Possible Activities Resulting from OCS Leasing

Activities that could occur on leases issued as a result of sales on the proposed leasing schedule or one of the alternative schedules may extend over a period of 25-to-40 years. Among the types of activities analyzed for environmental impacts are: (1) drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; (2) installing and operating offshore platforms, pipelines, and onshore support facilities; (3) and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. The specific amounts and locations of activity that might occur as a result of adopting the proposal or any of the alternatives are unknown. The environmental analysis is based on reasoned assumptions about future activities. The assumptions constitute a scenario of activities developed for the proposal and each alternative. Estimates of oil and gas resources that might be found in and produced from the areas being considered for leasing provide the basis for making the assumptions. Each scenario contains the major elements of activity needed to support exploration, production, and transportation of oil and gas which may be discovered and found to be economically producible.

Principal Concerns About Possible Program Effects

Risks of Accidental Oil Spills

No one knows where, when, or if a serious oil spill will result from development associated with continued OCS development. Although there have been numerous oil spills in the marine environment from the movement of oil by tanker, it has been more than 20 years since any substantial environmental impacts have been observed as a result of spills from OCS oil production or transportation. During that time, major advancements in drilling and production technology have been made. Despite these facts, concerns remain that OCS oil spills will result in unacceptable impacts on the environment. Calculations of the risk of oil spill occurrence from the proposal were made using historical oil spill data and estimates of the oil resources that might be produced from each planning area under the proposal. That risk varies from region to region and is proportional to the amount of oil that could be produced and transported.

Although the risk of oil spill occurrence can be readily estimated using production estimates and observed spill rates, it is not possible to predict the degree to which a particular environmental resource would be affected by spilled oil. To assess such risk requires a knowledge of where and when spills might occur. It may be assumed that for any environmental resources, the risk of contact with spilled oil is lower than the risk of an oil spill occurring. General assumptions about the locations of oil spills, and in some instances, exposure of the environmental resources to the spill, were made to provide a basis for assessing possible impacts.

Ecological Issues

The potential for OCS activities to affect ecological resources was often raised as an issue during the development of the EIS. A wide variety of such resources could be affected by OCS oil and natural gas exploration and development. In response to concerns about potential ecological impacts, the EIS analyzes numerous species and habitat types. The resources analyzed for impacts fall into one of four general categories: 1) air, 2) water, 3) animal species (e.g., marine mammals, birds, fish, etc.), and 4) shorelines (e.g., barrier beaches, wetlands, intertidal areas, etc.).

Economic and Social Issues

Concerns about the proposal cited most often by the public focus on the adverse economic and social effects that might occur in coastal communities. Effects on tourism and fishing are the foremost concerns. Among

the specific issues raised are potential impacts on tourism, commercial fishing, aesthetics, recreation, land use, and public facilities. In Alaska, the effects on subsistence hunting and Alaska Native culture are also of concern. Citizens of many potentially affected coastal communities view OCS development as incompatible with other marine and coastally-based economic activities such as fishing or recreation. Accidental oil spills are perceived to represent the principal risk to these activities.

Potential Impacts of the Proposal - Major Findings

The potential impacts from implementing the proposed action, and holding a series of lease sales that result in the production of oil and natural gas, fall into two categories. One consists of impacts which might result from routine or permitted activities such as the disposal of fluids used in the drilling process, placement of platforms, and placement of pipelines on the seafloor. The other includes impacts from accidental events such as the impacts caused by oil spills.

Oil spills could cause impacts that are more visible than those from routine activities. Some degree of impact is likely on most of the environmental and socioeconomic resources. In virtually all cases, impacts should not result in permanent damage to or loss of these resources. Notable exceptions are the loss of wetlands along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and social changes among the natives of the North Slope and Northwest Arctic Borough areas of Alaska.

Possible Ecological Impacts

Water Quality

No permanent degradation of water quality is predicted. Rapid dilution of discharged materials, in conjunction with regulatory (NPDES) permit discharge restrictions, should limit the extent of water quality degradation to within a few hundred meters of the platform or other source. Oil spills could cause very short term degradation of water quality (days to weeks) and dramatic increases in concentrations of hydrocarbons in the waters near the surface during the period.

Air Quality

No major degradation of onshore air quality is predicted. Emissions associated with routine program activities could cause small increases in onshore concentrations of some air pollutants. Emissions should not cause any exceedance of national or state air quality standards. Accidental oil spills could cause rapid and, perhaps, dramatic increases in volatile organic carbon concentrations near the spill, but the duration of these should be too short (generally a few days) to cause major impacts.

Wildlife

No permanent change in the population of any marine mammal species is anticipated. Oil spills are identified as the main cause of potential impacts. In most cases, impacts to marine mammals from offshore activities should not be lethal. However, exposure to spilled oil may result in the loss of individual marine mammals. Some sea otters, whales, seals, Steller sea lions, polar bears, and walruses may be killed if exposed to oil. Most of these losses would occur in the Alaska Region if a large spill occurred, but these losses should not result in permanent changes in species distributions or population numbers. Lost animals should be replaced by the next generation. Routine activities could cause temporary behavioral changes in some marine mammal species but no losses of individuals.

Bird species are not likely to change in population or distribution. If birds are exposed to spilled oil, some individual seabirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl probably would be killed. Birds in the coastal and offshore areas of Alaska are most likely to be affected because of the potential number of oil spills, and because the populations of potentially affected species are greatest there. If populations of eagles, falcons, puffins, auks, or other fish eating birds are exposed to spilled oil, recovery could take longer. If peregrine falcons nesting along Alaska's North Slope are exposed to noise or other types of disturbance, reproductive losses might result that could take more than 5 years to replace.

No significant reductions in finfish or shellfish populations are predicted. Any appreciable impacts to local populations in the form of displacement should be of short duration, except that the distribution of anadromous fish found near causeways in Arctic areas may persist for as long as the causeways are in place. Losses of individuals from routine activities or oil spills should be replaced by recruitment. Any reduction in numbers that might occur are not likely to be discernible from natural variations in the species populations.

Other wildlife that might be affected include marine turtles and a few species of land animals. No identifiable changes in marine turtle numbers or distribution are anticipated. Although onshore activities may result in the displacement of portions of the Alaska caribou herds, the displacement should not be permanent. Nosignificant impact on any other land animal is likely.

Shoreline and Seafloor Habitats

In the Louisiana and east Texas coastal areas up to 1,900 hectares of wetlands could be lost to erosion mostly caused by service vessel traffic. No long-term impacts from exposure of wetlands and estuaries to oil spills are predicted. In Alaska, exposure of wetland and estuarine habitats to spilled oil may affect associated invertebrate animal productivity and diversity. No long-term impacts from bottom disturbance are likely to affect biological communities inhabiting hard bottom or elevated subsea features. Chemosynthetic communities in the Gulf of Mexico are likely to experience only highly localized impacts from bottom disturbance.

Possible Socioeconomic Impacts

Coastal Communities

Although some changes in coastal land use patterns could occur in a few localized areas, no broad-based land use impacts are likely. In Alaska, changes in land use patterns on less than one-half of 1 percent of lands are predicted for 20 years or more. Employment demands should be met by locally available labor forces in the Gulf of Mexico Region. In Alaska, no sector of the local labor force is likely to change by more than 10 percent for longer than 5 years.

Cultural and Subsistence Activities

The culture and subsistence activities of Native communities in Alaska are likely to be affected by both routine development and oil spills. Increasing urbanization may result in changes to Native culture that may be permanent. Noise and disturbance associated with routine development activities and accidental oil spills could interfere with some subsistence hunting activities. Some subsistence resources could be rendered unavailable or undesirable for up to 2 years.

From the perspective of "Environmental Justice" (Executive Order 12898), there could be disproportionately high and adverse environmental (cultural and subsistence) effects on a minority group, the Alaskan Native,

from the proposed action. Although adverse human health effects are possible from consumption of oil-tainted food, it is likely that such food would be avoided. By incorporation of several stipulations, mitigation of impacts from OCS activities to the important subsistence resource should occur.

Recreation and Tourism

The presence of offshore platforms within sight of coastal recreational areas, and trash and debris on beaches resulting from accidental losses from rigs and platforms can detract from coastal aesthetics, affecting local recreation and tourism. Coastal construction may interfere with recreation and tourism in a few locations, but it is expected to have little economic effect because it would involve small areas and be of short duration. If tourist and recreational areas are exposed to oil spills, they could become unsuitable for use during the cleanup period. Displacement of tourists and recreationists should not last more than one season. Platforms may enhance recreational fishing in some areas.

Fishing

Placement of platforms and pipelines may displace fishermen from small areas. In other cases, loss or damage to fishing gear may result from exposure to this equipment. Oil spills could result in the temporary closure of some fisheries and in a reduction in commercial and recreational fish resources. Losses of fisheries resources are not likely to be distinguishable from losses due to natural variations in abundance. Economic losses associated with oil spills could be as high as 30 percent of annual income, but impacts should not persist for more than 2 seasons. Fishermen incurring economic losses from routine development or oil spills may be reimbursed from the Fishermen's Contingency Fund.

Archaeological Resources

Some inadvertent disturbance to historic or prehistoric archaeological sites may occur. These disturbances may result in the loss of archaeological data.

Potential Impacts of the Alternatives - Major Findings

With one exception (Alternative 5), the alternatives analyzed for impacts represent options that are less aggressive than the proposal in the sense that they include fewer lease sales. One alternative explores slowing the pace of leasing by offering a reduced number of sales in certain planning areas, while another was developed to have a schedule with sales in fewer planning areas. The analyses of these alternatives estimated the extent to which these alternatives would have different levels or types of impacts relative to the proposed action.

No Action

If no OCS leasing takes place during the 1997-to-2002 period, most of the oil and natural gas which might be produced under the proposal would likely have to be replaced by foreign oil imports and increased gas production from onshore areas of the United States. More imported oil would likely come to the United States in tankers that call on ports located primarily in the Gulf of Mexico and on the Pacific Coast. Under a NoAction alternative, none of the impacts described from the proposed program would occur. Instead, some coastal and marine resources could be affected by oil spills likely to occur in association with foreign tankers transporting oil to replace that forgone by the adoption of this alternative. Impacts from import tanker spills would be similar to those which would occur from oil spills which might take place from activities related to the proposed action or any of the other alternatives. In addition, impacts to air, land, water, and wildlife resources onshore would result from increased domestic natural gas production.

Adopting the No Action alternative would shift some of the environmental impacts of oil and gas production from offshore to onshore, but it would not eliminate them. Impacts from tanker accidents would also be introduced into areas not being considered for leasing under any of the alternatives, such as the Pacific Coast. Much of the economic benefit that would be realized from employment, the sale of equipment, the sale of leases and receipt of royalties would be lost or shifted to foreign countries.

Slow the Pace of Leasing

Five fewer sales would be scheduled than are considered in the proposal. Fewer sales, especially in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, may result in a smaller amount of oil and gas being produced. In turn, less exploration and production would require less activity and result in fewer or less severe environmental impacts. The kinds of environmental impacts described for the proposal could still occur in any of the 8 planning areas considered under this alternative. Differences in impacts relative to the proposal include: fewer impacts on wetlands, subsistence resources, and whales in the Alaska Region; and reduced employment demand in the Gulf of Mexico Region. Importing oil into the Gulf of Mexico would introduce an increased risk of tanker spills, resulting in an increased dieback of coastal wetlands, and impacts to fisheries. In the Pacific Region oil transportation from the Alaska OCS, and increased import tankering could cause more oilspill related coastal impacts. Energy production from the OCS would likely be less, and fewer economic benefits would be realized by the United States.

Exclude Some Areas

Two planning areas in which sales are scheduled in the proposal, Hope Basin, and the Gulf of Alaska, would have no sales. An option is provided to have no sale in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. If all the no-sale options are adopted, impacts from the adoption of this 5-year program that might otherwise be expected in these areas would not occur. This includes no tanker transport of oil in the Bering Sea, no platform and pipeline impacts in the Gulf of Alaska, less stress on south Alaska subsistence communities, and no direct impacts to Eastern Gulf of Mexico marine biota. Impacts from development in other OCS areas considered for leasing would be the same as those predicted for the proposal. These include impacts in the areas offered for lease in the Alaska Region, and in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico. In addition, some impacts could occur in the Pacific Region from oil transportation which could result from the production of oil from the Alaska OCS. Less energy would be produced and the difference would probably be made up by oil imports and increased gas production from onshore areas. An option is also provided which would schedule a sale in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico which does not offer blocks within 15 miles of the Alabama coastline. Exclusion of nearshore blocks would reduce visual impacts from structures near shore, although structures placed in the sale area further from shore would still be visible. Direct impacts resulting from activities related to this 5-year program to marine biota in shallow waters of the excluded area would not take place, however impacts in the remainder of the sale area would be the same as could take place from the adoption of the proposed action. Another pair of options is provided for the Beaufort Sea sale proposed for 2002 which would exclude different configurations of the eastern-most part of the sale area. Impacts from activities resulting from the adoption of this 5-year program which could have occurred in the excluded areas will not take place, but impacts in the remainder of the sale area would be the same as expected from the sale scheduled in 2002 under Alternative 1.

Lease Additional Areas

This alternative is the same as the proposal except for the additional consideration of a small sale in the MidAtlantic Planning Area, and an option for a deepwater sale in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, or an option for two sales in the Eastern Gulf. Impacts which could occur from development in OCS areas considered for leasing under Alternative 1 would be the same as those associated with the proposal. These include impacts in the