Page images
PDF
EPUB

A spill during the fall or winter season would not result in as significant an impact on coastal recreation and tourism due to seasonal reduction in demand. Additionally, an oil beaching occurence during this time of year would not have a significant impact on the following summer season's activity assuming timely and effective clean-up activities as well as sufficient positive publicity of these activities.

Numerous actual oil spills have occurred which present the opportunity to examine and evaluate the impacts of a spill in a given situation with variables identified. These case studies, while not predictive of future oil spills, do provide illustrations of the nature and extent of impacts on various resources. Summaries of various historical spill studies are provided below, especially as they relate to the recreation and tourism industry. The world's largest oil spill, the IXTOC I, deposited approximately 3 to 5 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, beginning June 3, 1979. The spill entered American waters in August and much of it contacted coastal areas of Texas. The economic effects of the spill were examined in an MMSfunded study (Restrepo and Associates, 1982). This study found that total tourism and recreation losses were about $6.5 million, primarily in the communities of South Padre Island, Port Isabel, and Port Aransas. The losses were not distributed equally in the affected areas; rather, they were absorbed by a small number of businesses close to the water's edge in the recreationoriented areas. There is evidence that the recreation business loss at the water's edge was offset with additional recreation-related spending elsewhere in the area. Interviews by persons associated with waterfront businesses in the affected area indicted that losses occurred only in 1979; these losses did not continue for 1980 and 1981.

Studies of the January-February 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill (between 20 and 70 thousand barrels) indicated similar impacts (Mead and Sorensen, 1970). Short-run trade diversion occurred as a result of the spill, depressing the motel and restaurant business near the ocean in favor of the Goleta area. Overall tourist activity in the county, however, was not significantly affected by the spill and, as a result, no social costs could be determined.

The wreck of the AMOCO CADIZ in March of 1978 spilled 1 to 1.5 million barrels of oil into the waters of the southern entrance to the English Channel. Approximately 30 percent of this oil came ashore affecting about 400 km (about 250 mi) of the Brittany coast. Studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (July 1983) indicated that economic losses to the tourist industry in the area totaled between $28 and $60 million. Non-marketvalued social costs associated with recreation in the area were estimated to be the equivalent of $13 to $82 million.

Other spills have had little or no effect on local travel industries. The ARGO MERCHANT was carrying 7.7 million gallons (equivalent to 183.3 thousand barrels) of No. 6 fuel when it ran aground and sank approximately 29 mi southeast of Nantucket Island in Massachusetts in December of 1976. Over 7,870 sq km of ocean were involved in the spill; yet, no oil was observed within 24 km of land (NOAA, 1977). Recreation and tourism trade in Cape Cod and the Islands (Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard), which comprises 75 to 85 percent of the economy, experienced no measurable losses due to the oil spill. Tourist trade after the spill was as good or better than the previous season.

During the first six months of the United States' involvement in World War II, the waters within 50 mi of the US Atlantic coast experienced the destruction of numerous merchant vessels and cargo ships at the hands of German U-boats. This destruction included the spillage of roughly 3.5 million bbl of oil--the equivalent of 20 ARGO MERCHANT, almost one per week for 6 months. Although the vast majority of this oil made its way out to sea and dissipated, significant amounts did contact the coastline, particularly in the area of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Asbury Park-Belmar on the Jersey shore (see Campbell et al., 1977). Three spills which appear to have oiled the beaches near Cape Hatteras occurred in March, April, and June 1942, all within 15 mi of shore. Interviews with local inhabitants indicated that in some places, especially Ocracoke Island which received 160,000 barrels, there was "so much sticky oil that is was difficult to walk on the beach." Although information is lacking on the tourist industry per se, studies indicate that Pamlico Sound remained free of oil, and newspapers reported that local fishing was as good as ever and that duck-hunting was better than ever. (Skepticism with regard to these reports is reasonable since anything to the contrary would have been "commercial suicide".) The other area of the Atlantic coast which experienced beaching of spilled oil was the Jersey shore. Two spills, one in February, 1942 of 79,000 barrels and one in June of 81,000 barrels occurred within 9 mi and 3.5 mi offshore respectively. Yet, it does not appear that any of this oil came ashore in notable quantities. Oil did come ashore in substantial amounts on the beaches of the Asbury Park-Belmar area of New Jersey in late May, 1942. This oil probably originated from a tanker sinking on the 25th of the month in coastal waters 23 mi south of Belmar. In this case, which is well documented, the beaches were "literally covered" with oil. The seaside communities which are heavily dependent upon the conditions of their beaches for livelihood took immediate action. A force of over fifty trucks and two hundred men began clean-up efforts on June 15 and the major swimming beaches were clean within a few weeks. Complete clean-up, however, required most of the summer. Although the exact impact of these WW II sinkings on the tourist and recreation industry have not been quantified, it can be stated with some certainty that, at least locally and in the short-term, significant adverse economic impacts were experienced, especially on the Jersey shore. However, available documentation (Campbell et al., 1977) indicates that the overall effects of the oil spills were "negligible" and in both cases, the regional economy "survived with little difficulty.

"

Which, if any, of these historical spills approximate what could happen in the mid-Atlantic region is virtually impossible to determine for reasons previously stated. However, in an attempt to address the probabilities of such spills occurring, the MMS utilizes the Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM, see Appendix C). Based on preliminary assumptions and OSRAM output, the vulnerability of coastal recreational areas of the mid-Atlantic region to oil spills originating from various zones in the sale area can be estimated.

If, indeed, a spill were to occur, the greatest probability of it actually contacting land within a 30-day period is 34 percent (Appendix C, Table 5). National parks, seashores and other recreation areas face, at most, a 7 percent chance of spill contact (Appendix C, Table 5). State parks, seashores, and recreation areas face a maximum probability of spill contact of 11 percent. This same likelihood applies to National Wildlife Refuges such as Chincoteague or Brigantine refuges (Appendix C, Table 5). OSRAM also indicates contact probabilities for particular land segments. In this case, Nantucket Island

faces the highest single probability of land contact (14 percent, Appendix C, Table 11). Eastern Long Island (Suffolk County) and Martha's Vineyard have highest land contact probabilities of 9 percent and 7 percent respectively. Cape Hatteras (Dare County, N.C.) faces up to a 6 percent probability of contact with an oil spill should one occur. Although negligible for most launch zones in the sale area, western Long Island (Nassau County), Block Island, and Cape Cod face single highest probabilities between 1 percent and 5 percent. All other land segments in the affected area have a 1 percent or less chance of contact from an oil spill in the sale area (Appendix C, Table 11).

Oil produced through this lease sale is assumed to be transported by tanker to refineries in the Delaware and Raritan bays. Coastal recreation areas face a higher probability of being contacted by a nearshore tanker spill--if one should occur--than by a spill in the sale area; although for in most cases the chances remain negligible. The greatest probability of oil spilled along transportation routes contacting oceanfront recreation areas range up to 24 percent for the Virginia Beach-Cape Hatteras coastline, and up to 15 percent for the New Jersey shore and Long Island (Appendix C, Table 11). Likelihood of tanker spills contacting Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, or Cape Cod, is at most, 2 percent. The Chance of tanker spills from the proposed action contacting other areas remains quite small (Appendix C, Table 11).

The above probabilities are based upon the assumption that an oil spill will have occurred in a portion of the sale area which poses the greatest threat to that particular target. In fact the probability of such a spill actually occurring is heavily dependent upon the location and level of production and the extent of transportation activities (i.e., the amount of oil involved). Based upon historical data and resource estimates for the lease sale (see Section III.A.), the OSRAM provides spill probabilities taking these factors into account. These figures indicate, for the mean resource estimate, the probability of one or more spill greater than 1,000 barrels occurring is 18 percent for platforms and 23 percent for transportation (Appendix C, Table 1). This likelihood decreases for spills of 10,000 barrels or more 9 percent for platforms and 12 percent for transportation (Appendix C, Table 1). The probability of a spill (1,000 barrels or more) occurring and contacting any land is considerably less 7 percent for the proposed action (Appendix C, Table 12). The likelihood of spill contact with National parks, seashores and recreation areas, which was 7 percent when assuming a spill drops to 1 percent when the above factors are included. Likewise the probability of contact with State parks or National Wildlife Refuges drops, for both resources, from 11 percent to 2 percent (Appendix C, Table 12). Spill occurrence and contact with Nantucket has only a 2 percent likelihood for the proposed action, and for all other land segments mentioned above the likelihood is 1 percent or less (Appendix C, Table 14).

The mid-Atlantic region could experience some local dispersion of tourist trade and a reduction in recreational activity if a major oil spill were to occur and contact coastal recreation areas. This is unlikely to occur however, as indicated by the OSRAM results outlined above. In the event of an actual occurrence and contact, the most severe impacts to coastal recreation and tourism may be negated or substantially reduced due to seasonal fluctuations in demand. Other factors such as oil spill weathering, dispersion, and cleanup and control measures which are not included in the modeling effort further reduce the likelihood of oil spills contacting coastal tourist beaches.

Title III of the OCS Lands Act, as amended, established an Offshore Oil Spill Pollution Fund. Through this funds, persons who sustain an economic loss as a consequence of oil pollution arising from OCS activities can be compensated. The regulations which implement this appear at 33 CFR 135 and 136; they are administered by the Coast Guard. Part 136 of the regulations sets forth the claims procedures. Thus, if this lease sale were to result in an oil spill that reached shore, owners and users of areas important for coastal recreation and tourism would be entitled to apply for compensation under this Fund. (See Appendix A for more information.)

Conclusion: The proposed action's impacts upon coastal recreation and tourism are anticipated to be negligible. Although certain local areas may experience moderate impacts in the unlikely event of oil spill contact, overall impact to the region should remain negligible.

Cumulative Impacts

Oil spills and land use conflicts are the two major concerns which have the potential for producing cumulative impacts on coastal recreation and tourism. Activities which affect these cumulative impacts include the proposed action, other OCS activities, existing transportation, general development pressures affecting land use patterns, and the role of the tourist industry the the area's

economy.

Land use conflicts resulting from OCS activities are not expected to occur in the cumulative case since no facilities are anticipated other than those associated with the proposed action. General development pressures independent of OCS activities could compete for land which is currently used for, or suitable for, recreational activities. However, this is not likely. In developing a Coastal Zone Management Program, States are required to identify coastally dependent uses and to establish a regulatory framework which will ensure that coastal land resources are used appropriately.

In addition to CZM Programs, other state programs and plans, as well as local land-use controls would be effective in controlling development.

Continuing tanker transportation of crude oil and refined products through the region could cause cumulative impacts due to the potential for oil spills.

Continuing tanker transportation of crude oil and refined products through the region could cause cumulative impacts as a result of the potential for oil spills. The proposed action presents only a 7 percent probability of a spill occurring and contacting land along the coast of the affected area (1,000 bbl and greater, 30-day period; Appendix C, Table 12). However, when factoring in existing levels of tanker transportation (imports) through the area (levels which are expected to continue), along with activity associated with existing OCS leases, the probability of spill occurrence and land contact is 97 percent (Appendix C, Table 12). This probability remains the same without the proposed action, (i.e., when examining existing leases and imports only). Similarly, the probabilities remain essentially the same for National parks, seashores, and recreation areas (75 percent), State parks, seashores, and recreation areas (increase from 58 to 59 percent), and National Wildlife Refuges (increase from 56 to 57 percent). Thus, in the cumulative case, the potential for spill occurrence and contact with coastal recreation resources is substantial and is much higher than for the proposed action alone. These risks will exist regardless of the proposed action.

Thus in the cumulative case the potential for oil spill impacts increase significantly, primarily because of continuing levels of crude oil and refined products transported through the region. These risks, for the most part, would exist regardless of past, present or proposed OCS activities.

Tourism and recreation is a well established industry in the coastal MidAtlantic area and is expected to remain as such. There are no predictable factors including OCS activities which are anticipated to depress the tourist industry or displace its role in the area's economy.

Conclusion:

In the cumulative case, the potential exists for moderate impacts to coastal recreation areas. These impacts, resulting from oil spills, would tend to be local in nature, not extending over the region as a whole.

IV.E.9. Impacts on Land Use and Coastal Management

In

The components of OCS exploration and production include, among other things, drilling platforms, support bases, pipelines, and gas processing plants. The nature of exploratory components is largely dependent upon the location of blocks to be drilled, while production components are dependent upon the type, magnitude and location of economically recoverable reserves which might be discovered. Detailed information on these development components, therefore, cannot be known at the pre-sale stage. Nonetheless, these generally foreseeable developments do have the potential for impacting land use activities, particularly in sensitive coastal areas. order to assess the impacts of such developments, this EIS embodies the activities and facilities which are likely to result from Sale No. 111 in the form of development scenarios. The scenarios are described in general terms, making reasonable assumptions about types of facilities and facility locations based upon the best information currently available. (See Appendix C for a discussion of the facilities mentioned here and the assumptions behind choosing their locations.) The identified locations of possible OCS facilities are therefore hypothetical. They do not represent commitments to particular locations or even types of facilities. Rather, they are reasonable judgements of what may occur, given the resource estimate for the sale area, and they are included in the EIS for analytical purposes only.

When actual sites are being evaluated for new or expanded uses, all facilities will follow the necessary Federal, State, and local permit processes to insure acceptable sites are chosen and adverse impacts mitigated as local and State laws require. For example, before any facility resulting from this proposal, such as a natural gas pipeline, could be built, the developer must obtain all required permits as well as Coastal Zone Management Act section 307 (c)(3) certification that the proposed pipeline and associated construction is consistent with the coastal management program of the affected State. All the States in the region (except Virginia) have approved coastal management programs (see Section III.D.4). This procedural framework should be sufficiently flexible to allow for reconciliation of differing interests which may emerge as a result of Sale No. 111.

The analysis in this section examines the components of the proposed sale's development scenario in relation to the plans, policies, and controls embodied in numerous regional, State and local land-use plans and coastal zone management programs. Potential conflicts that may exist between components of the development scenario and those plans and programs are discussed. Examination of this

« PreviousContinue »