On the Pacific coast, potential disturbance to recreational fishing from an Alaska OCS tanker spill could result in local economic losses of 10-to-20 percent over a period of approximately a month. No discernible area-wide impacts are anticipated due to the number of harbors that would not be affected by a spill. Since local and regional fish populations are not likely to be reduced, fisheries resources available to sport fishermen should be unchanged.

Impacts on subsistence should be centered on the Arctic communities of the North Slope Borough of Alaska and the Northwest Arctic Borough where the social system is primarily sustained by subsistence activities. If an oil spill occurred, one or more important subsistence resources could become unavailable, undesirable for use, or available only in greatly reduced quantities. Effects include reducing the availability or accessibility of at least one important subsistence resource for a period not exceeding one year. Similar effects would be anticipated in south central Alaska communities and in Western Alaska. If oil is produced from proposed leasing in the Arctic, it would be transported by pipeline to the Port of Valdez and then tankered to West Coast ports. This could increase the potential for effects on subsistence in. the Gulf of Alaska and adjoining areas. On the Pacific coast, an oil spill that contacts an intertidal subsistence area could cause a reduction in the availability or desirability of one or more subsistence resources for a year. Eating habits of Native Americans and other ethnic groups might change slightly depending on the resources impacted. These changes could possibly last for a year.

In Alaska, some impact may occur to coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological resources from accidental oil spills. Although it is not possible to predict the precise numbers or types of sites that would be affected, a small amount of significant archaeological information is likely to be lost.

In the Gulf of Mexico, there is little chance for conflict between an OCS activity and offshore historic or prehistoric archaeological sites because marine remote sensing surveys are required prior to any activities in areas having a high potential for archaeological resources. Should such contact occur, the result may be the loss of archaeological data. No impacts are expected to coastal historic or prehistoric sites from the construction of new onshore facilities becauseexisting State and Federal laws require consideration of archaeological resources prior to permitting construction projects. Should an oil spill contact a coastal historic site the primary impact would be visual, and temporary. Should an oil spill contact a coastal prehistoric site, the potential for radiocarbon methods for dating the site could be destroyed, and oil spill cleanup operations could physically impact the site.

No impacts on archaeological resources in the Pacific Region are anticipated from routine OCS activities from this 5-year program. An oil spill could contact the shoreline and archaeological information could be lost due to oiling of sites or due to cleanup operations.

Potential minor impacts on recreation and tourism in the Beaufort Sea and Hope Basin/Chukchi Sea area could be the deposition of small quantities of trash and debris on the shoreline, particularly on pristine shores, and noise and wave action from helicopters and marine-support vessels. Also, the pristine character of scenic resources on shorelines could be affected by as much as a summer season from a large oil spill.

Potential impacts on recreation and tourism in Cook Inlet could be some intrusion on ocean views by platforms and rigs; the accidental deposition of small quantities of trash and debris on the shoreline, particularly in pristine areas; and noise and wave action from helicopters and marine-support vessels. Also, the fouling of the beaches from a possible but unlikely oil spill on the west side of the Kenai Peninsula could disrupt fishing, camping, and enjoyment of scenic qualities for as much as a summer season. Scenic resources on shorelines along the Alaska Peninsula could be affected by as much as a summer season from a large oil spill.

In the Gulf of Mexico large oil spills could result in partial closure of a few park and recreation areas. Tourist losses associated with these closures should be local and represent a one time seasonal reduction of up to 15 percent of tourist visits. Platforms installed offshore as a result of the proposal, especially those within 25 miles offshore, will impact the scenic quality of the coastline. Surface structures will be excluded within 6 miles of the Alabama coastline. Platforms close to shore will also attract recreational fishermen and divers.

If a large oil spill occurred along the Pacific coast from tankers transporting Alaska OCS oil, regional recreational activity could be adversely affected and temporary displacement of visitors could occur, resulting in financial losses to coastal communities. The scenic quality of the affected area would be diminished and would gradually recover after cleanup is completed.

The evaluation of a "no action" alternative is required by the regulations implementing the NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). The adoption of this alternative by the Secretary would result in halting that part of the OCS program which includes the pre-sale planning process, the holding of sales, and the issuance of new leases for the period between mid-1997 and mid-2002. No sales would be planned for or held in any of the OCS planning areas, including the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico; however, exploration, development, and production activities stemming from sales which were held as a result of past 5-year programs would continue.

With the choice of this alternative the Secretary would not implement a leasing program for the period of mid-1997 through mid-2002. No schedule of sales would be adopted. Natural gas (between 9 and 21 TCF) and oil (between 1.8 and 6.8 BBO) resources assumed to be available to meet national energy needs as a result of this program would be foregone. That amount of energy would have to be made up by a combination of imports, alternative energy sources, and conservation.

Market forces are assumed to be the predominant factor in determining the mix of substitutes for OCS oil and gas. An increase in imported oil is the largest component of substitution. Imported oil is estimated to replace 89 percent of the oil which could be produced, as well as 13 percent of OCS natural gas. Increased domestic gas production represents 35 percent of the replacement. Conservation substitutes for 5 percent of the oil and 15 percent of the gas. Other components, such as a switch to gas and increased gas (LNG) imports, are minor contributors to the replacement of foregone OCS oil and gas.

In addition to the above mentioned substitutions, the Nation, or individual States may have to encourage or even impose programs designed to increase energy efficiency such as the use of alternative vehicle fuels such as ethanol or methanol, improving fuel efficiency, or encouraging the use of alternate transportation methods such as mass transit.

As a partial replacement for the natural gas foregone, increased reliance may have to be put on coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, or wind generated power, and more emphasis may have to be placed on programs which encourage the more efficient transmission of energy and the more efficient use of energy in factories, offices, and homes.

As noted above, much of the foregone OCS production is likely to be replaced in large measure by increases in oil imported from foreign countries and transported by tanker. The imported oil replacing OCS oil and gas is anticipated to enter the United States primarily through the Gulf of Mexico, with small increases in imports to California. The chance that this imported oil will result in one or more large oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico is from 54-91 percent. The chance that oil being imported into California to replace oil foregone under this alternative will result in one or more oil spills ranges from 71-93 percent. These tanker spills are less controllable than pipeline or platform spills and could occur any where along tanker routes, including in the eastern Gulf near Florida. Oil that would have been produced from the Cook Inlet sale and serve some of the Cook Inlet needs might have to be replaced by oil from the Port of Valdez. There is a 7-12 percent probability that an oil spill of 1,000 bbl or more would occur from these additional tankers.

The impacts resulting from the no action alternative are those associated with the alternative energy substitution for the proposed offshore program. The major components of this substitution, representing significant environmental impacts, include importation of foreign oil and increased domestic onshore gas production. Because of the lack of imports into Alaska and the small additional volume into the Atlantic Region from this alternative, no oil spills resulting from the adoption of this alternative are likely to affect these two regions.

In the Gulf of Mexico, routine activity resulting from past sales, including the drilling of exploratory wells, placement of platforms and pipelines, and the use of shore bases for support activities, would continue, as would the potential for oil spills. Under this alternative, potential impact causing factors related to a 5-year leasing program would be partially offset by the increased use of the Eastern, Central and Western Gulf Planning Areas as routes for tankers importing oil. Spills from tankers carrying imported oil could result in some degradation of shore bird habitat, lethal effects for fish resources, and a dieback of more wetlands and estuarine habitat than would occur as a result of the implementation of a 5-year program. In addition, these spills, should they contact land, could result in a greater number of beach closures than could be expected if the oil were produced domestically and sent to shore by pipeline. Employment estimated to result from new sales would not be realized. Migration out of coastal areas in response to the lowered levels of activity could jeopardize jobs. Community infrastructure created in response to a larger population could become a redundant.

In California, a tanker spill of imported oil replacing resources foregone under this alternative could cause oil spill impacts similar to those associated with local drilling and production. These include increased mortality of sea otters, harbor porpoises, California sea lion pups, brown pelicans, least terns, and fish resources; destruction of local wetland communities and intertidal benthos; and economic losses to the recreation and tourism industry.

The other major component of energy supply substitution for OCS oil and gas is an increase in domestic onshore natural gas production. The impacts which can be anticipated from these activities are onshore rather than offshore. Greater coalbed methane and tight sands production could occur within the conterminous United States including extensive areas in the Rocky Mountains, the Southwest, the Southeast, the Ohio Valley

and the Appalachian regions. Onshore gas production would generate noise and pollutant emissions, discharge of produced waters, land disturbance for drilling and support activities, loss of scenic values and increased risk of human exposure to toxic chemicals.

This alternative presents a different 5-year program schedule, consisting of only 11 sales in the 8 eight planning areas as Alternative 1. This Alternative would schedule only one area-wide sale per year in the Gulf of Mexico, alternating between the Central and Western Planning areas (table II-3). The first sale would be a Western Gulf sale, which would take place in late 1997, after the approval of the program. The last (sixth) sale would take place in early 2002 in the Central Gulf, before approval of the next 5-year program. As with the proposed action, sales would be scheduled in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico in 2001, The Chukchi Sea and Hope Basin in 2002, Cook Inlet in 1999, and the Gulf of Alaska in 2001. This alternative considers only one sale in the Beaufort Sea, in 2000, a sale of the same configuration (approximately 2,317 blocks) as the sale in alternative 1 scheduled for the year 2000.

In general, this alternative would result in a lower level of activity in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, and in the Beaufort Sea. This will result in a lower potential for impacts on the resources of concern. In the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, holding 6 rather than 10 lease sales may result in fewer platforms. Instead of from 50 to 100 in the Western Gulf, only from 30 to 60 might be needed, and instead of from 100 to 250 in the Central Gulf, only from 60 to 150 might be constructed. The possible numbers of wells drilled, pipelines constructed, and support bases developed would also be fewer than Alternative 1. There could be a smaller number of oil spills from platform and pipeline accidents. Imported oil transported by tanker will substitute for some oil foregone by the reduced level of activity, and could generate an increased probability of spills from foreign tankers. This would negate some of the environmental benefits that might otherwise result from the adoption of this alternative.

A smaller number of platforms would result in a smaller amount of bottom disturbed, and area removed from multiple uses, but it would also reduce the availability of alternative fishing sites for recreational fishermen. Employment demand in the Gulf of Mexico is anticipated to be 40 percent lower than alternative 1, which could result in some underemployment or unemployment which could stress the ability of local agencies engaged in assisting individuals who are unemployed or are having financial difficulties. Other resources such as water and air quality, marine and terrestrial mammals, marine and coastal birds, coastal and seafloor habitats, and archaeological resources would be affected by similar levels and types of impacts as would result from alternative 1.

Holding only one sale in the Beaufort Sea should result in a lower level of impacts to the North Slope Borough and other south central Alaska communities due to a lower level of potential impacts on subsistence harvests and social networks, and a smaller amount of oil being shipped out of the Port of Valdez by tanker.

Fewer estimated oil spills and less OCS activity in the Beaufort Sea should result in a lower level of impact to diving ducks and other marine birds and mammals, but the relatively small difference in activity between this alternative and alternative 1 should lead to similar kinds and levels of impact for water quality, fish resources, coastal and seafloor habitats, archaeological resources, and recreation and tourism.

Alternative 4 provides for no more than 15 sales in 6 of the planning areas identified, annual area-wide sales in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico. Two options are presented in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Option A would schedule no Eastern Gulf of Mexico sale. In response to concerns about visual impacts from offshore operations, Option B would exclude from leasing 22 whole or partial blocks located within 15 miles of the Alabama coastline (figure 2-9). Two sales would be scheduled in the Beaufort Sea. The first would be the smaller, focused sale as described in the proposed action. The second sale would be a larger sale similar to the second sale in the proposed action, except for the exclusion of all or a portion of the area east of Barter Island. This Beaufort sale is analyzed in two options. Option A consists of the offering of an area similar to the second sale in Alternative 1 with the exception of approximately 500 whole or partial blocks in the eastern most part of the planning area (figure 2-10). Option B consists of the offering of the same general area as Option A except for the exclusion of approximately 416 whole or partial blocks. In this option a narrow band of blocks along the State/Federal boundary would remain in the sale (figure 2-11). One sale each would be scheduled in the Chukchi Sea (around 6,154 blocks) and Cook Inlet (around 376 blocks) (table II-4). Two options have been developed. This schedule is different than the schedule considered under Alternative 1 because of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico options to exclude blocks near the coastline, or to have no Eastern Gulf proposed sales, and the exclusion of proposed sales in the Hope Basin, and Gulf of Alaska.