Faw
2. ESTUARIES ORANGE Atlantic
SATAUTE C 0 10 KM DEPosIr Ocean C)
.7 :,- PUNTA
PATCH KM ESPORA
AfE7VI-A
MANANTIALES BANCO
BAHIA SROUNDING LOMAS
GREGORIO
30 KM WEST OF
D.rposlr PUNTA ANEGADA
BAHIA FELIPE A OIL DEPOSIT
ON BEACHES
PUNTA REMO
@%v RVI 40KM Tierra Del Fuego
-,v
AP
OIL DEPOSIT
50 KM ON BEACHES %ERRO SOMBRERO
"y Chile
PUNTA PIEDRA
70 60 KM
*-HOTEI- BAHIA FIGURE 3 Argentina
pw BEACH SURVEY FELIPE SITE OF GROUNDING AND IMPACTED BEACHES 0 Km to
SPOT BEACH SURVEY FIELD SURVEY JANUARY 1975
BIOLOGICAL STUDY SITE 0 Mi 10

Fig. 48. METULA Oil Spill. Straits of Magellan. 9 August 1975. (Gunnerrnn, 1975)

narrows by ENAP. In Bahia Filipe, where the oil was spilled
and most of it went ashore, calculated maximum tidal currents
are about 4 to 6 knots. Actual currents in the bays are
affected by the wind as well as the tide.

Environmental Impacts of the Spill

Effects of the METULA spill are continuing. Some of these
are still in the future. For instance, as lighter, more
volatile fractions of the oil evaporate, an asphaltic surface
will develop through which plants will be unable to force their
way. Future research will be needed to determine the total
impacts of the spill. Meanwhile, it is of interest to summarize
observations made at the time of the spill -in August 1974 and
five months later in January 1975.

August 1974 Observations. Most of the environmental damage
occurred during the spill, which began with an 6,000 ton
initial loss of Saudi Aragian crude. A preliminary environ-
mental assessment was made by Dr. Roy W. Hann, consultant to
the Coast Guard. Up to 40,000 tons of oil were deposited
along some 50 miles (80 km) of shoreline and in estuaries,
mostly on Tierra del Fuego. Loadings in the more heavily
oiled areas are estimated at from 5,000 to 10,000 tons
per mile (3,000 to 6,000 tons per kilometer) of shoreline.

Amounts of oil deposited on beach varied widely according
to rates of released, tides, and winds. Aerial observations
showed the oil mostly along the Tierra del Fuego shore and,
on August 20, spread over 1,000 square miles (2,500 km) of
the eastern part of the Strait. No attempt was made at the
time to evaluate satellite imagery of the spill.

Bird losses were originally estimated at from 600 to
2,000, mostly cormorants but including penguins, petrels,
gulls, and others. Mussels, limpets, and starfish were also
affected. Up to $10,000,000 was available from TOVALOP,
established by the international oil companies and carriers,
for oil spill cleanup and damage correction. This was not
accepted by Chilean authorities although concern over possible
damage to king crab fishery and other local marine resources
was high.

Factors leading to this decision were: (1) effects were
mostly limited to Tierra del Fuego where the main activities
are sheep ranching and oil production; (2) the cleanup pro-
cedures were considered likely to cause even more damage than
the spill; and (3) both local and long distance logistic
support were, and still are, considered out of proportion to
the possible benefits of remedial measures. Other considerations
included uncertainty as to shared liability and litigation.

111-12

January 1975 Conditions. A second reconnaissance survey of the
spill site was carried out in January 1975 by Dr. Hann, Dr.
Dale Straughan, marine biologist from the University of Southern
California and consultant to NOAA, Mr. H. Kenneth Adams, marine
biologist from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
the writer.

METULA oil was found where it was originally deposited,
although there had been optimistic speculation that most of the
6il had been driven by winds and surface currents into the
Atlantic Ocean. The amount of oil deposited or remaining on
the beaches and estuaries is not precisely known. Dr. Hann
estimated that some 20,000 tons were present in January. How-
ever, the widespread extent and persistence of the oil is
obvious, and to argue that most of the oil went to sea is to
argue that the large-scale pollution which we saw was due to
a smaller quantity of oil.

In the most heavily oiled areas on the southern shore of
Bahia Filipe 'and the First Narrows, and in a large salt marsh,
oil is ubiquitous. Heavily oiled cobbles are found on some
beach areas. Oil and mousse (en emulsion with from 5% to 20%
water and with the appearance of chocolate mousse) which was
originally deposited on the beach is flowing through saturated
beach sediments to mean tide level. In some areas, this oil
colors the breakers and is returned to the beach as swash marks.
Seasonal and diurnal heating of the dark-colored oil deposits
promotes bleeding and flowing of the oil on the surface and sub-
surface flow of the oil through the sediments.

Biological impacts of the oil spill were and still are
severe. Local mussel and fin-fisheries were reported by one of
the fishermen to have been moved to other areas because of
taste problems. In the salt marsh, large quantities of oil were
found floating on the surface of tidal channels, deposited on
tidal flats, and in isolated patches where they had apparently
been blown by the wind. There are large blackened areas which
once were covered with green marsh plants.

Oiled birds were found landward of shore areas in which the
original counts of dead birds were made. In one area, 22 dead
cormorants were found within a 25 yard.(25 meter) radius which
had not previously been counted. Samples of intertidal organisms
and sediments were collected by Dr. Straughan at a total 30
quadrats located in areas of heavy, light, or no visible oil
contamination. A total of 40 sediment and 7 tissue (mussel) samples
were collected for quantitative petroleum hydrocarbon analyses.

111-13

The "Metula" mishaps spilled about 51,500 tons of Saudi-Arabia crude or

about 20 million gallons which spread a little over 1000 square miles of the

coast and marine waters of the strait. (Fig. 48)

Supertankers do not ploy the waters of Cook Inlet yet, the biggest

tanker transiting through the inlet being in the 70,000 tons range. It must

be noted that a mishap by a 70,000 ton tanker, with a capacity of about 500,000

barrels, in Lower Cook Inlet could result in a spill similar in magnitude to

the one of the "Metula". Thus the "Metula" mishap, in an area, environmentally

very similar to Lower Cook Inlet, can serve for a basis to examine the conse-

quences of an oil spill in the Lower Cook Inlet - Kachemak area. It should

also be noted, that the magnitude of the "Metula" spill can also be likened to

part of the amount that could emanate from an uncontrolled oil well in the

Inlet.

111-14

Anatomy and Potential Impacts of an Oil SDill

Upon Kachemak Bay

Attempting to fully quantify both the short and long term impacts of

an oil spilled in to Kachemak Bay, even if all the intricacies of the geo-

bi o/physical chemical processes were known, would be unrealistic due to the

large-of initial variables to be considered such as; volume of the spill,,

chemical composition of the oil, location of the origin of the spill, local

and regional variabilities in currents, wind, sea state, sea surface roughness,

sea water and air temperatures, local and regional variabilities in the con-

centration and types of inorganic and organic particulate, strength of the

vertical density stratification, occurrence of sea ice and shore ice, amount

of daylight and intensity of sunlight, (Fig. 49).

It must be underscored at this time that in general, the post mortem

investigation of an oil spill are usually of short duration. This point was

stressed in the April 1974 CEQ, Oil and Gas Environmental Assessment (Q. 40)

which stated:

"Many observations depend more on the lenth of the study than on

the actual time the oil remains in the habitat". Hence these.

observations relate to) minimum residence time of oil.

In many cases, the investigative reports terminated their data

collection before the oil was no longer detectable (either visually

and analytically)."

111-15

CMOCOLATE UO-ASE' T-,
St. SVRFAct C

DIISOLWT-0 0

10.1
C-ULSIC.

0 OCEAN
CCICLE

C.10C 0"

WO"-%UO ANT
0-4.
aMOMS I.OLOG.CAL
01YRITUS
,:ULX
IVAIAII
0.
&C.A

St. FIO(M
... IC

Fig. 49 Processes controlling the fate of spilled crude oil in
the ocean. (Burwood and Speers 1974)

111-16

At present, only few investigators study the long term fate of spilled

oil (e.g. Blumer et al on the West Falmouth Oil Spill). Thus any attempts

to adapt existing results to project the extent and levels of impacts of

oil spilled upon the Kachemak Bay marine environment must be tempered with

the realization that the reported results usually refer to minimum effects,

usually of the more acute levels of persistance and effects.

As pointed out in an article by K.G. Hay (1974), results from a wide

spectrum of multidisplinary investigative activities can affirm certain

facts and put to rest certain speculations about the fate and effects of

oil upon the marine system.

A. -.Behavior and Fate of Spilled Oil.

The anatomy of an oil spill in Kachemak Bay shall be discussed within

the framework of the fates and effects format of the NAS Publication "Petroleum

in the Marine Environment" (1975).

1. Oil Dosage

Spills occurring in small confined areas, so that the oil can

be contained for long periods of time, will cause greater damage

than spills released in the relatively open sea.

The environment of Kachemak Bay provides for nearly all ranges of

openness or containment of spilled oil. Its southern shore characteristics

by many embayments, can, especially during the periods of the year

of little or no runoff, usually also associated with shore line

conditions, has all the Dotential for high periods of retention

for any spilled material, even for relatively small spills. Local

wind factors with sheltering and/or channelling effects of the

111-17

steep topography extent a primary control upon the rentention or

dispensal of a spill.

The inner portion of Kachemak Bay, especially the area most utilized

by large vessels, the degree of initial oil release will obviously

be the controlling factor as to the extent to which the area will be

affected.

Estimate of the expected surface area to be covered by a given

amount of oil are difficult to make, as a number of factors modify

the composition and the spreading behavior of the oil.

The amount of oil that could be spilled into the inner portion of

Kachemak Bay can range from a few gallons to in excess of perhaps

in excess of 10 million gallons (about 45,000 b1s) from a

tanker.'

Of interest, referring to the METULA incident, is the high dosage

of oil on various beaches (5 to 10,000 tons/mile). The surface area

of the inner Bay, eastward of Homer Spit, is about 96 square nautical

Miles. Assuming an even distribution of oil over the entire inner

bay, about 400 bls of oil could be expected per square mile.

Large spillage in the outer bay, would obviously have different

dosag e depending upon the points of relase. The dosage from an

uncontrolled well, drilled at the proposed exploratory well locations

in outer Kachemak Bay are unquantifiable at this time, due to the

absence of information about the size and volume of flow.

2. Dispersal of Oil

The fate and biological effects of oil, once relased in marine

waters such as those of Kachemak Bay, is controlled by the initial

physio-chemical characteristics of the oil. Crude and refined

111-18

products exhibit a wide complexity and variations in their physical-

chemical composition. Since the physical-chemical processess the

oil will undergo once introduced into the marine environment depends

upon its composition, a knowledqe of the composition and physical-

chemical properties of the spilled material is an essential pre-

requisite to predicting its fate.

The most likely types of oil that can be spilled in Kachemak Bay

consist of crude oil, both local and imported from the Middle East,

Bunker C or No. 6 fuel oil, diesel or No. 2 fuel oil and light

petroleum products such as kerosene and gasoline.

The composition of "average" crude can be most easily described in

terms of its:

Molecular Size Molecular Type

Gasoline 30% Paraffine (alkanes) 30%

Kerosene 10% Naphtene Hydrocarbons 50%

Light Distillate 15% Aromatic Hydrocarbons 15%

Heavy. Distillate 25% Nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen

containing compounds 5%

Residues 20%

Moore et al (1973) distinguished light fractions of oil, as

summarized in table.

The dispersal of oil includes: spreading, evaporation, air-sea

interchange, emulsification, solution, sinking, chemical oxidation,

microbial oxidation, ohoto-chemical reactions and beaching.

TABLE 22,
BASIC DATA FOR OIL COWSITION MODEL
(from Moore et al., 1973)

b Solubility C
a b Boilipg Molecular Vapor Press* 6
Z by*wt. Density Pointo 20% (gm/10 9M
Fraction Description a in Crude Oil (gm/ml) (90 Weightb (mm) Distilled H 0)
2

Paraffin
C 6-C 12 .1-20 .66-077.. 69-230 86-170 110-.1 9.5-.01

2 Paraffin
C -C 0+-10 .77-*78 230-405 184-352-' .1 .01-.004
13 . 25

3 Cycloparaffin
C 6-C 12 5-30 075-.9 70-230 84-164 100-1. 55-1.

4 Cycloparaffin P1-4
C 13-C 23 5-30 .9-1. 230-405 156-318 l.-O l.-O

5 Aromatic (mono- and
di-cyclic)
C 6-C 11 0-5 .88-1.1 80-240 78-143 72-.1- 1780.-0.

6 Aromatic (Poly-
Cyclic)
C 12-C18 1.1-1.2 240-400 128-234 .1-0, 12.5-0

7 Naphtheno-Aromatic
C 9-C 25 5-30 .97-1.2 180-400 116-300 1.-@O L-0

8 Residual
(including heter-
ocycles) 10-70 L-1.1 >400 300-900 0 0

111-20

a. Spreading

Spreading occurs rapidly at first; Fay (1969) investigating the

spread of oil on a calm sea, concluded that gravitational effects

(hydraulic head) controlled the initial spreading of the oil. As

the oil thins however, interfacial tension between oil and water

becomes influential. From available spill data, it is observed

that even viscous crudes spread into thin layers that become

influenced by surface effects. For example, Berridge et al (1968)

calculates that 100 cu. m. of various crudes will thin to an

average value of . 55 cm within 17 minutes, .12 cm after 3 hours

and .003 cm after 28 hours.

Once*a spill has thinned to the point that surface forces play

an important role, the oil layer is no longer continuous, but

becomes fragmented by wind and waves into patches and wind rows

where thicker layers of oil are in equilibrium with thinner films

rich in surface active compounds. Observations on experimental

spills (Jeffrey, 1973; Hollinger an-d Mennella, 1973) indicate

that patches of oil several millimeters thick were surrounded

by thin films of less than 4 mm - approximately 90% of the

volume of the oil was in the thicker layers that occupied only

10% of the visible slick area (figure 50).

Wind, waves and eddies determine the shape and direction of the

spill. Blokker (1964) considered the wind as being the most

influential factor, the oil drifting at about 3-5% of the wind

speed.

0 min 4 min 22 min 42min 2 It

Thickness (mml
LQ 7h*

2 days

POP

1.5 1.2 0.1 IQZ3

2% days

L@P C:Z>
%@.- -,

0 100 200 300 Thicker Oil
Distance im) 4 days
Comparison of visible slick with actual lbick- A series of. diagrams showing the outline de-
ness of oil on water as measured by multifrequency microwave velopment and subsequent breakup of the oil slick (P. G. Jeffrey.
radiometry (Hollinger and Mcnneila, 1973). 1973).

(paliodajun) aAO3 4nqLPH Mds LP LLPWS

I Til,

-ja

7 @+4`-

111-22

The importance of the surface active constituents in spreading

and dispersion of oil in water is demonstrated by the fact that

most pure hydrocarbons do no spread spontaneously by surface

forces. Surface active constituents are known to exist in crude

oil. Dunning et al (1953, 1954, 1956) attributed the major

interfacial activities from Oklahoma and California crudes to

vanadium and nickel porDhyrin complexes. Canaveri (1970)

identifies prophyrin emulsifier from Kuwait crude. Nitrogen-

sulfur-oxygen compounds (NSO) have also been shown (Seifert

and Howells, 1969) to be highly surface active. Such compounds

enhance the weathering processes by increasing the surface to

volume ratio, giving a greater exposure to the air and under-

lying water. The cessation of slick growth has been attributed

by Fay (1971) to the decrease in spreading tendency from loss

of NSO compounds by dissolution or by inclusion into tar bases.

The spreading of an oil slick in Kachemak Bay will be greatly

influenced by the regime of the circulation. The results of the

transport measurements performed to date clearly show that the

pattern of.transport of the spill will be complex and will depend

to a great extent to the sta ge of the tide at the onset of the

spill to the location within the bay, and to the effects of the

local winds.

The present data indicate that:
1.) Hydrocarbons released near the inner portion of the spit

would most likely spread along the seaward face of the spit

111-23

and along the shores between the spit and Bluff Point.

2.) Hydrocarbons released in the vicinity of.the Shell-SoCal

drilling site would most likely affect the shore between

Anchor and Bluff Point, an area where a number of otters
have been olvserved in the kelp beds, along the shore.

3.) Hydrocarbons released in the vicinity of Point Pogibshi

would.follow several paths, depending upon the prevailing

tidal regime. They.spread along the southern shore and enter

various embayments travel to the Anchor Point-Homer Spit

shore, travel up channel or even reach the Kamishak side

of the inlet.

4.) Hydrocarbons released within the inner oortion of the outer

bay would follow a circuitous route, within the gyres system.

Of interest is the predicted oil spill trajectory inferred by

Miller and Britch (1975) for a location in outer Kachemak Bay.

The prediction shows inferred trajectories for various wind

speeds and directiom, neglecting the effects of the tidal

circulation, and an inferred trajectory with the combined

effects of winds and tides (Fig. 51).

Analysis of present information on the processes controlling

the spreading of spilled oil indicate that significant knowledge

has been acquired on some of the controlling factors. However,

the degree of knowledge so far acquired can only provide gross

understanding of spill spreading processes. At this time,

one can only reflect upon the statement of p. 1, chapter I. of

the MIT studies on "Oil Spill Trajectory Studies for the Atlantic

111-24

PREDICTED OIL SPILL TPAJECTORY Wir,40VT TIDAL
TRAVERSE FOR VARYIEG WINDS AT HOMER

C. Lm
northeast winds
Southwest Winds
northwest Winds
24 wind speeds are in xnote
24 Asrival Tims are in Hours

k
LIU a a

j0y

4AC14
/0

war

PREDICTED OIL SPILL TRAJECTORY WITH A
10 KNOT NORTKWEST WIND AT HOMIER
- - - Spill acmirring :t nigh Tide
d
w a). Spill Occurring t La. Tide.
er.
------ Spill Without Tidal Traverse

W..e

40MER J
k

IN
L3AY
se-se

42
24
56 HR
12,
3r.
35 RS

5 MRS

Fig. 51. Inferred Oil Spill Trajectories for Kachemak Bay.
(Miller and Britch, 1975)

Coast and Gulf of Alaska" (CBQ Report - OCS Oil and Gas, An

Environmental Assessment - April 1974).

"Despite the ten or fifteen papers available on the

subject of oil spill transport in the ocean, it is

fairly clear that we do not understand how the waves

passing underneath an oil flick, the wind blowing

over an oi-1 slick, and the gross motions of the

underlying water combine to move the oil. In fact,

we fi,nd that the motions of the waters lying right

at the air-sea interface, in the absence of oil are

still the subject of much current research."

Much work has been done, and much understanding acquired,

but for Kachemak Bay, a spreading spill will require real

time, constant field monitoring for control and clean up.

b. Sea-Air Transfer Processes

Hydrocarbons fractions, spilled upon the surface of Kachemak

Bay will be transferred to the atmosphere by evaporation and

by wave produced spray and bursting bubbles.

The rate at which spilled oil evaporates off the sea is

determined by its chemical composition. The more volatile

components, gasoline and kerosene, can, according to Kreider

(1971) be volatized within 10 days. Light distillates show

limited volatility and will be retained for the most part in

the slick. Heavy distillates and residues do not volatize

readily. Evaporation alone can remove 50% of the hydrocarbons

from an "average" spilled crude, depleting the lower boiling

components (fractions 1, 3, and 5 shown on table).

111-26

The evaporated hydrocarbons enter the atmospheric pool of

hydrocarbons. Chemical reactions in the atmosphere convert

an unknown amount of these hydrocarbons into less volatile

non-hydrocarbon compounds. The fates and effects of such

compounds are unknown.

Hydrocarbons are also removed by wave produced spray and

bursting bubbles. Rough seas tend to favor losses of

hydrocarbons to the atmosphere as spray and bursting bubbles

eject both volatile and non volatile components. However,

wave action and turbulence also favors emulsification of

the oil and facilitate its solution.

Exam ination of the drogue data and of the inferred spill

trajectories of Miller and Britch, indicate that, due to the

rather restricted.size of Kachemak Bay, oil would reach the

shores within a few hours to less than 4 days. Based upon

present estimates for evaporation of the light oil fractions,

most of the oil reaching the shores would still contain a high

percentage of its volatile fractions. At this time no estimate

can be made of the magnitude of the fraction of oil ejected

to the atmosphere by spray and bursting bubble that would settle

upon the coastal area bordering the bay. The METULA incident showed

that spray will induce heavy coatings of the back shores by oil.

Under appropriate sets of wind and wave conditions, sea-air

transfer processes can be a major factor in translocating
spilled oil beyond the'shorelines.

111-27

C. Emulsification

Turbulence and sea surface agitation will induce two types of

emulsion: oil-in-water and water-in-oil.

The oil-in-water emulsions consist of droplets of oil, up to

a few mm in diameter which are stabilized by the presence of

various hydrophylic groups naturally present in crude oil but

usually removed during refining. (Pilpel, 1968). Oil-in-water

emulsions are readily miscible in sea water and are easily
dispersed by currents and turbulence. Forester (1971)

investigated these fine particles in details following the

spill at Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia. He observed particles

ranging from 5 mm to several mm dispersing as a result of

wave agitation down to a depth of 80 m inside the Bay and down to

45 m, 65 km outside the bay; near surface distri-bution of

particles extended 250 km SW along the Nova Scotia coast. The

spill released approximately 108,000 bbls of Bunker C fuel

oil into the bay, in Feburary 1970.

Water-in-oil emulsions are formed particularly by heavy asphaltic

crudes and residual oils. Water-in-oil emulsions are not miscilble

with sea water, consisting of droplets of water enclosed into

sheaths of oil rendered stable by the presence of various

resinous and asphaltic materials naturally occurring in crudes.

These emulsions can contain uo to 80% water and have a consistency

ranging from thick cream to road tar. They tend to occur as

somewhat coherent semi-solid lumps often referred to as

"chocolate mousse". Studies by Dodd (1971) show that the rate

of formulation of water-in-oil emulsions under comparable con-

111-28

ditions vary dramatically with the nature of the oil.

The water-in-oil emulsions usually remain as thick, greasy layers

or may break up into lumps. Some washes ashore, some sinks to

the bottom and the rest gradually decomposes. Three factors

induce an oil-in-water emulsion-to increase its specific gravity

and sink. (ZoBell, 1964): Adsorbption of sand, clay, silt, and

skeletal remains of various organisms, spontaneous oxidation

and microbial oxidation.

Sinking occurs most rapidly in shallow water and in the intertidal

zone, where the concentrations of suspended solid is high. Along

beaches and muddy estuaries, the oil material is soon located

with sand, small pebbles, shells and other debris and turns into

a hard mass. Along muddy and sandy beaches, a good deal of it

becomes buried in the intertidal zone.

Kinney (1970) observed that,in upper Cook Inlet, crude oil

changes rapidly from its initial state of black oil spreading

along the surface into particles of water-in-oil emulsion,

exhibiting considerable variations in size and a high degree

of stabi*lity. Cook Inlet silt was observed to have no apparent

effects upon emulsion formulation or sinking of Cook Inlet

Crude (Button et al 1970), a fact consistent with what is known

about the displacement of hydrogen bonded water from clay

surfaces by non-polar Darticles. Initial emulsification from

an experimental spill of 20 gallons ofCook Inlet Crude was very

111-29

rapid. Within three hours the predominant character of the

spill was black patches of emulsion, ranking in size from

very small to up to two inches in size, some exhibiting almost

fibrous appearance, interspaced in a light surface slick. Winds

averaged about 10 knots (Kinney, 1970).

d. Solution

Present information indicates that water-soluble aromatics and

aliphatic hydrocarbons exhibit sublethal effects on marine

organisms at concentrations of 10-100 pob, lethal toxicity at

0.1-10 ppm for most larval stages and lethal effects at 1-100 ppm

for most adult organisms (Moore et al, 1973). Although little

is known of the relative percentages of loss of such components

by evaporation and solution, it is usually assumed that most is

lost mainly by evaporation. Detailed understanding of the fate

of such components, especially during the early stages of slick

aging is crucial, as the low boiling hydrocarbon fractions contain'

almost all of.the lethal components of the slick (Blumer, 1971);

investigations on the "weathering" of crude oil slicks on the

sea have demonstrated that all of the lower boiling com-

ponents evaporate or dissolve within a few hours of slick

initiation (James - et al, 1973; Sivadier and Mikolaj, 1973).

Water solubility of hydrocarbons drODs drastically as the carbon

number increases (McAuliffe, 1969; Baker, 1967). Solution

preferentially removes the lower molecular weight components;

however, aromatic hydrocarbons have a higher solubility than
n-paraffin at the same boiling point (Blumer, 1970).

111-30

Dissolution of hydrocarbon fractions into sea water can also

take place over a period of time, after all visible evidences

of the slick have disappeared. McIlvaine (1974) indicates that

dissolved oil was observed during oil spill survey during

finger printing analysis of waters taken from control stations

showing no evidence of surface 5licks or iridescence. Blumer

and Sass (1972), working with No. 2 fuel oil showed that low

boiling aromatics (C-1 to C-3) incorporated in the sediments

were being replaced by,highly soluble aromatics, suggesting

that the low carbon aromatics were going into solution rather

than being degraded by the marine microfiora. McIlvaine

indicates that there is direct evidence that refined hydrocarbons

can go into solution and that such solution is mainly restricted

to the toxic aromatic fractions.

The emulsification and solution processes controlling the fate

of spilled hydrocarbons are of great importance to the assessment

of spill impacts upon the Kac.hemak. Bay environment. As previously

commented, the relatively small geographical extent of the

Bay, the rather high residence time of the spilled material

within the semi-daily tidal eddies and the semi-permanent

gyre, indicates that the basic circulation and transport

process would favor significant incorporation of spilled

material within the water column, beach, intertidal and

subtidal sediments.

The processes of incorporation and the environmental fate of

the spilled material will be governed by the initial composition

111-31

of the spilled hydrocarbons. Fuel oil would probably be in-

corDorated as an oil-in-water emulsion and, under various con-

ditions of sea surface roughness, could be incorporated through-

out much of the water column of the Bay. Its potential toxicity

.to marine life would be high.

Crude oil would take to rapidly form water-in-oil emulsions,

giving rise to thick tarry lumps with formation of some

"chocolate mousses", and much of the material would either

coat the shore with a viscous layer or sink to the bottom.

The fate of the material once sunk beneath the surface is

difficult to ascertain. During the San Francisco spill, the

writer (Dr. M.P. Wennekens) obtained reports from divers

working in Bolinas Bay, at the entrance to San Francisco Bay,

stating that a two to three foot layer of viscous oily globules,

some of them several inches long, could be found suspended

above the bottom, the globules being in hydrostatic equilibrium

within the near bottom turbid layer often observed along the

coast. Part of.the sunken oil would periodically wash ashore,

necessitating several recleaning of beaches.

The subsurface fate of emulsified and dissolved constituents

will be greatly influenced and controlled by the vertical

density stratification. As shown in the beginning of the

report, the Bay is characterized by a COMDlex, seasonal regime

of density stratification. Work by LaFond (1969) and others

has demonstrated the close relationships between subsurfaced

distribution of sharp density layers and the concentration of

particulates (and planktons). The subsurface density

111-32

stratification behave in a fashion similar to an atmospheric

inversion layer in the entrapment of particulates. The

seasonal density stratification of Kachemak Bay will be a

significant factor in the control of dispersal of emulsified

and dissolved hydrocarbons.

e. Sedimentation

The NAS report (Petroleum in the Marine Environment, 1975) notes

that: "Actual sedimentation plays an essential part in the fate

of oil in the marine environment, however, virtually no systematic

field work has been done on this subject and it is difficult to

make more than a qualitative prediction about either the rates of

sedimentation or the amounts of Petroleum to be found in the

sediments".

Decomposition of petroleum components in the marine environment

of Kachemak Bay must consider deposition on the shore, intertidal

and subtidal areas. Processes increasing the density of the

spilled oil include evaporation, solution, flocculation and

agglutination of oily particles, adsorption to particulates,

absorption into particulates.

Following a spill, considerable incornoration of oil into the

sediments can occur within a few weeks (Kolpack, 1971). As

previously noted, evaporation and solution, combined with other

reaction such as oxidation, contribute to the formation of

semi-solid globules. As the more volatile constituents of the

oil are preferrentially removed, the specific gravity of the

remaining fractions induces the remaining oil to become
denser. Sea water has a specific, gravity (density) of about

111-33

1.025; from table 22*, it can be seen that the specific gravities

of fractions 4 through 8 would readily make them sink to the

bottom.

Agglutination of dispersed liquid oil particles have been

observed following spill (Forrester, 1971) and formation of

of oily aggregrates in Upper Cook Inlet was, as previously

mentioned, commented upon by Kinney.

In the coastal-estuarine conditions of Kachemak Bay, usually

.characterized by a certain amount of turbidity, especially along

the shoreline subjected to wave action, agglutination of

particulates by oily residues can be expected to be high.

Under such conditions entrainement of oil into bottom deposit

is greatly enhanced, especially along the extensive tidal and

shallow subtidal area characterized by fine grain sediments.

Many Bunker-C oils and some heavy crudes have specific gravities

near 1.0, thus only slight addition of particulate matter will

induce their sinking.

Sorption processes induce clay minerals to adsorb large quantities

of dissolved hydrocarbons (Meyers, 1972). Organic matter in

the clay contribute to the process; sorbtion increases with

salinity, but decreases with temperature. The rate of in-

corporation of oil into the sediments can also be acclerated by

the fecal pelleting of particulate matter by organisms. The

magnitude of the amount of fecal material that can be generated

can be gauged by observations showing that oysters covering

1 acre of estuary would deposit about 7.6 metric tons (dry weight)

of fecal pellets in 11 days, which would come to about 290

111-34
metric tons per year or the equivalent of about 46 kg/m2
(1 acre = 4.1 x 103 M2).

The movement of oil, once incorporated in the sediments, is

poorly understood. Although the chemical composition of the

oil does not appear to be altered materially, oil incorporated

into the unconsolidated sediments may persist for long periods

of time, especially the higher boiling fractions. Loss of low
boiling fractions proceed.at much lower rates (months as com-

pared to hours or days) as suggested by Blumer and Sass (1972)

observations on the W. Falmouth spill. Blumer et al (1971),

Kolpack et al (1971) indicate that lateral spreading (up to 1 km)

can continue for at least several months after a spill.

In the intertidal area, the fate of the oil will depend upon

the type of substrate. In the Kachemak Bay area, several types

of substrate are present: fine grained sediments of the tidal

marshes, protected embayements and semi-exposed extensive

intertidal flats, coarse sediments along the more open beaches

subjected to wave action, rocky shores with extensive intertidal

and subtidal algal matting.

On beaches, reworking of liquid and particulate oil takes

place on the foreshore (Asthana and Marlow, 1970). On un-

protected beaches, subjected to more energetic wave action,

such as the beaches of the Bluff Point area, the entire amount

of oily residues can be deposited during one tidal cycle and

removed on the next one, the residues transgressing progressively

lo,ngshorewards with the prevailing transport.

111-35

Tarry globules on beaches tend to accumulate large amounts of

sediments, become rounded and finally behave like pebbles

(Ludwig and Carter, 1961). They tend to concentrate near and

above normal high tides, where the degradation of large masses

become very slow (Blumer et al 1973).

In the extensive fine grained intertidal and shallow sub-

tidal areas of the Bay, sedimentation processes are quite

active, so that layer of oily material can be rather quickly

buried. Much reworking of the sediments takes place by the

action of the often prevalent wavelets stirring up the surface

of the shallows. Once on the bottom and incorporated into the

sediments, the oil constituents will be ingested by the various

benthic forms and pelletized. Once within the sediments,

further degradation will proceed under anaerobic conditions

(Gebelin, 1971).

Along rocky shores, retention of the liquid and finely dis-

pensed oil is usually controlled by the algal matting of the

lower intertidal, upper subtidal region and pores of the rocky

surface. Large amounts of petroleum can become entrapped in

the ho.ldfast-sediment complex of the algal mat and the oily

residues then are progressively leached out by tidal action over

long periods of time (Foster et al, 1971).

Again, making a parallel between the METULA incident and the

potentials for a mishap in Kachemak Bay, one must note that

reports from the METULA incident only referred to accumulation

of oil on the beaches and intertidal area. It is interesting

111-36

to note that the grounding occurred in August, at the peak of

the Austral winter. It can be postulated at this time, from

the fact that the spill consisted primarily of crude, that much

of the oil formed a water-in-oil emulsion, which would greatly

favor the formation of heavy oil globules and some "chocolate

mousse Thus much of the oil probably was initially subtidally

deposited along the bottom within the general area of the
spill. The January observations ( mid Austral summer)

still showed massive retention of oil in the salt marshes and

in sediments and that oil leaked out was returned to the beach

as swash layers. Thus the Dersistence of oil in marshy, intertidal

and subtidal sediments can be high.

The persistence of oil in sediments is also documented by

several series of observations undertaken to assess the long

term fate of spilled oil (CEQ Report - OCS Oil and Gas - An

Environmental Assessment, 1974).

Chedabucto Bay - Nova Scotia*- Canada

108,000 bls (about 22,000 tons) of No. 6 Bunker C fuel oil

was spilled into the bay on February 4, 1970. The oil entered

two habitats: sandy beaches and rocky shores. U.V. spectro-

photometry showed that 26 months after the spill (April 1972),

about 300 mg of Bunker per gram (wet weight) of fine sediments

remained in the first three feet (10 M.), an amount comparable

to the concentration initially measured shortly after the spill..

In contrast, measurements in gravelly sediments showed only

traces of pilr

111-37

Re-oiling due to the original spill, reoccurred in the bay as

late as the summer of 1973. About 50% of the original oil

content was still present in the lagoons and salt marshes.

Little residual oil was found on rocky shores.

West Falmouth - Massachusetts

An estimated 4,500 bls (about 1100 tons) of No. 2 fuel oil

was spilled off West Falmouth Harbor on September 16, 1969.

In the heaviest hit area, two years after the spill, 117 mg

of fuel oil/per 100 grams (dry weight) of sediment were still

observed; from gas chromatography, it was demonstrated that

30% of the oil consisted of aromatics. Oil was found in the

marshes at least five feet below the surface of the sediments

and undegraded fuel oil was still present four years after the

spill. Researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

estimate a persistence time in excess of five years for this

relatively small spill.

Santa Barbara, California

Starting on January 28, 1969, and lasting for several weeks, a

wild well spilled in excess of 33,000 bls (about 6600 tons) of

oil. Sediment samples analyzed for oil in March, May and June of

1970 showed no reduction in oil content; oil has been measured

in sediments as late as June 1970. Straughan (1973) comments

that the effects of oil on rocky shores were least, and that

exposed sandy beaches recovered from oil contamination during

1972-73.

The CEQ report indicates @hat the data from eight different

mi nIrmum Persistence Time-Cyrs) of Weothered Oil

tr 0

C) 0 M < C)
0) 0 Cr tA
,a 0 CD 0
0"
C) CD <
<
V) 3 V) (D
0-
0 4r+ a
r+-
CL rD -5 (D
13
0 rD -S 0
V) V)
C1 '3@-F
0) rD rD -3
LA (A tA
0 =r =r
r+
-5 Cr 0 0) rD
C :E Cr =
C+ C-f- =3 -. 0 C/) U)
rD c+ rD 0
0 :3
m E3 0) 0 C+ 0
V)

jw -5 0 -h
-5 r+ rD r+ 0
0 -.-a C+
0 -1 -1
(D rD 0 0
CD (A 0 :E -
=3 0 (D CD (D
C+ -h = (A C
W C+ LA LQ
V) 0)
C+ 0) 0) LA
C: a r) C
C+ U)
(A =r D
C Ln
CD 0 SW c-+
Ln -1
V)
I I t I t I t I I I
W-0 0 n
CD C-) rD
= M (D
V)
C-+
-. 0-0
rD
(.0-0
"J 0 C-+
4z-. -5 rD rD (A
C+
rD

111-39

oil spills can provide for an estimate of the persistance of

oil in different types of substrate habitats, as illustrated

in figure 52.

As previously mentioned, care must be exercised in internt-P,

the graph. As the observed persistance relate primaril@

length of time a particular investigator or a particular inv

program was studying the problem. Research work can be

terminated at any given time, but termination of the work dI-I-

not mean that the research ceased because oil was no longer

Thus the data from figure 52, must be considered as observed

minimum of the persistance of oil in a given habitat.

f. Biodegradation

Micro-organisms play an important role in the decomposition

of oil introduced into the marine environment. Because of tr,-

substrate specificity of oil degrading bacterias, the initial

chemical composition of the oil a controls its rate of bacter-

degradation.

Viscosity, toxicity, water solubility and surface area are

controlling factors, thus it is often uncertain whether a

slow degradability reflects bacterial specificity towards

a given hydrocarbon or the combined effects of the above

factors. Due to the lower solubility of the higher boiling

compounds, their decomposition require a direct contact

between the bacteria and the oil and bacterial colonization

of the emulsion interface, where the degradation rate depen(j,

primarily upon the surface to volume ratio; the toxicity of

soluble fractions only allows bacterial growth in the less

toxic portions of the undissolved oil (Gunkel, 1973). Durin,

111-40

the degradation process, the bacteria can produce surface

active substances which lower the surface tension and

contribute to the formation of oil-in-water emulsion.

It is a well established fact that the activity and

multiplication of heterotrophic bacterias and subsequently

the amount of oil that can be degraded is not limited by

the density of bacterias at the beginning of the degradation

processes, but by controlling environmental factors (Fuhs, 1961;

Zobell, 1964; Gunkel, 1967). Zobell for example calculated

that 3.3 kgs of oxygen is needed to oxidize 1 kg of mineral

oil, or the equivalent of the oxygen content of about 400

cu.meter of sea water. Thus oxygen availability is a limiting

factor, especially in confined embayments, with sluggish

circulation.

Inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphate, due to

their low concentrations in sea water, are another limiting

factor, especially at the time of high phytoplankton pro-

dudtivity. T emperature is another important controlling

factor; at low temperatures, the more toxic, low boiling

fractions take longer to evaporate from the slick and

bacterial activity is usually reduced. PsychrODhylic (cold

loving) bacteria, prevalent in the Arctic Sea and sub-arctic

waters can degrade oil at temperatures as low as -1.10C

(Zobell, 1972).

Organisms other than oil oxidizers can also influence the de-

gradation. Gunkel notices that, after a short time, oil

111-41

degradation almost ceased and the number of bacteria dropped

considerably. Microscopic examination showed the existence

of large number of protozoams actively feeding on the

bacterias.

Once the oil has been deposited on the bottom, the limited

availability of dissolved oxygen, and incorporation of the oil

within the sediment matrix, favors anaerobic degradation.

Under such conditions, degradation will be much slower, being

,of the order of days and weeks rather than hours and days.

Recent studies indicate that by-products from microbial

break down of oil can be more toxic that the original compounds.

Information on that subject is as yet scant. Brown and Tisher

(1969) indicate, based upon results of preliminary bioassay

utilizing the spent media from microbial degradation of motor

oil and naphtenic crude that the resulting water soluble

fractions were more toxic to test fish than the original oil.

B. Ecological-Impacts

The ecological impacts upon a marine environment such as Kachemak Bay,

reflects the combined integrated effects of both whole oil and individual

oil components upon all levels of biological organization: subcellular,

cellular, whole organism, population and community.

To analyie the bio-physical-chemical changes brought by whole and

degradation products of oil, the chemical classes of compounds that

are most likely to affect organisms must be considered and the extent

of the gross biological effects that can be expected ascertained.

111-42

For instance, if the effect is immediate mass mortality, even at

low concentration, then the importance of subsequentde degradation

of the oil must be viewed in a different context than when the

effects pertain to long term, ubiquitous biological damage by

chronic exposure.

The biological effects of oil can be examined by considering its

main components as shown in fig. 53 (Blumer, 1969).

1. Saturated Hydrocarbons

Low boiling n-alkenes, until quite recently, had been considered

harmless to the marine environment. Marine organisms naturally

synthesize n-alkenes, odd carbon chain length predominating; in

marsh grass and benthic macroalgae, 21-29 odd carbon chain

predominated, while in phytoplankton, 15-21 carbon chains seem to

prevail (Clark, 1966; Blumer et al, 1971).

It has been found that low boiling n-alkenes, which are rather

readily soluble in water, induce at low concentrations (ppb to few

ppm) anaesthesia and narcosis, and at greater concentrations (ppm)

damage and kill a wide variety of animals; n-alkenes can be especially

damaging to the larvae and juveniles of many forms of marine life

(Blumer, 1971; Goldacre, 1968).

2. Olefinic Hydrocarbons

The olefinic hydrocarbons, intermediated in structure and pro-

perties and probably toxicity (Blumer, 1971) are rarely present

in crude oils. They are abundant in refined products, and are

also produced by many marine organisms and may serve biological

functions such as biocommunication.

111-43

SA-TU RATED HY;D ROCAR BONS

0 L E F I N I C HYDROCARBONS

AROMATI C H Y D R 0 C A R B 0 N
.................................
................................................
........................................
............
. ..................
.........................

............
...........
N' 0 N F1 Y D R 0 C.A.R.B. OJ,@.@ .... (N.I. S. O.Y. q.n d N i
.... ....... .. . ..............................
.................. . . .. . .. .............. ........
...... ............

.'low boiling high boiling

acute toxicity

.....................
.. ...........
long term toxicify
suspected interference with biologicol processes

Fig. 53. Composition of Crude Oil and Toxicity of its Fraction. (Blumer, 1969)

111-44

3. Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Aromatic hydrocarbons are abundant in petroleum and represent

its most dangerous fractions. Low boiling hydrocarbons (benzene,

toluene, xylene) are acute poisons. They are highly water

soluble and can kill aquatic organisms either by direct contact

or by contact in diluted solutions.

The great tragedy of the Torrey Canyon spill was greatly

compounded by the fact that the detergents used to disperse the

oil had been dissolved in low boiling aromatics; their appli-

cation multiplied the damage to coastal organisms. It should

be pointed out however, that poisoning of marine life can

occur even with non-toxic detergents, as their application

disperses the toxic material from the oil, thus increasing

toxic exposure through contact and ingestion.

Supporting evidence shows that toxic responses are primarily

caused by the lower boiling aromatics: e.g. the comparisons of the

effects of benzene, n-hexane and toluene on marine algae by

Wilber (1968), the data for Various Dispersants reported by

Sprague and Carson (1970), the Experiments on Gastropods by

Ottway (1971); the present results of Lee et.al. (1972) on the

effects of various hydrocarbons on mussels. In each of these

cases, as well as others where information on the types

of compounds causing toxicity is available, the low boiling,

more soluble aromatics are consistantly implicated as the

primary.biocidal components.

111-45

The investigations of Teal and Stegeman (1973) with two oyster

populations and of Brocksen and Bailey (1975) with two fish

differing in lipid content, (Chinook Salmon 11% of total body

fat and Striped Bass, 21% of total body fat) indicate a close

relationship between concentrations of aromatics and lipid

levels. Experiments on the low and high fat oyster show that,

although the initial rate of uptake was the same for both groups

of oysters, the animals with a lower fat content approached

equilibrium more quickly than those with about twice the tissue

levels.

Brocksen and Bailey, through measurement of respiratory stresses

of Chinook Salmon and Striped Bass exposed to substantial concen-

trations of Benzene, showed that the probable physiological

pathway was through absorption across the gill membrane,

attachment to the erythrocytes and.lipoproteins for transport

into lipid rich tissues. The authors observed that the Striped

Bass, with its higher lipid content, det-oxified more rapidly than

the Chinook Salmon; they postulated that the fish with higher lipid

levels had higher concentrations of compounds needed for enzymatic

detoxification of benzene and as such were able to recover more

quickly.

The inference that the biological effects of aromatic hydro-

carbons are more pronounced in forms with high fat/lipid contents

is beginning to emerge as a factor controlling the sensitivity of

various marine forms to hydrocarbons.

111-46

4. Residuals (Non-Hydrocarbons, NSO)

Residual fractions consist of high boiling hydrocarbons of all

types, containing oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen and heavy metals, in

the molecular weight range of 900-3000; they can represent a

significant portion of the crude, up to 20%. In their behavorial

and toxicity they closely resemble the corresponding aromatic

compounds.

111-47

Biological Effects of Oil

The literature on the biological effects of oil is profuse and diverse

requiring much independent interoretation to sort out some of the in-

herent biases of various authors. Those interested in some of the scientific

polemics on the pros and cons of effects of oil spills should refer to the

paper of J.G. Mackin (1973). The overall effects of oil on marine fauna

and flora can be summarized as (Moore, 1973):

Effects of Direct Coating

Direct Lethal Toxicity

Sub Lethal Disruption of Physiolgcial and Behavioral Activities

Incorporation of Hydrocarbons in Organisms which may cause

tainting and/or accumulation in the food chain

Changes in Biological Habitat

1. Direct Coating

Overwhelming, massive accumulation of oil, such as the 5 to 10,000

tons per mile along the shore as a result of the METULA spill,

smothers all attached life.

Seabirds usually suffer most dramatically from coating by oil;

birds are the most obvious organisms lethally affected by oil

pollution and the impacts are usually on a sufficient scale as

to affect the local, regional, and world populations. The avian

most susceptible and most severely damaged by oil pollution are the
auks (murres, guillemots, puffins, razor bills), diving sea ducks

(scoters, eiders, goldeneyes, etc.), such birds commonly found in

111-48

in great concentrations in the marine waters of Kachemak Bay and Lower

Cook Inlet. Their high vulnerability to oil pollution rests with the

fact that they spend most of their lives on the water, dive to collect

their food and are rather weak flyers. Their reaction to disturbance is

to dive rather than fly away; their pelagic habitat particularly expose

them to oil pollution and if contaminated at all, they are likely to be

heavily contaminated (Clark, 1973).

Toxic fractions can still be present at the time of coating, but in

combination with larger amounts of heavier oil, the resulting damage can

be quite less than the mortalities that can be induced by less "diluted"

soluble aromatic hydrocarbon derivatives (SAD). Most sessile intertidal

organisms can poke through a coat less than about a centimeter thick;

thick, long lasting coat smothers the organisms.

2o Direct Lethal Toxicity

Much of the existing literature on direct lethal toxicity deals

with "bioassays" on individual species; results are usually reported
as of LD50, the hydrocarbon cencentrations which would produce a 50%
mortality within a given period of time (24, 48, 96 hrs.). However, the

explicit comparison between various "bioassays" usually ends there
(Moore, 1973).

Researchers rarily use identical experimental methods, or even

the same petroleum product. The concentrations of hydrocarbons

111-49

dissolved in water are rarely measured (especially the biocidal

fractions) and the experimental laboratory conditions are usually

quite dissimilar to those of the natural habitat.

Far worse, are the many experiments in which the test substance is

either not identified or only vaguely described as "oil" and where the

results refer to the test organisms as being "very sensitive" or

"moderately resistant".

A common ground for comparison however exists (Moore, 1973). Table 23

lists the percentages of various oil products which go into solution,

and the percentage which is SAD. Using this information, it is

possible to critically evaluate and normalize various experimental

data. Table'24 (Moore et al, 1973) summarizes estimates of the

minimum toxic concentrations for a number of different classes of

organisms; the evidence is fragmentary, hence the uncertainty factor

of ten.

Larval stages appear to be considerably more sensitive than adults

(Portmann and Connor, 1968). Larvae are affected by toxic con-

centrations as low as 0.1 ppm. Most adult marine organisms are

sensitive to SAD in concentrations of 1. ppm or less; toxicity

usually occurring in the 10-100 ppm concentration range (Mironov, 1970,

Smith, 1968). In general, crustaceans and burrowing animals are

most sensitive, fish and bivalves moderately sensitive, gastropods

and some macrophytes least sensitive.

Table 23.
Estimated % of Composition (by weight) and Comparison of
Solubilities for Various Petroleum Substances

(Heavy) (Medium) #2
Crude Crude Fuel
FRACTION DESCRIPTION A B OIL KEROSENE RESID.

1 Low Boiling Paraffins 1 10 15 15 0

2 High Boiling Paraffins 1 7 20 20 1

3 Low Boiling Cyclo-Paraffins 5 15 15 20 0

4 High Boiling Cyclo-Paraffins 5 20 15 20 1

5 Mono- and Di-cyclic Aromatics 2 5 15 15 0

6 Polycyclic Aromatics 6 3 5 2 1 CD

7 Naphtheno-aromatics 15 15 15 8 1

8 Residual 65 25 - - 96

Estimated Maximum % of Soluble 10 30 60 65 1

Estimated Maximum %, Soluble Aromatic
Derivatives .1-10 .1-10 1-30 1-20 0-1

Reported % Soluble Aromatics
Obtained in Seawater Extracts .1 .01 .01

Summary of Toxicity Data

Table 24.

Estimated
Concentration Estimated amount (ppm) of
.(ppm) of soluble Petroleum substances containing
aromatics causing equivalent amount of aromatics
toxicity

Class of Organisms #2 Fuel Oil Fresh Crude
Flora 10-100 50-500 104 _ 105
Finfish 5-50 25-250 104 _ 105
Larvae (all species) 0.1-1.0 0.5-5 102 _ 103
Pelagic Crustaceans 1-10 5-50 103 _ 10 4
Gastropods (snails, etc.) 10-100 50-500 104 _ 105
Bivalves (oysters, cl ams, etc.) 5-50 25-250 104 _ 10 5
Benthic Crustaceans (lobsters, crabs, 3 - 104
etc.) 1-10 5-50 10
Other Benthic Invertebrates 3 _ 10 4
(worms, etc.) 1-10 5-50 10

111-52

3. Sub-lethal Effects

Marine organisms depend upon a complex set of behavioral

characteristics to maintainnormal life patterns; many of these,

especially orientation, feeding and reproduction, involve

communication based upon chemical cues or pheromones. Chemical

communication has been extensively studied in insects; only recently

has significant attention been given to marine animals pheromones.

It was a well known fact that the lobster (Homarus americanus)

can be attracted by kerosene soaked bricks. Todd et al (1972)

have shown that pheromones play a significant role in regulating

reproductive and social behavior in aquatic organism. Marine organisms

have been found to detect food or preys through chemoreception of

specific compounds in the parts per billion range. Todd et al

(1972), Hasler (1970) indicated that feeding, reproduction and social

behavior in marine organisms can be disrupted by SAD concentrations

as low as 10-100 ppb.

The full implication of disruption of chemical communication by

very low concentrations (ppb) of dissolved hydrocarbons is uncertain

at this time.

4. Incorporation of Hydrocarbons in Organisms

Tainting and accumulation of hydrocarbons in organisms tissues

occur in almost all marine species. Essentially, any aquatic

organism can be expected to equilibriate chemically with its

surrounding media.

111-53

At 5-50 ppm of hydrocarbons, animal tissues develop an ob-
jectionable taste (McKee and Wolf, 1963). Burns and Teal (1971)

reported that #2 fuel oil spilled in a salt marsh was incorporated

into nearly all organisms in the marsh ecosystem. Very small

concentrations of hydrocarbons can produce tainting.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are widely distributed

in the ocean (Zobell, 1971); they are found in the residual

fractions of all crude oil and are readily absorbed in the gut

of marine organisms, the metabolic breakdown of these compounds

in the bodies of animals is slow. PAH have been shown to be

highly carcinogenic.

5. Changes in Biological Habitats

The incorporation of oily constituants affects the habitat and

disturbs, inhibits or prevents organisms to function normally.

Intertidal and sub-tidal habitats are of prime concern. The

amount and composition of oil that would inhibit or prevent any

given organism to utilize the substrate of such habitats is

unknown. Oil introduced into the sediment will leach and degrade

slowly. Available toxicity data show that low to medium boiling

point aromatic hydrocarbons, in concentrations as low as 10-100 ppb

may be chemically offensive to virtually all species. As

previously discussed, the effects of habital alteration by oil

can persist for minimum periods of 3 to 10 years or more, depending

upon the type of habitat.

111-54

Overview of Oil Spill Impact Upon Kachemak Bay

The salient impacts of spilled oil upon Kachemak Bay are summarized

on the following chart (Fig.54).

111POM SMKLINE Vida fmtovtldal go" of la-6
em OIL Ant 1141F -111 P611141Y brook Vis to WA. gravol. bouldeve. hard substrate exposures,
oftews Pattlol. tarry lut" and subjected to Active turf actfon. Spill will all
,Pwislce. Large mcrtage .111 link. left entire Intertidal area. Wave action would favor
real Ia. if cx.,, I t ft.. if concentration dq@ relatively short 'esiorric, of oil 1. id-f.t.,tiolol
&Rd lighter fractions Is IIgh. Rapid sot. Accumaolotloo of all In upper s"ll 114
III inhibit #vapor&tOx. fi.orin r spray serve. Oil rvx*@ed few swish .he Ml UIREI OAV S[MI-PMICnO SHM 61APpill" Isiah`
n 4ccsniva late in back Ash of surf tone to becone -411 ad shallow
llt:mn *.ftd luttom of topic fractions bg lath subject to iscide'Ate
1,rl Incorporated 1. long short drift. Oil residtoce Oil,-, of Ime'tilsol ma would
Unt In s..1 fore, Is .I,*ry ... ty be WAlt Oct -111 favor loaxIIII
b:4 1,ount, ejected as law
" 'y .. ... y "' bar !@Ilgq sun A, patches. low, or, loan, . 00 from a. at0to,tidal
b,b5l,s by hit. lips and or: In f It Atc- 14ttd rapid relus M of 041
-M so urper %,ash and spray to" hiSh. up to .... ral zone. through Incorporation Iii s*411"Its and
r .
ut, 7no "' fr 'Or' 11 years. leredi#te lF.Pset, of %pill long esposed 'of &cha
,v, tidal..Jnd set
f 1%cll'.ns .1111 bt"d to ,tra. port., tog.sho
:!c ;%chs. S@,f and jrdce actual, it Ash 1 1. u per
14 d11-:1.011 Ird.o II a,
@tj.n 0., 111 of intertidal Area. fart. 614 Infawao.
v1stous ond tarry deposits on upper Portion of a try high it., to concentrations of first incorporated in uc@t a
c1f 0 -4t. 111.1-1
tPI4sh lone. ru, c,:n, I .... V I.N1 t "t %so
'In v,r "'s I" co,@-Plf .. )each slow !1y auto*
r, hr.cr , ng retidence tire in a I's f 10 Yrs.
t, led 1j1"9,u1.1:,r for's
,pp,i" , , 'Anal
4M- R:%tlJe!co = oil entrppdilm pifa. I eva Wall
of no
KAVY rrirrq OIL - Most likely to rapidly to- a of subtidal 10,411 Probably high. several woaLhl to
several year%. r111111ce excess Of 10 yrs. Toxic
:IIIl:;.1klLh frc" on% 11 :ch out or,:r to" Period of list.
towards IJup.,t upon nor in -more of I met bay
1,1.t,l It 1111, Is. to,,, easily Isclble all-Or, 0 'pit
stir- 'r, Sure of the IlShte, fractions I spilled to Is or" ill I I More awroard
.111 a'so "at* if S rf,c, comdlmrs a,, cal.. oil divioll birds and ... ptrcentigN Of oil ng &ad
0 M :.pmMed sho_ in. Retards to space b1'r%t*
4r+ Splay,and bursting txtblel frox h "I call I'd son tters %I
b a. '. 111. It, I
ro, signt ce.tago
"I . as 1,ry rl ,, a,
favo: acc@ Istic" 14 u;'n 14 , r!,
C+ p` P
ca,be validly Injected At
depth by J,rfjco and subsurface turbulent Processes.
Off 10110111 IN this no can rommelft entrapped for
several itsys withl the rotary tidal ellipses. Will
ft- wit.1-I.-Oll nd oll-t-ster emulsion. Potgaw,
UGHT'"CE4,011. - wh I!, c sea licit, modim to high lights tidiij
1. , . r:,
.23 liar t, 0. rte , I , ,, , f*_ 1, 00 Of olllp:wbtvrfoce
C cl,
pro t:;.c -ewu I Ong. x.
t
C+ -t to be lrj"f,d in Interface by
(A as' :1aM b.'stlog b,@bl,s fr. hit, cap& and
b,,i Oil spilled 1:,th a area will disperse scumidat
fractl @1tAV.C'ftI.'a'.1C1ll likely. all 111raddily fam mullions. Pateatill
favor 0*7149 of vrker and'spray to". :obiurface tonicity kigh. especially during istricals
of crustacean spaximilmil and planktonic larval
devolop"At.
LiGg'PCTRaiLlm FILACTICIS Aust likely '111 ".pearage
rapidly If It h 11
c "n
mist I am I.,
".;b 6@@pltl train hit* cap% and
,V "::11", .4
7 ... . or Ily dispersed by surface
__j c-ts am Ids. 6

INNER-OUTER BAY PROTECTED SHORES AMD flogsVilmigns .
_J. C-tersiv, irderticial expels" along tidal flats.
rocil, faces and POCktt beach,$. Post of short
Protected f Rocky faces &,A
beach , .,:@ ",,, action.
EXPOSEO ROCKY SNORE At"St.41 Imemdal 1.101rum e c red with dense and diverse #19.1 -
epila Extensive Subt(dol 0941
thertst md diverse alg4l.epifs...) mo-Vages. so ...... ling of sh It &14 i.t rtidal
IP*S:d to wave actl an. Oiling of latertidal spill 9 ItI
0 in IllIly extensive, Ith,r Unit on of all In Zone ill be ..d Itsti: . 1. .11 U
of be retat
rocky cracks. pores and a go Vplfaunal ftttlAg. 0 I!,d,
r;4, in. t r:,
A
oil !I r,,dl
Yawl action will Induce rather rapid lesching of
1ths101.";.d"Cp'c' will be varied, depend:ng. Pon
In 0-1 d 11 ch ou- rI"., r
nc nIrllc" of t*,:c, I,act an percentage a( toxic a's ill 0
Breaking aye .11 , " .0r ,Cft I ," , .11 In n "d sedi-ts. TO-JC rwIct h190.
upper levels of rocky face,. Mw- "side' a .11@0cI.:'1;'dZri.g sp,..,ng old
=r ti" of oily residues few a few mnthS to fa art ads. Heavy calling wwId 'rot, wo
e.mt of S ym. ,(
P(ITIcl!". canting .11, .11. $_ an, still
P@ :@n r 1 11
111 COAST to be loss affecte's. pAj@@gj' .1 ftcf)69, t.ting
""o OUT .. ... Large lnt@,tldll e,po"res re idunce it" of
subject. ol I In faces% of 10 ym.
Rotary to ... . Ilon 6:1 I'd rental
7r Ida I .c-,.g 'Ide Ill
por!,ol 11 sh:r, - 1-d"1.9 .11 to 'via' KACHEMAK BAY
eft are n, no - ertrI111d,
0"'.. 111@ t
T. 'X."I'llo. .1
'@'o`lld ,,11-trapidly Fate and Effects of Spilled Oil
Un It ,
Itach out oil. Wave and surf so o act (inferred from various sources)
,c- .is. Of .11 1. the Ppq, I all f the
Inteltid.) zourHi here leach ti. .111 bass 10.

SECTION IV

CONSERVANCY AND PROTECTICN OF 7HE

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

KACHEMAK BAY

IV-1

SECTION IV

CONSERVANCY AND PROTECTION OF THE

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

KACHEMAK BAY

Kachemak Bay is aesthetically invigorating, biologically rich and prolific

and endowed with a diverse spectrum of renewable (fish, crabs, shrimps, clams,

waterfowl, trees) as well as non-renewable (sand and gravel, perhaps oil and

gas, peat and coal) resources, all actively sought for profit and pleasure by man.

The basic controversy about Kachemak Bay revolves around various concepts

for the use of its natural resources. The following two articles, one from the

magazine "Science" and the other from the "Anchorage Times" expressing different

points of view, opinions and philosophies, rather well summarize the issues.

Polemics aside, the articles underscores a most important factor in the

evolving Kachemak Bay controversy. Initially, the Kachemak Bay issue was

was purely a state problem. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the

greatest portion of Lower Cook Inlet is in federal ownership, thus readily

opening the Lower Cook Inlet sea floor to OCS oil and gas leasing, the Kachemak

Bay issue has assumed totally new dimensions. Environmentally, Kachemak Bay

cannot-be segmented from Lower Cook Inlet; the need to consider Kachemak Bay

Lower Cook Inlet as an environmentally integral' unit is critical.

While differing, the following articles underscore differing concerns for a

basic human need, that of energy. Seemingly overlooked by the writers however,

is that, while under the guise of either fisheries or oil and gas, both

refer to two basic forms of energy vital to man's survival:

IV-2
Hammond's narrow election victory. (fie
On's-hore Drilling: Fishermen won by 285 votes.) Now he says, "I feel
like a soldier who fires his artillery,
and Oilmen Clash in Alaska charges forward to the enemy trenches,
takes the position, and then discovers his
shells haven't arrived yet."
In adopting, the issue. Hammond may
have inadvertently contributed to the late
filing of the lawsuit. Affidavits in the court
Anchorage. Ell'orts by a group or Alas- area until 2 weeks before the sale and record indicate that Hammond's chief lieu-
ka fishermen to invalidate a state offshorc long after the go-allead decision was made. tenant several times counseled the fish-
lease mav offer a preview of what's ahead For their part the companies that leased crinen to delay their lawsuit, apparently to
for offshore oil and gas leasing in general. bay lands, notably Shelf Oil and Standard keep the question alive for a campaign is-
At the same time, the fishermen's protest Oil of California, argue that the fish- sue.
has opened a window onto the bureaucrat- ermen's suit is "estoppcd- by an arcane A deposition filed by one of the plaintiffs
ic process by which at least one oil-rich doctrine known as "laches." In effect, this says that Bob Palmer, a former state sena-
state sells its hydrocarbons. doctrine says that regardless of the inerits tor and now Hammond's chief of staff, ad-
The fishermen are fighting in state court of the suit it w 'as filed too late and there- vised against filing the suit just 2 months
and in the political arena to void a Decem- fore is invalid. In addition, the companies after the lease sale. Again at a meeting in
ber 1973 sale of oil and gas leases on say they have spent "considerable" surns August 1974 at the Hammond campaign
98,000 acres in the lower Cook Inlet Basin. on exploration and planning for Kach- headquarters in Anchorage, according to
The sale brought the state a total of about emak Bay drilling. Voiding the leases, they the deposition, Palmer said, ". . . the
$25 million. Included in the leased acreage say, would cost them far more in real dam- Kachemak Bay mess would be cleaned up
were portions of Kachernak Bay totaling ages than any potential damage their activ- if Jay Hammond were elected ...... Some
less than 5,000 acres. This is the focus of ity might do the fishermen. of the fishermen feel they were sold out
the coriffict. This May an Alaska District Court and community bitterness against the
Kachemak Bay, near the mouth of Cook judge agreed with the companies' position political process is mounting.
Inlet, is acknowledged to be one of the and refused to hear the fishermen's case. Besides the strictly political aspects of
most biologically productive bodies of Anchorage lawyer Warren Mathews is ap- the situation, the fishermen say that the bu-
water in the nation. and perhaps the world. pealing the narrow legal ruling to the reaucratic process the state uses to lease oil
Although relatively small, the bay is Alaska Supreme Court and expects a rul- and gas lands is discriminatory, fails to
among the most important breeding ing within "about 6 months." Mathews take important information into account,
grounds and most productive fisheries in represented fishermer. from Cordova, and is so informal as to be irrational.
Alaska. The annual first wholesale value Alaska, in &ir fight against the trans- During pretrial investigations evidence
of the bay catch exceeds $7 million. The Alaska pipeline. Ultimately an act of Con- surfaced which indicates that the leasing
catch includes all five species of salmon, gress was needed to overturn court deci- process, not too unlike the federal proce-
three species of crab, and at least two spe- sions he won delaying construction of the dures, is a series of official "Catch-22's."
cies of shrimp, as well as herring and hali- line. Twenty months before the December
but. There are also major sport fisheries Ironically, the newly elected governor, 1973 lease, the Alaska Department of Nat-
for all the commercial sp@cies. In addition. Jay Hammond, may have doomed the fish- ural Resources decided to hold a series of
tourists- and residents dig thousands of ermen's cause by espousing it in his cam- sales in the lower Cook Inlet Basin. Poten-
buckets of clams from the intertidal flats paign. Last fall Hammond, campaigning tially, Kachemak Bay would be included in
every year. as a "conservationist," encouraged the this area. so officials from the nearby town,
The waters near the mouth of the bay fishermen in their fight and made a major Homer, wrote seeking information about
appear to be part of an unusual circular campaign issue out of state leasing policies possible bay leasing. Thc@ were regularly
current system that concentrates food and that led to the Kachemak Bay sale. Sup- told by state officials that interest in the
holds shrimp and crab larvae through sev- port for the fishermen has been credited as bay was "slight" and chances of leases
eral molts. I one of the main issues responsible for therefore "small." Therefore, local offi-
This gyre phenomenon has been known cials were told they needn't seek further in-
since at least 1968, when the Bureau of formation.
Commercial Fisheries (now the National
Marine Fisheries Service) began a research A L A S K A Public Hearing Refused
program in the area. As a result of that and Finally, 8 months before the lease,
other research it became clear that the area the head of the Homer Chamber of Com-
serves as the major shellfish breeding Anchorage merce wrote to the director of the state
spund for Cook Inlet and at least part of minerals division complaining that it was
the Gulf of Alaska.
impossible to get information on potential.
But the fishermen say that the state sim- lease sales because the decisions about
ply ignored the scientific evidence about which lands to offer were made through a
the bay's importance. And they say they Kachernak Bay closed process. Industry nominates lands it
were routinely misinformed about the pro- is interested in leasing and the state
posed lease, were not allowed to comment chooses lands from among those nomi-
in a meaningful way, were denied a public P A C I F i C 0 C E A N nated for the actual sale. There was, he
hearing, and did not even know for sure - - I said, no provision for public input.
that the buy would be included in the lease Kachetnak RaY is the con tesied area. Somewhat incongruously, the state min-
2G4 SCIENCE, VOL. 189

IV-3

crals director wrote back saying that the
A
proper time for "appropriate" public com-
ment was after nominations were taken
and before tile sale was announced. It %as P
never made clear how the public, not privy
to the semisecret dealings between govern-
ment and industry, was to know when tile
proper time arrived.
Early in August 1973 the Homer city
manager wrote again to tile itate minerals
chief seeking further clarification of Kach-
emak's status in tile leasing program. On jR "i. .:s: Ji
als director wr
22 August the minor, ote
Ilk'
back saying, essentially, "we don't know
exactly what areas will be included, but we
41
ay. &
expect little interest in Kachernak B, -A -%--_j
_W let'.
Less than a month later he wrote to the
commissioner of natural resources recom-
mending a sale to include Kachemak Bay ALL N
in December 1973. On 19 October, the
commissioner, after reviewing the plan r
with then Governor William Egan, gave
tau,
his approval for the sale.
_
1
%klZ

Two weeks before the 13 December sale q r
date area residents felt they finally had
'N
concrete information that a sale was to be
held and sought a public hearing on it. A
petition drive garnered 275 signature But
S.
state officials refused to hold the hearing
because the lease process was too far along Preparingfor evplorator.v drilling, a "i ck-up oil rig is anchored in Kach entak Balv.
and it' was too late for public input. Be-
sides, they indicated, there were no out-
standing issues in the sale that a public The Bluff Point -area (one of the places "On a given area basis," he savs,
hearing could help resolve. subsequently leased) is both a "major re- emak Bay is at least ten times more pro-
Almost as an afterthought, it seems, the productive area" and a "major rearing ductive than tile Gulf ol'Mexico. We found
State Department of Natural Resources area" for shrimp and crab. that the production ofthis area is such that
sought information on the biological com- "Kachemak Bay harbors tremendous you can harvest about half the [shrimp]
munity in the bay. On 22 October Natural populations of shorebirds and waterfowl at stock [per year] and still maintain the
Resources finally asked the Alaska De- various times of the year. The bay also has quotas which are pretty high, especially on
partment of Fish and Game (ADFG) for various forms of marine mammals and a species that only lives 4 or 5 years."
comment on the sale. "Due to a communi- many other forms of marine life ... oil de- Since 1972 Haines has surveyed the bay
cation problem in our department we were velopment in an area so rich in life is not to determine on a three-dimensional plot
very late in deciding which areas to offer," worth the risks involved." where the most productive areas %@ere, On
the Natural Resources memo said. It But by the time Flagg was consulted his the basis of that research he says, "we
asked for comments within a week so that suggestions were largely too late. He know that the drill site is located in a spot
notice of the sale could be published tile thought his comments would influence tile that is a vcry critical habitat for the larval
first week of November, just meeting the decision-making process, but actually the stages. Apparently the larvae are held in
legal notice requirement. decision to offer bay lands had already there, and it has something to do with the
The ADFG area biologist in Homer, been made. The consultation with ADFG currents.
Loren Flagg, received the memo on 29 Oc- was almost a pro forma exercise. Flagg's "I speculate," he savs, "that there is
tober. He hurriedlv drafted a memo to his comments in the strong pro-oil climate.of some tNpe of a current holdin- them in.
superiors calling their attention to the im- 1973 were extremely courageous. If any- For instance, with king crab larvae you
portance of the. bay. He said, in part: thing he may have understated what was find all four stages until the settling stage
The ADFG should seek an immediate at stake in the bay and underestimated the in there ... you're talking about a time
delay qf 30 days in the sale -to allow suf- potential risks from oil development. from release to settling of 3 or 4 months.
ficient input from all state and government At the isolated National Marine Fish- No organism can possibly maintain itself
agencies and from the public. cries Service (NNIFS) field station at in an area for that length of time without
"We believe, and have evidence to sup- Kisitsna Bay, a small arm of Kachernak some type of circular motion being in.
port our belief, that Kachemak Bay ... is reachable only by light plane or small volved.
one of the most highly productive marine boat, Evan I laines has been doing research *1 had a series of stations," Haines says,
4Z

environments in the world. The Cook Inlet on the life cycle of shrimp for 4 years. As "when I got done plotting. Without a
staff feels that this area should be classified the result of' extensive N M FS population doubt there they were [at tile proposed
-as critical habitat and,that ao development studies. lie is able to say that Kicheniak drill site], right at that station. Not only
should be allowed which would risk this ex- Bay "is Ifarl more productive ... than king crah larvae, but Tanner crab and high
tremely valuable environment." most people realize. concentrations of Dungeness crab larvae
-1.8 JULY 1975 205

IV-4
and two commercial species of shrimp as tion that they think is more immediate. credit. fuel, Ind niai n tena lice, faced with
well. All of them were right there. "We lost 40 pots out there this past year uncertain markets Ind catches as a result
"I worked up the data," Haines contin- due to increased traffic, most of it due to of foreign competition, the fishermen feel
ued, "without any knowledge whatsoever oil Work. If there's drilling out there it will buffeted by forces beyond their control al-
or potential drilling, and I gave the infor- wipe us out," says Rosalee "Snooks" ready. But to lose thousands of dollars
mation, as we always do, to [ADI-G1. Moore. Willi her husband Ken, she oper- worth of" gear to workboats and drilling
They called me back the next day ... and ates three boats that fish Kachemak Bay rigs infuriates them further.
said, 'You know what's going on? They*re and occasionally Cook Inlet and the Gulf When conip;mY ofllcial,@ come to Horner
thinking of drilling out there and the drill of Alaska in good @%cathcr. In addition to seeking to settle clainis for lost gear they
site is right at station 17.' keeping the books. she skippers one of the find an atmosphere heavy with hostility.
"They couldn't have picked a worse boats that fishes the bay for salmon and Fishermen are driven to near frenzy, they
site.- Haines says, "in regards to the biol- shellfish, particularly king crab. say, when oil companies %o,orth hundreds of
on. of the bay." And he notes that larvae million,; of dollars haggle over a few thou-
are "much more susceptible to any adverse Crabbing Gear Lost sand dollars worth of crab pots that can
environmental threats than later stages." Pots are the tools of the crabber's trade. make the differctice between making a
Working independently at Kisitsna Bay The pots used by Alaska crabbers are steel profit and seeing a boat repossessed. An
and at the main NNIFS laboratory at mesh boxes as big its 6 feet on a side. They incident in which Shelf promised to carry
Auke Bay, near Juneau, two other re- are bailed and dropped to the ocean floor a local fishernian aboard the rig when it
searchers seem to be confirming Haines' but attached by ropes to a surface buov was moved to guide it through the fishing
fears about the dangers of environmental that helps the fishermen identify an@ grounds, but then inexplicably failed to
stress. especially petroleum pollution, to locate their own pots. An Alaska crab pot, call him, poisoned the air still further.
shellfish larvae. Moore says, costs "anywhere from S450 to Privately, company officials admit that
At Kisitsna Bay, Tony Micklenburg $600 plus the cost of up to 500 feet of the publicity from Kachcmak Bay is hurt-
says that "at 7 ppm [parts per million] of heavy nylon line and the buoys." ing them, and some doubt that any oil
petroleum in solution with seawater we get The trouble, she says, is that careless or strike there will be sufficient to offset that.
a complete kill of larvae." He is presently "ignorant" oil company workboat and tug But they also see themselves as victims of a
reducing the oil concentration and seeking operators run over the buoys and "they cut situation that they didn't create. "We fol-
an LD ", level (lethal dose needed to kill them right off." Without the buoys, fish- lowed all the rules," says an oilman, "it's
half a test population). erman can't locate their pots and lose not our fault that we bid on these contested
At Auke Bay, John Karinen, working them. In addition. the pots keep trapping lands. The state offered them for sale."
partly under a $175,000 NMFS toxicity crabs that can never be recovered, depict- State officials say also that they were
study funded by Shell Oil, feels that Dun- ing crab stocks and competing with captive just following well-established policies and
geness crab larvae are even more sensitive pots. practices for leasing oil and gas lands.
to oil in the water. His preliminary results Last winter Shell Oil moved a "jack-tip" "This was no different from any previous
indicate an LD, for Dungeness crab lar- drilling rig into Kachemak Bay to begin sale, and there was never any . complaint
vae of less than I ppni. The L D.,0 for other exploratory drilling. Moore says the rig or before," a state official says,
shellfish, he says, seems to lie in the range its towboats cut off seven of her pots in one In a real way the oilnien and the bureau-
of I to 5 ppm. night. "The loss for us for those pots :Ind crats are right; there were no basic differ-
But he thinks there are other significant their product for 20 days before they were ences between the Kachcmak Bay sale and
effects on organisms from concentrations replaced was over $8000." she says. She its predecessors. Although the bay's rich-
of oil far too small to kill outright. "I'm conservatively estimated the value of the ness makes it the ideal focus for a chal-
pretty sure there are behavior effects from lost catch at more than $5000. lenge, the real differences are psychologi-
amounts so tiny they're practically nio- If the Moores, among the bay's highest cal rather than physical. Tile fishermen of
lecular," Karincn says. Possible effects in- earners, sustain comparable gear losses Kachemak Bay see their life and their live-
clude failure of an organism to mate or to again next year, they fear they may be lihood equally under attack by forces they
release premating sex attractants (phero- driven out of the fishing business. *'Crab- feel are arrogant, insensitive, and short-
mones) and failure to respond to light af- bing is the biggest part of our income," sighted. They have organized an angry po-
fecting feeding and growth. Moore says. "If we lose that, I think we'll litical and legal campaign to defend them-
"Any spill situation," he says, -%vill ex- have to look somewhere else. But I don't selves. At one time in Alaska and most of
ceed these ILD ',,] values even at depth. A think there*s anywhere else, especially with the rest of the United States, energy pro-
spill in Chebucto Bay. Nova Scotia, left the boats we have-a 42-footer and a 56- duction was sacrosanct. But last fall,
emulsions of oil 50 meters deep in-the %%,,I- rooter. They're basically not real rough adopted as an election issue. the Kach-
ter column and 10 kilometers from the water boats, they're bay crabbers. And you emak Bay challenge touched enough voters
-spill site." don't go very far ovith a bay crabber-not to play a major role in electing -.I "con-
Industry figures seem to indicate toler- unless you want to die." servationist" governor. Although the ulti-
ances for much higher levels of oil. One Fishing is an expensive gamble against mate rate of this challenge will be decided
reason, he suggests, might be the way the the elements and an uncertain market. in the courtroom. it seems clear that the
oil is mixed into the water Ind the wav the Boats costing as much as S200,000 are not fishermen of Kacliernak Bay have already
concentration is ultimately measured. We u 'ncornmon in Alaskan waters. And some influenced future state sales and possibly
mix oil into the seawater for 20 hours be- families have grown wealthy fishing, with federal sales as WCII.-MARK PANITC11
fore we begin a test," he says. Oil values crab or salmon catches some years bring-
are checked by extraction, infrared absorp- ing in as much as $100,000 or more. But. Afark Panitch is Washington corre-
tion, and gas chromatography. the brisk trade in repossessed boats in- spondent for the Anchorage Daily News.
But apart from long-range dangers such dicatcs how thin the line is between success Research ft)r this article was parliall -v fi-
as oil spills and other pollution, the fish- and failure for the fisherman. nanced by the Fundfor In vesligative Jour-
termen see another threat from oil explora- Hit hard by rising costs for equipment. nalisin.

206 SCIENCE. VOL. 189

IV-5

Kachemak Bay
Lease Sales
By Thomas E. Kelly

(EDITOR'S NOTE: No sub-
ject is mor controversial in
Alaska today than the
utilization of the state's
natural resources. And no
figure on the state scene is
more outspoken on the subject
than is Thomas E. Kelly, for-
mer state commissioner of
natural resources and now a
consultant in earth science sin
Anchorage. To stimulate
additional discussion the
Times has invited Kelly to
write a series of weekly colum-
ns on Alaska's resources. This
is the first).

KACHEMAX Bay is a mag-
nificent geographic gem. For
those unfamiliar with its deep
azure blue waters, the bay
extends 30 miles eastward
from its confluence with lower
Cook Inlet. It is endowed with
some of the most spectacular
scenery of any inland bay in
the state. The south shores are
popular recreational areas for
many Anchorage residents
who enjoy the magnificent
surroundings of Halibut Cove,
Seldovia Bay and the mar-
shalands of the Fox and
Bradley Rivers at the head of
the bay.
Homer, the picturesque
community on the north shore
of Kachemak Bay, is at the ter-
minus of the Sterling Highway
on the Kenai Peninsula.
Homer is potentially a
superior port to Anchorage
and has one of the best deep
water anchorages in Alaska.
The community ahs only two
basic natural drawbacks to
making it a Balboa of Alaska-
fresh water and a plentiful sup-
ply of clean, inexpensive fuel.
Kachemak bay is well
known for its crab and shrimp
fishery that has been bill d as,
"faboulosly productive" -
somewhat of a misleading
statement since the catch;
quota of shrimp and crab
allowed by the Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game
amounts about 5 percent of
the state total of these high
dollar market seafood produc-
t.

IN RECENT years there has
been little exploratory activity
in the vicinity of Homer.
During the period 1960- six
wells were drilled within 15
miles of the city. Five wells
were dry holes and one
resulted in the discovery of a
small gas field that has
remained shut-in for 10 years
because of lack of market and
questionable economic vlaue.
In 1956. Texaco, Inc. drilled
the Cold Bay State No.1, and oil-
shore exploratory test located
in Kachemak bay five miles
northeast of the city. The well
was drilled in 11 days and was
abandoned as a dry hole. The
activity occurred with ir-
tually no public attention but it
attempted today the wrath of
every environmentalist in the
state would be invoked.
Oil and gas lease sales in
Kachemak bay are nothing
new either, but are interesting
if only from a historic stand-
point. At the first competitive
state lease sale held on Dec.10,
19 9, several tracts of offshore
lands in the bay were offered
and leased to local Anchorage
businessmen.
In December 1951 the state
offered tracts of tide and sub-
merged lands in Kachemak
Bay and received bonus bids of
about 1 million for seven trac-
ts. Again at the 16th com-
petititve oil and gas lease sale
in July 1966, the state offered
and leased offshore tracts
lying immediately west of the
Homer city limits.
The lease sales went vir-
tually unnoticed and there was
never any indication of conflict
-that is, until the 28th com-
petitive sale in December 1973.
Partly because of the Arab oil
embargo and uncertain fate of
Middle East oil holdings of
multi - national oil combines,
some large oil companies went
berserk and bid $25 million
dollars for tracts of offshore
land at the mouth of the bay
adjacent to what the U.S.
of Supreme Court has ruled are
federal OCS lands.

background - now for the
problem.
Following the sale in 1973,
certain oil industry represen-
tatives who perhaps were not
the world's best salesman,
attempted to explain to local
Homer residents, including
fisherman, the program for
exploration operations on the
recently acquired leases.
Spurred on by what Homer's
Mayor Hazel Heath has
described as "an itinerant hip-
pie who doesn't work anymore
than he has to" and "a Florida
courthouse lawyer who never
baited a hook in his life, "some
of the area's fisherman loudly
denounced the sale and filed
suite to have the leases voided.
The state Superior Court
dismissed the complaint on a
"laches" basis for not being
timely filed, and the case is
now on appeal to the state
Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the gover-
nor and members of his
cabinet from time to time issue
official statements that the
lease sale was a tragic mistake
that the previous
adminsitration committed and
that the current
administration hopes to
encourage the forthcoming
legislative session to pass a bill
cancelling the leases. This is
somewhat of a paradox since
the state is the defendant in the
lawsuit on appeal an dis by
inference, if not by direct
action urging hte Supreme
Court to rule agains tthe state.
Normally when the soverign is
a defendant in litigation it does
not try its case in the
newspapers, particularly
when the potential cost to the
taxpayers is about $50 million:
that is, if the state loses and
rebates all bonus, lease rentals
and costs incurred by the
leasees.
But far more damaging than
loss of dollars is the precedent
of encouraging and abetting
abrogation of property rights
established by binding legal
contract.

THE FOUNDATION for
canceliation of the leases is
leased on the premise that oil
operations will endanger the
fisheries or that resulting
developments, in event of
discovery, will the
esthetic beauty of Kachemak
Bay.
The state has passi ely
acqueiesced to leasing and
attendant exploration of
federally controlled waters of
lower Cook Inlet, the boundary
of which is 1 1/2 miles from the
proposed first test on the
state offshore elases.
The department of fish and
has classified much of

for the protection of the animal
or plant dependent on the area
for propagation and other
uses, if permitted at all, are
subject to special restrictions.
While there are valid
biological and ecologic
reasons for protecting a
boundary of the area is surely
not pinned down to an
arbitrary line adjacent to
which oil explroation is
allowed but immediately
across the line activity would
destroy the fishery.
If anyone cares to trace the
whereabouts of king crab in
the bay today he will find that
the crab moved but since the
end of AUgust and are located
somewhere in the lower Cook
Inlet waters under federal
jurisdiction. If that areas is
leased and someone starts to
drill, one hopes the crab will
have enough "smarts" to
hustle back to the sanctuary on
state land.
On esthetics, if an offshroe
production platform on state
land is offensive to the viewer
from Bluff Point on the hill,
above Homer, why is it not jsut
as offensive on federal lands
1 1/4 miles to the west?

THE FINAL incongruity is
economic. If production is
established on federal leases
abu ng state lands and the
proudcer starts drainage oil or
gas from under state lands
what hapens? Are the resour-
ces of the state drained away
with no benefits to its
stockholders - Alaskan
citizens - or does the state
change its mind and hold
another sale at that time to
protect against drainage? And
what about the crab then?

Like the Flying Dutchman, a
silhouetted vessel in the fog
with no one at the helm, the
state administration creates
the problem and resolves none.
A balance between environ-
mental concerns and develop-
ment seems harder and harder
to achieve.
There seems to be littel
effective management of
resources in Alaska at a time
when the state is drowning in
red ink. Perhaps the best
solution is to allow those most
directly affected - the crab
the crab fisherman and the oil
industry - to work out a com-
patible solution. I bet it can be
done with far less pain and
strain than now continues
under the reins of
bureaucracy.

IV-6

1. Energy to perform mechanical work and provide for creature
comfort (oil, natural gas, electricity, coal, atomic fission).
2. Energy to sustain vital life processes (food stuff).

Thus the various Kachemak Bay resource development and utilization

issues can be synthesized within a common concept of planning,

management, protection, conservancy, development and use of renewable

and non-renewable energy resources. This portion of the document addresses

itself to the aspects of conservancy and protection of the "renewable energy

resources" (living resources) essential to man's life support.

The sustenance of "renewable energy resources" is totally dependent upon

the prime integrity and quality of the supporting environment or ecosystem.

Ecosystems can be considered as being renewable and non-renewable.

A refiewable ecosystem can be characterized as one within which the dynamic

equilibrium between diverse interacting processes is maintained in its natural

balance. The equilibrium is dynamic, in that nature in its constant state of

unrest, will impose transient-disturbances upon the system; but the time scale

(geological rather than human) and rate of occurrences of such disturbances is

such however, that they are readily assimilated within the spectrum of natural

variabilities without disrupting the overall dynamic equilibrium between

interacting processes.

Of late, many allusions have been made on"how nature itself "pollutes".

It is undeniable that severe and at time cataclysmic events, can overwhelm

segments of biological populations and induce mass kills. The demise of a

number of individuals however is not an indication that the ecosystem itself

has been severely damaged, but that a transient event has temporarily disturbed

the equilibrium of a segment. Once the disturbance is over, the system re-

establishes itself quickly. It must be noted that, as a rule, many of

IV-7

nature's disturbances are physical or geochemical, through release and in-

trusion of components in an elemental state readily compatible with the

geo-chemical "assimilative capacity" of the natural system.

A "non-renewable" ecosystem can be characterized as one in which the

dymamic equilibrium between the natural processes is being continuously

disturbed and/or altered by either attrition of the "lebensraum" (vital

space) required to maintain biological populations, destruction through

excessive harvest or overprotection of "desirable" species, or intercompetition

between diversity of species, or introduction of ever increasing quantities

of unnatural compounds which readily react with, disturb, alter, block,

obstruct natural biological processes; under such condiditons, nature has

lost its ability to "assimilate" and the usually reversible biological

changes are taking place on a "human time" scale (a few decades) rather than

a geological time scale (many decades to centuries). Under such conditions,

except perhaps for bacteria and other more primitive forms of life, the

bulk of the biological systems cannot benefit from natural selection and

evolutionalry processes to compensate for rapid and drastic changes in

environmental quality. The true meaning of "pollution" resides in this fact.

The conservancy and protection of the renewable energy resources of

Kachemak Bay (and Lower Cook Inlet) can be pursued by:

1. Setting aside an area within which the sustenance of life processes

- will be given dominant priority and only other "compatible" uses

of the environment will be tolerated (e.g. Critical Habitat).

2. Imposing strict technical and environmental controls upon "non com-

patible" uses of the environment to minimize to the utmost the life

damaging direct and indirect effects of conflicting resources uses.

(i.e. anti-pollution nfeasures, application of best technology, strict

operational controls an'd enforcement).

IV-8

KACHEMAK BAY CRITICAL HABITAT

As a result of the environmental/fisheries/oil and gas leasing con-

troversy, the legislature established in 1974 as the "Kachemak Bay Critical

Habitat", the entire marine waters area eastward from a line drawn between

Anchor Point and Point Pogibshi. The establishement of the Critical Habitat

expressed, in broad terms, the concerns to protect the area from uncoordinated

and potentially uncompatible resources use. -

Prior to the establishment of the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat, a number

of actions had already been taken to maintain and protect already well recognized

biological and ehvironmental values of the area:

1. Incorporation of the Sheep Creek - upper Fox River drainages into

the Kenai National Moose Range

2. Creation of the Fox River Critical Habitat (1972)

3. Creation of Kachemak Bay State Park (1970)

4. Creation, through Commercial Fisheries Regulatory Stipulations
(S AAC 21.750 - Closed Waters) of the Bluff Point Crab Sanctuary (1970)

All above actions reflect the intent to protect and maintain the environ-

mental and biological attributes of the area.

To project the purpose and significance of a Critical Habitat,

within the intent of a conservancy and protection spectrum of actions,

the statutory definition of the Critical Habitat and the statutory obligations of

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, as the agency responsible for the

administration and protection of the Critical Habitat, needs to be underscored.

IV-9

"Critical Habitat" as defined under Article 5 of Title 16 (Fish and

Game) reads as follows:

Article 5. Fish and Game Critical Habitat Areas.
Section Section
220. Purpose 260. Submission of plans and specifi-
230. Critical habitat areas established cations
240. Regulations 270. Additional critical habitat areas
250. Multiple land use

Sec. 16.20.220. Purpose. The purpose of 220-270 of this
chapter is to protect and preserve habitat areas especially crucial
to the perpetuation of fish and wildlife, and to restirct all other
uses not compatible with the primary purpose ( 2 ch 140 SLA
1972)

Sec. 16.20.240. Regulations. The board shall promulgate regu-
lations it cnsiders advisable for conservation and protection pur-
poses governing the taking of fish and game in state fish and game
critical habitat areas. ( 2 ch 140 SLA 1972)

Sec 16.20.250. Multiple land use. Before the use, lease or other
disposal of land under private ownership or state jurisdiction and
control, within state fish and game critical habitat areas created
under this chapter, the person or responsible state department or
agency shall notify the commissioner of fish and game. The com-
missioner shall acknowledge receipt of notice by return mail (
2 ch 140 SLA 1972)

Sec. 16.20.260. Submission of plans and specifications. When th
board so determines, it shall instruct the commissioner, in the
letter of acknowledgment, to require the person or governmental
agency to submit full plans for the anticipated use, full plans and
specifications of proposed construction work, complete plans and
specifications for the proper protection of fish and game, and the
approximate date when the construction or work is to commence,
and shall require the person or governmental agency to obtain the
written approval of the commissioner as to the sufficiency of the
plans or specifications before construction is commennced. ( 2 ch
140 SLA 1972)

IV-10

In order to better emphasize the management, protection and enforcement

function of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game with respect to a "Critical

Habitat", several improtant statutory functions and requirements must be

underlined.

First, under the functions of the Commissioner:

Sec. 16.5.020. Functions of commissioner. The commissioner
shall
(1) supervise and control the department, and he may appoint
and employ division heads, enforcement agents, and the technical,
clerical, and other assistants necessary for the general administra-
tion of the department;
(2) manage, protect, maintain, improve and extend the fish,
game and aquatic lant resources of the state in the interest of the
economy and general well-being of the state;
(3) have necesary power to accomplish the foregoing including
but not limited to, the power to delegate authority to subordinate
officers nad employees of the department. ( 4 art I ch 94 SLA
1959; am 1 ch 110 SLA 1970)

The language of Part 2 of Sec. 16.05.020 is of special interest, as it

specifically refers to the Commissioner's responsibilities towards both the

fish and game and aquatic plant resources of the State.

To clearly underscore the scope of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

duties, the statutory definitions of fish, game, and aquatic plants must be

stressed.

Sec. 16.05.940. Definitions. In this chapter

(6) "fish" means any species of aquatic fin fish invertebrates
and amphibians, in any stage of their life cycle, found in or in-
troduced into the state:

(9) "game" means any species of bird and mammal, including
a feral domestic animal found or introduced in the state, except
domestic birds and mammals; and game may be classified by reg-
ualation as big game, small game, fur bearers or other categories
considered essential for carrying out the intention and purposes
of this chapter;

(23) "aquatic plant" means any species of plant, excluding the
rushes, sedges and true grasses, growing in a marine aquatic or in-
tertidal habitat;

The term Fish and Game must be viewed as an acronym encompassing

all of the zooligical entities (except perhaps insects of the State).

It must also be strongly underscored that, apart from what is nebulously

referred to as "rushes, sedges and true grasses", the Department

has statutory responsibilities for all aquatic plants (phytoplankton,

thallophytes or red, brown and green algae and marine angiosperms or eel

grasses).

The statutory language of Sec. 16.20.220 of Article 5 states that the

purpose of Fish and Game Critical Habitat Areas "is to protect and preserve

habitat areas especially crucial to the perpetuation of fish and wildlife...."

What is meant by "habitat areas especially crucial to the perpetuation of fish

and wildlife" is left open to many interpretations.

In referrence to the previous discussion relating to "renewable" and

"non-renewable" ecosystems, the term Critical Habitat can be defined as:

"A natural area or type of environment of sufficient size

and prime quality essential to the survival, reproduction,

productivity and life functions of fauna and/or flora of

unique character, diversity, natural, recreational and/or

harvestable value".

Two components essential if a Critical Habitat is to fulfill its intended

purpose must be stressed:

1. Sufficient Size

Adequate space, or in the case of the marine environment,

a sufficient volume of marine waters, is most essential to the sus-

tenance of the biological functions of diverse interacting biological

entities, many of which range in and out or migrate through the area.

IV-12

Insuring an adequate size or volume for a Critical Habitat to

perform its intended function is usually one of the more difficult

and demanding aspects of defining and legislating the creation

of a Critical Habitat.

As presently defined, the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat has

the surface area and volume of water requisite to function

satisfactorily. It is interesting to note that, based upon biological

considerations for the protection of crab spawning area, ADF&G

initially requested an area extending further into the open

waters of Lower Cook Inlet.

2. Prime Environmental Quality

Prime environmental quality is a most essential requirement to

the effective performance of a Critical Habitat. A Critical Habitat

cannot withstand heavy, and especially incompatible human use.

Because of the present intensity'of commercial fishing, the

increasing volumes of urban and vessel discharges, use of part of

the area as log storage and log transfer, the increasing use of the

protection afforded by the Bay for marine salvage and repair,.the

increased small boat traffic, the increase in ocean going traffic,

a good portion of which consists of tankers carrying loads as great

or greater than the amount of crude spi-lled by the METULA, the

prime environmental quality of Kachemak Bay is already under stress.

The longevity of the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat and its in-

tended function to maintain the environmental/biological attributes and pro-

ductivity of the Bay must also be viewed within the context of Article VIII

IV-13

(Natural Resources), Section 4 of the State of Alaska Constitution, especially

the last six words:

Section 4. Sustained Yield. Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands,
and 'all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall
be utilized, developed, and maintained on the SLIstained yield prin-
ciple, g
@ibiect to PlIeferences @ on - beneficial uses.

The creation of the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat must be considered as

statutory recognition of its environmental and biological worth to the citizens

of the State; conservancy and protection of its prime values must be such that

the intended course of action by the legislature does not become prostituted

by shortsighted actions governed by: "subject to references among beneficial

uses", but instead that the course of action be carried out within the full

meaning of Sec. 16.20.220:

"To restrict all other uses not compatible with

that primary purpose".

The basic question then arises, can "other uses" be so planned, engineered

and controlled as to be "compatible with that primary purpose" (e.g.

development of oil and gas resources in a highly productive fishery

area).

Present statutory, regulatory and enforcement authorities of the state

agencies (e.g. Department of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental

Conservation, Department of Fish and Game) as well as of federal agencies (e.g.

Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey,

National Marine Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service) are, if properly coordinated,

formulated and applied, and enforced already sufficient to maintain and

protect the quality and productivity of the environment of the Bay.

IV-14

The next basic question then is, in view of the availability of large
bodies of laws and regulations, how effective are the current agencies'

practices in the effective imposition and enforcement of environmental

protection measures so that "other uses" are indeed "compatible with

that primary purpose".

Environmental Protection, How Effective

Safeguard of environmental quality is the major, concern that must be

accomodated if the public is to be persuaded that the oil and gas resources

of Kachemak Bay and Lower Cook Inlet can be developed with as close to zero

risk as possible. Developing the oil and gas resources is a hazardous

undertaking; environmentally damaging accidents can occur during any of

the four major phases of exploring, developing, producing and transporting

oil and gas.

At present, in the absence of any drilling, transportation of pet-

roleum over the waters of Lower Cook Inlet - Kachema,k Bay, poses the

greatest hazard to the environment. Petroleum capacity of the tankers

plying through the area range between 120,000 and 500,000 barrels;

the METULA incident spilled about 250,000 or so barrels, thus present tanker

traffic has the potential for creating a mishap the size of the METULA.

Technological capabilities and knowhow, as well as the ability to impose

effective environmental protection measures is readily available. However,

how well such technical knowhow and protection is being applied needs

to be critically and pragramatically examined.

Effectiveness of environmental protection technological and regulatory

practices can be gauged from two points of view: (1) ability to apply the

highest level of technological control at the source and (2) imposition

and enforcement of environmentally effective protection measures.

IV-15

Control Technology at the Source

A comprehensive discussion of the adequacy of OCS technologies

can be found in Chapter VI of the University of Oklahoma document

titled "Energy Under the Ocean". The document comments upon

the fact that, until recently, oil and gas offshore tech-

nologies were geared primarily to satisfy the interests

of the petroleum industry and regulatory agencies. Now,

however, environmental concerns have changed the criteria

used in determining what is satisfactory, and as a result,

when evaluated on the basis of these new criteria, many

of the operational standards, procedures and technologies

afre found to be most inadequate.

The dominance of the industry in the preparation of,operational

stipulations, safety and anti-pollution guidelines

(e.g. USGS OCS Orders) and the permisiveness of responsible

regulatory agencies, prompted a congressional inquiry

on the appropriateness and effectiveness of responsible

regulatory agencies in dealing with an industry under their

control. House Report No. 93-1396, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session,

published October 1, 1974, (Our Threatened Environment,

Florida and the Gulf of Mexico; Committee on Government

IV-16

Operations, 19th Report to 93rd Congress, based upon study made

by the Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee), analyzes

and discusses the salient problems. In its finding the report

states that:

"The studies have shown that there is a considerable

body of federal laws to deal with environmental problems

such as - - - - to prevent and reduce the adverse effects

of OCS oil and gas and mineral development on coastal

waters and onshore

"However, these studies have also shown that, in many

cases, the federal agencies charged with the duty to use

this body of law economically and efficiently have

failed to do so".

A most important facet, when considering how effective point source

controls are imposed upon offshore oil and gas operations is reflected

in the committee findings that:

"The Survey (USGS) is placing too heavy reliance on

industry committees to implement recommendations aimed at

solving OCS safety and anti-pollution problems".

The house document indicates that as late as April 1974, the formulation

and revision of the various OCS orders which the USGS promulgated to

regulate the offshore activities of the industry were mostly a by-

product of industry - government cooperative procedures that ex-

cluded the public until the orders were acceptable to both the in-

dustry and the Survey.

IV-17

The USGS, in August 1974, indicated that three joint GS-API (API

is a national trade association representing all branches of the

petroleum industry) committees are now dealing with OCS safety

and anti-pollution problems. Each committee, each with several "task

groups" is headed by a representative from the industry. Each

committee has at least one GS representative, but several of the

task groups do not have GS representation. There is no representation

on these joint committees from outside organizations or the public.

The house document also states that when the survey was queried about

whether these joint industry committees, formed at the request of

USGS,, were subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of

October 6, 1972, the survey indicated that. the GS-API joint committees

did not fall under the requirement of the act. The hous-e document

then states that:

"The survey dependence on these joint committees is

misplaced - - - - the joint GS-industry committee pro-

cedures gives the industry a significant and perhaps

dominant role in the survey's standards setting and

R & D program, no similar opportunity is provided to

any other groups or the general public".

The house document serves to focus upon past and still current

industry - agency procedural practices. Without an appropriate

technically independent and knowledgeable body of professionals

capable of evaluating the technological worth and effectiveness of

IV-18

predominantly industry generated specifications and standards, the question

of how well environmental protection controls at the source can be

imposed and enforced remains unanswered.

An example of how deficient technology is permitted to operate

in the rigors of Alaska's OCS waters, is provided by the

recent tribulations of the drilling vessel "Glomar Conception",

in the N.E. Gulf, off Yakataga. The ADF&G, in its comments on the

proposed "Strat-drilling" operations, queri ed the USGS about their

involvement in ascertaining the adequacy of a multi-moor drilling

platform as compared to a much more stable semi-submersible platform

to drill at the site. USGS reply was that the agency relies

upon the industry to provide what the industry considers to be

appropriate and that the drilling vessel was deemed adequate based

upon past on station performance in the North Sea. The shortcomings and

failures of the platform to complete the task are history. The case

of the Glomar Conception, perhaps best illustrates what can be

considered as a very thin margin of environmental safety at the

operational site, due to a lack of effective check and balance

between operators and regulators in the planning and use of best

technology and operational safeguards.

A parallel can be made with the State of Alaska in respect to

the jack-up rig "George Ferris". As yet unanswered is the

responsibility of pertinent state agencies to insure that the

most modern and fail safe technology is designed for operation

in the rugged, unpolluted and biologically rich marine waters of

IV-19

Alaska. Present, seemingly unchecked reliance on industry practices

does not provide the level of environmental protection safety

required in the highly biological sensitive and valuable areas

of Lower Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay.

2. Imposition and Enforcement of Environmental Protection Measures

A major aspect of the environmental protection of the marine waters

of Kachemak Bay and Lower Cook Inlet rests with the protection and

maintenance of the quality and productivity of such waters.

Protecting the quality of the marine waters can be approached

from two different points of view: technological and ecological.

The basic differences in approaches and methodologies are illustrated

in Table 25. (Westman, 1972).

In terms of ultimate water quality goals sought, the technologists

define their goals in terms of uses to which water is to be put

by man. The current statutes defining the "Water Quality Criteria

for Waters of the State of Alaska", follow the technologists'

definition, as shown in Table 26.

The ecological viewpoint, by contrast, seeks to maintain pro-

tection and if so needed, restore the physical, chemical and

biological integrity of the waters. The ecological viewpoint
regards "pristine" or as close as possible to "pristine" con-

ditions as providing the "balance of nature" that can insure

water clean enough to meet all of man's requirements regardless

of "use". The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of

1972 (PL 92-500), takes the ecological approach to the maintenance

1~q8 AAC ~q70.02~0 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA, ~FO~R~q!~VA~qTE~R~qi ~qCF THE STATE OF ALASKA
(2) --- ~q-~q(3~q)~q- ~. _ ~q-~qC
Wate quality Total Col~fforn Dissolved Turb~qi~d~qj~:~qy~, measured in e~r~a~perature, as ~M~ea ur
Ja ~ckso~n Tu
Parameters Organisms (see note 1) Oxygen ~m~g~q/~qI ~p~i~t rb~qidity Units ed in degrees
or ~: Satur~a-~.. (see note 3 (JTU) Fahrenheit ~q(~*F)
Water Uses t~ion
~@ater supply, drink- Mean o~0qF5 or ~i~rcre Greater than- ~8qTe~q-~twee~n ~~_~8qVe ow V~qr
n~g. culinary and food samples in any ~ronth 75~9 satura- and ~q8.5
r~ocessin~g without.the may not exceed ~q50 per tion or
~100 mi exce~ot ~Sround 5 ~j~r~.~9/1
ee~d for tr~eat~rent .~4
t~her than si~r~-ple disin- water shall contain
fection and si~nple re- zero per 100 m~i.
v~al of naturally
~nresent i~np~urit~ie~s.
a er supp y, ~8qF~1~_~n~qT~_~q_ ~_~f can o or more reater ~t a Be~twe .~5 ~qfess ~8qV~qi ~5 ~'~1 above e ow ~6~0~1~F~.
~ing. culinary and food samples in any month 60% satura- and ~q8. natural cn~o~nd~qlti~o~ns.
processing with the need ~'~may not exceed 1000 per tion or
for treat~rent equal to 100 m~i~, and not more ~i~r~qo/~ql
co~e~Sulation, sediment~a- than 20% of sa~nples
t~i~cn. filtration, disin- during one month may
fection and any other exceed 2400 per 100 ml,
treatment processes except ground water
necessary to remove shall contain zero
~qM naturally present per 100 m~qi.
impurities.
~N~)
~0~)
~qC~T~.~-~8qVa~ter o~@n~_t~a~ct~_~q_ Sa~r~ve as ~8-1 Greater than Between 6.5 ~'~q6~_~cT~o`~qw-~q2~2qn U except when u~mer~ica~l v~a~iue ~i~s~q-~8qT~qn~2q_~q_
Recreation ~5 mg~q/~l. and ~8.5 1
natural conditions ex- app~ql~qicab~ie.
ce~ed this figure efflu-
I ents ~0~2 increase
th~e
tu~y~bi~q2~q7~tt
~U. Growth and pr~op~a- Same a ~8~-~1 to pro-" ~_~qd~_r~_ea~_t~_~e~q_~r~_t~qF~a~q_~n Between ~q7.~5 ~qY~0q@~0qn ~qt~the~'~n~' May not e~xce~,~-~: natural
~qg~at~qi~on of fish and tect ~8qloc~qiated 6 ~m~g/~qI in and 8.5 for attributable to solids. terp. by more than 2~q*F
other ~a~uu3t~ic life recreational salt water salt water. which result from other for salt water. ray n
Including ~tf~ate~r~qf~o~qf values. and greater Between 6.5 than natural origin. exceed natural t~e.~,.~p. b
and fu~rbearer~s. than 7 m~g~q/~qI and 8.5 for more than OF 'or ~Ires
in fresh fresh water water. No ch~a~n~Se s~q@~q,al
water.. be permitted fOr ~te~qm~qp.
over 6~0~'F. ~Xax~l~nu~m
A rate of c~h~a~r~.~Se per-
m~itted is ~&.~S~'~F oar ~qhr
~'~e ~f~lot to exceed limits ~qG~q-~r~e~d ter -t~qha-n ~8q4~e~_t~qw~_~e~e~q; ~_~8q5r~re as ~6qr~6q7~.~7~q- Less Tn~an ~c~r-~..
~4qF~n~-d~q' r~8q2p~a~qg~q"~8qMo~qn In- specified in National 6 m~g/~ql in the and ~qB.S
clud~i~n~g natural and Shellfish Sa~rT~q@~qi~q-t~i~o~n larval stage.
c~o-~rerc~qi~al growing Pro~q~r~a~w ~Xa~m~;~a~l of Greater than
areas. ~q?~qi~qF~q_~Pr~at~ions, ar~t 1~q,~. 5 ~i~r~g/~ql in the
t
~2qE~p ~- ~4q7s~ee I adult sta~ne.
~F A~rr -~q7~8qM ~c 70~q1F
~icu~ltur~a~l ~vater ~h~e~an of 5 or ~r~-~or~e sa~n- Greater than ~Betw~ee~q2 numerical values are uet~veen 6~qV~F ~a~r~,
~s~u~pp~qfy. including fr. pies ~may not exceed 3 ~r~qg~q/I a~nd ~q8.5 inapplicable. for o~pt~qi~n~o~m ~qgr~a~wtn to
r~qi~qg~atfo~n, stock water- 1000 per ICO nl with 20~9 prevent p~tys~i~o~ql~4qq~qfc~qa~8ql~q-
Ing. and truck firming. of samples ~not to exceed shock to plants.
2400 per 100 mi for
livestock watering~, for
Irrigation of crops for
human c~on~su~o~rption, and
for general f~ar~r~. use.
except ground water shall
contain zero Per ~q1~00 mi.
~V~P ~I~n~d~us~tr~i~ai water ~-~qS~qi~-~m-e~qis ~B-~1 w~6~e~never Greater than ~B~a~tw~"~I~n ~6~q0~5 Ila imposed ~t~urb than ~q7~q0~1~qF.
Water ~qlua~ql
~'ara~.~e~q"

~s
~fater U~6q@~,e

~I~t~y
~qt~y~qp~qp~ql~qy lather than worker ~c~q9~n~qJ~o~c~q% is ~q5 111 for and ~q4~8q4 that may i~n~qt~er~qr~, r~, with
~r I ~qa~qst~a~qbl~qi~t~qh~ed level, at
~qs~u~r ace water,
~0 water ~g~u~qp~qp~ql~qy t~r~e~at~m~e~A

18 AAC ~q7~0.~02~0 WATER ~qqUA~qLI~TY CRITERIA FOR RATERS OFT~P~E STATE OF ALAS~Y~qA
~(7) (8) 9 ~1~0~q1 fill
~.esfeues including Oils, Settleable solids Toxic or Other Deleterious. color. as Radioactivity ~qA~e~st~qk~qa~q:~q1
l~o~at~f~n~g Solids. Sludge suspended solids Substances, p~esticfd,~.~S and. measured ~qC~c~n~s~0qi~q'~q-~qr
ep~os~fts and Other Wastes. (includes sedi- Related Organic and in color
ment ~& dredge Inorganic materials units
Moil ~& fill)
e as ~8~-~7 Beloit normally ~q@~2qar~bon c~8qhloro~ro ~S~q= rue co~lor~-~0qM~e -concentrations ~of
~r~m eztr~ac~2qF May ~r~qz~q- ~qz
detectable less than 0.~1 ~' /I and less than radioactivity shall not: e~d ~t~y ~q-~q.~q:~q-~qe
amounts other ch~e~m~fca I onst~ituents ~- 1~5 color of ~=~at~qe~qr,
tray not exceed~6qISP~PS Drinking u~n~qi t~'~s. ~a)~-Exce~Td 1/30th of the t~n~e~ir ~qt~q9~ql
'later S~tandard~y~. values given for con- ~q0-~.~u are
~qI~q-See~-~note ~'~qi~'~4q4~1~q"~OuS ~OcCu~L~at~ional expo- ~q;~qi~8qZ~,~q;~q: ~q_~q.
Sure in the ~:~!a~tional s~:~-~e~q:~,~. ~q. t~qa
~a~ndards ~Pand~@~.o~a~*~,
~0qj~q- ~-~o' S~'
~P~qi~s~f~e~ve~s ray not ~n~a~@~.e the re- No ~I posed Chemical constituents shall ~qTa~q-~me as ~q1~69. ~a~=~a as
ce~iv~qi~r~g water unfit or unsafe loadm~s that will conform t~o USPH~S ~Dr~in~Lk~qt~qi A~-1~q0
for the uses of this clas~qi~qt- Interfere with Water Stan~qda~q-~r~qd~'~s~-~. ~qL~n~qj ~1b) Exceed t~he concentra-
fic~at~i~on; nor cause a film or
established (see note 4) ~'t~io~is s~pecfi~ed in the 1962
sheen upon. or discoloration levels of U.S. Public ~Y~ealth.Serv~qi~te
of. the surface of the ~@~:at~er water supply Drinking Water Standards
or adjoining ~shoreli~ne~. nor treatment. ~Ifor waters us~sd f~qor ~e~o~me~s-
cause a sludge or emulsion -tic supplies.
to be deposited beneath or
upon the surface of the ~c) Have a de~.~-~r~onstra~ble
~qM water. within th~qq water col~- detrimental effect on
~qN~) u~rn~. on the bottom or upon aquatic life.
~qM a~qd~qj~_~9~_~qj~n~I~n~j_~s~qh~2
~q0~- Same as ~B-7 ~Ho visible Below concentrations found ~-~q@~q_~t~c~ch~j d) ~The c~o~nce~r~tration of
concentrations. to be of public health disc v~q1s~. radioactive materials in
of sediment. Significance ~Ible at ~qAhese waters shall. be less
m~ln.~*~d~e~pt~q@th~an those required t
of I meter~ireet the Radiation Pro-
0

~q5~a~q@~'~q_a ~-~to dep~os ~I t Ion ~It~ect~ion Cu~i~des ~lor ~m~3xi- as
~e Concentrations shall be less ~4am~e as
lotting: Residues shall be which adversely than those levels which cause C~-10 ~mu~n exp~@sure of critical
less than those levels which affects fish t~a~inti~n~g~'f~ish, :less than acute hur~t~e~n organs r~ec~c~:~:~:~n~ended
by the for~r~-er Federal
other organisms and less
cause tainting of fish or other aquatic or~,~,~chron~qic pro~t~2q4~i levels as the
life reprodu~c r~e ealed by bioas~s~ay or other -Radiation Council in
than acute or chronic t~ion and appropriate methods and below
problem levels as determined case of foodstuffs harvest-
habitat. Concentrations affecting the ~ed from these waters for
by b~i~o~ass~ay. ecological balance. hu~nan consu~r~pt~ion. Be-
cause any h~u~rr~an exposure
to ~icn~izi~n~g radiation is
me as 1~1~o deposition Sane as ~0-9 ~T~h~e C~'~OACe~n- as
which adversely ~C~-~q1~0 tr~a~ti~on of r~a~d~qio~a~.~-t~iv~ity
affects ~gro~-~wth In these waters shall be
and propagation ~t~ra~qi~n~t~a~i~ned at %:he lowest
of shellfish. practicable level.
Sam as ~8~-~q7
ror sprinkler ~qFess Ran Gat ~s~q6~ow~n ~qio ~qCe ~qjp~q@~qj~qj~q:~' ~qS~qV~� as.
irrigation, ~wa- deleterious to I ~qive~s~t~ock or cable.
ter free of par- plant ~'~s or their s~ub~s~e~qq~je~nt
ticles of 0.074 C~OnSu~mpt~qion by humans.
m~n or coarser.
For irrigation
or water spread-
~i~ng, not to ex-
ceed 200 ~i~rg~q/~ql
for an extended
~4q@es
~'~o
~'~P

~4q7 period of ~t~i~r~p~.
No ~i~nposed ~loa Chemical ~c~o~q;~istitu~en~t~s way nor.
~c~s I as
that will inter. exceed concentrations found
fere with es-
tabl~i~s~hed level significance.
of tr~e tment. to ~be of public health

IV-20

and protection of water quality. In attempting to follow the

ecological approach, the U.S. Congress ruled that by 1981, the

discharge of pollutants into the waters of the nation must be

eliminated.

The technologists repeatedly argue that the level of cleanliness

sought by the ecologist is "unnecessarily high" for many intended

uses and therefore is unnecessarily costly to comply with. The

ecologist's retort is that, once pollution is allowed to proceed,

the level and the manner of destruction wrought cannot be con-

trolled and that the cost of rehabilitating the water for man's

use will continually accrue; by contrast, protecting and maintaining

the waters to as close as possible to their natural state, will

allow for nat ural processes to maintain the prime state of quality,

at essentially lower long term costs.

The most basic arguments usually revolve around the question of

what is the natural "assimilating capacity" of the marine waters

for pollutants. Traditionally the technologists have assumed

that aquatic ecosystems have the capacity to digest, degrade and

ultimately cause to disappear pollutants placed into them. To

the ecologists, a functional definition of assimilative capacity

is that of the resilience in a natural water body which insures

that any changes in the aquatic ecosystem resulting in a physical,

chemical or biological change in an unplolluted water body will be

of a temporary one, such that within a few hours, days or weeks,

IV-21

the aquatic ecosystem will return to its original functional state.

In the ecological approach, such as the one followed by PL 92-500,

no reliance is placed upon "assimilative capacity", which

directly leads to the conclusion that discharges of pollutants

must be eliminated at the source.

The applicability of water quality laws, criteria and standards to

the as yet mostly unpolluted status of the marine waters of Kachemak

Bay and Lower Cook Inlet needs to be critically examined.

PL 92-500, through its progressive schedule of improved levels of

treatment, leading to eventual elimination of pollutant from

discharges, aims at repairing and rehabilitating much of the waters

already damaged by pollution. The marine waters of the Coast of

Alaska, in contrast to most of the coastal waters of the Atlantic,

Gulf and part of the Pacific Coast, are for all practical purposes

unpolluted and in their prime "pristine" natural quality. The coastal

waters of Alaska do not need to be rehabilitated; they only require

maximum effective protection, through application of strict,

point source prevention of pollutant discharge. For Alaska, the

1981 PL 92-500 goal for elimination of discharge of pollutant is

the basic environmental protection goal to be applied today.

In the implementation of PL 92-500, the technologists still exert

a dominant control in the implementation of the law through the

application of "best treatment technology". To the ecologist how-

IV-22

ever, application of "best treatment technology" raises very

serious doubts as to its biological protection effectiveness.

Present application of best treatment technology revolves around

the levels of treatments that can be achieved by what the regulatory

agency considers to be the better performing treatment facilities.

Effluent criteria for the allowable concentration of various classes

of pollutants are based upon the ability of best current operating

plants to reduce or control the levels of various pollutants. As

presently practiced, application of "best treatment technology"

considers neither the biological sensitivities of the receiving

waters nor'the levels of treatments that must be imposed to

effectively protect marine life from low level pollution. Numbers

such as 25/50 mg of oil concentration in the discharges emanating

from production and/or drilling platform are numbers strictly generated

by arbitrary statistical manipulation of treatment facilities performance

data: such numbers are'not'based upon biological protection rationales.

To date, even with the available technology and rather large body of

environmental laws, the quality and integrity of the marine waters of

Alaska must be considered to be virtu.ally unprotected under existing

regulatory and enforcement practices.

PL 92-500, in Section 403 (Ocean Discharge Criteria) of the Act,

specifies an ecological approach to the drafting of environmental

protection guidelines for marine waters. To date, better than

86 STAT, 883 Law 92-500 -68- October 18, 1972

establishing specifications for safe transportation, handling,carriage,
storage, and stowage of pollutants.
"(h) In the event any condition of a permit for discharges from a
treatment works (as defined in section 212 of this Act) which is
publicly owned is violate, a State with a program approved under
subsection (b) of this section or the Administrator, where no State
program is approved, may proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction
to restrict or prohibit the introduction of any pollutant into such
treatment works by a source not utilizing such treatment works prior
to the finding that such condition was violated.
"(i) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the author-
ity of the Administrator to take action pursuant to seciton 309 of this
Act.
Public "(j) A copy of each pemrit application and each permit issued
information. under this section shall be available to the public. Such permit appli-
cation or permit, or portion thereof, shall further be available on
request for the purpose of reproduction.
"(k) Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this section shall
be deemed complaince, for purposes of sections 300 and 505, with sec-
tions 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403, except any standard imposed under
section 307 for a toxic pollutant injurious to human health. Until
December 31, 1974, in any case where a permit for discharge ahs been
applied for pursuant to this section, but final administrative disposition
of such application has not been made, such discharge shall not be a
violation of (1) section 301, 306, or 402 of this Act, or (2) section 13
30 Stat. 1152. of the Act of March 3, 1899, unless the Administrator or other plain-
33 USC 407. tiff proves that final adminsitrative disposition of such application has
not been made because of the failure of the applicant to furnish infor-
mation reasonably required or requested in order to process the applica-
tion. For the 180-day period beginniing on the date of enactment of the
Ante. p. 816. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, in the case
of any point source discharging any pollutant or combination of pol-
lutants immediately prior to such date of enactment which source is
not subject to section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, the discharge by
such source shall not be a violation of this Act if such a source applies
for a permit for discharge pursuant to this section within such 180-day
period.

"OCEAN DISCHARGE CRITERIA
"SEC.403. (a) No permit undrer section 402 of this Act for a discharge
into the territorial sea, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the oceans
shall be issued, after promulgation of guidelines established under sub-
section (c) of this section, except in compliance with such guidelines.
Prior to the promulgation of such guidelines, a permit may be issued
under such section 402 if the Administrator determines it to be in the
public interest.
"(b) The requirements of subsection (d) of section 402 of this Act
may not be waived in the case of permits for discharges into the
territorial sea.
Guidelines. "(c). (1) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty
days after enactment of this Act (and from time to time thereafter),
promulgate guidelines for determining the degradation of the waters
of the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the oceans which shall
include:
"(A) the effect of disposal of pollutants on human health or
welfare, including but not limited to plankton, fish, shellfish, wild-
life, shorelines, and beaches;
"(B) the effect of disposal of pollutants on marine life includ-
ing the transfer, concentration, and dispersal of pollutants or their

October 18, 1972 -69- Pub. Law 92- STAT, 884

by products through biological, physical and chemical processes;
changes in marine ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability;
and species and community population changes;
"(C) the effect of disposal, of pollutants on esthetic, recreation,
and economic values;
"(D) the persistence and permanence of the effects of disposal
of pollutants;
"(E) the effect of the disposal at varing rates, of particular
volumes and concentrations of pollutants;
"(F) other possible lcoations and methods of disposal or recy-
cling of pollutants including land-based alternatives; and
"(G) the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as mineral
exploitation and scientifc study.
"(2) In any event where insufficient information exists on any pro- Prohibition.
posed discharge to make a reasonable judgement on any of the guide-
lines established pursuant to the subsection no permit shall be issued
under section 402 of this Act.

"PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

"SEC.404. (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief Notice, hearing
of Engineers, may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for opportunity.
public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill amterial into the
naviagable waters at specified disposal sites.
"(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, each such disposal
site shall be specified for each such permit by the Secretary of the Army
(1) through the application of guidelines developed by the Adminis-
trator, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army, which guide-
lines shall be based upon criteria comparable to the criteria applicable
to the territoral seas, the contiguous zone, and the ocean under section
403(c), and (2) in any case where such guidelines under clause (1)
alone would prohibit the specification of a site, through the applica-
tion additionally of the economic impact of the site on navigation and
anchorage.
"(c) The Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification Disposal site,
(including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a specification
disposal site, and he is authorized to deny or restrict the use of any prohibition.
defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of specifica-
tion) as a disposal site, whenever he determines, after notice and oppor-
tunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such materials into
such area will ahve an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water
supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and
breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. Before making such
determination, the Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of
the Army. The Administrator shall set forth in writing and make Findings of
public his findings and his reasons for making any determination Administrator,
under this subsection. publication.

"DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE

"SEC. 405.(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or
or any other law, in any case where the disposal of sewage sludge
resulting from the operation of a treatment works as defined in section
212 of this Act (including the removal of in-place sewage sludge from
one location and its deposit at another location) would result in any
pollutant from such sewage sludge entering the navigable waters,
such disposal is prohibited except in accordance with a permit issued
by the Administrator under this section.

IV-23

four years since the law was passed, EPA, the responsible

regulatory agency, has not impTemented the ecological requirements of

Sec. 403. (403, C 1 and 2). Moreover, by a recent ruling of its

General Counsel, EPA (Sept. 8, 1975 Memorandum, as shown) has divested

itself of compliance with NDPES permit requirements for drilling

vessels and floating drilling structures, vessels and structures most likely

to be extensively used in the Cook Inlet and other OCS areas

of coastal Alaska.

USGS OCS orders contain some pollution control stipulations; such

stipulations however, are environmentally and biologically

ineffective.

EPA is presently attempting to develop "interim final effluent

guidelines and new sources performance standards for the offshore

segment of the oil and gas extraction point source category" (Sept.

1975). Review of the document shows that nowhere are the

requirements of Sec. 403 of PL 92-500 even alluded to, nor has

any consideration been given to constrain the quality of effluent

to the pollutional levels of sensitivities of various marine life as

demonstrated by various researchers and results of bioassays.

It should be.noted here that in effect, the Sept. 8, 1975 ruling

by the General Counsel of EPA, negates EPA's efforts to establish-

and implement the intended effluent guidelines for much of the

Coast of Alaska.

The ADF&G, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, EPA and ADEC is attempting

IV-23a
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: ARCO Seismographic Drilling in the Gulf of Alaska

TO: Clifford Smith, Jr.
Regional Administrator

FROM: Robert V. Zener
General Counsel

This is in reference to your request for advice as to the
applicability of the FWPCA and the Ocean Dumping Act (Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972) to the
activities of ARCO in the Gulf of Alaska.

We understand the facts to be essentially as follows:
ARCO proposes to commence seismographic drilling in the Gulf
of Alaska. Such drilling will be conducted form a ship located
approximately 20 miles offshore and anchored during the period
in which drilling will occur. During the course of drilling,
discharges of drilling muds and concrete can be expected. The
ship, the Clomar Conception, is registered in the United States.

NPDES PERMIT

On the basis of the facts set forth above, Sections 301 and 402
do not apply to the discharges. Section 301 prohibits the "discharge
of any pollutant" except as in compliance with enumerated sections.
Section 502(12) (B), however, defines "discharge of pollutant" as
"any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous
zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or
other floating craft." Since the drilling will take place
20 miles offshore the geographic conditions of section 502(12)(B)

IV-23b

are satisfied. (1) Moreover, the mere fact that the ship will
be anchored does niot remove it from the class of "floating
craft.". Thus, there can be iio "discharge of a pollutant"
within the meaning of the FVTPCA and, therefore, no permit
under section 402 need be issued. The Agency may not exercise
rulemaking authority under the Act in an area 'in which
Congress has withheld jurisdication. Thus, 40 CFR 125.4(a)
may-not be read to expand, by negative inference, our
authority by control pollutants on the high seas.

OCEAN DUMPING PERMIT

While no NPHS permi@ is required for the explo.ratory drilling
as above described, if discharges of drilling muds, concrete or
other maLerials brought from on-shore facilities will occur,
a permit pursuant to section 102 of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) is required.
Section 101(a) of the IIPRSA provides, in part, that no person,
shall transport from the United States any material for the
,Now urpose of dumping it into ocean waters except as may be
authorized by a permit. "Dumping" is defined in section 3(f)
as the "disposition of material" and "material" is broadly defined
Pin section 3(c' as "matter of any kind, or description,
including ... solid waste, ... chemicals, ... rock, sand ...
and industrial waste." Clearly., the drilling mud and cement
discharges constitute the "disposition of material" within
the meaning of the MPRSA, for which a permit is required.

Robert V. Zener
General Counsel

(1) see th'c definitions of,"territorial seas", "contiguous zone"
and "oevan" in section 502(8)(9)(10), respectively.
I@V

V13

L
It

IV-24

to formulate effluent limitation criteria based upon existing

knowledge of effects of oils upon the marine biota. For Lower

Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay, two areas biological sensitive due to

the extent and duration of crustacean larval development, the

maximum permissible levels of oil concentration in any discharge

must, to be biologically effective, remain within 0.05 and 0.1 mg/l at the

point of discharge, such concentrations to be achieved by

treatment rather than mixing within a given "mixing zone";

the .05 and 1. mg/l of oil concentration are based upon

synthesis of published information on the sensitivity of larval

and developmental stages of marine life to hydrocarbons.

Drill cuttings, drilling muds, drilling fluids are unavoidable by-

products of any drilling operation. Drilling muds and fluids

consist of mixtures of suspended solids, chlorides, alkaline

compounds, chromium compounds, bacteriocides, organic polymers,

dispersant, defoamers, lubricants and detergents. The toxicity

of either.the individual components or of the complex "whole"

mixture to various forms of aquatic life, especially developmental

and larval stages, still needs to be ascertained. The results of

a recent EPA sponsored conference on "Environmental Aspects of
Chemical Use in Well Drilling Operations" (1975), in which a

number of papers dealing with bioassay on drilling muds components

were presented and can perhaps be best summarized by the statement

by D.G. Wright, a biologist with the Fisheries and Marine Services

of Environment Canada: although a great deal of information

IV-25

was exchanged there are a great many questions still unanswered. The

conference merely emphasized our lack of understanding of the problem".

Fragmentary information on the toxicity of drilling mud components,

stemming from bioassay performed mainly on fresh water fishes,

suggests that drilling fluids are toxic to aquatic life. To date, no

toxicity measurements have been made on marine juveniles and

larval form. Until the toxicity of drilling fluids and muds

can be fully ascertained, present ADF&G requirements are for

drilling muds and fluids to be fully contained for controlled

disposal at an appropriate dump site.

Oil spills, ranging from a few gallons to several hundreds of barrels,

are a6-inevitable consequence of oil.and gas exploration, production, trans-...

fer and utilization. An interesting and pragmatic discussion of agencies

industry prevention, control and cleanup responsibilities and procedures in

Alaska can be found in the master's thesis of R.L. Beving: "Oil Pollution

in Maritime Alaska" (1974). A good portion of Beving's thesis discusses

the various "oil spill contingency plans".

Control, containment and cleanup of oil spilled into the marine waters

of Kachemak Bay and Lower Cook Inlet is an important facet of environmental

protection. Section 311 of PL 92-500 establishes a "National Contingency

Plan" to "provide for efficient, coordinated and effective action to minimize

damage from oil and hazardous substances discharges, including containment,

dispersal and removal of oil and hazardous substances The plan

requires predesignated on-scene coordinators, requires cooperation and

coordination among the various federal, state and local government agencies

IV-26

and the private community. It even requires stockpiling of cleanup equip-

ment in strategic location, for ready availability and deployment. How

effectively can the plan and especially the technology of cleanup be

applied to the Lower Cook Inlet - Kachemak Bay water is an open question.

Except in sheltered areas, the weather,, sea conditions, and the speed of the

current, are often such that most present containment and cleanup operations must

be delayed until the oil reaches the shore. Even so, access to the beaches,

cleanup procedures, stockpiling and removal of oil soaked straws and sor-

bent pads, can only be accomplished under relatively calm conditions.

Perhaps a pragmatic expression of current realities on agencies

industry ability to cope with an oil spill is expressed in Beving's masters'

thesis (p. 2):

"At an August 1972 meeting between the U.S. Coast Guard and

EPA officials, it was agreed that in the event of a large

spill (2000 barrels or more, 100,000 gallons or more), max-

imum cleanup effort would have to be put forth because of

image propaganda for the public, not because the cleanup

attempts would be successful".

In conclusion, all present'evidence shows that from a technological

and regulatory standpoint, environmental protection of the marine waters

of Lower Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay with respect to pollution threats from

oil and gas activities will be, for all practical purposes, ineffectual.

To be effective, environmental protection must be applied at the source,

through either prevention of oil and gas activities in highly biologically

sensitive and/or areas of high productivity supporting important commercial

fisheries, or through imposition of a total moratorium, until the industry

federal - state agencies consortium can demonstrate, to the concerned citizenry,

Ilk-

74
"M
Or

-IBM-

Requiescat in Pace 0 Thou Leviathan of the Deep

IV-27

that the best levels of technology will be applied and the laws effectively

enforced to insure "fail safe" "ultra clean" operations.

SECTION V

KACHEMAK BAY

PERSPECTIVE AND OVERVIEW

V-1
SECTION V

KACHEMAK BAY

PERSPECTIVE AND OVERVIEW

Any attempt, at this time, to fully assess both the short and long

term environmental implications of the intrusion and expansion of oil and

gas activities in the biologically rich waters of Kachemak Bay and Lower

Cook Inlet, must be tempered by the fact that, key information on the

geography of the extent and location of sub-sea floor structures that

could be considered as potential traps for hydrocarbons, is not available

to the Fish and Wildlife resources agencies.

It is somewhat ironical that, while the Fish and Wildlife resources

agencies are requested to provide all available data whenever an "Environmental

Impact-Assessment" is being prepared for an area the oil and gas interests want

to exploit, all of the essential information on the oil and gas resources

potentials is withheld from the same agencies under the guise that disclosure

of such information would drastically impair industry's competitive edge in

bidding for various tracts. Thus in effect, all other resources become

subjugated to oil (and/or gas).

The only information available to ADF&G to gauge the potential size

of the Kachemak Bay field, as per the 28th lease sale, is the final
monetary bidding for each tract. The map (fig; 55), showing the area of

highest bids, which by inferrence can be regarded as the potential

location of the field, suggests that the extent of the promising structure

is rather small, encompassing about 2500 acres.

V-2

".I. P1 w m w, R M w

Sax CMA

@--L7 L-U.-

4. 4-

.. . . ...... M-a ...... . . ......... . ....... :T S S
11 1

........... .......

c -wr. sm!:@ cm;;tt
5 a CA I..

------------

-42
.... ......... ... . .... . . ....... ......... . . .....

;pg@ ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... M" ... .....
--'T7

C2T@
.. ...... ......

.... .. ...... .... . ...
c2" f7)

sl-D-o F@ W A (3 W
Bib Takcr"

GRID 'Vo.
..L.

55. State of Alaska, 28th Oil and Gas Lease Sale.

V-3

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling, allocating much of the waters of Lower

Cook Inlet to the federal government, has. quickly prompted the opening up

of Lower Cook Inlet to oil and gas leasing as shown by the recent DOI/BLM

"Prop osed OCS Sale No. C 1" (Fig. 56). Of interest is the enclosed news

release which clearly infers that the oil companies play the lead role

in the decision making for the nomination for tracts. As in the case of

Kachemak Bay, the details on the location of the potential structure will

not be made available to the resources agencies a,nd the public until the

bidding pattern for various tracts has been finalized and made public.

Once such information becomes available, and the area is committed to

oil and gas development, then some initial assessment of environmental impact

can be made in terms of the evolving scenario of exploration, development,

and transportation, abandonment and rehabilitation. The evolving

scenario clearly shows that the impacts must be viewed in cumulative terms

and that higher and escalating levels of impacts will occur.after oil

and/or gas is found and the field proven to be commercial.

The most immediate environmental problems, once leases are sold and

authorization is obtained to proceed with eXDloratory drilling will come from.

increased vessel traffic and onshore support activites. If exploratory drilling

results only in dry holes, then the problem of impacts of oil and gas

activities can be relegated to development in more remote areas. If exploratory

.drilli.ng demonstrates occurrence of hydrocarbons in commercial quantities,

the impact will relate to the presence of either an oil, oil and gas or gas

field, and until this is determined, assessing future environmental impact

is strictly conjectural.

The most basic issue affecting Kachemak Bay is the most basic issue
of the time, mainly the quest for "cheap"' bountiful supply of energy,

quest, as previously mentioned, pursued along a two pronged course:

V-4
1540 1630 1520

FRONTIER OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF AREAS
LOWER COOK INLET
OROPOSED OCS SALE No. C 1 00
Area of Call for Nominations
EM Areas of Public Concern

EM Areas of High lndustr@ Interes#
SM Areas of Low Industry Interest K
Sta:vc Nmes

600
J,

Homer

Kenai PeninSI-11-

Aucqustb
gustb
IslanA
:.N.:N

C>
Cape Douglas
Barren Island

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTER i.-J
Bureau of Land Managenion!

ov
Afognak I land
ALASKA

%
680

1540 1530 1520

Proposed BUI/OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Lower Cook Inict
Fig. 56

ANCHORAGE

DAILY NEWS

VOL. XXX, NO.1 36 PAGES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, FRIDAY, JANUARY 2, 1976

Oil companies choose 2.1 million acres

Black area shows tracts nominated for
leasing by oil companies in a 450-tract
area in Lower Cook Inlet.

By SALLY W. JONES
Dally News Staff Writer
Sixteen oil companies have nominated 2.1 million acres
for offshore oil development in Cook Inlet.
The Department of Interior called for the nominations in a
2.3 million-acre area in the inlet in September, and set the
deadline for nominations for November 17. A spokesman for
Interior's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Office said Alaska
OCS Manager Edward Hoffman has forwarded
recommendations to Washington on the tracts that should be
leased this fall. The spokeman said the tracts Hoffman
identified for leasing are not public record at this time. The
U.S. Geological Survey also is to recommend tracts for
leasing.
THE AREA being considered for oil and gas lease sale is
located at the lower end of Cook Inlet, generally south of
Kenai.
Nine groups, including private organizations and
government agencies, also responded to the call for
nominations and cited from 48 to 157 tracts that should not be
considered for a lease sale because of their location in the
midst of fishery resources, critical bird and seanmammal
habitats, and hazardous seismic zones.
None of the tracts nominated by the oil industry is closer
than three miles from shore and some lie as far as 26 miles
offshore in an area 58 miles wide and 87 miles long. In all, 433
of the 450 tracts identified in the call were nominated for
leasing.

THE OIL COMPANIES showed highest interest in 192
tracts located in the central portion of the 450-tract area. All
but 48 of the high-interest tracts lie in areas the nine
government and private groups cities as sensitive.
Although the OCS office would not comment Wednesday
on the tracts that Hoffman has recommended for leasing.
Hoffman has met with representatives of the state of Alaska
and three federal agencies to discuss the call area.
Hoffman said the meeting was called to keep the state
"involved in the total OCS process." The meeting was held
Nov. 16 but onshore impacts from OCS development were not
discussed, said Hoffman.

HOFFMAN SAID comments he received from groups
other than the oil industry were "specific as to precise tracts
which the concerned groups feel should not be leased. When
we know such facts in advance, we are better able to seek
substantiating evidence of claims such as the interference
with established fisheries or potential environmental
hazards."
Hoffman said earlier this month his recommendations on
which tracts should be leased would be based on all
comments received following the September nomination
call.
Nominations for leasing came from Gulf Oil Co.;
Marathon oil Co.; Getty Oil Co.; Exxon Co., USA; Louisiana
Land nad Exploration Co.; Atlantic Richfield Co.; DEPCO
Inc.; Mobile Oil Corp.; Shell Oil Co.; Phillips Petroleum Co.;

Union Oil of California; the Oil Development Co. of Texas;
Texas Gulf Co.; Cities Services Co.; Standard Oil of California
and the Amoco Production Co.
The U.S. COAST GUARD commented that offshore
leasing in the inlet should take into account increased vessel
traffic in the Kachemak Bavarea.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation identified
sensitive wildlife areas.
Comments also were received from the Board of Fisheries
Advisory Committee in Homer; the North Pacific Fisheries
Association and the Kachemak Bay Defense Fund. The
groups pinpoointed critical commecial fisheries areas in the
nomination call area.
THE ALASKA Conservation Society also noted sensitive
sea bird and fisheries areas; and the National Marine
Fisheries Service said "the entire area of the lower Cook
Inlet is productive" for commercial fishing.
Hoffman's and the geological survey's recommendations
will be used to formulate Interior's proposal for specific
tracts to be considered for OCS leasing. Once Interior decides
upon the tracts and environmental impact statement will be,
written and form the basis for the tracts that are selected for
oil and gas industry bids.
The Department is scheduled early this year to open
bidding for offshore oil leases in the Gulf of Alaska. The state
has been critical of the gulf sale, arguing it is being held too
hastily before all impacts and effects are addressed.

V-6

1. Energy to do mechanical work and provide for creature comfort, in

the form of hydrocarbons, electrical, atomic energy generating

devices.

2. Energy to sustain life, in the form of food.

To put the resources conflict issues of Kachemak Bay in perspective, let

us consider man's needs and uses of energy in a different context and refer

to the substance of enclosures 1 through 4. Let us look as the food energy

side of the escalating national (and international) energy dilemna.

If one begins to look at food as part of man's total energy budget, and

consider how much energy must be supplied to provide a unit of food energy,

the substance of enclosures 1 and 2 serve to underscore the key issues of the

energy problem, mainly that the so called advanced countries can produce,

process, transport and sell food in abundance and relatively cheaply as long

as such food can be produced and made available through a large and c@ @a

energy subsidy.

The magnitude of present energy.demands to provide food stuff in the

U.S. is perhaps best expressed in a statement in 1974 Science article by

Stei'nhart and Steinhart:

111n 'primitive cultures', 5 to 50 food calories are obtained

for each calorie of energy invested. In sharp contrast, in-

dustralized food systems require 5 to 10 calories of fuel to

obtain 1 food calorie."

Enclosure 2 aptly summarizes the magnitude of "energy subsidy" involved in

producing common staples.

A second major, and perhaps more ubiquitous issue, rests with the fact

that American agriculture is an agrochemical agriculture geared to produce

large volumes of grains of steadily decr easing balanced nutritional values
through the cultivation of "high yield hybrids" (Enclosure 3). Due to their

By BRUCE JOHANSEN Food costs

With the help of a recent- counted in
ly isued report, energy
conservationists now may energy terms
count their Bristish Thermal
Unites, as well as their calor-
ies, as they eat.
The report, issued by the
Center for Science in the
Public Interest, analyzes
the amount of energy re-
quired to produce, package
and peddle various food
items.

IN ADDITION, the report
states, energy requirements
for food generally rise with
the degree of processing,
while nutritional value falls.
"Good eneryg conserva-
tion practices... are com-
patible with good nutrition
and good consumer-buying
practices," the report's au-
thors, Dr. Albert Fritsch,
Linda Dujack and Douglas
Jimerson, assert.
"A considerable portion
of the energy expended in
food production occurs in
the packaging. High-energy
users include such pro-
cessed food items as aero-
solized cooking oil, flavor-
ings and spreads, TV din-
ners, frozen prepared foods
and canned beverages," the
report states.
Consumers who want to
place themselves on an
"energy diet" should follow
five steps, the authors rec-
ommend:
-Start a home garden
and/or orchard. Home-
grown lettuce requires 1,750
B.T.U. a pound; store-pur-
chased lettuce requires 5,-
200, most of the difference
coming in transportation
and retailing energy costs,
such as truck fuel and light-
ing for a supermarket.
-Shift to vegetable from
animal sources, especially
from grain-fed beef. A
pound ofmeat proetein re-
quires about four times the
energy of a pound of plant
protein. Grain-fed beef re-
quires about 0 per cent
mroe energy than grass-ied
beef. Poultry requires about
half the energy expenditure
of grain-fed beef.
-Reduce use of pro-
cessed food, especially fro-
zen ones.
-Avoid non-returnable
bulk and unprocessed lo ds.
-Increase purchase of
beverage containers.
Frequent stores which allow
customers to bring their
own containers, such as co-
ops.

THE MOST energy-inten-
sive of all edible products
surveyed in the report were
distilled spirits, which re-
quire 85,300 B.T.U. a gallon
to produce, transport, pack-
age and sell.
Ironically fish, often rec-
ommended by nutritionists,
consumes more energy a
pound than any meat prod-
uct, accourding to the report,
which says one reason is
the large amount of energy
required to fuel fishing
fleets.
Packaging and freezing of
fish for consumption away
from coastal areas may add
to the energy cost of fish
and fish products.
Canned salmon, for exam-
ple, requires 1,150 B.T.U. a
pound , more than grain-ied
beef, which takes 42,600.
In total, the United States
consumed more than nine
calores in energy to prod-
uce eachc alorie in food val-
ue, according to the report.

"THESE inefficiencies
are subject to critical exam-
ination in an energy-short
world." the authors con-
tend.
The United States also
has been exporting "energy
intensive" agriculture
through the so-called
"Green Revolution." the report
contends.
"The Green Revolution
has compounded the prob-
lem since it substituted
chemical fertilizer-intensive
grain types for more hardy
but less productive varie-
ties," it said.

Much of the reason for
rising food prices in recent
years is rising energy costs,
and the rising amount of en-
ergy required to produce in-
creasingly processed and
overpackaged food items,
according to the study.
"While in the past energy
never amounted to more
than a cent or so of each
food dollar, the picture is
changing due to rising ener-
gy cost," it said.
The report said tat the
United States now uses
about 12 per cent of its en-
ergy budge to produce or
prepare food.

UNITED STATES agri-
culture, among the world's

most productive in terms of
yeilds, also is very energy-
intensive.
The most obvious reason,
according to the report, is
the continuing sbstitution
of machine power for hu-
man and animal muscle in
the fields.
Less obvious reasons in-
clude energy used to manu-
facture fertilziers, despite
the fact that nitrogen can be
"fixed" in soils through ro-
tation of legume crops with
others.
Another "hidden energy
cost" is irrigation pumping,
the report said.
And, as more crops are
transported greater dis-
tances to markets, transpor-
tation-energy costs rise, too,
the report said.

V-8

How much energy is required to produce, prepare
and sell the foods you eat? A smapling of some com-
mon items follows, from a report compiled by the Cen-
ter for Science in the Public Interes:

Beef: grass or forage fed: 29,650 British Termal Units
a pound.
Food Beef: grain-fed 42,600 " " "
Pork 29,400 " " "
Chicken 19,150 " " "
Turkey 21,400 " " "
Eggs 31,950 B. T. U. a dozen
cost in Cheese 47,550 B. T. U. a pound
Ice Cream 23,100 " " "
Fluid milk 6,810 B. T. U. a pound
Canned Salmon 51,150 B. T. U. a pound
energy Canned tuna 51,300 B. T. U. a pound
Fresh or frozen fish
(average) 58,538 B. T. U. a pound
Cantaloupe (fresh) 5,750 B. T. U. a pound
Carrots (fresh) 4,750 B. T. U. a pound
terms Sweet Corn (fresh) 5,250 B. T. U. a pound
Apples (fresh) 5,950 B. T. U. a pound
Oranges (fresh) 7,500 B. T. U. a pound
Corn (canned) 10,300 B. T. U. a pound
Carrots (canned) 9,200 B. T. U. a pound
Wheat bread 8,300 B. T. U. a pound
Pies 16,600 B. T. U. a pound
Cookies 12,700 B. T. U. a pound
Distilled liquor 85,300 B. T. U. a gallon
Wine 27,600 B. T. U. a gallon
Soft drinks 24,400 B. T. U. a gallon

V-9

1940

MMMAI,..
�R r
R-I... 32

Protein
Percent
9
1949 10

/Z
PRIP/ i5
16

1951

xx X

W/
,X@ .

The concentration of crude protein in the wheat of Kansas, by county
averages, has been declining during successive years of sampling.

(Albrecht, W.A., 1971)

V-10

20
i Distant fishing C> Fe dlot beel

10 -t
Fish
Protein __10,970
concentrate .95 1960
0 5 - - - - -- 4- - -F- - --- --- @ -- -- -1 ---1- Z1,91,9 _Q __4 - - - -
"0 1 Grass-fed
0 1 beef 4- 1940 Intensive eggs

,P 1930
.T 2 - - - -- - - - - - - - -
Modern
Coastal _Z@ *
f it s hn 1920 n k
I ass-fed
1.0 1
_ntT cows
1910 Low-i te sity
e,,,s

R
0.5 -
An
be ef -fed tensiv
ge
Low-in tensity Intensive c ej
orn
Potatoes Soybeans
0.2 corn
'u 't'n 0 Intensive
rice

0. 1
I Low -intensity
C,
@@O t _@3tO e s Thailand
0.05 4U i;
!rBurma
Shifting agriculture Z@@ .1";- C h i n a
0.02 Indonesia

Energy SUbSidiC;
systeni is shown for comparison. [Sour,:e uf datl: (31)1
fOr v-1601's food crops. 71-11C energy history of tile JJ-S. f d

(From: Steinhart and Steinhart, 1974.)
e /d
e f

_L932
j
192 0

V-11

diminished "balanced.nutritive" values, consumption of high yield grains

requires protein supplement to insure balanced nutritional requirements.

Agrochemical agriculture requires large amounts of fertilizers, and

the usually less disease or insect resistant hybrids require large applications

of insecticides and pesticides all mostly manufactured from hydrocarbons.

Thus the escalating scarcity in the r6ady availability and supply of

hydrocarbons is initiating a total change in man's ability to feed himself

on a regional, national and global scale.

Returning to Kachemak Bay, one can see that the highly protein rich

fisheries resources will rapidly escalate in human values as the artifically

maintained agrochemical system begins to break down due to the increasing

scarcity of abundant, cheap hydrocarbon energy.

Examination of the graph of enclosure 4 demonstrates the values of

local fishing and local agriculture, close.to the centers of needs, in terms

of energy budget. Distant fishing is highly "energy subsidy" dependent.

It might be selfish interest to note that, limiting the sharing of oil with

others might reduce the intensity of foreign fishing off Alaska's coast.

Coastal fishing is much less energy consumptive. Of' interest to the citizens

of Alaska are the energy requirements for "low" and "high" intensity cultivation

of potatoes, a tuber readily adapted to growing in the Kachemak Bay area

and other locations in South Central Alaska. Thus, the combination of the

high renewable seafood energy reservoirs of the waters of Kachemak Bay and

Lower Cook Inlet, coupled with high agriculturalpotentials of nearby land

makes the area potentially capable of providing a good portion of the basic

food energy requirements for most of the present population of South Central

Alaska. As the availability and especially cost of transporting basic food

stuff from distant sources becomes excessive due to petroleum energy scarcity
and cost, the ability of the area to self support its citizens will dramatically

escalate in value.

V-12

For environmental and resources planning, management, conservation

and protection actions, Kachemak Bay cannot be separated from Cook Inlet.

The development of a long term conservati.on and management plan for the

fisheries (protein) resources of Kachemak Bay will have to be implemented

as pa:rt of an integrated resources management and environmental quality

protectio.n plan for the entire Cook Inlet area.

Preliminary results from ADF&G circulation studies strongly underscore

that the Kachemak Bay environment is intimately tied to the environment of

Lower Cook Inlet. From a marine water quality standpoint, Kachemak Bay,

is in an environmentally privileged situation, being on the "upstream"

portion of inflowing clean, unpolluted ocean waters. Recent results from

drift measurements indicate that Kachemak Bay is continuously being flushed,

if sometimes sluggishly by clean ocean water; 30 days appears to be a

maximum length of time for residence of water in the outer bay. Through

-he "ups-ream" location
strict.-environmental control of compatible users, 4k, L. L

and flushing attributes of Kachemak Bay can insure long term maintenance

of its high natural level of environmental quality.

In contrast, as shown in Figure 59, the net circulation of Cook Inlet

will tend to carry pollutants towards its southwestern shore, as

shown, the Kamishak - Chinitna side acting as a pollution trap for both

acute and chronic, cumulative pollution. The Kamishak - Chinitna Bay side

of the inlet is a biologically rich and productive area, requiring utmost

protection.

All evidences also point to the fact that the entire Lower Cook Inlet

is a highly rich, productive and sensitive biological area. Lower Cook Inlet

warrants the best environmental protection possible to preserve its increasingly

high seafood values. Very serious considerations should be given to putting the

entire lower Cook Inlet area as delineated in F.igure 60, into some form of a

V-1 3

15 5* 154* 1530 152* 1510 1500 1490

TURBID WATER NC
loo
SEA WATER N. FORELAND,
-610
AREA MOST LIKELY TO v
BE AFFECTED BY k,
CUMULATIVE POLLUTIO
DRIFT RIVE ENAI

SNUG
HA
@RBOR CAPE NINILCHIK 600
CHINITNA BAY

ILIAMNA BAY 0 ER

Al,
E DOVIA
KAMISHA
PT AM
BAY
PT CH HAM
ob 590
INFLOWING CLEAN
COASTAL WATER

Fig. 59 - COOK INLET: INFERRED CIRCULATION AND

POLLUTION TRANSPORT

V-14

1550 15,V 153* 1520 151'0 1500 149*

TURBID WATER
SEA WATER N. FORELAND Ow ANCHORAGE
61*

FORELANDS

elm
DRIFT RIVER -KENAI

SNUG HARBO, APE NINILCHIK 600
A. KACHEMA
SPRING PT,. K
CHINITNA BAY
-@-- . 0 HOMER 'CRITICAL
BAY HAPI
KAMISHAK
BAY VIA
-SEL
PT G A
CRITICA.
HAD[ co GORE PT.
lee 59*
CA DOUGLAS

POINT BANKS

Fig. 60 - COOK INLET MARINE SANCTUARY

AND CRITICAL HABITATS

Reflections

V-1 5

marine sanctuary status. In addition, two Critical Habitat areas should be set

aside to better further the pro tection of critical biological areas from non-com-

patible resource use and insure that the biological resources of the area

are qiven dominant priority in any contemplated-resources use.

The.Marine Sanctuary portion of the inlet would not per se necessarily bar

oil and gas development. The industry however, would not be able to enter

the area until totally new technologies for environmental protection have

been developed (as fully containing drilling and well sites within completely

sealed enclosures, shipping all wastes to treatment facilities which would

provide "zero" pollutant discharges, location of shore facilities,

outside Critical Habitats).

The main emphasis of any future action, in both Kachemak Bay and Cook

Inlet must be placed upon protection., through immediate enforcement of the

most advanced and stringent environmental protection technology. Baseline

studies can be pursued ad infinitum, but availability of results from such

studies however, lag much behind the continuing demands.placed upon the

natural resources. Present actions must make use of best current available

knowledge to argue for the imposition and application of highest levels of

control and prevention technology.

Seemingly drastic measures, such as abrogating the use of Kachemak Bay

-as asource for hydrocarbons can be a first bold move in balancing the long

term values of other essential human resources against seemingly short

term gains to nurture a breaking down "energy subsidy" system.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrecht, W.A. Physical, Chemical and Biological Changes in Soil Community.
1961 In: Man's Impacts on the Environment, pp 395-418.

Asthana, V. and J.I. Marlow Oil Contamination and the Coast. Unpublished
1970 Report. Atlantic Oceanographic Laboratory. Dartmouth.
Nova Scotia, Canada.

Baker, E.G. A Geochemical Evaluation of Petroleum Migration and Accumulation.
1967 In: Fundamental Aspects of Petroleum Geochemistry. Elsevier-
Amsterdam. pp. 299-329.

Berridge, S.A., R.A. Dean and A. Fish. The Properties of Persistent Oils at
1968 Sea.. Jour. Inst. Petr. Vol. 54, No. 539, pp. 300-309.

Beving, R.L. Oil Pollution in Maritime Alaska. Master Theses. Public
1974 Administration. University of Alaska. 49 pp.

Blokker, P.C. Spreading and Evaporation of Petroleum on Water. In:
1964 Proceedings of 4th Inter. Harbor Conf. Antwerp. Vol. 5,
pp. 911-919. Ingenieursvereiningung. Antwerpen.

Blumer, M. Oil Pollution of the Ocean. In: D.P. Hoult. Oil on the Sea.
1969 pp. 5-12. Plenum Press, N.Y. Contr. No. 2336. Woods Hole
Oceanogr. Inst.

Blumer, M. Scientific Aspects of the Oil Spill Problem. Environ. Affairs
1�71 Vol. I, pp. 54-73.

Blumer, M. and J. Sass. The West Falmouth Oil Spill. Woods Hole Oceonographic
1972 Inst. Tech. Rep. No. 72-19. Woods Hole, Mass. 125 pp.

Blumer, M. and J. Sass. Oil Pollution: Persistence and Degradation of Spilled
1972 Fuel Oil. Science. Vol 176. pp. 1120-1122.

Blumer, M. and J. H. Jones. The Environmental-Fate of Stranded Crude Oil.
1973 Deep Sea. Res: Vol. 20. pp. 239-259.

Bright, D.B., F.E. Durham and J.W. Knudsen. King Crab Investigations of
1960 Cook Inlet, Alaska. Univ. of Southern California. Allan
Hancock Foundation. Dept. of Biology. L.A., Calif. 180 pp.

Brockson, R.W. and H.T. Bailey. Respiratory Response of Juvenile Chinook
1975 Salmon and Striped Bass Exposed to Benzene, a Water-soluble
Component of Crude Oil. In: Proceedings, Joint Conferences
on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills. PP. 783-792. Amer.
Pet. Inst. Wash., D.C.

Brown, L.P. and R.C. Tisher. The Decomposition of Petroleum Products
1969 in our Natural Waters. Water Resources Research Institute.
Mississippi State University. State College. Miss. 31 pp.

Burbank, D.C. Suspended Sediment Transport and Deposition in Alaskan
1974 Coastal Waters. Master Thesis. University of Alaska. Institute
of Marine Sciences.

Burwood R. and G.C. Speers. Photo-Oxidation as a Factor in the Environ-
1974 mental Dispersal of Crude Oil. Estuarine and Coastal Marine
Science. Vol. 2. pp. 117-135.

Button, D.K. Petroleum - Biological Effects in the Marine Environment.
1971 In: D.W. Hood, ed. Impigement of Man Upon the Ocean. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Canaveri, E.P. Oil Spill Dispersants - Current Status and Future Outlook.
1971 In: Proc. Joint Conf. on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills.
. pp. 263-270. Amer. Petr. Inst. Wash., D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality. OCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental
1974 Assessment. Vol. 5, 225 pp.

Dodd, E.N. The Effects of Natural Factors on the Movement, Dispersal and
1971 Destruction of Oil at Sea. U.K. Ministry of Defense. (Navy
Dept.) NTIS Springfield, Va. AD 763042.

Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Aspects of Chemical Use
1975 in Well Drilling Operations. Conference Proceedings. May, 1975.
Houston, Texas. EPA Office of Toxic Substances. Washington, D.C.
20460. Sept. 1975. 595 pp.

Evans, D.R. and S.D. Rice. Effects of Oil on Marine Ecosystems - A
1974 Review for Administrators and Policy Makers. Fish. Bull.
Vol. 72. No. 3. pp. 625-638.

Fay, J.A. The Spread of Oil Slicks on a Calm Sea. In: D.P. Hoult, ed.
1969 Oil on the Sea. pp. 53-63. Plenum Press, N.Y.

Fay, J.A. Physi cal Processes in the Spread of Oil on a Water Surface.
1971 In: Proceedings Joint Conference on Prevention and Control
of Oil Spills. pp. 463-468. Amer. Pet. Inst. Wash., D.C.

Forrester, W.D. Distribution of Suspended Oil Particles Following the
1971 Grounding of the Tanker Arrow. Journal of Marine Research.
Vol. 29, No. 2. pp. 151-170.

Foster, M., M. Neushul and R. Zingmark. The Santa Barbara Oil Spill
1971 Part 2: Initial Effects on Intertidal and Kelp Bed Organisms.
Envir. Poll. Vol 2. pp. 115-134.

Gebelin, C.D. Sedimentology and Ecology of a Carbonate Facies Mosaic.
1971 PhD Thesis. Brown University. Providence, R.I.

Goldacre, R.J. The Biological Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral
1968 Communities. Institute of Petroleum. London.
Gunkel, E. Distribution and Abundance of Oil - Oxidizing Bacterias in
1973 the North Sea. In: Ahearn and Meyers. Microbial Degradation
.of Oil Pollutants. pp. 127-140. Workshop. Georgia State Univ.
Publ. No. LSS-SG-73-01. Louisiana State Univ.

Hasler, H.D. Chemical Ecology. Academic Press.
1970

Hay, K.G. Oil and the Sea - The Ecological Implications of a Controversial
1974 Invasion, MTS Jour. Vol 8, No. 8. Jan. 1974. pp. 19-20.

Haynes, E. Preliminary Analysis of Distribution and Relative Abundance of
King Crab and Pandalid Shrimp Larvae in Kachemak Bay. Unpublished
Manuscript. NMFS Lab. Auke Bay, Alaska.

Hollinger, J.P. and R.A. Mennella. Measurement of the Distribution and
1973 Volume of Sea Surface Oils Using Multifrequency Radiometry.
Science. Vol. 181. pp. 54-56.

Ito, S. and J. Imai. Ecology of Oyster Beds: I. On the Decline of
1955 Productivity Due to Repeated Culture. Tohoku Jour. Agr. Res.
Vol. 5, pp. 251-268.

Jeffrey, P.G. Large Scale Experiments on the Spreading of Oil at Sea
1973 and Its Disappearance by Natural Factors. In: Proceedings,
Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills.
pp. 469-474. Amer. Pet. Inst. Wash., D.C.

Kash, D.E. and I.L. Waite Energy Under the Oceans. Univ. of Oklahoma
1974 Press, Norman, Ok. 378 pp.

Kelly, T.E. Kachemak Bay Lease Sale. Anchorage Times. Oct. 26, 1975
1975

Kinney, P.J., D.K. Button, D.M. Schell, B.R. Robertson and J. Groves.
1970 Quantitative Assessment of Oil Pollution Problems in Alaska's
Cook Inlet. Report No. R-69-16. U. of Alaska. 115 pp.

Knull, J.R. and R.W. Williamson. Oceanographic Survey of Kachemak Bay,
1969 Alaska. Manuscript Report File No. 60. April, 1969. 55 pp.
No. 70. July, 1969. 75 pp. No. 76. Oct., 1969. 35 pp.

Knull, J.R. Oceanography of Kachemak Bay, Alaska. Manuscript Report File
1975 No. 113. NMFS - NW Fisheries Confer. Auke Bay, Alaska. Feb.
3, 1975. 30 pp.

Kolpack, R.L., J.S. Mattson, H.B. Mark and T.C. Yu. Hydrocarbon
1971 Content of Santa Barbara Channel Sediments. Vol. II.
pp. 265-276. In: Biol. and Oceanogr. Survey of Santa
Barbara Channel. Allan Hancock Foundation. USC.

Kolpack, R.L. Biological and Oceanographical Survey of the Santa
1971 Barbara Channel Oil Spill, 1969-1970. Vol. II. Allan
Hancock Foundation. Univ. of Southern Calif. L.A. 477 pp.

Kreider, R.E. Identification of Oil Leaks and Spills. In: Proceedings
1971 Joint Conference on Prevention of Oil Spill. pp. 119-124.
Amer. Pet. Inst. Wash., D.C.

La Fond, E.C. N.E.L. Oceanographic Research Tower. Its Development and
1965 Utilization. NEL Research and Development, Report No. 1342.
December 22, 1965. Navy Electronic Research Laboratory.
San Diego. 150 pp.

Lee, R., F. Sauerheber and G.H. Dobbs Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Uptake
1972 and Discharge by the Marine Mussel, Mytilus edulis. Science.
Vol. 177. pp. 344-346.

Ludwig, H.F. and R. Carter. Analytical Characteristics of Oil-Tar
1961 Material on Southern California Beaches. Jour. Water Poll.
Control Fed. Vol. 33. pp. 1123-1139.

Lund, E.J. Self-Silting by the Oyster and its Significance for Sedimenta-
1957 tion Geology. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Texas. Vol. 4
pp. 320-327.

Mackin, J.G. A Review of Significant Papers on Effects of Oil Spills
1973 and Oil Field Brine Discharges on Marine Biotic Communities.
Project 737. Texas A & M Research Foundation. Texas A & M
University. 150 pp.

McAuliffe, C.D. Solubility in Water of Paraffin, Cycloparaffin, Olefin,
1966 Acetylene, Cycloolefin and Aromatic Hydrocarbons. J. Phys. Chrm.
Vol. 70. pp. 1267-1275.

McAuliffe, C.D. Solubility in Water of Normal C9 and C10 Alkane
1969 Hydrocarbons. Science. Vol. 158. pp. 478-479.

McAuliffe, C.D. The Environmental Impact of an Offshore Oil Spill. In:
1973 Background Papers on Input, Fates and Effects of Petroleum in the
Marine Environment. pp. 226-279. Natl. Acad. Sci. Ocean
Affairs Board. Wash., D.C.

McIlvaine, P.M. The Environmental Impact of Oil Spill. The Research
1974 Corporation of New England. Wethersfield, Conn. pp.. 235-245.

McKee, J.E. and H.W. Wolf Water Quality Criteria. Publ. No. 3-A.
1963 The Resources Agency of California. State Water Quality Control
Board. 548 pp.

Meyers, P.A. Association of Fatty Acids and Hydrocarbons with Mineral
1972 Particles in Sea Water. PhD Thesis. Univ. of Rhode Island.

Miller, R.C. and R.P. Britch. Meteorological and Oceanographic Conditions
1975 Affecting the Behavior and Fate of Oil Spills in Kachemak Bay,
Cook Inlet, Alaska. Final Report to Standard OU Co., Anchorage,
Alaska prepared by Dames and Moore. Anchorage, Alaska. 38 pp.

Mironov, D.G. Hydrocarbon Pollution of the Sea and Its Influence on
1970 Marine Organisms. Helgolander Wissenschaft Meeresunter. Vol. 17.
pp. 335-339.

Moore, S.F., R.L. Dwyer and A.M. Katz. A Preliminary Assessment of the
1973 Environmental Vulnerability of Machias Bay, Maine to Oil
Supertankers. Tech. Rpt. No. 162. Ralph M. Parson Lab for Water
Resources and Hydrodynamics. Mass. Inst. Tech. Cambridge, Mass.

National Academy of Sciences. Petroleum in the Marine Environment.
1975 Panel Report on Workshop on Inputs, Fates and the Effects of
Petroleum in the Marine Environment. May 21-25, 1973.
NAS/Wash. D.C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Preliminary Cook Inlet
1973 Data Products Report. National Ocean Survey, Oceanographic
1974 Division. NOOA. Rockville, Md. 123 pp.

Odum, E.P. Fundamentals of Ecology. W.B. Saunders Co. 3rd Ed.
101 Philadelphia, Pa. 574 pp.

Ottway, S. Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral Communities.
1971 Inst. of Petroleum. London.

Panitch, M. Offshore Drilling: Fishermen and Oilmen Clash in Alaska.
1975 Science. Vol. 189. July 18, 1975. pp. 204-206.

Pilpel The Natural Fate of Oil on the Sea. Endeavour. Vol. XXVII.
1968 No. 100. pp. 11-13. Jan. 1968.

Portmann, J.E. and P.M. Connor. The Toxicity of Several Oil Spill
1968 Removers to some species of Fish and Shellfish. Mar. Biol.
Vol. 1 pp. 322-339.

Seifert W.K. and W.G. Howells Interfacially Active Acids in a California
1969 Crude Oil. Anal. Chem. Vol. 41. pp. 554-562.
Sivadier H.O. and P.G. Mikolas. Measurement of Evaporation Rates from
1973 Oil Slicks in the Open Sea. Proceedings Joint EPA-API-USCG
Conf. on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills - March 13-15, 1973.
pp. 475-484.

Smith A.N. The Effects of Oil Pollution and Emulsifier Cleansing on
1968 Shore Life in S.W. Britain. Jour. Appl. Ecol. Vol. 5, pp. 97-107.

Smith, J.E., Ed. "Torrey Canyon" Pollution and Marine Life. Mar.
1968 Biol Assoc. U.K. Lab. Plymouth. London, Cambridge, U. Press.
196 pp.

Sprague, J.B. and W.E Carson. Toxicity Tests with Oil Dispersants in
1970 Connection with Oil Spill at Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia.
Fish. Res. Board, Canada. Tech. Rpt. No. 201.

Steinhart, J.S. and C.E. Steinhart. Energy Use iri the US Food System.
1974 Science. Vol. 154. No. 4134. pp. 307-316.

Straughan, D. The Influence of the Santa Barbara Oil Spill (January-
1973 February 1969) on the Intertidal Distribution of Marine Organisms.
Report to Western Oil and Gas Assoc. Allan Hancock Foundation. USC

Teal J.H. and J.J. Stegeman. Accumulation, Release and Retention of
1973 Petroleum Hydrocarbons by the Oyster Crassostrea virginica.
In: Background Papers for a Workshop on Inputs, Fates and
Effects of Petroleum in the Marine Environment. pp. 571-601.
Natl. Acad. Sci. Ocean Affairs Board. Wash., D.C.

Todd, J.H., J. Atema and D.B. Boylon. Chemical Communication in the Sea.
1972 M.T.S. Jour. Vol. 6, No. 4. pp. 54-58.

U.S. Congress. House Committee on Government Operations. Our Threatened
1974., Environment, Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. House Report
No. 93-1396. Oct. 1, 1974.

Westman, W.E. Some Basic Issues in Water Pollution Control Legislation.
1972 Amer. Scient. Vol. 60. No. 6, pp. 767-772. Nov-Dec 1972

Wilber, C.G. Biological Aspects-of Water Pollution
1968

Wright, F.F., G.D. Sharma and D.C. Burbank. ERTS I. Observance of Sea
1973 Circulation and Sediment Transfer, Cook Inlet, Alaska. In:
Symposium on Significant Results Obtained from the ERTS I.
Section B. pp. 1315-1322.

Zobell, C.E. The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Oil Polluting the Sea.
1964 In: Proceedings, International Conference on Water Pollution
Research. pp. 85-109. London. Permagon Press. London.

11101111110m,
3 6668 14102 4200