Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Legislature revisits curbing chatty drivers CELL PHONES: Restricting use gains favor as research points to dangers.
JUNEAU -- A hot button issue from the last legislative session is back: whether to ban drivers from talking on their cell phones.
Traffic safety advocates want a ban. So do police organizations. Republicans and Democrats alike seem to like the idea of restricting cell phone use by drivers even though they know it's sure to rile up some constituents. It's an idea that's gaining acceptance across the country.
More than 60 percent of Alaska drivers say they at least occasionally talk on their cell phones on the road, according to an August 2010 survey by the Alaska Injury Prevention Center. Nearly one in five said they do so every second or third time they drive.
Research suggests that cell phones are a serious distraction for drivers. A study of drivers in Australia that relied on call records found that cell phone users were four times more likely to get in a crash as other drivers. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that close to 1,000 traffic deaths in 2009 were related to cell phone distractions and suggests the real size of the problem could be masked by inadequate records.
Several bills affecting cell phone use by drivers are before the House Transportation Committee, which held a hearing Tuesday that focused mainly on one measure, House Bill 22, which would restrict drivers to hands-free devices like a Bluetooth headset.
Only two Alaskans, other than agency representatives, testified, and both supported the bill.
Mitch Falk, owner of Bullwinkle's Pizza Parlor in Juneau, phoned in to the hearing.
"It's kind of ironic because I'm driving down Egan Drive here," Falk said from his cell phone, drawing laughs. But he said he sees too many truckers driving, shifting, talking -- and not paying attention.
"I've done that myself and I know how you steer," Falk said. "You steer with your knees and that can't be a good thing."
Teens especially could use one less distraction, he said.
Alfred McKinley Sr., a Juneau resident who is on the executive committee of the Alaska Native Brotherhood, told the committee his brother-in-law was killed and his sister was hurt in a crash years ago caused by a driver on a cell phone.
He urged the committee to consider applying any ban to cyclists and pedestrians as well. He said he's had to brake suddenly to avoid hitting a someone walking and talking on the phone who stepped suddenly into the street. He pulled out his cell phone to mimic a distracted walker.
"It's a good thing that was developed, but it's also an enemy for the people," McKinley said.
Rep. Max Gruenberg, an Anchorage Democrat, was intrigued with the idea of including bicyclists in any ban. "As far as pedestrians, I am not going to go there. People can walk, and I'm not going to deal with that," Gruenberg said. But considering cyclists' need for balance, they may need to stay off the phone, he said. If they are chatting while riding, he said, "I think that's extremely risky."
He had proposed his own cell bill but said it was similar to House Bill 22, by Republican Cathy Muñoz of Juneau. So he's joined that one as a co-sponsor.
House Bill 22 would ban cell phone use by drivers except in emergencies or when using a hands-free device, which can be answered with a quick tap to the earpiece. The offense would be a violation, like a traffic ticket.
Under the bill, police and troopers could pull over drivers for using cell phones even if the driver wasn't doing anything else wrong.
CLOSE CALLS
That's as it should be -- otherwise, why change the law, said state Rep. Peggy Wilson, R-Wrangell and chairwoman of the Transportation Committee.
She said she has caught herself swerving a bit after answering her cell phone in the car.
It's clear the legislation is needed, she said.
Some senators are supportive too.
Asked about the effort to restrict drivers on cell phones Tuesday during a session with reporters, Sen. Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage, gave two thumbs up. He mentioned he had a close call with a phone-distracted driver.
"It was a person in a Suburban chatting on a cell phone," said Ellis, recalling the near miss walking in downtown Anchorage. "I was crossing the street, assuming they would stop at the four-way stop. This distracted driver kept barreling through the four-way stop, and I jumped back on the sidewalk to avoid being hit."
The experience, he said, crystallized the need for legislation. He said he no longer talks on his own cell phone while driving.
Neither does state Rep. Mike Doogan. The Democrat from Anchorage has proposed the most restrictive cell phone law in the nation. His House Bill 35 would outright ban drivers from using cell phones except in an emergency.
Research shows there's not much difference in crash numbers between using hand-held phones and hands-free accessories, Doogan said. It's not like talking to a passenger in the car because it uses a different thought process, he said. Plus, a passenger also may be looking out for dangers on the road.
But he hasn't asked for a hearing on his bill, which mirrors what he proposed last year. He said he was told it wouldn't get through.
He said he'll support whatever cell phone measure can pass.
"Any version of this bill that makes it even marginally less likely for people to being to be driving down the street talking on the cell phone is a good thing," Doogan said.
A fourth bill would limit a ban to drivers under 18. But committee members said adults needed to be included too.
Some of the key research comes from a yearlong study of some 100 cars and their drivers sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said Cindy Cashen, administrator of the Alaska Highway Safety Office.
The study found that manually punching in a phone number was about as distracting for a driver as grooming or eating in the car but less distracting than reading or changing a CD, she told the committee.
Nearly a quarter of the crashes in the study were attributed to drivers doing tasks unrelated to driving, including talking on their cell phones, she said later.
Without much testimony Tuesday, Wilson said she'd hold House Bill 22 for another week.
"I think that we'll have a lot of people out there that are not going to be happy about this," Wilson said. "I don't want them to think we railroaded this through without giving them a chance to testify."
The House GOP-led majority hasn't taken a position on the bill. State Rep. Steve Thompson, a Republican from Fairbanks, told reporters Monday that it continues to be controversial.
"There's a lot of people who don't want to see it happen. They're saying well, you're going to outlaw breathing and hamburgers."
But it will probably pass, he said. Drivers need to pay attention to what is going on around them, not their phone.
Traffic safety advocates want a ban. So do police organizations. Republicans and Democrats alike seem to like the idea of restricting cell phone use by drivers even though they know it's sure to rile up some constituents. It's an idea that's gaining acceptance across the country.
More than 60 percent of Alaska drivers say they at least occasionally talk on their cell phones on the road, according to an August 2010 survey by the Alaska Injury Prevention Center. Nearly one in five said they do so every second or third time they drive.
Research suggests that cell phones are a serious distraction for drivers. A study of drivers in Australia that relied on call records found that cell phone users were four times more likely to get in a crash as other drivers. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that close to 1,000 traffic deaths in 2009 were related to cell phone distractions and suggests the real size of the problem could be masked by inadequate records.
Several bills affecting cell phone use by drivers are before the House Transportation Committee, which held a hearing Tuesday that focused mainly on one measure, House Bill 22, which would restrict drivers to hands-free devices like a Bluetooth headset.
Only two Alaskans, other than agency representatives, testified, and both supported the bill.
Mitch Falk, owner of Bullwinkle's Pizza Parlor in Juneau, phoned in to the hearing.
"It's kind of ironic because I'm driving down Egan Drive here," Falk said from his cell phone, drawing laughs. But he said he sees too many truckers driving, shifting, talking -- and not paying attention.
"I've done that myself and I know how you steer," Falk said. "You steer with your knees and that can't be a good thing."
Teens especially could use one less distraction, he said.
Alfred McKinley Sr., a Juneau resident who is on the executive committee of the Alaska Native Brotherhood, told the committee his brother-in-law was killed and his sister was hurt in a crash years ago caused by a driver on a cell phone.
He urged the committee to consider applying any ban to cyclists and pedestrians as well. He said he's had to brake suddenly to avoid hitting a someone walking and talking on the phone who stepped suddenly into the street. He pulled out his cell phone to mimic a distracted walker.
"It's a good thing that was developed, but it's also an enemy for the people," McKinley said.
Rep. Max Gruenberg, an Anchorage Democrat, was intrigued with the idea of including bicyclists in any ban. "As far as pedestrians, I am not going to go there. People can walk, and I'm not going to deal with that," Gruenberg said. But considering cyclists' need for balance, they may need to stay off the phone, he said. If they are chatting while riding, he said, "I think that's extremely risky."
He had proposed his own cell bill but said it was similar to House Bill 22, by Republican Cathy Muñoz of Juneau. So he's joined that one as a co-sponsor.
House Bill 22 would ban cell phone use by drivers except in emergencies or when using a hands-free device, which can be answered with a quick tap to the earpiece. The offense would be a violation, like a traffic ticket.
Under the bill, police and troopers could pull over drivers for using cell phones even if the driver wasn't doing anything else wrong.
CLOSE CALLS
That's as it should be -- otherwise, why change the law, said state Rep. Peggy Wilson, R-Wrangell and chairwoman of the Transportation Committee.
She said she has caught herself swerving a bit after answering her cell phone in the car.
It's clear the legislation is needed, she said.
Some senators are supportive too.
Asked about the effort to restrict drivers on cell phones Tuesday during a session with reporters, Sen. Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage, gave two thumbs up. He mentioned he had a close call with a phone-distracted driver.
"It was a person in a Suburban chatting on a cell phone," said Ellis, recalling the near miss walking in downtown Anchorage. "I was crossing the street, assuming they would stop at the four-way stop. This distracted driver kept barreling through the four-way stop, and I jumped back on the sidewalk to avoid being hit."
The experience, he said, crystallized the need for legislation. He said he no longer talks on his own cell phone while driving.
Neither does state Rep. Mike Doogan. The Democrat from Anchorage has proposed the most restrictive cell phone law in the nation. His House Bill 35 would outright ban drivers from using cell phones except in an emergency.
Research shows there's not much difference in crash numbers between using hand-held phones and hands-free accessories, Doogan said. It's not like talking to a passenger in the car because it uses a different thought process, he said. Plus, a passenger also may be looking out for dangers on the road.
But he hasn't asked for a hearing on his bill, which mirrors what he proposed last year. He said he was told it wouldn't get through.
He said he'll support whatever cell phone measure can pass.
"Any version of this bill that makes it even marginally less likely for people to being to be driving down the street talking on the cell phone is a good thing," Doogan said.
A fourth bill would limit a ban to drivers under 18. But committee members said adults needed to be included too.
Some of the key research comes from a yearlong study of some 100 cars and their drivers sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said Cindy Cashen, administrator of the Alaska Highway Safety Office.
The study found that manually punching in a phone number was about as distracting for a driver as grooming or eating in the car but less distracting than reading or changing a CD, she told the committee.
Nearly a quarter of the crashes in the study were attributed to drivers doing tasks unrelated to driving, including talking on their cell phones, she said later.
Without much testimony Tuesday, Wilson said she'd hold House Bill 22 for another week.
"I think that we'll have a lot of people out there that are not going to be happy about this," Wilson said. "I don't want them to think we railroaded this through without giving them a chance to testify."
The House GOP-led majority hasn't taken a position on the bill. State Rep. Steve Thompson, a Republican from Fairbanks, told reporters Monday that it continues to be controversial.
"There's a lot of people who don't want to see it happen. They're saying well, you're going to outlaw breathing and hamburgers."
But it will probably pass, he said. Drivers need to pay attention to what is going on around them, not their phone.
Court to hear arguments Friday on Exxon Valdez payment $92 MILLION: Claim seeks money for more cleanup; oil giant says it owes zilch.
Exxon Mobil Corp. says it has paid enough for the 1989 Alaska oil spill, but a judge will hear arguments Friday that the company still owes nearly $100 million to remove oil from the Prince William Sound shoreline.
Federal District Court Judge Russel Holland scheduled arguments in response to a court motion filed by Anchorage oceans activist Rick Steiner. At issue is a $92 million claim filed by the state and federal governments in 2006, arguing the oil is degrading too slowly and continues to harm wildlife. State and federal officials haven't taken further action to collect the money, and Steiner said he's trying to force the issue.
"It's gone on way too long," he said.
Exxon, meanwhile, argued in a court filing last week that it doesn't owe the money at all.
Exxon paid $900 million in restitution as part of a 1991 civil settlement over the Exxon Valdez case. But the settlement also had a clause allowing the state and federal governments to later claim up to $100 million more from Exxon if there were unforeseen damages from the spill. That's the money now under dispute.
The governments filed the claim right before the 2006 deadline for them to do so. "It is clear that populations and habitat within the oil spill area have suffered substantial and unanticipated injuries that are attributable to the Exxon Valdez oil spill," then-Alaska Attorney General David Marquez said at the time.
'NO FURTHER OBLIGATIONS'
Exxon disputed the need to pay the money in a court filing made in advance of Friday's hearing.
The company's lawyers said just a tiny amount of oil residues remain in isolated pockets of the Prince William Sound shoreline. The presence of such oil is "hardly unexpected," Exxon argues, and there's no justification for claiming damages from the spill that weren't foreseen at the time of the 1991 civil settlement.
Exxon also maintains that state and federal authorities missed the deadline to get the money. The company's lawyers argue the governments failed to include a proper plan for restoration projects in their 2006 claim.
"Thus, Exxon Mobil has no further obligations," said the company's court filing last week.
FRANK MURKOWSKI WEIGHS IN
Government lawyers have said they're waiting for studies on the remaining oil and the effectiveness of cleanup techniques before pursuing their claim for the Exxon money.
Federal lawyers didn't return a phone call Tuesday, but said in a January court filing that "the Governments have not sought to have the Court enforce (the claim) ... pending the outcome of those studies."
State and federal lawyers have been working together on the Exxon Valdez case.
"The state and federal governments are aligned on this issue, and will be laying out a position at Friday's hearing regarding further studies on potential remedial measures," state Department of Law spokesman Bill McAllister said in an e-mail.
The state doesn't want to proceed with a cleanup that doesn't work or harms the beaches, a lawyer representing the state said during a December interview.
Frank Murkowski, who was governor when the state filed the 2006 claim for the money, submitted a letter with the court this week saying it's time to resolve the matter.
"It is in the public interest that the governments move from continuing study to resolution as soon as possible. Alaska deserves closure on this issue after 22 years," Murkowski wrote.
PRESSURING THE GOVERNMENT
Steiner is asking the federal judge to order Exxon to pay the state and federal $92 million claim with interest, for a total of $115 million, with the money going to the government natural resource agencies to use for restoration.
Steiner, a retired University of Alaska marine science professor, was involved in the oil spill cleanup and has long worked with groups monitoring the oil industry.
He said the Alaska attorney general in 2006 noted the state had already been analyzing potential claims for seven years. So it's now been a dozen years, he said.
"That is excessive by anyone's judgment, and I think the governments should really be ashamed of their behavior on this," Steiner said.
Federal District Court Judge Russel Holland scheduled arguments in response to a court motion filed by Anchorage oceans activist Rick Steiner. At issue is a $92 million claim filed by the state and federal governments in 2006, arguing the oil is degrading too slowly and continues to harm wildlife. State and federal officials haven't taken further action to collect the money, and Steiner said he's trying to force the issue.
"It's gone on way too long," he said.
Exxon, meanwhile, argued in a court filing last week that it doesn't owe the money at all.
Exxon paid $900 million in restitution as part of a 1991 civil settlement over the Exxon Valdez case. But the settlement also had a clause allowing the state and federal governments to later claim up to $100 million more from Exxon if there were unforeseen damages from the spill. That's the money now under dispute.
The governments filed the claim right before the 2006 deadline for them to do so. "It is clear that populations and habitat within the oil spill area have suffered substantial and unanticipated injuries that are attributable to the Exxon Valdez oil spill," then-Alaska Attorney General David Marquez said at the time.
'NO FURTHER OBLIGATIONS'
Exxon disputed the need to pay the money in a court filing made in advance of Friday's hearing.
The company's lawyers said just a tiny amount of oil residues remain in isolated pockets of the Prince William Sound shoreline. The presence of such oil is "hardly unexpected," Exxon argues, and there's no justification for claiming damages from the spill that weren't foreseen at the time of the 1991 civil settlement.
Exxon also maintains that state and federal authorities missed the deadline to get the money. The company's lawyers argue the governments failed to include a proper plan for restoration projects in their 2006 claim.
"Thus, Exxon Mobil has no further obligations," said the company's court filing last week.
FRANK MURKOWSKI WEIGHS IN
Government lawyers have said they're waiting for studies on the remaining oil and the effectiveness of cleanup techniques before pursuing their claim for the Exxon money.
Federal lawyers didn't return a phone call Tuesday, but said in a January court filing that "the Governments have not sought to have the Court enforce (the claim) ... pending the outcome of those studies."
State and federal lawyers have been working together on the Exxon Valdez case.
"The state and federal governments are aligned on this issue, and will be laying out a position at Friday's hearing regarding further studies on potential remedial measures," state Department of Law spokesman Bill McAllister said in an e-mail.
The state doesn't want to proceed with a cleanup that doesn't work or harms the beaches, a lawyer representing the state said during a December interview.
Frank Murkowski, who was governor when the state filed the 2006 claim for the money, submitted a letter with the court this week saying it's time to resolve the matter.
"It is in the public interest that the governments move from continuing study to resolution as soon as possible. Alaska deserves closure on this issue after 22 years," Murkowski wrote.
PRESSURING THE GOVERNMENT
Steiner is asking the federal judge to order Exxon to pay the state and federal $92 million claim with interest, for a total of $115 million, with the money going to the government natural resource agencies to use for restoration.
Steiner, a retired University of Alaska marine science professor, was involved in the oil spill cleanup and has long worked with groups monitoring the oil industry.
He said the Alaska attorney general in 2006 noted the state had already been analyzing potential claims for seven years. So it's now been a dozen years, he said.
"That is excessive by anyone's judgment, and I think the governments should really be ashamed of their behavior on this," Steiner said.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Today's oil, gas, gold, zinc prices
North Slope oil: not yet available
U.S. natural gas (Henry Hub): $3.94 per million BTU, up $0.02
Gold (N.Y. Mercantile): $1,430.70 per ounce, up $21.40
Zinc: $1.1235 per pound, up 0.34 cents
U.S. natural gas (Henry Hub): $3.94 per million BTU, up $0.02
Gold (N.Y. Mercantile): $1,430.70 per ounce, up $21.40
Zinc: $1.1235 per pound, up 0.34 cents
Drug testing returns ... with a twist
Drug tests are back this year for Iditarod mushers under updated drug rules that could disqualify mushers who smoke pot before – not just during – the race.
The Iditarod began testing for illegal drugs for the first time last year. Anchorage-based WorkSafe set up a makeshift drug-testing headquarters in a city supply room in White Mountain, the second-to-last checkpoint on the trail, where officials pulled mushers aside during their mandatory eight-hour stay in the village.
The top finishers all tested clean, the Iditarod reported.
That includes champion Lance Mackey, who believed jealous competitors called for the drug tests in hopes he’d test positive for marijuana.
"There goes all the finger-pointing and accusations and assumptions," Mackey told The Associated Press when the results arrived. "They just got laid to rest."
Two mushers toward the back of the pack, however, tested positive for THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana. The Iditarod never publicly identified the mushers because the race rules were unclear, executive director Stan Hooley said.
The 2010 rules said mushers weren’t allowed to use drugs during the race, but the nature of the testing couldn’t prove whether the THC use took place before the Iditarod.
The board has amended the rules to say that merely testing positive can result in disqualification, meaning lingering drugs in your system could get you booted from the race.
Hooley wouldn’t say where the mushers will be tested this year.
Mushers can and do apply for “therapeutic use exemptions” to the drug rules. Hooley said the Iditarod Trail Committee is not told who asks for the drug exemptions.
“In general terms, we understand that a number of mushers did apply for the TUEs last year and again this year,” he said in an e-mail.
The list of banned drugs include:
-- Marijuana
-- Hashish
-- Cocaine
-- Amphetamine/Methamphetamine
-- Opiates (Codeine/Morphine)
-- Synthetic Opiates (Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone, Oxycodone, Oxymorphone)
-- Propoxyphene
-- Phencyclidine
-- Or any other narcotic or controlled substance as defined by federal or state law
The Iditarod began testing for illegal drugs for the first time last year. Anchorage-based WorkSafe set up a makeshift drug-testing headquarters in a city supply room in White Mountain, the second-to-last checkpoint on the trail, where officials pulled mushers aside during their mandatory eight-hour stay in the village.
The top finishers all tested clean, the Iditarod reported.
That includes champion Lance Mackey, who believed jealous competitors called for the drug tests in hopes he’d test positive for marijuana.
"There goes all the finger-pointing and accusations and assumptions," Mackey told The Associated Press when the results arrived. "They just got laid to rest."
Two mushers toward the back of the pack, however, tested positive for THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana. The Iditarod never publicly identified the mushers because the race rules were unclear, executive director Stan Hooley said.
The 2010 rules said mushers weren’t allowed to use drugs during the race, but the nature of the testing couldn’t prove whether the THC use took place before the Iditarod.
The board has amended the rules to say that merely testing positive can result in disqualification, meaning lingering drugs in your system could get you booted from the race.
Hooley wouldn’t say where the mushers will be tested this year.
Mushers can and do apply for “therapeutic use exemptions” to the drug rules. Hooley said the Iditarod Trail Committee is not told who asks for the drug exemptions.
“In general terms, we understand that a number of mushers did apply for the TUEs last year and again this year,” he said in an e-mail.
The list of banned drugs include:
-- Marijuana
-- Hashish
-- Cocaine
-- Amphetamine/Methamphetamine
-- Opiates (Codeine/Morphine)
-- Synthetic Opiates (Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone, Oxycodone, Oxymorphone)
-- Propoxyphene
-- Phencyclidine
-- Or any other narcotic or controlled substance as defined by federal or state law
Steese Highway caribou hunt closed, might re-open later this week
FAIRBANKS — The winter Fortymile caribou hunt off the Steese Highway closed on schedule Monday, but state game managers might reopen it later this week once they determine how many caribou were killed during the weekend.
Tok area biologist Jeff Gross with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said “there are a lot rumors flying around about the season being extended,” but that hasn’t happened yet and game managers are hoping to know by the end of the week whether or not that will happen.
“We’re hoping by Thursday everybody will have reported,” he said, referring to the three-day reporting requirement for hunters who bagged a caribou. “Then we’re going to assess the harvest and determine whether or not we can reopen the hunt. Based on our numbers right now it’s definitely a possibility.”
As of Monday, the harvest was approximately 160 caribou and the harvest quota was 275. With a population of approximately 51,000 animals, the Fortymile is the largest caribou herd in the Interior.
The popular hunt off the Steese Highway was postponed for more than two months because too many caribou had congregated along the road. Game managers were worried about an overharvest with the animals so accessible.
The state opened a portion of the hunt farther off the road system in early January, and hunters took about 80 caribou before the hunt along the road was opened for two days on Feb. 10-11. Hunters were hampered by bad weather during that two-day opening, however, and took only about
30 caribou.
The road hunt was reopened on Feb. 18 for the final 10 days of the season, but storms the past two weekends resulted in a relatively low harvest of 30 to 40 caribou.
Tok area biologist Jeff Gross with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said “there are a lot rumors flying around about the season being extended,” but that hasn’t happened yet and game managers are hoping to know by the end of the week whether or not that will happen.
“We’re hoping by Thursday everybody will have reported,” he said, referring to the three-day reporting requirement for hunters who bagged a caribou. “Then we’re going to assess the harvest and determine whether or not we can reopen the hunt. Based on our numbers right now it’s definitely a possibility.”
As of Monday, the harvest was approximately 160 caribou and the harvest quota was 275. With a population of approximately 51,000 animals, the Fortymile is the largest caribou herd in the Interior.
The popular hunt off the Steese Highway was postponed for more than two months because too many caribou had congregated along the road. Game managers were worried about an overharvest with the animals so accessible.
The state opened a portion of the hunt farther off the road system in early January, and hunters took about 80 caribou before the hunt along the road was opened for two days on Feb. 10-11. Hunters were hampered by bad weather during that two-day opening, however, and took only about
30 caribou.
The road hunt was reopened on Feb. 18 for the final 10 days of the season, but storms the past two weekends resulted in a relatively low harvest of 30 to 40 caribou.
Commercial fish species expand their range into the Arctic OIL, GAS STUDIES: Researchers see wealth of marine data.
Spurred by the rush to develop the Arctic's offshore oil and gas riches, scientists are unlocking some mysteries about the marine environment off Alaska's northern coast.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the icy Beaufort and Chukchi seas, resulting in major discoveries -- including the existence of commercial fish species such as Pacific cod and walleye pollock in places never before documented.
Two summers ago, Libby Logerwell and her colleagues from the National Marine Fisheries Service headed out in a trawler to survey fish populations in federal waters of the western Beaufort. This research project occurred the same year that the federal government leased large blocks of seafloor in both seas to major oil companies for exploration. It was the first offshore fish survey in the Beaufort in 30 years.
Logerwell said the main goal of the 2008 Beaufort survey -- recently compiled into a final report -- was to gather data to help evaluate the potential impacts of oil and gas development.
But her team's discoveries east of Barrow had other ripple effects.
For example, the team's find of commercial fish species more typically caught in the Bering and North Pacific informed federal fishery regulators' 2009 decision to ban commercial fishing in U.S. Arctic waters, to buy time before seafood companies could even think about moving boats there. The biggest fishery in Alaska targets Bering Sea pollock.
A larger concern is the potential for environmental disruption, either from increased shipping traffic as Arctic ice recedes amid global warming, or from catastrophic spills of future oil production or exploratory drilling. Scientists say it is difficult to calculate the damage if you don't know even know what is in the environment.
Also, scientists are watching commercially valuable fish and shellfish species expand their range northward because of warming ocean temperatures. In addition to the discovery of pollock and cod, Logerwell's survey was the first to find commercial-sized snow crab in the U.S. Arctic.
A DATA RUSH
Since 2006, federal offshore oil and gas regulators have spent about $60 million on Arctic research.
Royal Dutch Shell, one of the companies that aspires to drill exploration wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi, says it has spent more than $500 million on scientific work.
The western Beaufort fish survey in 2008 alone cost $1 million. A second fish survey in the central Beaufort -- closer to Camden Bay, where Shell hopes to drill its first oil well in the U.S. Arctic in decades -- is scheduled for this summer. That University of Alaska Fairbanks project has been budgeted at $1.7 million. Both surveys were funded by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
Federal scientists admit they had to rely on limited, old data about fish when they analyzed the potential environmental impacts of exploring for oil and gas in the Beaufort. The scarcity of data and concerns about Arctic wildlife including bowhead whales and polar bears has resulted in harsh criticism from environmental groups seeking to halt or slow the pace of oil and gas development in offshore waters.
"We're pushing to get information on both seas," said Kate Wedemeyer, a fisheries oceanographer for the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement in Anchorage.
"There is about five to 10 times more information (about) the Chukchi than the Beaufort," she said, noting that Shell and Conoco Phillips both have surveyed for fish where they hope to drill wells but the companies haven't shared their data for external review yet.
Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith said the company is still analyzing its fish data from the Beaufort last year. He said the company looked at everything from bowhead whale migration to water chemistry over the last five years. Recently Shell signed a $2 million agreement with the North Slope Borough to tackle scientific concerns raised by people who live in the region. Some of that work -- possibly including a review of the health of subsistence wildlife populations -- will begin this year, he said.
The borough came out in favor of Shell's plan to drill one exploration well this summer in the Beaufort's Camden Bay, saying enough data have been collected to go ahead with that work. But that drilling has been delayed until 2012 because of permit problems, and some tribal governments on the North Slope and many environmental groups continue to oppose Shell's plan.
"We strongly believe the science should be conducted first, until we have a good baseline," said Chris Krenz, a Juneau-based research scientist for Oceana, a conservation group.
The fish surveys are an important step in that direction, he said.
NO SPAWNING?
In the Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutians and the Bering Sea, federal-run research vessels sail every year or every other year to gather trawl data needed to manage commercial fish catches. But large swaths of the Beaufort still remain barely examined by scientists.
"Where we have the least knowledge, after fish, is the (bottom-dwellers) and the food that everybody eats," Wedemeyer said.
She said she is excited to learn what the University of Alaska-Fairbanks-led fish survey this summer in the central Beaufort will find. For example, it remains unknown whether the pollock and cod discovered in the western Beaufort in 2008 have migrated that far.
It's also unclear if pollock and Pacific cod are spawning in the region. Logerwell's survey found many juvenile pollock and a handful of Pacific cod but no spawning adult. The fish could have strayed there, she said.
Wedemeyer said she's also hopeful about reaching an agreement with Canadian scientists to study the eastern Beaufort -- another potential hot spot for future oil and gas exploration -- in future years.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the icy Beaufort and Chukchi seas, resulting in major discoveries -- including the existence of commercial fish species such as Pacific cod and walleye pollock in places never before documented.
Two summers ago, Libby Logerwell and her colleagues from the National Marine Fisheries Service headed out in a trawler to survey fish populations in federal waters of the western Beaufort. This research project occurred the same year that the federal government leased large blocks of seafloor in both seas to major oil companies for exploration. It was the first offshore fish survey in the Beaufort in 30 years.
Logerwell said the main goal of the 2008 Beaufort survey -- recently compiled into a final report -- was to gather data to help evaluate the potential impacts of oil and gas development.
But her team's discoveries east of Barrow had other ripple effects.
For example, the team's find of commercial fish species more typically caught in the Bering and North Pacific informed federal fishery regulators' 2009 decision to ban commercial fishing in U.S. Arctic waters, to buy time before seafood companies could even think about moving boats there. The biggest fishery in Alaska targets Bering Sea pollock.
A larger concern is the potential for environmental disruption, either from increased shipping traffic as Arctic ice recedes amid global warming, or from catastrophic spills of future oil production or exploratory drilling. Scientists say it is difficult to calculate the damage if you don't know even know what is in the environment.
Also, scientists are watching commercially valuable fish and shellfish species expand their range northward because of warming ocean temperatures. In addition to the discovery of pollock and cod, Logerwell's survey was the first to find commercial-sized snow crab in the U.S. Arctic.
A DATA RUSH
Since 2006, federal offshore oil and gas regulators have spent about $60 million on Arctic research.
Royal Dutch Shell, one of the companies that aspires to drill exploration wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi, says it has spent more than $500 million on scientific work.
The western Beaufort fish survey in 2008 alone cost $1 million. A second fish survey in the central Beaufort -- closer to Camden Bay, where Shell hopes to drill its first oil well in the U.S. Arctic in decades -- is scheduled for this summer. That University of Alaska Fairbanks project has been budgeted at $1.7 million. Both surveys were funded by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
Federal scientists admit they had to rely on limited, old data about fish when they analyzed the potential environmental impacts of exploring for oil and gas in the Beaufort. The scarcity of data and concerns about Arctic wildlife including bowhead whales and polar bears has resulted in harsh criticism from environmental groups seeking to halt or slow the pace of oil and gas development in offshore waters.
"We're pushing to get information on both seas," said Kate Wedemeyer, a fisheries oceanographer for the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement in Anchorage.
"There is about five to 10 times more information (about) the Chukchi than the Beaufort," she said, noting that Shell and Conoco Phillips both have surveyed for fish where they hope to drill wells but the companies haven't shared their data for external review yet.
Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith said the company is still analyzing its fish data from the Beaufort last year. He said the company looked at everything from bowhead whale migration to water chemistry over the last five years. Recently Shell signed a $2 million agreement with the North Slope Borough to tackle scientific concerns raised by people who live in the region. Some of that work -- possibly including a review of the health of subsistence wildlife populations -- will begin this year, he said.
The borough came out in favor of Shell's plan to drill one exploration well this summer in the Beaufort's Camden Bay, saying enough data have been collected to go ahead with that work. But that drilling has been delayed until 2012 because of permit problems, and some tribal governments on the North Slope and many environmental groups continue to oppose Shell's plan.
"We strongly believe the science should be conducted first, until we have a good baseline," said Chris Krenz, a Juneau-based research scientist for Oceana, a conservation group.
The fish surveys are an important step in that direction, he said.
NO SPAWNING?
In the Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutians and the Bering Sea, federal-run research vessels sail every year or every other year to gather trawl data needed to manage commercial fish catches. But large swaths of the Beaufort still remain barely examined by scientists.
"Where we have the least knowledge, after fish, is the (bottom-dwellers) and the food that everybody eats," Wedemeyer said.
She said she is excited to learn what the University of Alaska-Fairbanks-led fish survey this summer in the central Beaufort will find. For example, it remains unknown whether the pollock and cod discovered in the western Beaufort in 2008 have migrated that far.
It's also unclear if pollock and Pacific cod are spawning in the region. Logerwell's survey found many juvenile pollock and a handful of Pacific cod but no spawning adult. The fish could have strayed there, she said.
Wedemeyer said she's also hopeful about reaching an agreement with Canadian scientists to study the eastern Beaufort -- another potential hot spot for future oil and gas exploration -- in future years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Fisherman's Choice Charters
- Houston, Alaska, United States
- With over 30 years experience as Alaska salmon fishing guides, Ray Blodgett and his Coast Guard licensed crew are privileged to know the Alaska rivers and their hot spots and have the boats and river savvy to get you there. With 3 rivers to choose from, our Alaska salmon fishing guides have over 300 miles of the hottest salmon and trout fishing waters in the world at their disposal giving our clients a great success rate! Give us a call and LET'S GO FISHING!! 907-892-8707