United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4303)
EPA821-R-95-013
February 1995
The Potential Benefits Of
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
For Coastal Oil And Gas Facilities
In Cook Inlet, Alaska
-------
-------
THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF
EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES
FOR COASTAL OIL AND GAS
FACILITIES IN COOK INLET, ALASKA
Final Report
Prepared for:
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Engineering and Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
February 6, 1995
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and
Analysis Division. This report was prepared with the support of RCG/Hagler Bally
(contract 68-CO-0080), under the direction and review of the Office of Science and
Technology Neither the United States Government nor any of its employees, contractors,
subcontractors, or their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied or assumes
any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use of or the results of such use of
any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its
use by such third party would not infringe on privately owned rights.
-------
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
o-l
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Scope and Purpose of the Report j_j
1.2 Organization of the Report ' ' ' j"j
Chapter 2 Description of the Resources
2.1 Physical Characteristics 2 i
2.2 Biological Resources 2 3
2.3 Fisheries Dependent on Cook Inlet's Aquatic Environment . . . . . '.'.'.'.'.' 2-5
2,3.1 Commercial Fisheries 2-6
2.3.2 Recreational Fisheries 27
2.3.3 Personal Use Fisheries 2-12
2.3.4 Subsistence Fisheries \ _ 2-14
2.4 Conclusions ~]f.
Chapter 3 Impact of the Proposed Regulation
3.1 Regulatory Options , *
3.1.1 Options Proposed for Drilling Fluids and Cuttings ........ 3-1
3.1.2 Proposed Option for Produced Water 3_2
3.2 Cook Inlet Facilities Affected by the Proposed Guidelines ".'.'. 3^3
3.3 Estimated Loadings Reductions 3_3
Chapter 4 Potential Benefits of the Proposed Regulation
4.1 Potential Ecologic Impacts of Coastal Oil and Gas Discharges and
Improvements Associated with the Proposed Regulation 4_1
4.1.1 Potential Impacts of Contaminants found in Coastal Oil and Gas
Effluents on Biotic Resources 4_2
4.1.2 Evaluation of the Potential Ecologic Improvements'Associated
with the Proposed Effluent Guidelines in Cook Inlet 4.7
4.2 Overview of Concepts Applicable to the Benefits Analysis ........ . . . 4.9
4.2.1 The Economic Concept of Benefits 4.9
4.2.2 Overview of Benefit Categories 4-10
4.2.3 Causality: Linking the Regulation to Beneficial Outcomes 4-12
4.3 Potential Benefits of the Proposed Regulation 4.12
Chapter 5 References
""**••••••••••••... •}"!
Appendix A Summary of Toxic Effects of Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals on
Marine Organisms
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.I INTRODUCTION
This report provides preliminary insights into the types of benefits that are likely to result
from the proposed effluent limitations guidelines for the coastal subcategory of the oil and gas
extraction industry in Cook Inlet, Alaska. The proposed rulemaking will impact discharges of
produced water, and drilling fluids and drill cuttings from coastal oil £ind gas facilities in
Upper Cook Inlet. Reductions in loadings of oil and grease, total suspended solids (TSS),
hydrocarbons, and metals to the inlet are anticipated as a result.
The benefits analysis provided in this report is qualitative in nature, and is not intended to
provide precise benefits estimates. Additional research is necessary to quantify the potential
benefits of the proposed regulation. However, the analysis shows that Cook Inlet's resources
are highly valued, and that the benefits of water pollution controls in the inlet may be
significant. The following sections provide a description of Cook Inlet's resources, the
proposed guidelines, and potential benefits of proposed guidelines in Cook Inlet.
S.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES
Cook Inlet is a large tidal estuary located in southcentral Alaska. Then; are a wide variety of
biological resources in the inlet, including microbial populations, phytoplankton, pelagic fish,
groundfish, aquatic invertebrates, marine mammals, and avian species. Several endangered
species may also occur in or near the inlet. And, as shown below, this ecosystem supports
highly valued commercial, recreational, personal use, and subsistence fisheries.
Commercial Fisheries
Cook Inlet supports commercial finfisheries for salmon, halibut, herring, and pacific cod. The
salmon fishery in Upper Cook Inlet accounts for the majority of the harvest and value. In
1993, the upper inlet commercial salmon harvest was about 5.3 million, salmon while the
lower inlet harvest was about 1.1 million salmon (Simpson, 1994). Sockeye salmon was the
most important species in Upper Cook Inlet while halibut and herring were the most
important species in Lower Cook Inlet. Cook Inlet commercial shellfisheries include clam,
crabs, and shrimp. About 84% of the shellfishing value is from tanner crabs, shrimp, green
urchins, and razor clams.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY > S-2
The total value of Cook Inlet commercial fisheries (finfish and shellfish) is estimated at
approximately $46.5 million (in 1992 dollars). Upper Cook Inlet salmon fisheries comprise
about 63% of this total.
Recreational Fisheries
Cook Inlet also supports a large and diverse recreational fishery. Cook Inlet area waters
provide over 50% of the total (saltwater and freshwater) sport fishing days in Alaska (Mills,
1993). In 1992, there were an estimated 375,993 saltwater recreational fishing days in Cook
Inlet (Mills, 1993). Much of this activity is focused on catching halibut and chinook salmon.
Shellfishing in the inlet is mainly for razor clams. Razor clams are harvested along the
eastern beaches of the Kenai Peninsula and at Polly Creek Beach and Crescent River Bar on
western Cook Inlet. There were also an estimated 725,348 freshwater recreational fishing days
for anadromous species (salmon, steelhead, and smelt) in the area. Local populations of these
targeted species are dependent on the marine environment of Cook Inlet.
Research shows that recreational fishing opportunities in southcentral Alaska are highly
valued. In one travel cost study, the authors estimated a mean willingness to pay
(WTP) per choice occasion for sport fishing at various sites (Hanemann et al., 1987). In Cook
Inlet, the WTP for halibut fishing at Kachemak bay was estimated at $27.2 (1986 dollars).
Freshwater salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet area was especially highly valued (e.g., $53.83
for King (chinook) salmon in the Kenai River). Razor clam harvesting (all sites) was
somewhat lower valued at $2.70 per choice occasion.
Multiplying the estimated site- and species-specific WTP by the number of saltwater and
freshwater recreational fishing, days results in baseline values of the fisheries of approximately
$9.1 million and $16.8 million per year, respectively (updated to 1992 dollars). Thus, the
combined baseline value of the recreational fishery is approximately $25.9 million per year
(1992 dollars).
Personal Use Fisheries
Personal use fisheries allow Alaskan residents more liberal catch limits and harvest techniques
than recreational fisheries. Approximately 50,072 salmon were harvested in Cook Inlet
personal use fisheries in 1992. Although there are no estimates of the economic value of
personal use fisheries in Cook Inlet, personal use fisheries provide Alaskan citizens with a
food source that would otherwise have to be purchased elsewhere.
Subsistence Fisheries
Cook Inlet also provides subsistence fishery resources to Native American populations. Alaska
has a unique property rights structure in which hunting and fishing rights are prioritized by
law, and subsistence harvesters are given priority over both sport and commercial harvesters
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY > S-3
(Brown and Burch, 1992). Cook Inlet was designated as a "nonsubsistence area" in 1992 by
the Alaska Board of Fisheries. However, exceptions were provided to the Alaska Native
Villages of Tyonek, Port Graham, and English Bay (Nelson, 1994). Tyonek is located on the
northwestern shore of Cook Inlet and has a population of 121. The villages of Port Graham
and English Bay, with populations of 145 and 161 respectively, are located near the mouth of
Cook Inlet on Kachemak Bay.
The three Cook Inlet subsistence fisheries had a total harvest of 6,583 salmon. Tyonek,
English Bay, and Port Graham also have subsistence shellfisheries. The Tyonek people utilize
clamming beds south of their village on the western shore of Cook Inlet. Tyonek clamming
parties harvest about 3,000 razor clams, butter clams, and cockles annually. English Bay and
Port Graham villagers have traditionally harvested shellfish from areas near the mouth of
Kachemak Bay. Shellfish resources harvested at English Bay and Port Graham include clams,
chiton, cockles, mussels, crabs, shrimp, octopus, and snails.
There are no estimates of the economic value of the Cook Inlet subsistence fisheries.
However, Cook Inlet's subsistence fisheries provide a food source to Alaskan Native
populations that would otherwise have to be purchased elsewhere. In addition, subsistence
fisheries are of cultural value to Alaskan Native populations in that they allow the
continuance of a traditional lifestyle dependent on the natural resources of the Inlet.
Total Baseline Fishery Value
Table S-l provides a summary of the baseline fishery values. In 1992 dollars, the estimated
value of Cook Inlet's commercial and recreational fisheries is approximately $72.4 million per
year. In addition, personal use and subsistence fisheries provide a food source and cultural
values to Alaskan residents and Alaskan native populations.
S.3 IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION
Regulatory options for Cook Inlet were considered in conjunction with all areas of the Gulf of
Mexico. Options were developed separately for drilling fluids (muds) and drill cuttings and
for produced water, as shown in Tables S-2 and S-3. EPA is co-proposing three options for
the control of drilling fluids and drill cuttings, and has selected Option 4 for produced water.
Reductions in loadings of oil and grease, total suspended solids, aromatic hydrocarbons and
metals from eight facilities in Cook Inlet are anticipated as a result of the proposed
guidelines. For drilling fluids and drill cuttings, loadings are expected to be reduced by
3,868,896 pounds (17%) under Option 2. Under Option 3, reductions total 22,739,018 pounds
Reductions in radionuclides are also expected in produced waters.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY >> S-4
(100%) (No loadings reductions are associated with Option 1.) For produced water,
reductions in loadings of 1,502,566 pounds (43%) are anticipated under selected Option 4.
Of the contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents, aromatic hydrocarbons and metals
are of special concern to aquatic organisms. The anticipated reductions in loadings of these
two pollutant groups from the eight facilities resulting from combinations of alternative and
selected options are summarized in Table S-4.
Table S-l
Annual Baseline Value of Cook Inlet1 Fisheries (1992 dollars)
Fishery
Value ($ Millions)
Commercial2 (Finfisheries and Shellfisheries)
$46.5
Recreational3
Saltwater
Freshwater
Total Recreational
$9.1
$16.8
$25.9
Personal Use
Subsistence
TOTAL
$72.4
Refers to the entire Cook Inlet
Commercial revenues from fishing. Revenues may overstate producer surplus as they do not
account for costs.
Consumer surplus.
Value is positive but not quantified.
Table S-2
Coastal Oil and Gas Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Cook Inlet
Options Considered for Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
Option 1
Offshore limitations (including 30,000 ppm
toxicity limit in the suspended paniculate phase
(SPP)) .
Option 2
Option 3
Offshore limitations with a more stringent
toxicity limit (between 100,000 and one million
ppm (SPP))
Zero discharge
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY * S-5
Table S-3
Coastal Oil and Gas Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Cook Inlet:
Options Considered for Produced Water
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4*
Option 5
BPT1 for Gulf of Mexico and Cook Inlet
Offshore limitations for Gulf of Mexico and
Cook Inlet
Zero discharge for Gulf of Mexico and BPT1
for Cook Inlet
Zero discharge for Gulf of Mexico and offshore
limitations for Cook Inlet
Zero discharges for Gulf of Mexico and Cook
Inlet
Best Practicable Technology (limitations for oil and grease of: (1) 48 mg/1 as a monthly per-
day average; and (2) 72 mg/1 as a daily maximum).
* Selected option.
Table S-4
Summary of Anticipated Loadings Reductions for Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals
from Impacted Facilities in Cook Inlet
Guideline Reduction Options
Drilling Fluids and Drill
Cuttings (Option 2)
Drilling Fluids and Drill
Cuttings (Option 3)
Produced Water (Option 4)
Aromatic Hydrocarbons - pounds
reduced (% Reduction*)
157 (100%)
157 (100%)
109,151 (61%)
Combined (Option 2 for Drilling
Fluids and Drill Cuttings)
Combined (Option 3 for Drilling
Fluids and Drill Cuttings)
109,308 (61%)
109,308 (61%)
Metals - pounds reduced
(% Reduction*)
176,070 (17%)
1,035,705 (100%)
548,154 (36%)
724,224 (28%)
1,583,859 (62%)
Percent reduction reflects reduction of loadings from facilities, not total loadings reductions for
Cook Inlet.
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION * S-6
S.4 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION
The continuous long-term release of contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents may
have a negative impact upon Cook Inlet's natural resources. Aquatic organisms, in particular,
may be adversely affected by exposure to these pollutants, and detrimental impacts may occur
even at low concentration levels. Thus, ecologic improvements may result from reductions in
current loadings. Because Alaska appeals to the American public as an unspoiled wilderness
and the fact that the inlet supports many important species, society is likely to value these
improvements.
This section describes the potential ecologic impacts of the contaminants found in coastal oil
and gas effluents and the potential improvements resulting from the proposed guidelines.
Then, general concepts applicable to the benefits analysis and the potential nonuse values
resulting from the proposed guidelines are discussed.
Potential Impacts of Contaminants found in Coastal Oil and Gas Effluents on Cook
Inlet's Biotic Resources
The continuous, long-term release of low levels of contaminants present in drilling fluids and
drill cuttings and produced waters is of particular concern for the natural resources in marine
and estuarine habitats, such as Cook Inlet. Chronic pollution of such areas should be carefully
evaluated with respect to the maintenance of the coastal and offshore fishing grounds, and the
abiotic and biotic resources that sustain the fisheries. Knowledge of the fates, exposure
pathways, and effects of the contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents is necessary
for understanding the potential impacts of the discharges and the potential benefits of the
proposed guidelines.
Fate: Physical, Chemical, Biotic Transformation. The fate of contaminants associated with
coastal oil and gas discharges in Cook Inlet is a function of the Inlet's unique physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics that influence the weathering processes and
distribution of the contaminants. Following discharge into coastal waters, the chemical
composition of the effluents are transformed by combinations of physical, chemical, and
biological processes that disperse the pollutants in the environment. Eventually, it should be
expected that these contaminants will be widely distributed among sediments, soils, water, air,
and biota hi the marine/estuarine environment in which the discharge takes place. It should be
noted that the biodegradation of certain hydrocarbons does not necessarily result in products
(or metabolites) that are less toxic than the parent pollutant. In fact, the biodegradation of a
small proportion of aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene) produces metabolites that
are more toxic than the parent compound, resulting in mutagenic and carcinogenic chemicals
(NRC, 1985).
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION > S-7
Exposure Pathways. Contaminants present in coastal oil and gas discharges to marine
environments can effect the natural resources either through direct or indirect pathways of
exposure. Direct pathways of exposure occur when natural resources come in direct contact,
either singularly or in combination, with the contaminants coastal in :the water column,
sediments, or diet. Indirect pathways of exposure occur when habitat resources (e.g., spawning
beds, prey sources) have been reduced or otherwise altered by the contaminants.
Biotic Effects. Biological organisms are effective receptors for the contaminants found in
coastal oil and gas effluents through the uptake, accumulation, and eventual metabolic
degradation of the various contaminants. In aquatic resources, it is critical to evaluate the
effects of low concentrations of the contaminants because even low concentrations in water,
sediment, or diet are likely to impair fitness, produce adverse-physiological effects that lead to
death or that, at least, lower long-term survivability in the wild. There is extensive
documentation on the long-term, injurious effects of oil substances at relatively low
concentrations to aquatic biota in shielded or enclosed waters. Therefore, a continued need
exists to evaluate the chronic toxicities of the contaminants found in coastal oil and gas
effluents to help evaluate how low level exposures can reduce the viability of Cook Inlet's
resident and migratory biota.
Exposure to contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents can impact various biological
levels of organization which result in four identified biotic responses (Table S-5). The four
biotic responses — lethal toxicity, sublethal toxicity, bioaccumulation, and habitat alteration ~
provide broad categorization for a multitude of specific biotic responses. The observed effects
of contaminants found in coastal oil and gas pollutants on the various biological levels
include a list of quantifiable endpoints ranging from lethality endpoints (death or moribundity,
due to direct exposure to acutely toxic concentrations or indirect exposure to sublethal
concentrations that eventually cause death) to sub-lethal endpoints due to direct or indirect
exposures that cause physiological or behavioral abnormalities, including genetic mutations,
behavioral changes, disease, cancer, and growth or physiological impairments.
Table S-5
Responses to Contaminants found in Coastal Oil and Gas Effluents
Biotic Response
Lethal Toxicity
Sublethal Toxicity
Bioaccumulation
Habitat Alteration
Sub-cellular
X
X
X
Cellular
X
X
X
Organism
X
X
X
X
Population
X
X
X
X
Community
X
X
X
X
Ecosystem
X
X
X
X
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION + S-8
Evaluation of the Potential Ecologic Improvements Associated with the Effluent
Guidelines in Cook Inlet
There is limited quantitative data for evaluating the potential impacts and therefore the
potential benefits from the proposed effluent limitation guidelines. A complete analysis of the
risks of exposing the biotic resources of Cook Inlet to the contaminants found in coastal oil
and gas effluents, even at "low levels", would include the following:
1. Inventories describing resident biotic and abiotic resources of ecological,
commercial, and recreational value,
2. An assessment of migratory biota utilizing Cook Inlet habitats and an
assessment of the ecological interactions between resident and migratory
species,
3. Development of fate and transport models to describe the biotic and abiotic
uptake, distribution, transformation, and accumulation of coastal oil and gas
pollutants in Cook Inlet, and
4. Knowledge of the chronic toxicity and associated biotic responses caused by
exposure of ecologically important species and habitats to contaminants found
in coastal oil and gas effluents. ;
Although a complete analysis of the potential water quality improvements in Cook Inlet from
the proposed guidelines is not available, research indicates that the contaminants present in
coastal oil and gas effluents have the potential to impact biological resources in the manner
described above. The present concentrations of these contaminants in Cook Inlet surface
waters are unlikely to cause acute, sudden lethality. Yet the current discharges provides
exposure levels that could cause sublethal effects in the aquatic resources.
For example, low concentrations of the contaminants (including metals) will cause avoidance
behaviors in salmon that may lead to changes in their migration patterns (e.g., Rice, 1974;
Babcock, 1985). Changes in behavior or impaired physiology of the organisms may influence
the production and recruitment strategies in the important fisheries resources of Cook Inlet.2
By limiting or eliminating discharges of the contaminants, the fisheries would be less likely to
avoid contaminated areas of Cook Inlet. Reducing the risk of avoidance by fishes in Cook
Inlet may improve the stock production of important salmonids.
2 Sockeye salmon runs in bays near the lower portions of Cook Inlet have been severely depressed
since 1984 to the extent that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has closed commercial, sport, and
subsistence fishing to protect returning adults (in English Bay and Port Graham) (see Bucher and
Hammarstrom, 1994).
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION >• S-:9
Additional Cook Inlet resources that would potentially benefit from the regulation include
those species and lifestages that are particularly sensitive and susceptible to contaminants
found in coastal oil and gas effluents. Planktonic organisms (including planktonic fish eggs
and shellfish larvae) would benefit from the regulations by reducing the risk of exposure to
pollutants dispersed and transported by tides and currents in Cook Inlet. Benthic organisms
(including organisms in the intertidal zone) would benefit from reduced exposures to
pollutants being deposited and accumulating in the sediments. Finfish and shellfish would
benefit through reductions in risk of direct exposure to water-soluble fractions of the
contaminants and reductions in the risk of exposure to contaminated-food sources.
Overview of Concepts Applicable to the Benefits Analysis
The Economic Concept of Benefits. The general term benefits refers to' any and all outcomes
of the regulation that are considered positive; that is, that could contribute to an enhanced
level of social welfare. The term "economic benefits" refers to the dollar value associated
with all the expected positive impacts of the regulation (not all ecological improvements
necessarily result in substantial economic benefits). Conceptually, the monetary value of
benefits is embodied by the sum of the predicted changes in "consumer (and producer)
surplus." These "surplus" measures are standard and widely accepted terms of applied welfare
economics, and reflect the degree of well-being enjoyed by people given different levels of
goods and prices (including those associated with environmental quality). These measures also
reflect the standard anthropocentric approach to estimating benefits — that all values arise
from how environmental changes are perceived and valued by humans.
Overview of Benefit Categories. The benefits typically observed as a result of changes hi the
water resource environment are divided into use and nonuse benefits. Use benefit categories
can embody both direct and indirect uses of affected waters, and the direct use category
embraces both consumptive and nonconsumptive activities. In most applications to water
quality improvement scenarios, the most prominent use benefit categories are those related to
human health risk reductions, and those related to enhanced recreational fishing, boating
and/or swimming. Recreational activities have received considerable empirical attention from
economic researchers over the past two decades because they are amenable to various
nonmarket valuation techniques (e.g., travel cost models). Thus, there is a, considerable body
of knowledge relating to recreational fishing and associated activities, and these generally
indicate that water-based recreation is a highly valued activity in today's society.
Improved environmental quality can also be valued by individuals apart from any past,
present or anticipated future use of the resource hi question. Such nonuse values may be of a
highly significant magnitude; however, the benefit value to assign to these motivations often
is a matter of considerable debate. Whereas human uses of a resource can. be observed
directly and valued with a range of technical economic techniques, nonuse values can only be
ascertained from asking survey respondents to directly reveal their values. The inability to
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION * S-10
rely on revealed behavior to ascertain nonuse values has led to considerable debate as to how
to best measure such intrinsic values for applicable changes in environmental quality.
Among the more relevant nonuse values associated with the proposed effluent limitations are
"ecologic benefits." The potential ecologic benefits from the proposed regulations in Cook
Inlet may also ultimately translate into measurable use benefits.
Potential Nonuse Values
There is insufficient data on the expected ecologic improvements in Cook Inlet or society's
willingness to pay for water quality improvements in Cook Inlet to quantify the benefits of
the proposed guidelines. Nonetheless, as suggested by McCollum et al. (1992), because
Alaska's resources are unique and viewed as "the last bastion of unspoiled wildlife habitat," it
is probable that nonuse values (including existence and bequest values) held by nonresidents
are very large, and may even outweigh use values.
The baseline value of Cook Inlet's commercial and recreational fisheries is approximately
$72.4 million per year (1992 dollars); in addition, there are important personal use and
subsistence fisheries hi the Inlet. Therefore, nonuse values for the inlet may be large, and
even small positive changes in these values (benefits) may be significant.
Research associated with the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound shows
that society holds very high nonuse values for Alaska's resources. A study of the lost nonuse
value associated with the spill indicated that households were willing to pay $31.90 per
household, or $2.9 billion nationwide (in 1992 dollars) to avoid an oil spill of similar
magnitude in the future (Carson et al., 1992). Given the magnitude of nonuse values held by
the non-Alaskan public for Prince William Sound, it is probable that nonuse values for Cook
Inlet are also high.
S.5 CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, although there is limited information with which to assess the benefits of the
proposed effluent limitations guidelines for Cook Inlet, research shows that even low levels of
contaminants found in coastal oil and gas discharges have the potential to impact the inlet's
aquatic resources. Loadings reductions associated with the proposed guidelines may ultimately
result in measurable improvements in uses of the resources; society may also value these
improvements apart from any past, present, or anticipated use of the resources.
There are no available estimates of WTP for the anticipated loadings reductions. However,
evidence suggests that nonuse values for Cook Inlet are likely to be very large. Thus, even
small changes in these values may be significant. Based on the estimated annual baseline use
value of Cook Inlet's commercial and recreational fisheries alone ($72.4 million, 1992 dollars)
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION »> S-11
and the estimated costs of the co-proposed and selected options ($2.24 million, $3.6 million,
and $6.1), changes in baseline fishery-related values attributable to the proposed guidelines of
3.1%, 5.0%, and 8.5%, respectively, would be required for the monetized portion of benefits
to equal costs. This comparison considers only increases in baseline values for a portion of
the total use value of the Inlet, and does not include changes in some use and all nonuse
values that are likely to result from the rulemaking. As discussed above, there is reason to
believe that nonuse values may be as large or larger than use values. ,
-------
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report is intended to provide preliminary insight into the types of benefits likely to
accrue from proposed effluent limitation guidelines for coastal oil and gas facilities in Cook
Inlet, Alaska. The proposed rulemaking is anticipated to impact discharges of produced waters
and drilling fluids and drill cuttings from eight produced water outfalls and 36 new drilling
wells1 in Upper Cook Inlet. Reduced loadings of oil and grease, TSS, hydrocarbons, and
metals to Cook inlet are anticipated as a result.
Because no new scientific research was conducted in Cook Inlet, the analysis of benefits from
the regulation provided below is primarily qualitative, and is not intended to provide precise
benefit estimates. The emphasis is on the potential impacts of coastal oil and gas discharges
to biotic resources, and how the regulation may generate benefits by reducing these
discharges. Further researches required to more accurately quantify these benefits.
Nonetheless, as described in the body of this report, Cook Inlet's resources are highly valued.
Thus, the potential benefits from water pollution controls in the inlet may be significant.
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides a general description of the resources
and estimated baseline values of important fisheries dependent on Cook Inlet's aquatic
environment. Chapter 3 provides information on the anticipated impact of the proposed
regulation on coastal oil and gas discharges in Cook Inlet. Finally, Chapter 4 provides a
qualitative description of the potential benefits of the proposed regulation.
Nineteen recompletions are also anticipated.
-------
-------
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES
This chapter provides a description of the natural resources in Cook Inlet, and the estimated
baseline values for these resources. Section 2.1 describes the physical characteristics of the
inlet and the recreational opportunities it provides. Section 2.2 discusses the biological
resources of the inlet, including endangered and sensitive populations. Section 2.3 describes
important fisheries dependent on the aquatic environment, and where possible, the estimated
value of these fisheries.
2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Cook Inlet is a tidal estuary located in southcentral Alaska. It is approximately 175 miles long
and ranges in width from 12 to 55 miles. Cook Inlet is divided into two regions: Upper Cook
Inlet and Lower Cook Inlet. Upper Cook Inlet begins north of Anchor Point at the Forelands
and extends northeast towards Anchorage. Lower Cook Inlet extends from the Forelands south
to the Gulf of Alaska. The Kenai Peninsula forms the eastern shore of the Inlet, while the
Lake Clark and Katmai National Parks and Preserves lie on much of the western border. The
eight produced water outfalls in Cook Inlet impacted by the proposed effluent guidelines are
located in the upper portion of the inlet. A map of Cook Inlet is provided in Figure 2-1.
Cook Inlet is an extremely dynamic estuarine system and its physical characteristics influence
the fate and transport of contaminants in its waters (Hyland et al., 1993). These effects are
described in greater detail in Chapter 4. Water movement in Cook Inlet is dominated by the
tidal cycle. Normal tidal heights in the inlet vary from 5.5 meters at Kachemak Bay to 8.8
meters at Anchorage with extreme tides of over 11 meters, giving Cook Inlet some of the
largest tidal ranges in the world (Hyland et al., 1993). The extreme tidal ranges produce
strong tidal currents in the inlet (Minerals Management Service, 1984; Hyland et al., 1993).
Due to freshwater inputs from rivers and precipitation, there is an overall outflow of water
from Cook Inlet into the Gulf of Alaska.
Anchorage, Alaska's largest city, is located at the head of Cook Inlet. Population centers on
the Kenai Peninsula include Kenai, Soldotna, and Homer. Route 1 on the Kenai Peninsula
provides access to the Cook Inlet area's unique recreational opportunities for both Alaska
residents and nonresidents. The Cook Inlet area offers opportunities for fishing, wildlife
viewing, and wilderness experiences. For example, there are eleven state recreation areas
along the eastern shore of Cook Inlet on the Kenai Peninsula, as well as the Kachemak Bay
State Park/Wilderness Park, which is accessible by boat or plane from Homer. The state
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES »• 2-2
Figure 2-1
Map of Cook Inlet, Alaska
Onshore
O Treatment
Facility
CHI Refinery
(Objects not drawn to scale)
Anchorage
Rivers
Roads
Kenai
Peninsula
Cook
Inlet
Kachemak
Bay
Kamishak
Bay
Alaska
Gulf of
Alaska
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES + 2-3
recreation areas provide campsites, picnic areas, trails, fishing opportunities and access areas,
and boat launch facilities.
2.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are a wide variety of biological resources in the Cook Inlet area. These resources and
their viability are interrelated, and all are necessary components of the Cook Inlet ecosystem.
These biological resources include microbial populations, phytoplankton, pelagic fish,
groundfish, aquatic invertebrates, marine mammals, and avian species. Several endangered
species may also occur in or near Cook Inlet. The following discussion is based on Minerals
Management Service (1984) and Hood and Zimmerman (1987).
Intertidal and Subtidal Communities
Protected habitats, composed of unconsolidated cobble, gravel, sand, or silt, dominate this
coastline. Salt marshes occur in the upper part of the Inlet. Overall standing stock biomass of
kelp beds at sites in Cook Inlet were 1.98 kg/m2. Subtidal invertebrates are rare in the turbid
waters of upper Cook Inlet; however, in lower Cook Inlet, invertebrate biomass and species
diversity is high. Total benthic production of lower Cook Inlet is 2.5 to 10.0 gC/m2y. Lower
Cook Inlet supports populations of Tanner, red king, and Dungeness crabs as well as shrimp.
Mollusks may also be found in the area, including the chiton, weatheirvane scallop, razor
clam, butter clam, cockle, geoduck clam, pinto abalone, and octopus. As described in Sections
2.3.1 and 2.3.2, commercial and recreational shellfisheries are very important to Cook Inlet.
Fisheries
Over 100 species of fish inhabit the Cook Inlet area. Several rivers and streams in the area
(e.g., the Kasilof, Kenai, and Susitna) are critical pelagic fish spawning areas. Pelagic fish
found in Cook Inlet include salmon (e.g., chinook, sockeye, coho, pink, and chum), trout
(e.g., steelhead), and herring. Groundfish species include roundfish (e.g., pollock and pacific
cod), rockfish (e.g., ocean perch), and flatfish (e.g., halibut). Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 describe
the importance of commercial and recreational fisheries in Cook Inlet.
Marine and Coastal Birds
There are a wide variety of seabirds, waterfowl, and shore birds that use the area for breeding
and nesting. These include petrels, gulls, puffins, bald eagle, cackling Canada goose, Tule
goose, Emperor goose, and Pacific black brant.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES >• 2-4
Marine Mammals
Nonendangered marine mammals are resident or occur seasonally in Cook Inlet, including the
sea lion, fur seal, harbor seal, sea otter, and beluga whale. Most of the Gulf of Alaska
population of beluga whales inhabit Cook Inlet, where they are present year-round. Several
endangered cetacean (whale) species including the humpback whale, fin whale, sei whale, and
gray whale may migrate to areas in or near Cook Inlet.
Zooplankton
Zooplankton in Cook Inlet serve as food for higher trophic levels including fishes, birds, and
mammals. Copepods, in particular, are a critical food source for larval fish and their presence
or absence affects fish production in the Gulf of Alaska. Copepods make up the majority of
Zooplankton biomass and are the dominant taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. There are
approximately 30 other species of Zooplankton that also occur with regularity in the Gulf.
Zooplankton grazing seems to control both the stock and production of phytoplankton in the
open ocean. Shelf and coastal zooplankton exhibit seasonal variation in standing stock that
appears to be a response to phytoplankton production. Zooplankton biomass is greatest in the
summer and fall, ranging from 30 g/m2 in the open ocean to 1,600 g/m2 in deep inside
waters. Biomass decreases in winter, with the greatest reductions occurring in the open ocean
(values decline to 1.5 g/m2), and lesser reductions in the deep inside waters (1,320 g/m2).
Zooplankton production may reach up to 30 g C/m2y in the upper 150 meters of the open
ocean. Estimates of production over the shelf and in the inside waters range from 27 to 50 g
C/m*y.
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton species present in abundant numbers in lower Cook Inlet include chrysophytes,
diatoms, dinoflagellates, green algae, and microflagellates.
The Gulf of Alaska shelf is quite productive with respect to primary photosynthesis; annual
primary production in the lower Cook Inlet is approximately 300 gC/m2. Production may be
associated with upwelling that is induced by both coastal and near-shelf water movements. In
the lower Cook Inlet, this upwelling appears to play an important role in maintaining the
large daily production (> 1 gC/m2) throughout the summer.
Annual production hi coastal areas is estimated to range from 140 to over 200 gC/m2,
compared to Cook Inlet production of 300 gC/m2. Large standing crops of phytoplankton
build up near the shore. Dense chlorophyll a concentrations usually appear briefly in surface
waters, although subsurface chlorophyll a layers may persist throughout the summer.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES > 2-5
Microbial Populations
Microbial populations in the Gulf of Alaska are taxonomically and physiologically diverse,
and comparable in population levels to communities hi other regions of the Pacific Ocean. As
an important base component of food webs, microorganisms contribute to overall productivity
via important roles in carbon and nitrogen cycling. For example, chum salmon fry feed
heavily on harpacticoid copepods during their first few weeks in saltwater, and bacteria are
the primary food of harpacticoid copepods. Microbial productivity is critical to salmonid
productivity.
High rates of microbial productivity in nearshore waters appear directly related to river inputs.
This occurrence was observed on a large scale in Cook Inlet. Relatively high numbers of
microorganisms also occur in the top few centimeters of most marine sediments. Microbial
numbers decrease in pelagic waters and in deeper sediment layers. This further supports the
notion that healthy microbial communities are vital resources of Cook Inlet.
Endangered and Threatened Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 defines an endangered species as any species which is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The act defines a
threatened species as one which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
There are no animal species officially listed as threatened in the area. Neither are there any
listed endangered plants in areas adjacent to Cook Inlet. The following is a list of endangered
species which may occur within or near Cook Inlet.
There are at least four endangered cetacean species which may occur in or near Cook Inlet.
These include the humpback whale, fin whale, sei whale, and gray whale. Other endangered
cetacean species, including the blue whale and right whale, were historically abundant in or
near these waters, have now become so rare (in the case of the right whale, possibly
biologically extinct) as to be unlikely to found in the area.
Endangered avian species which may occur as migrants in or near Cook Inlet include the
short-tailed albatross, American peregrine falcon, and Arctic peregrine falcon.
2.3 FISHERIES DEPENDENT ON COOK INLET'S AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Cook Inlet provides important commercial, recreational, personal use, and subsistence
fisheries. Important species include salmon, halibut, herring, trout, and razor clams. A
description of these fisheries is provided below. Estimated baseline values are provided for
the commercial and recreational fisheries. Unless noted otherwise, the baseline values
provided for Cook Inlet refer to the entire Cook Inlet.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES »• 2-6
2.3.1 Commercial Fisheries
Finfisheries
Cook Inlet supports commercial fmfisheries for salmon, halibut, herring, and pacific cod. The
salmon fishery in Upper Cook Inlet accounts for the majority of the commercial fmfish
harvest and value. In 1993, the upper inlet commercial salmon harvest was about 5.3 million
salmon while the lower inlet harvest was about 1.1 million salmon (Simpson, 1994). As
shown in Table 2-1, sockeye salmon was the most important commercial species in Upper
Cook Inlet. Halibut and herring were the most important species in Lower Cook Inlet in 1993.
Shellfisheries
Cook Inlet supports commercial shellfisheries for a wide variety of species including clam,
crabs, and shrimp. As shown in Table 2-2, about 84% of the total value of 1993 Cook Inlet
commercial shellfisheries is from tanner crabs, shrimp, green urchins, and razor clams (in
order of value).
Table 2-1
Cook Inlet1 1993 Commercial Finfisheries
Fishery
Chinook salmon
Sockeye salmon
Coho salmon
Pink salmon
Chum salmon
Halibut3
Herring3
Pacific Cod
TOTAL
Total Harvest
(Ibs)
552,754
29,071,042
1,887,224
2,665,059
139,318
6,058,396
2,196,004
2,195,764
44,765,561
Ex-vessel Value2
(millions)
$0.57
$29.75
$0.95
$0.31
$0.04
$7.06
$7.06
$0.35
$46.10
Upper Inlet Percentage of
Harvest
95%
97%
96%
12%
97%
na
0%
0%
Note: Detail may not add due to rounding.
na = not available
1 Refers to the entire Cook Inlet.
2 Calculated by multiplying the pounds harvested by value per pound from Simpson, 1994.
3 Harvest from catcher/processor vessels not included.
Source: All information is from Simpson, 1994, except pounds of pacific cod harvested which is from
Bectol, 1994.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES » 2-7
Table 2-2
Cook Inlet1 1993 Commercial Shellfisheries
Fishery
Tanner crab
Dungeness crab
Razor clams
Hardshell clams & mussels
Green urchins
Sea cucumbers
Scallops
Octopus
Shrimp (pot)
Shrimp (trawl)
TOTAL
Pounds Harvested
284,676
na2
310,000
63,6762
195,403
32,005
20,115
1,292
8,356
na2
1 Refers to the entire Cook Inlet.
2 Dungeness crab, mussel, and trawl shrimp were not report
Game because 2 or less fishermen participated in the fisto
Source: Kimker et al., 1994.
Ex-vessel Value (millions)
$0.61
$0.02
$0.16
$0.13
$0.23
$0.03
$0.12
$0.001
$0.03
$0.50
$1.83
ed by the Alaska Dept. of Fish and
;ry.
Total Commercial Value
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game estimated that the total value of Cook Inlet
commercial fisheries (frnfish and shellfish) in 1993 was $47.9 million ($46.1 million + $18
million) (For comparison to estimated values shown elsewhere in this report, the 1993 value
represents $46.5 million in 1992 dollars.) Approximately 63% of this total was from Upper
Cook Inlet salmon fisheries (Simpson, 1994).
2.3.2 Recreational Fisheries
Cook Inlet also supports a large and diverse recreational fishery. The Alaska Department of
Fish and Game has found that Cook Inlet area waters provide over 50% of the total (saltwater
and freshwater) sport fishing days in Alaska (Mills, 1993). The total value of these resources
depends in part on active use of the fishery, measured in fishing effort, outings, or days spent
fishing. Recreational use values are found by multiplying the estimated value per outing by
the total number of outings taken.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES i* 2-8
Saltwater Finishing and Shellfishing
As shown in Table 2-3, an estimated 375,993 saltwater recreational fishing days were spent in
Cook Inlet in 1992 (Mills, 1993). Much of the recreational activity in the inlet is focused on
catching halibut and chinook salmon. Shellfishing in the inlet is mainly for razor clams. Razor
clams are harvested along the eastern beaches of the Kenai Peninsula and at Polly Creek
Beach and Crescent River Bar on western Cook Inlet.
Table 2-3
Cook Inlet1 Saltwater Sport Fishing Days by Area — 1992
Area
Finfishing
Shellfishing
Total
Knik Arm Drainage2
1,540
0
1,540
Anchorage3
3,271
3,271
West Cook Inlet-West Susitna River Drainages4
3,267
683
3,950
Kenai Peninsula5
306,256
60,976
367,232
TOTAL
314,334
61,659
375,993
Refers to the entire Cook Inlet.
Coho and sockeye salmon were about 72% of total saltwater sport fish harvest.
Smelt were about 81% of total saltwater sport fish harvest.
Halibut were about 49% while chinook, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon were about 48% of
total saltwater sport fish harvest. The entire shellfish harvest is comprised of razor clams.
Halibut were about 56% while chinook, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon were about 22% of
total saltwater sport fish harvest. Razor clams and dungeness crab dominant the shellfish
harvest.
Source: Mills, 1993.
Freshwater Recreational Salmon Fishing
Freshwater recreational angling for anadromous species in the rivers and streams feeding into
Cook Inlet yields among the highest values for all types of recreation (Walsh et al., 1988).
The salmon caught at freshwater sites are dependent on the marine environment of'cook
Inlet. Table 2-4 shows the number of freshwater fishing days by area.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES > 2-9
Table 2-4
Cook Inlet1 Freshwater Anadromous Sport Fishing Days by Area - 1992
Area
Knik Arm Drainage
Anchorage
West Cook Inlet-West Susitna River Drainages
Kenai Peninsula (except Kenai River main channel)
Kenai River
TOTAL
Fishing Days2
Salmon
57,949
23,082
74,831
173,719
301,682
631,263
Steelhead and Smelt
0
47,282
24,167
8,317
14,319
94,085
1 Refers to the entire Cook Inlet.
2 For each area, angler days calculated by allocating the total freshwater angler days using the
percentage of salmon harvested.
Source: Mills, 1993.
Recreational Fishing Values
Recreational fishing opportunities in Alaska are highly valued. In one travel cost study of
recreational fishing in Southcentral Alaska, the authors estimated a mean willingness to pay
(WTP) per choice occasion for sport fishing at various sites (Hanemann et al., 1987). These
WTP represent consumer surplus associated with recreational fishing, and vary by location
and type of species, as shown in Table 2-5.
For all sport fishing in Southcentral Alaska, the average WTP is $305 per choice occasion
(1986 dollars). This value represents the average angler's maximum WTP to prevent losing
access to the entire Southcentral Alaska fishery. In comparison, the site-specific values, which
are lower, represent the WTP to prevent the loss of a single fishery (which still allows the
angler to substitute to other species and sites).
In Cook Inlet, the WTP for halibut fishing at Kachemak bay was estimated at $27.2 (1986
dollars). Freshwater salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet area was especially highly valued (e.g.,
$53.83 for King (chinook) salmon in the Kenai River). Razor clam harvesting (all sites) was
somewhat lower valued at $2.70 per choice occasion.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES > 2-10
Table 2-5
Parameter and Net Willingness to Pay (WTP)1 Estimates from the
Nonresident Angler Demand Model
Area/Site/Species
Mean WTP per Choice Occasion2
Southcentral Alaska
All sport fishing
King salmon (all sites)
Halibut (all sites)
|j Razor clams (all sites)
11 Kenai River:
King (chinook) salmon
Silver (coho) salmon
|j Other species
I Russian River:
1 Red (sockeye) salmon
| Lower Streams in the Kenai Peninsula:
I All species
I Deep Creek Marine:
I King (chinook) salmon
Halibut
Kachemak Bay:
Halibut
Other species
Resurrection Bay:
j Silver (coho) salmon
1 Other species
1 Other Kenai Peninsula
| All species
| Little Susitna River
| All salmon
1 West Side Susitna Streams
King (chinook) salmon
Other species
East Side Susitna Roadside Streams
All salmon
Glennallen Area
All species
$305.13
$88.49
$35.41
$2.70
$53.83
$16.12
$10.50
$9.11
$4.98
$4.06
$2.70
$27.20
$4.07
$4.52
$8.19
$5.89
$4.52
$5.87
$4.96
$2.70
$4.52 !
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES *• 2-11
Table 2-5 (Continued)
Parameter and Net Willingness to Pay (WTP)1 Estimates from the
Nonresident Angler Demand Model
Area/Site/Species
Anchorage Area
All species
Prince William Sound
All species
Mean WTP
Southeast Alaska
Juneau Area
Marine - All species
Roadside - All species
Other Southeast (including other freshwater - Juneau) - All
species
Southwest Alaska
All sport fishing
Other Alaska
Fairbanks Area - All species
Other - AH species
Consumer surplus estimates.
XT A _ SaSed °n "'581 household trips (i.e., "choice occasions") made in
MA - Not applicable because no parameter is estimated.
Source: Hanemann et al., 1987.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES > 2-12
Total Recreational Fishing Value
KachemS Bay halibut fishery alone was estimated at $8.1 million (Hanemann et el, 1987).
freshwater. Multiplying the estimated site- and species-specific WTP from Table 2-5 by the
fteshwater fishing days shown in Table 2-4 results in a baseline value of approximately $16.8
million per year (in 1992 dollars, updated by the CPI).
Total. Combining the saltwater and freshwater fisheries values results in an "g^J"
value of the recreational fishery of approximately $25.9 million per year (1992 dollars).
2.3.3 Personal Use Fisheries
Personal use fisheries allow Alaskan residents more liberal catch limits and harvest techniques
SelSonal fisheries. The Cook Inlet area supports both gill net and dip net personal use
salmon fisheries As shown in Table 2-6, in 1992, the Cook Inlet personal use dip net
fSfes hSest (primarily salmon) totaled 38,585 salmon. The Cook Inlet personal use gill
net fisheries harvested 11,487 salmon.
1 Knik Arm Drainage and Anchorage fmfishing days were valued at $5.89 per day, the WTP for
ffir:^«£±»"^
sUcs ($35.41) and 44% valued at the WTP for fishing all species at other Kenai Penmsula srtes ($5.89).
2 Knik Arm Drainage and Anchorage days were valued at $5.89, the WTP to fish for all species in
^^^
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES > 2-13
Table 2-6
Cook Inlet1 Personal Use Fisheries
Fishery
Fish Creek 1992 (a)
China Foot 1992 (a)
Kenai River 1992 (a)
Fox Creek 1992 (a)
Total .
Anglers
6,681
810
6,270
199
13,960
Fishery
Kasilof River 1993 (c)
Fall Coho 1993 (c)
Kachetiiak Bay 1993 (b)
Total
Dip Net2
Days
Fished
12,249
1,525
10,371
235
24,380
Target Species
Harvest Total Harvest
19,0023 20,287
3,4683 3,727
12,1893 14,125
4374 , 446
35,096 38,585
Gill Net
Target Species
Harvest
7,9423
1,1684
1,8734
10,983
Total Harvest
7,989
1,191
2,307
11,487
1 Refers to the entire Cook Inlet.
The Kasilof River personal use dip net fishery did not occur in 1992 as abundance targets for
opening the fishery were not reached (Nelson, 1994).
3 Sockeye salmon
4 Coho salmon
Sources: (a) Mills, 1993; (b) Nelson, 1994; and (c) Ruesch and Fox, 1994.
Total Personal Use Fishery Value
There are no estimates of the economic value of personal use fisheries In Cook Inlet.
However, personal use fisheries provide Alaskan citizens with a food source that would
otherwise have to be purchased elsewhere. Therefore, the value of the fishery could be
calculated by the replacement cost of lost meals. There may also be some recreational and/or
cultural value for some residents associated with these fisheries.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES > 2-14
2.3.4 Subsistence Fisheries
Cook Inlet also provides subsistence fishery resources to Native American populations. Alaska
has a unique property rights structure in which hunting and fishing rights are prioritized by
law and subsistence harvesters are given priority over both sport and commercial harvesters
(Brown and Burch, 1992). Cook Inlet was designated as a "nonsubsistence area" in 1992 by
the Alaska Board of Fisheries. However, exceptions were provided to the Alaska Native
Villages of Tyonek, Port Graham, and English Bay (Nanwalek) (Nelson, 1994). Tyonek is
located on the northwestern shore of Cook Inlet and has a population of 121. The villages of
Port Graham and English Bay (Nanwalek), with populations of 145 and 161 respectively, are
located near the mouth of Cook Inlet on Kachemak Bay.3
Finfisheries
As shown in Table 2-7, in 1993, the three Cook Inlet subsistence fisheries had a total harvest
of 6,583 salmon. The Tyonek and Port Graham fisheries harvested about 11 salmon per
village resident while English Bay's (Nanwalek) per capita harvest was almost twice that at 21
fish per village resident. The English Bay (Nanwalek) fishery also harvested the most salmon
per permit, at about 163 fish per permit, while Port Graham harvested about 67 fish per
permit and Tyonek harvested 25 fish per permit.
Shell Fisheries
Tyonek, English Bay (Nanwalek), and Port Graham also have subsistence shellfisheries. The
Tyonek people utilize clamming beds south of their village on the western shore of Cook
Inlet Tyonek clamming parties harvest about 3,000 razor clams, butter clams, and cockles
annually with razor clams making up about 90% of the harvest (Stanek et al., 1982). English
Bay (Nanwalek) and Port Graham villagers have traditionally harvested shellfish from areas
near the mouth of Kachemak Bay. Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, residents of these
villages began utilizing areas further into Kackemak Bay and razor clam beaches across
Kachemak Bay and the inlet (Stanek, 1994). Shellfish resources harvested at English Bay
(Nanwalek) and Port Graham include clams, chiton, cockles, mussels, crabs, shrimp, octopus,
and snails with chiton, butter clams, razor clams, and cockles being the most important
(Stanek et al., 1982; Stanek, 1994).
3 In addition, several scientific/educational permits have been issued recently for Cook Inlet waters.
In 1993 the Kenaitze Tribal Fishery harvested 2,156 salmon (about 71% sockeye), the Ninilchik
Traditional Council Fishery harvested 227 salmon (about 85% coho), the Native Village of Eklutna Fishery
harvested 200 salmon, and the Knik Tribal Council Fishery harvest 200 salmon (Ruesch and Fox, 1994).
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES * 2-15
Table 2-7
Cook Inlet1 Subsistence Salmon Fisheries -- 1993
No. of Permits
Tyonek (a)
53
English Bay (Nanwalek)2 (b)
21
Port Graham2 (b)
27
Salmon Harvest
Chinook
Sockeye
Coho
Pink
Chum
Total Salmon
1,247
43
36
11
9
1,346
20
1,018
570
1,703
115
3,426
248
153
302
978
130
1,811
1 Refers to the entire Cook Inlet.
2 Traditionally, this fishery has targeted sockeye salmon returning to the English Bay Lakes
system. Minimum escapement goals have not been met since 1984. In 1993 this area was
closed to fishing from June 7 to July 12 to protect returning sockeye adults.
Sources: (a) Ruesch and Fox, 1994 and (b) Bucher and Hammarstrom, 1994.
Total Subsistence Fishery Value
There are no estimates of the economic value of the Cook Inlet subsistence fisheries. Several
national studies of subsistence fishing are underway, but none have produced estimates of
value at this stage. Like the personal use fishery, Cook Inlet's subsistence fisheries provide a
food source to Alaskan Native populations that would otherwise have to be purchased
elsewhere. This value could also be estimated by the cost of replacement meals. In addition,
subsistence fisheries are of cultural value to Alaskan Native populations in that they allow the
continuance of a traditional lifestyle dependent on the natural resources of the Inlet.
2.4 CONCLUSIONS
Cook Inlet is rich in natural resources that are highly valued by both Alaskan residents and
nonresidents. Table 2-8 provides a summary of baseline fishery values. In 1992 dollars, the
estimated value of Cook Inlet's commercial fishery is approximately $46.5 million. The total
recreational fishery dependent on the inlet (saltwater fishing and freshwater anadromous
fishing) is valued at approximately $25.9 million per year. In addition, personal use and
subsistence fisheries provide a food source and cultiiral values to Alaskan residents and
Alaskan native populations.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES »• 2-16
Table 2-8
Annual Baseline Value of Cook Inlet1 Fisheries
(1992 dollars)
Fishery
Commercial2 (Finfisheries and Shellfisheries)
Recreational3
Saltwater
Freshwater
Total Recreational
Personal Use
Subsistence
TOTAL
Value
($ Millions)
$46.5
$9.1
$16.8
$25.9
++
-H-
> $72.4
1 Refers to the entire Cook Inlet
2 Commercial revenues from fishing. Revenues may overstate producer surplus as they do not
account for costs.
3 Consumer surplus.
•H- Value is positive but not quantified.
-------
CHAPTER 3
IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION
This chapter discusses the development, and effects of the proposed effluent limitations for the
coastal subcategory of the oil and gas extraction industry as they apply to Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Section 3.1 describes the regulatory options considered and the options selected. Section 3.2
reports the outfalls in Cook Inlet that will be affected by the proposed guidelines. Finally,
Section 3.3 addresses pollutant loadings, and how loadings are expected to be reduced by the
proposed guidelines.
3.1 REGULATORY OPTIONS
Regulatory options for Cook Inlet were considered in conjunction with all areas of the Gulf of
Mexico. In this section, we discuss these options as they pertain to Cook Inlet. Options were
developed separately for drilling fluids (muds) and drill cuttings and for produced waters.
3.1.1 Options Proposed for Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
The Agency is co-proposing three options for the control of drilling fluids and drill cuttings.
The three options considered contain zero discharge for all areas, except two of the options
contain allowable discharges for Cook Inlet. One of these options, which would allow
discharges meeting a more stringent toxicity limitation if selected for the final rule, would
require an additional notice for public comment since the specific toxicity limitation has not
been determined at this time. The three options are described in Table 3-1.
Options 1 and 2, which allow some discharge, include the following limitations or
restrictions:
* No discharge of free oil (static sheen) or diesel oil
»• Limitations of 1 mg/kg of mercury and 3 mg/kg of cadmium in the stock barite
-------
IMPACT OF THE REGULATION + 3-2
Table 3-1
Coastal Oil and Gas Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Cook Inlet
Options Considered for Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Offshore limitations (including
toxicity limit in the SPP)
30,000 ppm
Offshore limitations with a more stringent
toxicity limit (between 100,000 and one million
ppm (SSP))
Zero discharge
1 All options require zero discharge in the Gulf of Mexico.
Note: Option 2 is more stringent that Option 1.
The first two restrictions listed for these options are components of offshore limitations.
These options also disallow discharges of the dewatering effluent (i.e., drill water) that can be
produced by drilling fluids solids control systems. Zero discharge technologies for Option 3
include:
> Recycling and re-using waste mainly accomplished through the use of closed
loops
> Delivering waste to onshore disposal facilities
*• Grinding and injection of waste in a Class II disposal well.
3.1.2 Proposed Option for Produced Water
Five options were considered for produced water; these options are described in Table 3-2.
The selected option for Cook Inlet allows coastal discharge limitations for produced waters to
equal offshore limitations. This option was chosen because it is technologically and.
economically feasible; zero discharge of produced water in Cook Inlet is not considered
economically achievable. Offshore limits utilize improved gas flotation and consist of two
components for oil and grease: (1) 29 mg/1 as a 30-day maximum average; and (2) 42 mg/1 as
a daily maximum.
-------
IMPACT OF THE REGULATION »• 3-3
Table 3-2
Coastal Oil and Gas Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Cook Inlet:
Options Considered for Produced Water
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4*
Option 5
BPT1 for Gulf of Mexico and Cook Inlet
Offshore limitations for Gulf of Mexico and
Cook Inlet
Zero discharge for Gulf of Mexico and BPT
for Cook Inlet
i
Zero discharge for Gulf of Mexico and offshore
limitations for Cook Inlet
Zero discharges for Gulf of Mexico and Cook
Inlet
l Best Practicable Technology (limitations for oil and grease of: (1) 48 mg/1 as a 30-day
maximum average; and (2) 72 mg/1 as a daily maximum).
* Selected option.
3.2 COOK INLET FACILITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES
Eight produced water outfalls in Cook Inlet will be affected by the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines. These outfalls are listed in Table 3-3. The proposed guidelines will also
impact 36 projected new drilling wells and 19 recompletions in Cook Inlet.
3.3 ESTIMATED LOADINGS REDUCTIONS
Baseline pollutant loadings from the impacted facilities and loadings reductions expected
under the proposed effluent limitations guidelines are reported and discussed in this section.
Baseline loadings and reductions in loading are from Cook Inlet's coastal oil and gas facilities
only, and do not include other point or nonpoint sources of loadings. Tables 3-4 and 3-5
report baseline loadings and reductions in loadings from drilling fluids and. drill cuttings for
Options 2 and 3 (no loadings reductions are associated with Option 1). Under Option 2,
reductions in loadings from drilling fluids and drill cuttings total 3,868.,896 pounds (17%).
Under Option 3, reductions total 22,739,018 pounds (all loadings are eliminated). Table 3-6
reports baseline loadings and reductions for produced water for selected Option 4. Under
Option 4, reductions in loadings from produced water total 1,502,566 pounds (43%). Toxic
weighted loadings are also included in these tables.
-------
IMPACT OF THE REGULATION * 3-4
Table 3-3
Cook Inlet Produced Water Outfalls
Operator
Marathon
Shell Western
Amoco
Unocal
Marathon
Phillips
Unocal
Unocal
Facility
Trading Bay
East Foreland
Dillon
Anna
Granite Point
NCIU Tyonek A
Bruce
Baker
Discharge Distance
from Shore (miles)
1.9
0.15
3.7
2.5
1.9
5.5
1.5
7.5
Average
Discharge (bpd)
126,072
3,100
2,650
1,500
300
170
160
30
Facility Count 8
Total Alaska Volume (bpd) 133,982
Total Alaska Volume (bpy) 48,903,430
Average Alaska Discharge Rate (bpd) 16,748
Source: Avanti, 1994.
The pollutants present in drilling fluids and drill cuttings and produced waters can be grouped
as follows:1
>• Oil and grease
K Total suspended solids
>• Aromatic hydrocarbons
* Metals
Of these pollutant groups, aromatic hydrocarbons and metals are of special concern to aquatic
organisms. The potential loading reductions for these two pollutant groups are discussed
below and summarized in Table 3-7.
1 Radionuclides are also found in produced waters.
-------
^
O
C
REGULA
w
H
0
b
o.
>— (
'S
mpacted Faci
nZ
&%
|°
o .£
^|5
3 ^"^
(2 § «
line Loadings and L
for Drilling Fluids
CO
S
10
3
c
c
S
a
o
<
1
01
'3
D
II
§1
0.0
2
11
0 =
_
Guidelines
Loadings (Ibs
,_.
8~ 01
_c
*I
1 s
§1
O-O
Reduction
(Ibs)
y.
Proposed Guideline
Loadings (Ibs)
11
||
c
Pollutant
1111111111111111111 7777777777 z § '
^oT-c>iriouicou>ov o o o o CM o o o o "«r o o co
o co o> co *r oo CM CM T- T-^- »- r- to
r-. CM C\i_ CM_
^•Tj-CO^-inTj"U> OOOOOOOOOO O O O>
ootdcMi^^tdO'-r^io^oinoto'io'r^-r- oooocJooooo o o »-
^" N- OJ T- U> •»" C3> CO. IO ID CM OJ •»" h* •*— ^"
oino)coocoinN-T-^r^oc3coo^- o o ^t
irfoc\icoT-iricdcootnif>uiooo»-coeo-r- oooooioooo^ o o jrf
•^W^-»-CMCMv-^- ^"cO^ * ^" CO
i i i i i i.i i i ' ! i i i i i i i i 7777777777 l 7 '
C\IO>CDOeOCOCON-CO«>CMin CO (O «-
^-^ in* co* to . oo co co~
^~ T- *~ ^— (O 00
co" co"
COlOQ>CMlO CM (O Is-
S^IOCO *-COtt>lOO) OCMCOO CO U>COh^^-
^*" to v-1 o> *~ 10" i o> co of
10 co S o ! cS rt
^ ^ CM
< CM CM
co o "•
"O -~ * ri
'5 CO 3"^ « n
15 c — to co o M
tO ii Q ^-_^ » g g g .
2~~ ~o 9 5 -8 "5 5 3" 9-i 2
C O C c r* c. **^'^
!ifo.H|k ^ i B i i 8 !
-------
in
.2
'5
s.
•o
s
ts
ca
§
I
UJ
a.
O
.
s
.28
31
•o^O
ILU __
f A rrs
•o2
C 3
eg
CD
c
c
gg
£§
3=<
CD
U
•= 2L
CD CX
II
Ij
II
o -c
0.0
13 =•
CD
O ">
"P d9
•a
» a
ca
gS
:= en
a> ex
co c
CD O ^3 ^5 ^3 C3 O O ^3 O O O O O ^3 O O O O O
^3 C> C3 CD ^3 O O O O ^3 O O O O C3 O O ^3 O O
I I 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1
i i i
I I i i i i
i i
ddddeidddd^r d d u>
T— »— f^
opoooppqoqqpqqqoqqcj
oooodddddddddq'ddddd
qqqqoqqppp p q c
dddddddddd d d o
iridc\ied-i-:iricDcodir)iriir>ddd->-:a5cd'-:
TT rrj-oj co in co CD co co co co^oco
OOOOCMOOOO
q
d
q
d
o o o o o
o o o o o
TTTTT
O ^3 O O O O
CD O CD O O
I 1 1 t 1
I 1
o o
77
O CD O
CD O O
I |
1 1 1 1 1 1 | | 1 t
g^eOcJeoooaidg
CM CO
S
CO
in
co
qpppppppppppppqoqqq
oddd'ddddddddddddddd
qppppqpppo
dddddddddd
c>
o"
f~r»;r~cjqc»cqincqcqi».T!;c»qcqcocqr^o
!8 § S § «* ^ 2 S § S °" S*N"» «« S S 5 g
•»— CO TT h*
- §
'-h^cvicncqojincqqo; oo eo
co'iCoidcoddccidcD ^
co in co
u
T3
]5
2
_
-------
m
O
SL,
O
H
U
<
cu
•O
I
a
a.
3 S-
•oO
oil
a -o -o
o a 5
H o o
-1 3
§2
« OL
n w
c ••
^
e
o
0.0
S £
a. O
duc
b
«l
3
g.1
5"
CM (O in r*. in
10 ^ °> -"
to
8
**!?§***§§*§§*§§* g S
°S S 3
*
9
.
SjS
O O O ^
s
--»--»<
-------
IMPACT OF THE REGULATION > 3-8
Table 3-7
Summary of Anticipated Loadings Reductions for Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals
from Impacted Facilities in Cook Inlet
Guideline Reduction Options
Drilling Fluids and Drill
Cuttings (Option 2)
Drilling Fluids and Drill
Cuttings (Option 3)
Produced Water (Option 4)
Combined (Option 2 for Drilling
Fluids and Drill Cuttings)
Combined (Option 3 for Drilling
Fluids and Drill Cuttings)
Aromatic Hydrocarbons - pounds
reduced (% Reduction")
157 (100%)
157 (100%)
109,151 (61%)
109,308 (61%)
109,308 (61%)
Metals - pounds reduced
(% Reduction*)
176,070(17%) '
1,035,705 (100%)
548,154 (36%)
724,224 (28%)
1,583,859 (62%)
* Percent reduction reflects reduction of loadings from the impacted facilities, not total loadings
reductions for Cook Inlet.
Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Annual baseline loadings of aromatic hydrocarbons from drilling
fluids and drill cuttings and from produced waters are 157 and 177,613 pounds, respectively.
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines are anticipated to reduce loadings of these
compounds by 157 pounds (100%) annually for drilling fluids and drill cuttings (for both
Options 2 and 3) and by 109,151 pounds (61%) annually for produced water (Option 4).
Metals. Annual baseline loadings of metals from drilling fluids and drill cuttings and from
produced water are 1,035,705 and 1,521,288 pounds, respectively. For drilling fluids and drill
cuttings, Option 2 would reduce annual metal loadings by 176,070 pounds (17%) and Option
3 would eliminate annual metal loadings (100% reduction). The selected Option 4 for
produced water will reduce the annual loadings of metals by 548,154 pounds (36%);
-------
CHAPTER 4
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION
This chapter provides a description of the types of benefits anticipated to result from the
proposed effluent limitation guidelines in Cook Inlet, Alaska. As described in Chapter 2,
Cook Inlet's aquatic resources are highly valued. However, the continuous long-term release
of petroleum hydrocarbons and associated pollutants may have a negative impact upon the
Inlet's natural resources. Aquatic organisms, in particular, may be adversely affected by
exposure to these pollutants. As shown in Chapter 3, the proposed rulemaking is expected to
reduce loadings of these substances from drilling muds and drill cuttings and produced water
discharges to the inlet.
Because information on total loadings (i.e., from all sources) to the inlet is not available, the
loadings impact evaluation presented in Chapter 3 is incomplete. Nonetheless, detrimental
impacts to aquatic! biota from the contaminants present in coastal oil and gas discharges may
occur even at low concentration levels, and thus ecologic improvements may result from
reductions in current loadings. In addition, because of Alaska's appeal as an unspoiled
wilderness, and the fact that the inlet supports many important species, the public is likely to
value these improvements.
This chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.1 provides a discussion of the potential
ecologic impacts of current discharges and potential benefits of the proposed rulemaking.
Section 4.1.1 is a detailed scientific description of the potential impacts of the contaminants
present in drilling fluids and cuttings and produced waters on biotic resources, including
discussions of fate, exposure pathways, and biotic effects. Section 4.1.2 discusses the potential
for ecologic improvements associated with the proposed rulemaking in Cook Inlet. Section 4.2
provides an overview of concepts applicable to the benefits analysis. Finally, Section 4.3
provides a qualitative discussion of potential nonuse benefits of the proposed regulation, and
presents quantitative research which may shed light on the potential magnitude of these
benefits.
4.1 POTENTIAL ECOLOGIC IMPACTS OF COASTAL OIL AND GAS
DISCHARGES AND IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH: THE PROPOSED
REGULATION
This section describes the adverse impacts that contaminants found in drilling fluids and drill
cuttings and produced waters can have on biotic resources in Cook Inlet. Once discharged,
low concentrations of these pollutants may pose substantial risk to resident and migratory
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION *• 4-2
biota through direct and indirect pathways of exposure in the surface waters, diets, or
sediments. It appears that these pollutants may be widely distributed throughout the inlet
which increases the likelihood that many of the resources are exposed to the contaminants at
low levels. Exposure to chronic, low levels of contaminants found in coastal oil and gas
effluents can adversely affect the resources by causing physiological and behavioral
impairments in organisms, contamination or reduction of food-web resources, and alteration of
habitats. By reducing the toxicity of drilling fluids and drill cuttings and produced water
discharges into Cook Inlet, the ecological and biological resources would be put at less risk of
exposure. Loading reductions would also reduce the risk of disturbances to the ecological
integrity and important habitats of biological resources in Cook Inlet.
A key to understanding the potential impacts of the proposed effluent limitations guidelines
on the ecologic and biologic resources of Cook Inlet involves a knowledge of the fates,
exposure pathways, and effects of the coastal oil and gas pollutants. These factors are
discussed below.
4.1.1 Potential Impacts of Contaminants found in Coastal Oil and Gas Effluents on
Biotic Resources
The continuous, long-term release of low levels of contaminants present in drilling fluids and
drill cuttings and produced water is of particular concern for the natural resources in marine
and estuarine habitats, such as Cook Inlet. Chronic pollution of such areas should be carefully
evaluated for the maintenance of the coastal and offshore fishing grounds and the abiotic and
biotic resources that sustain the fisheries.
Discharges from different coastal oil and gas platforms are not likely to have equal impacts
on the same biota. This is largely due to the site-specific physicochemical factors influencing
the fate or dispersion of the contaminants present in these effluents in the marine
environment. It is likely that the supratidal, intertidal, and subtidal communities of Cook Inlet
are prime targets for exposure to chronic pollution due to the physical transport of coastal oil
and gas effluents to these habitats of Cook Inlet (see below). Depending on the extent of
contamination and penetration at an impacted site, organisms in addition to the most obvious
species (e.g., fish) can be adversely impacted.
Fate: Physical, Chemical, Biotic Transformation
The fate of contaminants associated with coastal oil and gas discharges in Cook Inlet is a
function of the Inlet's unique physical, chemical, and biological characteristics that influence
the weathering processes and distribution of the contaminants. Following discharge into
coastal waters, the chemical composition of the effluents are transformed by combinations of
physical, chemical, and biological processes that disperse the pollutants in the environment.
The physical transformations include evaporation, dissolution, vertical dispersion,
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION > 4-3
emulsification, and sedimentation; and these physical transformations also involve chemical
factors (e.g., photooxidation, degradation) determined by the specific compositions of the
effluents being discharged (NRC, 1985). The physical and chemical processes that disperse
and transform the various contaminants are important for determining the eventual spatial and
temporal distribution of chemicals in the environment. Eventually, it should be expected that
these contaminants will be widely distributed among sediments, soils, water, air, and biota in
the marine/estuarine environment in which the discharge takes place.
Cook Inlet is an extremely dynamic, high-energy estuarine environment due to its extreme
tidal fluxes and resulting turbulent and well-mixed waters, and it has high loads of suspended
sediments from riverwater inputs (Hyland et al., 1993). The unusual current patterns and high
suspended sediments within Cook Inlet are likely to be significant factors controlling the
dispersal and deposition of contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents. A study by
Feely and Massoth (1982) showed that the suspended materials from lower Cook Inlet were
capable of accommodating (adsorbing) up to 11% of their weight in particles associated with
these contaminants in Cook Inlet. These results along with the use of a settling model
suggested that these particles (adsorbed to suspended materials within Cook Inlet) could be
thoroughly distributed throughout the inlet prior to deposition along the shore. The
environmental factors increasing dispersal and distribution are important for evaluating the
specific biotic resources affected by these discharges into Cook Inlet.
Cook Inlet also provides habitat for a variety of biota, including plants, invertebrates, fishes,
birds, and mammals, which likely (in addition to the physical and chemical forces) influence
the fate and distribution of drilling fluids and cuttings and produced water discharges. All of
the physical, chemical, and biological processes influencing the fate of contaminants found in
coastal oil and gas discharges are important to an evaluation of the potential impact these
effluents have on the environment and the exposed biota.
Biological processes can dramatically influence the fate of contaminants found in coastal oil
and gas effluents because many of the compounds and elements are taken up by biological
organisms. It has been estimated that the biodegradable portion of crude oils is between 11-
90% (Colwell and Walker, 1977, cited hi NRC, 1985). In general, the simpler hydrocarbons
(i.e., alkanes, alkenes, and monoaromatics; NRC,. 1985) and many of the non-hydrocarbons
(i.e., metals, nitrogen-, sulfur- and oxygen-compounds) found in coastal oil and gas effluents
may be taken up and biodegraded by many different biological organisms. Biodegradation
(via micro- and macroorganisms) is a major mechanism for the transformation and elimination
of certain hydrocarbons.
Following uptake, biodegradation involves the oxidation of lipophilic hydrocarbons (rendering
hydrocarbons more water soluble), which facilitates their excretion back into the environment.
However, the enzymatic processes of micro- and macroorganisms used to metabolize or
otherwise biodegrade many of the contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents will
have slower or restricted degradation rates in colder (arctic) waters of marine environments
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION * 4-4
compared to that in warmer (temperate or tropical) waters (Collier et al., 1978; Varanasi et
al., 1981; NRC, 1985). Microorganisms (bacteria, yeasts, fungi) can biodegrade most of the
compounds in the surface, water column, and sediments of aquatic environments; yet the
biodegradation rate varies widely depending on the specific compound and on the enzymatic
pathways used by different organisms. Less is known about phytoplankton biodegradation of
coastal oil and gas effluents. Through ingestion, compounds associated with particulate
organic matter, zooplankton and bentbic invertebrates aid in their sedimentation and
resuspension, respectively. Fish, marine mammals, and birds are also important in the
biodegradation and distribution of these contaminants following exposure.
It should be noted that the biodegradation of certain hydrocarbons does not necessarily result
in products (or metabolites) that are less toxic than the parent pollutant. In fact, the
biodegradation of a small proportion of aromatic hydrocarbons (for example, benzo(a)pyrene)
produces metabolites that are more toxic than the parent compound, resulting in mutagenic
and carcinogenic chemicals (NRC, 1985).
Exposure Pathways
Contaminants present in drilling fluids and drill cuttings and produced water discharges to
marine environments can effect the natural resources either through direct or indirect
pathways of exposure. Direct pathways of exposure occur when natural resources come in
direct contact, either singularly or in combination, with the contaminants in the water column,
sediments, or diet. Indirect pathways of exposure occur when habitat resources (e.g., spawning
beds, prey sources) have been reduced or otherwise altered by the contaminants. The extent to
which the biota are impacted largely depends upon the pathway and duration of exposure and
also depends on the concentration and type of contaminant present in the pathway.
Biotic Effects
Biological organisms are effective receptors for contaminants found in coastal oil and gas
effluents through the uptake, accumulation, and eventual metabolic degradation (see above) of
the various contaminants. Uptake of these contaminants results from various exposure
pathways, singularly or in combination: diet, water, and sediment. Accumulated contaminants
associated with oil and gas effluents may concentrate in various tissues and organs of biota,
and the specific tissues/organs affected depend upon the exposure pathways, the exposure
concentrations, and the ability to metabolize the accumulated contaminants. Metabolic
degradation of the contaminants occurs through enzymatic pathways, and the rate/ability of
metabolic degradation largely depends upon the presence/absence and relative abundance of
various enzymes necessary to transform different components into excretable compounds.
In aquatic resources, it is critical to evaluate the effects of low concentrations of the
contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents (i.e., PAH) because even low
concentrations in water, sediment, or diet are likely to impair fitness, produce adverse-
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION >• 4-5
physiological effects that lead to death or that, at least, lower long-term survivability in the
wild. There is extensive documentation on the long-term, injurious effects of oil substances at
relatively low concentrations to aquatic biota in shielded or enclosed waters. Therefore, a
continued need exists to evaluate the chronic toxicities of the contaminants found in coastal
oil and gas effluents to help evaluate how low level exposures can reduce the viability of
Cook Inlet's resident and migratory biota.
Exposure to contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents can impact various biological
levels of organization which result in four identified biotic responses !(Table 4-1). The four
biotic responses ~ lethal toxicity, sublethal toxicity, bioaccumulation, and habitat alteration ~
provide broad categorization for a multitude of specific biotic responses.
Lethal toxicity refers to the direct disruption of sub-cellular or cellular physiological activities
that result in death of the organism. The death of individuals from populations can influence
the future reproductive viability of populations, and in turn may influence even the higher
levels of biological organization. Sub-lethal toxicity also involves interference of sub-cellular
and cellular processes but does not result in immediate death, although death may follow due
to impaired behavior or physiology. Short of death, it is the impaired behavioral or
physiological activities of the organism, especially those necessary for feeding, growth, and
reproduction, that are most influential on the higher levels of biological organization.
Bioaccumulation of contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents is of importance
because the physiological health of organisms is affected (e.g., reducing growth,
reproduction), and as well, bioaccumulation provides additional pathways for contaminant
transfer throughout the food chain. Impaired physiology or contaminant transfer through food
chains due to bioaccumulation can have dramatic impacts on all levels of biological
organization. For instance, accumulated contaminants (or metabolites of these contaminants)
transferred through food webs may concentrate in food sources for piscivorous fishes, which
can adversely affect important recreational or commercial fisheries.
Table 4-1
Biological Organization Levels Associated with Responses to Coastal Oil and Gas Effluents
Biotic Response
Lethal Toxicity
Sublethal Toxicity
B ioaccumulation
Habitat Alteration
Sub-cellular
X
X
X
Cellular
X
X
X
Organism
X
X
X
X
Population
X
X
X
X
Community
X
X
X
X
Ecosystem
X
X
X
X
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION > 4-6
Habitat alteration includes effects on the physical and chemical environment that can result in
unsuitable habitat for both resident and migratory biota, at the level of the organism and the
population. The physical and chemical alteration of particular habitats can shift species
composition, abundance, and diversity. Any change in species composition directly reflects
altered community structure, and can extensively impact ecosystem function.
The observed effects of contaminants found in coastal oil and gas discharges on the various
biological levels include a list of quantifiable endpoints ranging from lethality endpoints
(death or moribundity, due to direct exposure to acutely toxic concentrations or indirect
exposure to sublethal concentrations that eventually cause death) to sub-lethal endpoints due
to direct or indirect exposures that cause physiological or behavioral abnormalities. A brief
discussion of several of these endpoints describing biotic effects due to coastal oil and gas
pollution follows.
Death. Death can result from direct and indirect exposure to contaminants found in coastal oil
and gas effluents (e.g., Morrow, 1973; Rice et al., 1976; Nunes and Benville, 1978). The loss
of individual organisms through death can cause reductions in the populations and disrupt the
species composition in a biotic community. Dead or dying organisms can cause reductions in
populations due to the loss of reproductively fit individuals.
Growth and Physiology. Contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents affect many
aspects of cellular metabolism and physiology that can reduce normal growth in organisms.
Exposure to the contaminants can affect biological activities, such as feeding, respiration, and
enzymatic pathways, that are necessary for the physiological maintenance (homeostasis) and
growth (e.g., Rice et al., 1976; Kiceniuk and Khan, 1987). Reduced physiological fitness or
reduced growth in organisms bears directly on the ability of an organism to survive and
reproduce in the environment.
Genetic Mutation. Exposure to the contaminants contained in coastal oil and gas effluents,
including several aromatic hydrocarbons, metabolites of hydrocarbons, and heavy metals, can
increase the rate of genetic mutations by impairing DNA synthesis, increasing DNA-strand
exchanges, and altering chromosome number (NRC, 1985; Longwell, 1978). Increased rates
of genetic mutations can reduce the fitness of individuals and populations, especially in
contaminated areas providing breeding or spawning habitat because there would be even more
risk to embryonic life stages undergoing rapid development.
Disease or Cancer. Exposure to certain contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents
can result hi an increase in the prevalence of pathogens causing disease or outbreaks of
cancers in populations (NRC, 1985; Meyer et al., 1994). Increased susceptibility to diseases or
cancers due to exposure to pollutants can reduce growth and reproductive potentials and
survivability of individual organisms, and thus may reduce the overall growth or productivity
of populations.
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION *• 4-7
Behavior. Behavioral effects of exposure to contaminants found in coastal oil and gas
effluents include such responses as avoidance of polluted waters, chemoreception, and feeding
(Smith et al., 1983; Blundo, 1978). These adverse effects on behaviors may reduce the fitness
of individual organisms, and in turn, have influences at higher levels of biological
organization, such as the population.
4.1.2 Evaluation of the Potential Ecologic Improvements Associated with the Proposed
Effluent Guidelines in Cook Inlet
As described above, the drilling fluids and drill cuttings and produced water discharges
released by the coastal oil and gas facilities in Cook Inlet have the potential to cause adverse
effects to ecological/biological resources. However, there is limited quantitative data for
evaluating the potential impacts, and therefore, the potential benefits of the proposed
guidelines. As summarized by Peterson (1993), the National Research Council presently
considers that there is insufficient information gathered about the environments (e.g., physical,
chemical, biological data) to support evaluations of environmental risks of oil and gas
developments in coastal areas.
A complete analysis of the risks of exposing the biotic resources of Cook Inlet to the
contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents, even at "low levels'", would include the
following:
1. Inventories describing resident biotic and abiotic resources of ecological,
commercial, and recreational value,
2. An assessment of migratory biota utilizing Cook Inlet habitats and an
assessment of the ecological interactions between resident and migratory
species,
3. Development of fate and transport models to describe the biotic and abiotic
uptake, distribution, transformation, and accumulation of coastal oil and gas
pollutants in Cook Inlet, and
4. Knowledge of the chronic toxicity and associated biotic responses caused by
exposure of ecologically important species and habitats to coastal oil and gas
effluents.
Reference or control sites should be evaluated concurrently with any assessment of Cook Inlet
resources to assist with the analyses. These types of information (data) would need to be
gathered in order to make well informed assessments of the potential risks. Once collected, it
would be necessary to use a model containing hydrological information specific to Cook Inlet
(e.g., currents, dilution factors, sediment adsorption factors) to determine whether impacts
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION + 4-8
would occur and/or whether pollutant-specific criteria thresholds would be exceeded based on
loadings reductions.1
Although a complete analysis of the potential water quality improvements in Cook Inlet from
the proposed guidelines is not available, research indicates that the contaminants present in
coastal oil and gas effluents have the potential to impact biological resources in the manner
described in Section 4.1.1, that is, the potential to cause genetic mutations, behavioral
changes, disease, or cancer, or to impair growth and physiology. Chronic exposure to these
contaminants (including the metals) also may lead to death in organisms. Reducing the
chronic, low-level input of these substances into Cook Inlet waters will ameliorate the effects
of contamination and exposure on biological resources.
The present concentrations of the contaminants found in coastal oil and gas effluents in Cook
Inlet surface waters are unlikely to cause acute, sudden lethality. Yet the current discharges
provides exposure levels that could cause sublethal effects in the aquatic resources. For
example, low concentrations of the contaminants (including metals) will cause avoidance
behaviors in salmon that may lead to changes in their migration patterns (e.g., Rice, 1974;
Babcock, 1985). Changes in behavior or impaired physiology of the organisms may influence
the production and recruitment strategies in the important fisheries resources of Cook Inlet.
By limiting or eliminating discharges of the contaminants, the fisheries would be less likely to
avoid contaminated areas of Cook Inlet. Reducing the risk of avoidance by fishes in Cook
Inlet may improve the stock production of important salmonids.
Additional Cook Inlet resources that would potentially benefit from the regulation include
those species and lifestages that are particularly sensitive and susceptible to contaminants
i
One water quality analysis used a waste load allocation model to assess compliance with water
quality standards under baseline loadings and the anticipated guidelines-reduced loadings of petroleum-
related effluents from produced waters in Cook Inlet (Avanti, 1994). A dilution factor is used:to
extrapolate loadings from daily pounds to ug/L; the methods used to derive these dilutions factors were not
described. This analysis does not assess compliance based on total loadings of pollutants from all sources
to Cook Inlet, or even drilling fluid loadings. Therefore, the results are described merely as an example of
the type of information a water quality model could provide.
Loadings from eight outfalls were analyzed using a 50 and 200 foot mixing zone. The analysis found the
following compounds exceeded standards at baseline conditions at the 50 foot mixing zone, and did not
exceed standards following reductions in loadings: anthracene, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, iron,
manganese, and nickel. Not all of these exceeded criteria at all platforms, nor were criteria exceedences
decreased at all platforms. .
2 Sockeye salmon runs in bays near the lower portions of Cook Inlet have been severely depressed
since 1984 to the extent that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has closed commercial, sport, and
subsistence fishing to protect returning adults (in English Bay and Port Graham) (see Bucherand
Hammarstrom, 1994).
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION i- 4-9
found in coastal oil and gas effluents. Planktonic organisms (including planktonic fish eggs
and shellfish larvae) would benefit from the regulations by reducing the risk of exposure to
pollutants dispersed and transported by tides and currents in Cook Inlet. Benthic organisms
(including organisms in the intertidal zone) would benefit from reduced exposures to
pollutants being deposited and accumulating in the sediments. Finfish and shellfish would
benefit through reductions in risk of direct exposure to water-soluble fractions of the
contaminants and reductions in the risk of exposure to contaminated-food sources.
Appendix A presents water quality criteria and a summary of observed effects associated with
the two major groups of compounds found in coastal oil and gas effluents — aromatic
hydrocarbons and metals. These observed effects are not related to specific contaminant
concentrations, however. A comprehensive list of potential toxic effects to marine organisms
expected at specific contaminant concentrations should be developed in conjunction with
water quality modeling results.
4.2 OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTS APPLICABLE TO THE BENEFITS ANALYSIS
This section provides an overview of the general concepts applicable to the benefits analysis.
Although there is insufficient information to quantify the potential benefits of the regulation, a
qualitative discussion of potential nonuse values is provided in Section 4.3.
4.2.1 The Economic Concept of Benefits
The general term benefits refers to any and all outcomes of the regulation that are considered
positive; that is, that could contribute to an enhanced level of social welfare. The term
"economic benefits" refers to the dollar value associated with all the expected positive
impacts of the regulation (not all ecological improvements necessarily result in substantial
economic benefits). Conceptually, the monetary value of benefits is embodied by the sum of
the predicted changes in "consumer (and producer) surplus." These "surplus" measures are
standard and widely accepted terms of applied welfare economics, and reflect the degree of
well-being enjoyed by people given different levels of goods and prices (including those
associated with environmental quality).
This conceptual economic foundation raises several relevant issues £bd potential limitations
for the benefits analysis of the regulation. First, the standard economic approach to estimating
environmental benefits is anthropocentric — all values arise from how environmental changes
are perceived and valued by humans. A related second point is that the benefits of all future
outcomes are often discounted at a positive rate, such that future benefits are worth less in
"present value" terms than are near-term benefits. Thus, all near-term as well as temporally
distant future physical outcomes associated with reduced pollutant loadings are translated into
the framework of present day human activities and concerns.
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION >> 4-10
4.2.2 Overview of Benefit Categories
To implement a benefits analysis, the types or categories of benefits that apply need to be
defined. The benefits typology shown hi Figure 4-1 summarizes, as an example, benefits
typically observed as a result of changes in the water resource environment. As reflected in
Figure 4-1, benefits typically are categorized according to whether or not they involve some
form of direct use of, or contact with, the resource. Although there are important
embellishments and appreciable semantic distinctions that can be made to enhance this figure,
it can be used as a convenient starting point.
Use Benefits
Use benefit categories can embody both direct and indirect uses of affected waters, and the
direct use category embraces both consumptive and nonconsumptive activities. In most
applications to water quality improvement scenarios, the most prominent use benefit
categories are those related to human health risk reductions, and those related to enhanced
recreational fishing, boating and/or swimming. Recreational activities have received
considerable empirical attention from economic researchers over the past two decades because
they are amenable to various nonmarket valuation techniques (e.g., travel cost models).3
Thus, there is a considerable body of knowledge relating to recreational fishing and associated
activities, and these generally indicate that water-based recreation is a highly valued activity
in today's society.
Nonuse (Intrinsic or Passive Use) Benefits
Improved environmental quality can also be valued by individuals apart from any past,
present or anticipated future use of the resource in question. Such nonuse values may be of a
highly significant magnitude; however, the benefit value to assign to these motivations often
is a matter of considerable debate. Whereas human uses of a resource can be observed
directly and valued with a range of technical economic techniques, nonuse values can only be
ascertained from asking survey respondents to directly reveal their values. The inability to
rely on revealed behavior to ascertain nonuse values has led to considerable debate as to how
to best measure values for applicable changes in environmental quality.
Among the more relevant nonuse values associated with the proposed effluent limitation
guidelines are "ecologic benefits," as discussed in Section 4.1. Whether such "ecologic
benefits" fall within the traditional economic rubric of nonuse values is an unresolved
semantic issue. Some ecologic changes will have positive impacts on use values (e.g.,
recreational angling, bird watching, etc.). But of greater relevance is the applicability of
3
Note that travel cost models capture use values only.
-------
r
In-Stream
Near Stream
Option
Value
Diversionary
Aesthetic
Bequest
Existence
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION * 4-11
Figure 4-1
The Benefits of Water Quality Improvements
USE BENEFITS
Human health risk reductions
Recreation (fishing, boating, swimming, etc.)
Subsistence fishing (including human health risks)
Commercial fisheries and navigation
Water enhanced noncontact recreation
(picnicking, photography, jogging, camping, etc.)
Nonconsumptive use (e.g. wildlife observation)
Premium for uncertain future demand
Premium for uncertain future supply
Industry/commercial (process and cooling waters)
Agriculture/silviculture (crop growth rates)
Municipal drinking water (treatment cost savings
and/or human health risk reductions)
NONUSE (INTRINSIC) BENEFITS
Residing, working, traveling and/or
owning property near affected lands and water, etc.
Intergenerational equity
• _—
Stewardship/preservation
Ecologic
Vicarious consumption
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION + 4-12
-~——^—————~~~^~^~~~^~~~~~~~~'^~~~~~~~~~
values for "ecologic changes" under the traditional nonuse categories of existence
(stewardship or preservation) and bequest values.
The key distinction may be that nonuse values are anthropocentric, whereas "ecologic"
benefits are viewed by some as distinct from human valuation - making them somehow
additive to nonuse values. The issue is whether there ought to be some accounting for
ecological benefits over and above any connection to human beings (though the removal of
these benefits from the anthropocentric realm begs the question of how w,: assigiiL values to
ecologic benefits for the purpose of setting priorities in policy making). Therefore for the
ecologic ben P F ^^ tQ be .^^ ^^ ^^
nonuse values.
4.2.3 Causality: Linking the Regulation to Beneficial Outcomes
Conducting a benefits analysis for anticipated changes in pollutant loadings to receiving
waters requires that a chain of events be specified and understood. These steps are shown in
Figure 4-2. The final "steps" (6 and 7) in Figure 4-2 illustrate the point at which
Sopocentric benefit concepts begin to apply, such as illustrated by *e link between
improved fisheries and the enhanced enjoyment realized by recreational anglers. Ecologic
improvements can also result in changes in nonuse values, as discussed below.
4.3 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION
There is insufficient data on the expected ecologic improvements in Cook Inlet or society's
^^Tpqr for water quality in Cook Inlet, to quantify the benefits of the proposed
Sines However, research is available indicating that nonuse values held by society for
ome aS; of Ilaska (Prince William Sound) are large. As described below, there is reason
TbelSyTthat nonuse values for Cook Inlet may also be large. Thus, even small changes in
these values (benefits) may be significant.
Evidence of Nonuse Values for Alaska's Coastal Resources
There is no research available to quantify the nonuse values that society holds for Cook Inlet
or how these values would be increased through more stringent control of coastal oil and gas
hTes Nonetheless, as suggested by McCollum et al. (1992), because Alaska's resources
que a^d viewed as "the last bastion of unspoiled wildlife habitat," it is probable that
^e values (including existence and bequest values) held by nonresidents are very large
may even outweigh use values. As shown in Chapter 2, the baseline use value of Cook
£ commercial and recreational fisheries alone is approximately $72.4 million per year.
Therefore, nonuse values for the inlet may be large.
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION K 4-13
Figure 4-2
Steps in a Benefits Assessment
1. Development of Effluent Limitations
2. Changes in Water Treatment and/or
Production Processes
3. Reductions in Pollutant Discharges
and Loadings
4. Change in Water Quality
(Pollutant Concentrations)
5. Change in Aquatic Ecosystem
(eg Increased Fish Populations & Diversity:
& Reduced Bioaccumulationl & Aquatic Habitat
6. Change in Level of Demand for & Value of
(e.g., recreational fishina. ecoin«i^ a. «*•,_ ..___
fishing, ecologic, & other
7. Potential Change in Health Risk
(e.g., From Consumption of Fish Caughlt)
-------
3£ ffi^MMt* 'Se^a, So™, it is pro^ie «- nonus,
values for Cook Inlet are also high.7
Potential for Regulatory Nonuse Benefits for Cook Inlet
discharges.
5 A detailed description of the CV method can be found in Mitchell and Carson (1989).
of the true WTP (Carson et al., 1992).
7 Because Cook Inlet is more accessible than Prince William Sound, it may have higher use levels.
those that are exposed to greater use.
-------
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION » 4-15
Potential Use Benefits Relative to Costs
fo^ Th • 8'5/0' resPectlvely, would be required for benefits to equal
miUion, S S 9 mfflta
waters is $2.24 rniZn
waters are $2.24 mi,,"on
'Th ' VI H *"
th "
*
« $0'°- «•"
°P«i°n 4 for produced
-------
-------
CHAPTER 5
REFERENCES
Avanti Corporation. 1994. Water Quality Benefits Analysis. Prepared by Avanti Corporation
Vienna, VA. * '
Babcock, M.M. 1985. Morphology of olfactory epithelium of pink salmon, Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha, and changes following exposure to benzene: A scanning election microscopy
study. In J.S. Gray and M.E. Christiansen (eds.), Marine Biology of Polar Regions and Effects
of Stress on Marine Organisms, pp. 259-267. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England
Bechtol, W.R. 1994. Review of the 1993 Groundfish Fisheries in the Central Region
Prepared for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK. May.
Blundo, R. 1978. The Toxic Effects of the Water Soluble Fractions of No. 2 Fuel Oil and of
Three Aromatic Hydrocarbons on the Behavior and Survival of Barnacle Larvae.
Contributions in Marine Science. 21: 25-37.
p,;C: ""* E'S- BurCh' Jr" 1992' Estimating *e Economic Value of Subsistence Harvest
of Wildlife in Alaska. In: G.L. Peterson, C.S. Swanson, D.W. McCollum, and M.H. Thomas
eds., Valuing Wildlife Resources in Alaska. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 203-254.
Bucher, Wesley A. and Lee Hammarstrom. 1994. 1993 Lower Cook Inlet Area Annual
Fmfish Management Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries
Management and Development Division. Anchorage, Alaska. (Regiond Information Report
Carson, R.T., R.C. Mitchell, W.M. Hanemann, RJ. Kopp, S. Presser, and P. A. Ruud 1992 A
Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdex Oil
Spill. Prepared for the Attorney General of the State of Alaska. November 10.
Collier T.K L.C. Thomas, and D.C. Malins. 1978. Influence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
fasutch): isolation of individual metabolites. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 61C:
^j-2o.
i
Eastern Research Group (ERG). 1994. Toxic Weighting Factors for Coastal Oil and Gas Cost-
briectiveness Analysis.
-------
REFERENCES > 5-2
Eisler R 1985 Cadmium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.
Prepared'for U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. July. 46 pp.
Eisler R 1986 Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. January. 60 pp.
Eisler R 1987a Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and
Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Sponsored by U.S. Department of the Interior.
Biological Report 85(1.11). 81 pp.
Eisler R 1987b. Mercury Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. April. 90 pp.
Eisler R 1988a. Arsenic Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.
Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel
Maryland. Sponsored by U.S. Department of the Interior. Biological Report 85(1.12). 92 pp.
Eisler R 1988b. Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.
Prepared by U S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel,
Maryland. Sponsored by U.S. Department of the Interior. Biological Report 85(1.14). 134 pp.
Feely R A and G.J. Massoth. 1982. Sources, Composition, and Transport of Suspended
Particulate Matter in Lower Cook Inlet and Northwestern Shelikof Strait, Alaska. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Technical Report ERL 415-PMEL 34.
Hanemann W.M., R.T. Carson, R. Gum, and R. Mitchell. 1987. Southcentral Alaska Sport
Fishing Economic Study. Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. for the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. November.
Hood, D.W. and S.T. Zimmerman (eds.). 1987. The Gulf of Alaska. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 655 pp.
Hyland J.L., T.C. Sauer, Jr., S. Tate. 1993. Cook Inlet Pilot Monitoring Study/Prepared for
Cook Inlet Regional Citizens, Kenal, Alaska. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Kiceniuk J.W. and R.A. Khan. 1987. Effect of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on .Atlantic Cod,
Gadits morhua, following Chronic Exposure. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 65: 490-494.
Kimker, A., R. Gustafson and M. Beverage. 1994. Cook Inlet Area Annual Shellfish
Management Report, 1993-94. Prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Commercial Fisheries.
-------
REFERENCES * 5-3
Longwell, A.C. 1978. Field and Laboratory Measurements of Stress Responses at the
Chromosome and Cell Levels in Planktonic Fish Eggs and the Oil Problem. In: University of
Rhode Island, Center for Ocean Management, The Wake of the ARCO Merchant.
McCollum, D.W., G.L. Peterson, and C.S. Swanson. 1992. A Manager's Guide to the
Valuation of Nonmarket Resources: What Do You Really Want to Know? In: G.L. Peterson,
C.S. Swanson, D.W. McCollum, and M.H. Thomas, eds., Valuing Wildlife Resources in
Alaska. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp 25-52.
Meyer, J.S., S.L. Hill, A.M. Boelter, J.C.A. Marr, A.M. Farag, R.K. MacRae, J.A. Hanson,
M.J. Szumski, T.L. Parrish, H.L. Bergman, L. McDonald, G. Johnson, D. Strickland, T. Dean,
and R. Rowe. 1994. Draft Report: Guidance Document for the Determination of Injury to
Biological Resources Resulting from Incidents Involving Oil. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.
Mills, M. 1993. Harvest, Catch, and Participation in Alaska Sport Fisheries During 1992.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish. Anchorage, Alaska.
Minerals Management Service (MMS). 1984. Gulf of Alaska/Cook Inlet Sale 88: Final
Environmental Impact Statement Volume I. Prepared by the U.S. Department of Interior. July.
i
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent
Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future.
Morrow, J.E. 1973. Oil-induced Mortalities in Juvenile Coho and Sockeye Salmon. Journal of
Marine Research. 31: 135-143.
National Research Council (NRC). 1985. Oil in the Sea, Inputs, Fates, and Effects.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 601 p.
Nelson, D. 1994. Area Management Report for the Recreational Fisheries of the Kenai
Peninsula. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish. Anchorage, Alaska.
Nunes, P. and P.E. Benville, Jr. 1978. Acute Toxicity of the Water-soluble Fraction of Cook
Inlet Crude Oil to the Manila Clam. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 9: 324-331.
Peterson, C.H. 1993. Improvement of environmental impact analysis by application of
principles derived from manipulative ecology: Lessons from coastal marine case histories.
Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 21-52.
Rice, S.D. 1974. Toxicity and avoidance tests with Prudhoe Bay oil and pink salmon fry. In
1973 Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills, March 13-
15, 1973, Washington, DC, p. 667-670. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
-------
REFERENCES * 5-4
Rice, S.D., J.W. Short, C.C. Brodersen, T.A. Mecklenburg, D.A. Moles, C.J. Misch, D.L.
Cheatham, and J.F. Karinen. 1976. Acute Toxicity and Uptake - Depuration Studies with
Cook Inlet Crude Oil, No. 2 Fuel Oil, and Several Subarctic Marine Organisms. Northwest
Fisheries Center Auke Bay Fisheries Laboratory Processed Report, National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA, Auke Bay, Alaska.
Ruesch, Paul H. and Jeff Fox. 1994. Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Fisheries Annual
Management Report, 1993. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries
Management and Development Division. Anchorage, Alaska. (Regional Information Report
2A94-22)
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 1994. Estimated Produced Water
Pollutant Loadings for Cook Inlet, Alaska (Produced Water and Drilling Fluids and Cuttings).
Simpson, E. 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division.
Personal Communication.
Smith, T.G., J.R. Geraci, and D.J. St. Aubin. 1983. Reaction of Bottlenose Dolphins, Tursiops
truncates, to a Controlled Oil Spill. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 40:
1522-1525.
Stanek, R.T., J. Fall, and D. Foster. 1982. Subsistence Shellfish Use in Three Cook Inlet
Villages, 1981: A Preliminary Report. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Subsistence. March. 28 pp.
Stanek, R.T. 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Personal
Communication. September 23.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Water Quality Criteria Summary Concentrations.
Varanasi, U., D.J. Gmur, and W.L. Reichert. 1981. Effect of environmental temperature on
naphthalene metabolism by juvenile starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus). Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 10: 203-214.
Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean. 1988. Review of Outdoor Recreation
Economic Demand Studies with Nonmarket Benefit Estimates, 1968-1988. Prepared by
Colorado State University, Department of Economics. June. ;
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF Toxic EFFECTS OF AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
AND METALS ON MARINE ORGANISMS
A.1 AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons may potentially have a negative effect on biological
resources The Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for aromatic hydrocarbons are shown
in lable A-l. These criteria are for the protection of marine organisms.
The following lists some LC-50s (the concentration under which 50% of organisms die)
observed following exposure of marine organisms to aromatic hydrocarbons, specifically
polycychc aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs):
The pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, had an LC-50 (24 hours) of 920 ppb naphthalene
1 i T^ ™Sl Dun§eness crab> Cancer ^Sister, and Coho salmon, Qnchorhynchus kisutch
had LC-50s (96 hour) of 2,000 and 3,200 ppb, respectively (Eisler, 1987a).
I
A comprehensive list of potential toxic effects to marine organisms from aromatic
hydrocarbon exposure should be developed following comparison of modeling results to
f\. W v^^x»
A.2 METALS
The AWQC for metals are shown in Table A-2; these criteria are for the protection of marine
aquatic organisms.
Depending upon the exposure concentration, metals have the potential to adversely impact
biological resources. The following are examples of some toxic responses potentially caused
by metal exposure. A comprehensive review of studies describing metal toxicity should be
performed following comparison of modeling concentration results to AWQC.
Arsenic. Arsenic may be bioaccumulated to toxic levels in the tissues of marine organisms
and has the potential to concentrate in the food chain (U.S. EPA, 1992a). A decline in growth
and metabolic rates of microorganisms may follow exposure to arsenic; more tolerant species
1™1Wf * ^r frST? t0 1'°00 Ppm' While ** most sensitive organisms succumb to
levels less ton 375 ppm (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Phytoplankton populations showed a biomass
reduction after four days of exposure to concentrations of 0.075 ppm (Eisler, 1988a). The
-------
EFFECTS OF AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS AND METALS ON MARINE ORGANISMS > A-2
Table A-l
Marine AWQC for Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Compound
n-Alkanes
Anthracene
Benzene
— h
1 Benzo(a)pyrene
I Biphenyls
j 2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
1 p-Chloro-m-cresol
I Dibenzothiophenes (total)
1 2,4-Dimethylphenol
Di-n-butylphthalate
" '
1 Ethylbenzene
|j Fluorene
1 Naphthalene
—
|] Phenanthrene
Phenol
Polynuclear Aromatic
I] Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
1 Steranes
1 Toluene
II Triterpanes
|| Xylenes
r
Acute AWQC (ug/L)
see PAHs
see PAHs
5,100*
see PAHs
none
none
160*
none
none
none
none
430*
see PAHs
2,350*
7.7 (proposed)
5,800*
300*
none
6,300*
none
none
— _ — •
Chronic AWQC (ug/L)
none
none
700*
none
none
none
129*
none
_ — _ —
none
none
none
none
none
none
4.6 (proposed)
none
none
none
5,000*
none
none
Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value presented is the LOEL (Lowest Observed Effect
Level)
Source: U.S. EPA, 1991; U.S. EPA, 1994.
-------
EFFECTS OF AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS AND METALS ON MARINE ORGANISMS * A-3
Table A-2
Marine AWQC for Metals
Compound
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic (V)
Arsenic (III)
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Chromium (III)
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Zinc
Acute AWQC
pH dependent
1,500 (proposed)
2,319*
69
none
none
none
43
1,100
10,300*
2.9
none
140
none
2.1
75
300
2.3
2,130*
none
none
95
Chronic AWQC
pH dependent
500 (proposed)
none
36
none
none
none
9.3
50
none
none
none
5.6
none
0.025
8.3
71
0.92 (proposed)
none
none
none
86
'Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value presented is the LOEL.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1991; U.S. EPA, 1994.
-------
EFFECTS OF AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS AND METALS ON MARINE ORGANISMS » A-4
Dungeness crab had an LC50 (96 hours) of 0.23 ppm (Eisler, 1988a). The median lethal
concentration of arsenic for the Black Sea mussel was 10 ppm. These mussels were quite
sensitive to sublethal concentrations of arsenic, as reflected by physiological changes (i.e.,
oxygen consumption respiration, trophic activity of yearlings) (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Pink
salmon had an LC54 (10 days) of 3.8 ppm (Eisler, 1988a).
Cadmium Cadmium has been found to bioaccumulate in the tissues of marine organisms, and
has the potential to concentrate in the food chain (U.S. EPA, 1992a). Decreased growth
occurs in algae (Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Skeletonema costatum) following exposure to
10 ppb cadmium (Eisler, 1985). Mysid stirimp, Mysidopisis spp., showed molt inhibition
following exposure to 10 ppb cadmium for 23 to 27 days (Eisler, 1985).
Chromium. Acute toxicity studies show clearly that hexavalent chromium (Cr VI) is more
toxic than trivalent chromium, and that organisms are more sensitive during their younger life
stages. The organisms most sensitive to Cr VI, as judged by 96-hour LC-50 values, were
marine crustaceans, for which LC-50 values ranged from 445 to 3,100 ppb (Eisler, 1986).
Exposures of 28 to 84 days produced LC-50 values of 200 to 500 ppb (Eisler, 1986).
Chromium was additive in toxicity when present in a complex mixture of cadmium, zinc, and
hexavalent chromium salts (Eisler, 1986).
Lead. Reduced biomass was observed in phytoplankton (mixed populations) exposed to 21
ppb lead for 4 days (Eisler, 1988b). The American lobster, Homarus americanus, showed
reduced ALAD activity following 30 days exposure to 50 ppb lead (Eisler, 1988b). Dungeness
Crab had an LC-50 (96 hours) of 575 ppb lead (Eisler, 1988b).
!
Mercury. Mysid shrimp had an LC-50 (96 hour) of 3.5 ppb inorganic mercury, and
Dungeness Crab larva had an LC-50 (96 hours) of 6.6 ppb inorganic mercury (Eisler, 1987b).
Copepods, Acartia tonsa, and prawn, Penaeus indicus, had LC-50s (96 hour) of 10 and 15.3
ppb, respectively (Eisler, 1987b). Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefmus, had an LC-50 (96
hour) of 98 ppb (Eisler, 1987b).
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |