IV.I.2.

Impacts on Fish and Commercial Fishery Resources

Deferral of 113 whole or partial blocks or approximately 2.5 percent of the proposed sale area, located in and near Norfolk, Washington, Accomac, Baltimore, Wilmington, Spencer, Lindenkohl, Carteret, Tom's, Hudson, and Block Canyons is estimated to result in a 5 and 6 percent reduction in oil and gas reserves, respectively. This reduction is not expected to produce a change in the exploration and development schedule outlined for the proposed action.

These canyon areas are known to be areas of increased biologic activity when compared to comparable shelf-slope areas. Fish resources include lobster, red crab, tilefish, squid (long and short-fin), butterfish, red hake, and billfish. Many of these canyon species are demersal in nature, with a definite link to bottom topography and substrate type. Elimination of the discharge of drill muds and cuttings in canyon areas would reduce impacts on these canyon species. Changes in sediment sizes, potential burial, and displacement of localized assemblages directly around drill locations would not occur under this deferral alternative.

Despite a reduction in potential chronic impacts, risks to mid-Atlantic fish and fishery resources, as a whole, would be essentially the same described for Alternative 1. Spill occurrence and trajectories would not be altered by deferral of canyon blocks, nor would the projected number of spills anticipated to occur from Sale No. 111. Calculations using the catch-loss model would still be the same for all the identified mid-Atlantic fisheries except the offshore lobster (otter trawl) fishery. Potential dollar losses in this fishery would be less than those identified for the proposal. Because the identified changes associated with implementation of this deferral alternative are minimal, except for canyon assemblages within the deferral area, the magnitude of impact for this alternative is expected to be essentially the same as for the proposal. Conclusion: Impacts on mid-Atlantic fish and fishery resources, in general, will be minor, with populations demonstrating local declines in abundance and/or distribution, but recovering to their pre-impact condition within 1 year. Elimination of chronic discharges in canyon areas will further reduce this level of impact on canyon assemblages to where changes in abundance or harvest levels are not discernible against normal natural variations.

Impacts on waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds under this alternative should not change from those identified under the proposal, because only a small number of blocks would be deferred (approximately 2.5 percent of the proposed sale area) and because of the distance between the canyon areas and land. Pelagic birds, however, are known to concentrate in upwelling areas, including canyon heads. Impacts from drilling rig activities, including their routine discharges, would be eliminated in these areas. However, overall impacts would not change significantly, because the number of blocks that would be deferred is small and the distribution of these birds is widespread throughout the proposed sale area. No significant change in OCS activities and their associated impacts for the remainder of the sale area are expected.

Conclusion: Implementation of this alternative would have no significant

change in impacts on coastal and onshore avian resources from those identified under the proposal. Pelagic birds may benefit from a minor reduction in impacts from drilling activities and discharges.

IV.I.4.

Impacts on Endangered and Threatened Species and

Species of Concern

Birds and Coastal Species

The deferred of blocks around the heads of the major canyons should not change the type of degree of impact on these endangered species because only a few blocks would be deferred (approximately 2.5 percent of the proposed sale area) and their distance from shore is great (greater than 50 statute miles). No significant change in OCS activities or scenarios for the remaining sale area is expected.

Turtles and Marine Mammals

Canyon areas have not been identified as being particularly important to sea turtles or whales (CETAP, 1982). Sea turtles appear to congregate and feed in shallow shelf waters outside the proposed deferral area. The humpback, right, and fin whale also prefer shallow shelf waters. However, the sperm whale and many other small odontocetes concentrate along the shelf-slope break which includes the canyon areas. The absence of drilling activities, sounds, and discharges in these areas may benefit these animals. However, a dynamically positioned drillship operating in shelf waters had no apparent adverse effect on sperm whales in the vicinity of the operating drillship (Anthony Ladino, MMS, personal observation, 1984). Because of the broad distribution of endangered or threatened sea turtles and whales and non-endangered whales, the elimination of drilling activities in canyon areas should not significantly reduce the level of impact from what is anticipated under the proposed action.

Conclusion: Impacts on all endangered species and their habitats under this alternative would be essentially the same as those described under the proposed action.

Normal offshore operations associated with exploration, development, and production of hydrocarbon resources result in unavoidable adverse effects of varying degrees on water quality, plankton, benthic organisms, shellfish, finfish, commercial fisheries, marine and coastal birds, some endangered species, as well as coastal habitats. Conflicts with land use also occur.

The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings would cause localized, temporary increases in suspended solids and accompanying trace metals in the immediate vicinity of drilling rigs, peaking in 1995. Discharged formation waters would cause localized, minor elevations in inorganic salts, trace metals, and hydrocarbon levels around platforms, with correspondingly reduced oxygen levels. It is projected that discharges of formation waters would become substantial by the year 1995.

Oil spills and chronic discharges of oil would temporarily increase hydrocarbon levels in the water column. 011 released to the environment would disperse, undergo weathering, and in shallow areas could become entrained into the bottom sediments. Sewage discharge from rigs and platforms would increase local levels of suspended solids (organic matter), BOD, nutrients, and chlorine. Finally, temporary turbidity of the water column would be increased by pipeline placement which would cause resuspension of sediments. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that approximately one spill of 1,000 barrels or greater would occur as a result of the proposed sale. Spilled oil that is not recovered would release hydrocarbons into the marine environment. The quality of the surface, near surface, and, to a lesser extent, deeper waters would, therefore, be lowered temporarily. If oil is entrained in bottom or shoreline sediments, water quality degradation would continue over weeks, months, or even years as the oil is slowly reintroduced into the system or biodegraded.

Minor, temporary decreases in planktonic and benthic populations would occur in localized areas around drilling rigs due to disposal of drilling muds and cuttings. Toxic materials used in mud mixtures may adversely affect some marine organisms in localized areas when drilling fluids and cuttings are discharged and settle to the bottom. Also, bottom sediments and biota would be temporarily disrupted by pipelaying operations.

Commercially important species may be affected by mortality to fish eggs and larvae, and smothering of shellfish. Commercial fishermen would be negatively affected by spatial exclusion from fishing grounds. Additionally, in blocks with water depths of less than 200 m, possible damage to gear and lost fishing time could occur. Spilled oil would cause localized mortalities of finfish and shellfish, particularly at early stages of their development.

Endangered species are not expected to suffer any major adverse impacts to their remaining populations. However, it is possible that some individual animals might be adversely affected from sale-related activities or accidents. Marine and coastal birds could suffer minor losses. Sensitive coastal areas (1.e. wetlands, estuaries, and sandy beach/dune areas) could take several years to recover from oil spill impacts. However, the probability of a spill occurring in these areas is low (6 percent or less). A gas pipeline landfall would cause a temporary and local disturbance of beach and wetland habitats

during the construction phase. Unavoidable land-use impacts resulting from pipelaying and related disturbances would be localized and temporary in nature. The single projected pipeline would require onshore rights-of-way and would be buried. Approximately 75 acres of land would be needed for the construction of a gas processing facility.

IV.K.

Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment

and the Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity

For purposes of the analysis, short-term is defined as the projected economic life of the project, and long-term is defined as the period that follows the economic life of the project. The principal short-term use of the area would be for the production of oil and gas which are non-renewable

resources.

Short-term adverse effects to marine biological communities would result from normal operations and oil spills. Short-term losses could include reductions in biological productivity, changes in marine habitats, and reductions in populations of plankton, benthos, fish, birds, mammals and turtles, and changes in food web components.

After the project, impacts resulting from OCS activity in the proposed sale area would not occur. To date, there has been no discernible decrease in marine productivity in OCS areas where oil and gas have been produced for many years. It has been recognized that continuous, low level pollution from toxic chemicals, including oil, may adversely affect long-term productivity, but the extent of these long-term effects cannot be quantitatively determined until reliable data become available.

Of the species in the region protected by the Endangered Species Act, marine species, especially turtles, may suffer some short-term adverse effects. Coastally-oriented endangered species probably would not be affected significantly. Important feeding and breeding areas for endangered whales are currently believed to be located outside the sale area. If in the future breeding areas are located in the region, OCS activities may have an adverse short-term and long-term effect on breeding success. Migrating whales must pass through the proposed sale area. This could lead to changes in the migratory behavior of these whales.

The proposed sale will result in employment and population increases and possible short-term adverse impacts to the social infrastructure of affected communities. A strain on existing public and private services and infrastructure could be expected if new, OCS-related facilities are located in areas of low population with little current industrial base. However, in the long-term, a return to equilibrium can be expected as population gains and indirect industrial development are absorbed in the expanded communities.

Short-term adverse impacts could occur to the recreation resources and tourist industry of the area if an oil spill contacted a beach during or just prior to the season of peak use.

Short-term use of the OCS for mineral extraction would preclude fishing in the immediate vicinity of oil and gas operations. Although fishing takes place within the proposed lease area, only a small portion of the total fishing area would be removed.

In summary, short-term, localized impacts, both environmental and socioeconomic, would result from the proposed sale. No long-term productivity or environmental gains with regard to natural resources are expected as a result of this proposed sale. Benefits are expected to be principally those associated with increased domestic supplies of oil and gas and lessened dependence on foreign sources.