Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-77/16.2 March 1978 Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas Volume V: Regional Status Reports Part 2: Mid and South Atlantic 1* DOCUMENT CGLL£CTSON/ Fish and Wildlife Service . U5& U.S. Department of the Interior The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to supply scientific information and methodologies on key environmental issues that impact fish and wildlife resources and their supporting ecosystems. The mission of the program is as follows: t To strengthen the Fish and Wildlife Service in its role as a primary source of information on national fish and wild- life resources, particularly in respect to environmental impact assessment. • To gather, analyze, and present information that will aid decisionmakers in the identification and resolution of problems associated with major changes in land and water use. • To provide better ecological information and evaluation for Department of the Interior development programs, such as those relating to energy development. Information developed by the Biological Services Program is intended for use in the planning and decisionmaking process to prevent or minimize the impact of development on fish and wildlife. Research activities and technical assistance services are based on an analysis of the issues a determination of the decisionmakers involved and their information needs, and an evaluation of the state of the art to identify information gaps and to determine priorities. This is a strategy that will ensure that the products produced and disseminated are timely and useful. Projects have been initiated in the following areas: coal extraction and conversion; power plants; geothermal , mineral and oil shale develop- ment; water resource analysis, including stream alterations and western water allocation; coastal ecosystems and Outer Continental Shelf develop- ment; and systems inventory, including National Wetland Inventory, habitat classification and analysis, and information transfer. The Biological Services Program consists of the Office of Biological Services in Washington, D.C., which is responsible for overall planning and management; National Teams, which provide the Program's central scientific and technical expertise and arrange for contracting biological services studies with states, universities, consulting firms, and others; Regional Staff, who provide a link to problems at the operating level; and staff at certain Fish and Wildlife Service research facilities, who conduct inhouse research studies. FWS/OBS-77/16.2 March 1978 Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas Volume V: Regional Status Reports Part 2: Mid and South Atlantic by Joel Goodman, Ph.D. College of Marine Studies University of Delaware and Peter Klose, Graduate Research Assistant Leheigh University Prepared for The Conservation Foundation 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Contract No. 14-16-0008-962 Larry Shanks, Project Officer National Coastal Ecosystems Team National Space Technology Laboratories NSTL Station, Mississippi 39529 Performed for National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas Volume I: Recovery Technology Volume II: Effects on Coastal Communities Volume III: Effects on Living Resources and Habitats Vol ume IV: Regulatory Framework for Protecting Living Resources Vol ume V: Regional Status Reports: Part 1: New England Part 2: Mid and South Atlantic Part 3: Gulf Coast Part 4: California Part 5: Alaska, Washington and Oregon This report should be cited thusly: Goodman, J. and P. Klose. 1978. Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas. Volume V: Regional Status Reports, Part 2: Hid and South Atlantic. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-77/1 6L2. 93 pp. DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommenda- tions expressed in this report/product are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorse- ment or recommendation for use by the Federal government. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FOREWORD This report is one in a series prepared by The Conservation Founda- tion for the Office of Biological Services of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Contract 14-16-0008-962). The series conveys technical informa- tion and develops an impact assessment system relating to the recovery of oil and gas resources beyond the three-mile territorial limit of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The series is designed to aid Fish and Wildlife Service personnel in the conduct of environmental reviews and decisions concerning OCS oil and gas development. In addition, the reports are intended to be as helpful as possible to the public, the oil and gas industry, and to all government agencies involved with resource management and environmental protection. Oil and gas have been recovered for several decades from the Outer Continental Shelf of Texas, Louisiana and California. In the future, the Department of the Interior plans to lease more tracts, not only off these coasts, but also off the frontier regions of the North, Mid- and South Atlantic, eastern Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Within the set of constraints imposed by the international petroleum market (including supply, demand and price), critical decisions are made jointly by industry and government on whether it is advisable or not to move ahead with leasing and development of each of the offshore frontier areas. Once the decision to develop a field is made, many other deci- sions are necessary, such as where to locate offshore platforms, where to locate the onshore support areas, and how to transport hydrocarbons to market. Existing facilities and the size of the resource will dictate which facilities will be needed, what the siting requirements will be, and where facilities will be sited. If the potential for marketable resources is moderate, offshore activities may be staged from areas already having harbor facilities and support industries; therefore, they may have little impact on the coast adjacent to a frontier area. An understanding of these options from industry's perspective will enable Fish and Wildlife Service personnel to anticipate development activities in various OCS areas and to communicate successfully with industry to assure that fish and wildlife resources will be protected. The major purpose of this report is to describe the technological characteristics and planning strategy of oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf, and to assess the effects of OCS oil and gas operations on living resources and their habitats. This approach should help bridge the gap between a simple reactive mode and effec- tive advanced planning—planning that will result in a better understanding of the wide range of OCS activities that directly and indirectly generate impacts on the environment, and the counter- measures necessary to protect and enhance living resources. Development of offshore oil and gas resources is a complex industrial process that requires extensive advance planning and coordination of all phases from exploration to processing and ship- ment. Each of hundreds of system components linking development and production activities has the potential for adverse environ- mental effects on coastal water resources. Among the advance judgements that OCS planning requires are the probable environ- mental impacts of various courses of action. The relevant review functions that the Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned with are: (1) planning for baseline studies and the leasing of oil and gas tracts offshore and (2) reviewing of permit applications and evaluation of environmental impact statements (EIS) that relate to facility development, whether offshore (OCS), near shore (within territorial limits), or onshore (above the mean high tidemark). Because the Service is involved with such a broad array of activities, there is a great deal of private and public interest in its review functions. Therefore, it is most valuable in advance to have some of the principles, criteria and standards that provide the basis for review and decisionmaking. The public, the offshore petroleum industry, and the appropriate Federal, state, and local government agencies are thus able to help solve problems associated with protection of public fish and wildlife resources. With advanced standards, all interests should be able to gauge the environmental impacts of each OCS activity. A number of working assumptions were used to guide various aspects of the analysis and the preparation of the report series. The assumptions relating to supply, recovery, and impacts of offshore oil and gas were: 1. The Federal Government's initiative in accelerated leasing of OCS tracts will continue, though the pace may change. 2. OCS oil and gas extractions will continue under private enterprise with Federal support and with Federal regulation. n 3. No major technological breakthroughs will occur in the near future which could be expected to significantly change the environmental impact potential of OCS development. 4. In established onshore refinery and transportation areas, the significant impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats will come from the release of hydrocarbons during tanker transfers. 5. A significant potential for both direct and indirect impacts of OCS development on fish and wildlife in frontier areas is expected from site alterations resulting from develop- ment of onshore facilities. 6. The potential for onshore impacts on fish and wildlife generally will increase, at least initially, somewhat in proportion to the level of onshore OCS development activity. The assumptions related to assessment of impacts were: 1. There is sufficient knowledge of the effects of OCS develop- ment activities to anticipate direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife from known oil and gas recovery systems. 2. This knowledge can be used to formulate advance criteria for conservation of fish and wildlife in relation to specific OCS development activities. 3. Criteria for the protection of environments affected by OCS-related facilities may be broadly applied to equivalent non-OCS-related facilities in the coastal zone. The products of this project—reported in the series Environ- mental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas--consist of five technical report volumes. The five volumes of the technical report series are briefly described below: Volume I Reviews the status of oil and gas resources of the Outer Continental Shelf and programs for their development; describes the recovery process step- by-step in relation to existing environmental regulations and conservation requirements; and provides a detailed analysis for each of fifteen OCS activity and facility development projects ranging from exploration to petroleum processing. m Volume II Discusses growth of coastal communities and effects on living resources induced by OCS and related onshore oil and gas development; reports methods for forecasting characteristics of community develop- ment; describes employment characteristics for specific activities and onshore facilities; and reviews environmental impacts of probable types of development. Volume III Describes the potential effects of OCS development on living resources and habitats; presents an inte- grated system for assessment of a broad range of impacts related to location, design, construction, and operation of OCS-related facilities; provides a comprehensive review of sources of ecological disturbance for OCS related primary and secondary development. Volume IV Analyzes the regulatory framework related to OCS impacts; enumerates the various laws governing development offshore; and describes the regulatory framework controlling inshore and onshore buildup in support of OCS development. Volume V In five parts, reports current and anticipated OCS development in each of five coastal regions of the United States: New England; Mid and South Atlantic: Gulf Coast; California; and Alaska, Washington and Oregon. John Clark was The Conservation Foundation's project director for the OCS project. He was assisted by Dr. Jeffrey Zinn, Charles Terrell and John Banta. We are grateful to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its financial support, guidance and assistance in every stage of the project. William K. Reilly President The Conservation Foundation IV PREFACE This report is one of five regional reviews, the fifth volumes in a series of background reports on the impacts of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas recovery sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, and prepared by The Conservation Foundation (under Contract 14-1 6-0008-962 ) . The five reviews are: New England, Mid and South Atlantic, Gulf Coast, California, and Alaska, Washington and Oregon. Other volumes in the series and the overall pur- poses of the OCS project are described in the Foreword. The regional reports focus on past and potential impacts on living resources and on their habitats in each region. They also highlight prominent coastal resource-related issues associated with proposed OCS lease sales. The regional reports present brief overviews of the status of offshore oil and gas activities and impacts for the selected regions. They are meant to inform U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees and other interested persons outside the subject region who wish to be generally knowledgeable about the status of OCS around the country and both past and anticipated effects on living resources of the region. The reports were prepared by analysts who are recognized for their expertise in OCS impacts or coastal zone management. The contents and organization of the reports are as consistent as possible given regional differences in subject matter and differences in the authors' approaches. Each study has five sections: 1. The initial section of each regional report is a discussion of past and present OCS production. This provides a historical perspective that establishes a setting for the remaining sections. Statistics on lease sales, production and reserves are important topics in this section. 2. The second section describes OCS development and future potential , including industry activities, the present leasing schedule and anticipated future projects. This section varies depending upon the amount of anticipatory investigation completed by public agencies and industry. 3. The third section discusses the effects on living resources of activities that accompany OCS petroleum development. A majority of these concerns occur near shore or onshore, where resource values and high impact potential are concentrated. The relative importance of particular habitats and living resources vary by region. For example, shellfish may be of paramount concern in one region, birds in a second region, and coastal marshes and wetlands in a third region. 4. The fourth section concerns socio economic impacts. These issues are generally treated in less detail, because living resources is the primary subject of the project and the socio economic impact information is only to provide a working background. Since socio economic impacts have been the subject of many other studies, and interest in most areas has centered on socio economic rather than living resource impacts, there is extensive information elsewhere on this subject. Two major topic areas are included in each report: effects of anticipated development and regional interest in OCS. 5. The fifth section is regional information analysis. Publica- tions of regional import are annotated. Each study lists about a dozen publications which contain the best regional research into OCS and related issues. Each regional report is meant to provide a compilation of information available for the region through midyear 1976. VI TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS VOLUME V: REGIONAL STATUS REPORTS Part 2: Mid and South Atlantic Region Page FOREWORD i PREFACE v LIST OF FIGURES ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PAST AND PRESENT OCS PRODUCTION - MID ATLANTIC REGION 3 2.1 Fields 3 2.2 Yields 3 2.3 OCS Development and Production Methodology .... 5 2.4 Onshore Support Facilities 5 2.5 Processing/Distribution Network 5 2.6 Environmental Concerns 7 3.0 PAST AND PRESENT OCS PRODUCTION - SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION 10 3.1 Fields 10 3.2 Yields 12 3.3 OCS Development and Production Methodology .... 13 3.4 Onshore Support Facilities 13 3.5 Processing/Distribution Network 13 3.6 Environmental Problems 13 4.0 OCS DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL 16 4.1 Potential 16 4.2 Exploration Activities 17 4.3 Leasing 21 4.4 Planning for Production 23 4.5 Potential New Onshore Facilities 26 4.6 Processing and Distribution 28 4.7 Technology Advancement Needs and Potentials ... 32 vn Table of Contents (Continued) Page 5.0 EFFECTS ON LIVING RESOURCES PAST AND FUTURE .... 34 5.1 Spills and Leaks 38 5.2 Coastal Ecosystem Impacts 48 5.3 Shoreland Habitats 58 5.4 Fish and Shellfish 65 5.5 Birds and Wildlife 71 6.0 SOCIO ECONOMIC IMPACTS - PAST AND FUTURE 75 6.1 Development Effects 75 6.2 Public Interest and Community Anticipation .... 80 7.0 REFERENCES 86 7.1 References Cited 86 7.2 Annotated List of Key Publications 90 VI n LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Location of potential Atlantic oil and gas resources 4 2 Hypothetical OCS development schedule after lease sale is held 6 3 Map of the South Atlantic study area 11 4 Geophysical survey methods 19 5 Study area refineries: Mid Atlantic 30 6 Delaware Bay impact areas for spills occurring at the upper bay site. Season - spring 43 7 Charleston Harbor impact areas for spills at central harbor site. Season - spring 44 8 Cross-section of a Georgia coastal island 61 9 Recreation resources 66 10 State and Federal recreation and open space areas 67 11 State of Delaware recreation and open space areas 68 12 Selected major refuge and breeding areas 72 13 South Atlantic ports authorized project depths - major ship channel 82 IX 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report covers past, present and future activities related to Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development, onshore impacts and environ- mental effects for the Mid Atlantic Region and South Atlantic Region. The main objective of the report is to describe awareness of the ecological systems of the two regions and the potential effects of OCS activity on them. For this purpose, effects of past oil and gas operations, as well as possible future effects on coastal living resources, are reviewed. In order to predict possible effects on the environment, a generalized picture of the ecological systems of the nearshore and onshore regions of the Mid Atlantic and South Atlantic is included in Section 5. Sections 2 and 3 analyze past and present OCS oil and gas activities in detail, including exploration, lease sales, development, planning for the eventuality of oil/gas finds and possible impacts. Section 4 deals with the future potential of OCS development. Sections 5 and 6 describe likely biological, physical and socio economic impacts which may occur if oil is found in marketable quantities. Physically, the Mid Atlantic Region, for this report, is taken as that coastal area between New York City and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Geologically, the area of prime oil and gas potential on the OCS of this region is concentrated in the Baltimore Canyon Trough, about 40 to 90 miles offshore from New Jersey and Delaware. Historically, the coastline of this area has experienced petroleum industry activity including refining, tankship construction, and in some instances platform construction. But none of that activity is related to OCS development in the Baltimore Canyon, and hence is not the subject of this report. The South Atlantic Region is the coastal area between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Geologically, two areas are of concern to oil and gas firms. First, the Southeast Georgia Embayment, culminating in the Cape Fear Arch offshore of the North Carolina/South Carolina border, and second, the Blake Plateau, an area from 150 to 300 miles offshore of Jacksonville, Florida in over 2000 feet of water. Citations to bibliographic references are noted in the following form: (reference number, page citation) e.g., (2, p. 25). 2.0 PAST AND PRESENT OCS PRODUCTION - MID ATLANTIC REGION 2.1 FIELDS The Mid Atlantic OCS region, commonly known as the Baltimore Canyon Trough, extends generally from offshore New York to the North Carolina Capes and lies about 40 to 100 miles offshore (Figure 1). This area is about 85 miles wide and 150 miles long. Within this large offshore region, a series of tracts has recently (August 17, 1976) been leased to companies interested in exploration for the possible oil and gas deposits. The 154 tracts proposed for leasing encompassed 876,750 acres (l.p.l) and lay from 54 to 109 miles offshore Delaware and New Jersey in waters from 117 to 571 feet deep. Ultimately, bids were sub- mitted for 101 tracts; 93 were accepted by the Bureau of Land Management (2,p.l), lying in water depths ranging from 131 to 607 feet and are located 47 to 92 miles offshore. These tracts are located approxi- mately between Barnegat, New Jersey, and Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. The sites chosen by industry are those tracts which, based on extensive geophysical exploration, hold the greatest prospect for sizable oil and gas finds. 2.2 YIELDS There have been no past or present yields of oil or gas from the Mid Atlantic OCS region. Projected future yields are presented in Section 4 - OCS Development and Future Potential. Figure 1. Location of potential Atlantic oil and gas resources (Source: Reference 1). GEORGES BANK BASIN 100 200 300 -400 MILES SCALE 2.3 OCS DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION METHODOLOGY With regard to past or present OCS oil and gas production, there has been no use made of developmc it or Droduction methodology. The only ac- tivity has been in the Baltimore Canyon Trough, and this consisted of one COST (Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test) well sponsored by a consortium of 31 oil and gas companies to determine the prospects of resource recovery (8, p. 4). This initial east coast well was drilled to a depth of 16,000 feet by Sedco J semi-submersible drilling platform and was located 73.6 miles off the New Jersey Coast in the Baltimore Canyon. The well was started December 14, 1976 (6, p. 20). A hypothetical OCS development schedule after lease sale is held is presented in Figure 2. 2.4 ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES Past OCS exploratory activity in the Mid and South Atlantic con- sisted of seismographic surveys and some limited stratigraphic drilling. Onshore support facilities for such activities consist of shipyards, pipe supply yards, and personnel and logistic support bases. These activities have been carried out by contractors with experience in these specialized skills who are generally located on the United States Gulf Coast or in major ports throughout the world. Thus, no new onshore support facilities have been required for past OCS activity in this study region. Early support for exploratory drilling of blocks leased in sale no. 40 will probably be pro- vided from Davisville, Rhode Island. 2.5 PROCESSING/DISTRIBUTION NETWORK No new processing or distribution facilities have been constructed in the Atlantic OCS region, nor will such facilities be designed until offshore T3 CU a> to CJ -a t/) <_> O i ^^ ai «tf O >3 •1 +J CD CD u -£= c +J a: O s_ Cl ai >,4- rr a> Cr_ c\j .. cd a> o s- S- -< Z3 » r o •1— y-< 7. c t- 2 -o t-, r- 0) h c/l n < a a- • (L. " i < OJ k u _i •r-t c .J c i ~ ! :j,ivs ;jsv:-n +-> C fO >, ai in 3 i — JZ CTr- +J X TD O QJ — fO Q..— fO QJ >> CL f- S- J= E o O S_ QJ fO u QJ S- x- >, E fO o •— O *-> "O U C ■4-j aj QJ c +-> - E QJ +-> QJ CL E -r- l/> •!- Q. E fO 3 O "O c ■1- "O OJ fa JC c XI 4-> ra ■a c aj qj C 4— O -C f- • r- -(-> -f- — . -p— OJ Q. C ■— <— CL 1 — o ■>- a. fa fO E - • (_> t/1 WD-r i/i O (1J ui c ^~ aj l/l > O CO to 23 >— aj • p— fO o > 4_) . * QJ -t-> > fO CL QJ i — fO c _c E •— ■i— =3 ia QJ OJ t/i in -C "O QJ 3 •jo +-> OJ U fa qj S_ C - i/i S- ■r- QJ >1 en fa QJ 3 => +-> C QJ 4-J cr cr-.- -1— 1 — >4- QJ QJ fc- 3 fO i- w ID O QJ i — . — JZ tfl QJ QJ O . — ■*-> i- o •xs •r- 4- l»- S- aj >,■•-> O QJ >! 03 QJ *-> E QJ on JC H- •5f XT QJ -t-J fO ■»-> +-J L0 CO c o x: i- tr (U Irt CLP -> i- •>- QJ cn QJ U 3 5 S-, QJ *->■.- a. J3 fa cl i/i <— +-• QJ S~ 4-> C oo -o o rc -o O Ll_ QJ c: -r— ■M +-> > 3 4-J U t- QJ O u fO fa ll- 3 CL -C "0 <«- "O E <-> .— O Q) O —i QJ S- S- S.f- un fa a. r— O X- QJ fO i — ■•-J <<- . — S- -r- ro c; t- QJ O QJ i/) o i/l . *> E -r- ■4- UJ *-■ "I — •!— ■ i— CI — ro >- -4-J fD UJ O U fO -t- > — Z •>- > •*-• ■a reserves and production levels have been fully determined. If sufficient re- sources are discovered crude oil will probably be transported by buried pipe- line connecting offshore production areas with onshore storage/distribution systems; otherwise tankers and terminals will be used. The need for extensive new distribution and processing facilities will depend on the quantity of crude and the demand. New facilities will probably not be required since offshore United States oil is intended to replace imported Middle East crude, and since the expected rate of growth of petroleum products demand for the United States East Coast could be handled by expansion of existing refineries (9, p. 44). Depending on where pipelines come ashore, some additional connections to existing refineries in Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, or northern New Jersey will be required. Natural gas pipelines exist in some locales which could be used to transfer gas from the coastal zone processing sites to in- land centers; among these locations are: Northern New Jersey-Sandy Hook area, Southern New Jersey-Atlantic City and Cape May, Northern Delaware and the Norfolk-Virginia area. Crude oil pipelines do not extend to or near the Mid Atlantic coastal zone. Tht.s, if oil is brought ashore by pipeline, new rights-of-way and pipelines will be necessary from landfalls to regional crude pipelines (12, p. 15). 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Activities which have taken place so far in regard to OCS exploration in the Mid Atlantic area have produced few if any environmental problems such as minor oil spills, dredge spoil disposal, onshore construction of support facilities, or the laying of pipelines through estuarine marshes. Of particular concern to the Mid Atlantic region are the remaining pro- ductive wetlands of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. These marshlands are a valuable nursery and spawning area for most estuarine and nearshore fish and shellfish. Commercial and sport fishing are major regional industries here that could be affected. Also, such areas are important as buffer zones against storms, are feeding areas for migratory waterfowl, and support a vast diversity of flora and fauna. The possible effects of OCS activities, such as spills, on offshore fisheries may present a major problem. The offshore areas of the Mid Atlantic states are heavily used for sport and commercial fishing, important species being: marlin, bluefish, striped bass, menhaden, flounder, sea bass, weak- fish, mackerel, hake, surf clams, hard clams, blue crab, oysters, and lob- ster (23). Comments made by the Natural Resources Defense Council in regard to the Environmental Impact Statement for OCS Lease no. 40, Baltimore Canyon, reveal the following possible areas of environmental concern. These possible effects are discussed in detail in Section 5. No assertion as to whether and to what degree th^se problem areas might arise is made. 1. Lack of baseline biological data on: phytoplanktonic populations, zooplanktonic relationships with phytoplankton, spawning characteristics of fish, impact of sublethal oil on fish, life history of commercially significant fish, effects of turbidity and resuspension of toxic materials due to pipeline laying'. Some effort is being made to cor- rect deficient data by BLM sponsorship of a baseline study of the Mid Atlantic OCS. VIMS is the contractor for this study. 8 2. Lack of impact assessments of oil pollution on plankton, commercial and sport fishing, nursery areas in estuarine wetlands. 3. Possible problems with subsidence potential, bottom sed- iment transport, changes in water circulation patterns, beach erosion and wetland soil instabilities. 4. General onshore impacts, such as use of wetlands and farm- lands for facilities, degradation of air quality from hydro- carbon processing plants and enlarged refineries, effects of oil spills, effects of increased tanker traffic, and general- ized socio economic, recreational, and aesthetic impacts (10) 3.0 PAST AND PRESENT OCS PRODUCTION - SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION 3.1 FIELDS The South Atlantic OCS region, offshore of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Northeastern Florida is officially called the South Atlantic/ Georgia Embayment OCS area (3,p.l). In this offshore area, the best chances for oil discoveries are given to an area called the Blake Plateau, which is approximately 100 miles offshore. Depths of water above this geologic struc- ture range from 1,000 to 3,000 feet (4, p. 20). The second best area for pro- posed offshore oil exploration is the Georgia Embayment, a semicircular- shaped area extending from Central South Carolina to Northeastern Florida. This area varies from 15 to 60 miles offshore. These two regions comprise BLM Sale No. 43, which was tentatively set for December, 1976 '5, p. 2), although speculation is that lease sales here will be delayed until late 1977 (6, p. 20). The South Atlantic OCS region coastal counties which will be most in- volved in OCS oil and gas development are shown in Figure 3. The two fields in this region, the Blake Plateau and the Southeast Georgia Embayment, are shown in Figure 1. In the OCS region offshore of the Carolinas and Georgia, the petroleum po- tential is most favorable beneath the Blake Plateau, Southeast Georgia Embay- ment, Hatteras Embayment and the flanks of the Cape Fear Arch, in that order (l,p.l5). Outer Continental Shelf areas under consideration for leasing 10 Fiqure 3. Map of the South Atlantic study area (Source: Reference 26). n by the Department of the Interior in the South Atlantic are presently con- fined to the Blake Plateau and Southeast Georgia Embayment (16). Little information is available for the Hatteras Embayment or Cape Fear Arch. Off the shore of Georgia, the Continental Shelf extends for 80 to 85 miles. The water depth at the top of the Florida-Hatteras Slope is approximately 600 feet. The Continental Shelf slopes \iery gently from the edge of the mainland shore to the Florida-Hatteras Slope. From there it drops rapidly to the Blake Plateau, which has been described as a broad platform extend- ing from the tip of the Straits of Florida to Cape Lookout where it merges with the Continental Slope. It is thought that .there are from 8,400 to 16,500 feet of sedimentary rocks in the basin under the plateau out to a water depth of 1,800 feet (42). The Southeast Georgia Embayment is a structural feature underlying part of the coastal plain region of Georgia and extending out into the ocean for an unknown distance. Recorded maximum sedimentary thicknesses near the center of the embayment exceeds 5,000 feet; offshore near the edge of the Continental Shelf, sedimentary rocks are thought to be more than 10,000 feet thick (17, n. 174). 3.2 YIELDS There has been no past offshore or onshore production of oil and gas in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (18, p. 17). Both oil and natural gas are produced from onshore fields in Florida where commercial quantities of petroleum were discovered in 1943. The major producing field in Florida is located at Jay in the northwest part of the state. Six small fields are located in the southwest part of the state, but there are no onshore fields near or adjacent to the South- east Georgia Embayment (19, p. 20). 12 Offshore activity in the South Atlantic OCS is limited to exploratory geophysical survey work and planning for stratigraphic drilling. There is no commercial production in this OCS region as of the end of 1976. Projected future yields are presented in Section 4-OCS Development and Future Potential . 3.3 OCS DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION METHODOLOGY As of the end of 1976, no development or production methodology has been employed in the South Atlantic OCS. Seismic studies have been con- ducted during the spring and summer of 1976 (5, p. 20), but developments have not progressed beyond that point. 3.4 ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES Due to the lack of exploratory or production drilling in the South Atlantic OCS region, no specialized onshore support facilities have been built or used in the past. Seismographic surveys have been com- pleted by subcontractors who specialize in such work, and their small ships require only minimal onshore support in the form of fuel, food, and infrequent dock space. All such support facilities are readily available in most medium-sized ports. No COST wells have been drilled in the South Atlantic OCS (5), although one exploratory well was com- pleted offshore of Jacksonville in 1976 (31). 3.5 PROCESSING/DISTRIBUTION NETWORK No new processing or distribution facilities have been planned for or constructed in the South Atlantic OCS region, nor will such facilities be designed until offshore fields have been delineated and reserves determined. 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Anticipated environmental problems are presented in detail in Section 5; 13 generalized areas of concern are presented here. Since there have been no offshore development activities in the study area, there have not as yet been adverse environmental impacts. Of particular concern are the expansive undeveloped wetlands and sea islands which span the nearshore zone of all the states in the South Atlantic Coastal zone. These productive marshes are highly valuable in maintaining commercial fisheries of shrimp, crabs, clams, finfish and oysters. Also, such areas are important as buffer zones against storms, protective feeding and breeding grounds for wildlife and waterfowl, nutrient sources for primary producers, and, in general, are the base support for the entire es- tuarine ecosystem (20). Potential coastal zone effects of OCS-related operations (dredging, pipeline laying, platform construction, support ship operations) may include the following (41 ): a. Disruption of nearshore and estuarine habitats; b. Chronic pollution of local water masses by oil or suspended solids; c. Decrease in primary and secondary productivity and loss of commer- cial fishing potential ; d. Disruption of local marsh structure; e. Creation of navigation and fishing hazards; f. Adverse effects of oil spills on regional biota. Some potential offshore environmental impacts which have received attention in the BLM OCS Environmental Studies Program (21) are related to drilling, platform operation, pipeline construction, and oil and gas recovery. Such potential impacts are: a. Disruption or alteration of marine habitat; 14 b. Oiling orlethal effects of oil spills on fish, waterfowl and seabirds; c. Toxic or sublethal effects on marine organisms from chronic pollution; d. Disruption of commercial fishing; e. Creation of navigation hazards; f. Creation of sport fishing habitat. 15 4.0 OCS DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL 4.1 POTENTIAL Potential (undiscovered) recoverable offshore crude oil resources for the Mid and South Atlantic regions have been estimated by the USGS as 2 to 4 billion barrels of oil (7, p. 29). The lower limit of this range rep- resents the 95% probability level of discovery while the upper limit rep- resents the 5% probability level. Potential natural gas reserves were es- timated by the same agency as 5 to 14 trillion cubic feet of gas within the 95% and 5% probability levels with a statistical mean of 10 trillion cubic feet (l,p.31). These estimates apply to continental shelf margins of the states from New York to the Florida east coast. The continental shelf is defined in this instance as waters up to 630 feet in depth since it was felt by USGS that technology and economics allowed for ready exploration of offshore areas up to these depths (7, p. 15). USGS estimates of 1975 are lower than earlier estimates of oil and gas resources of 10 to 20 billion barrels and 55 to 110 billion cubic feet, re- spectively, made in 1974. For the South Atlantic OCS region, the Office of Technology Assessment has estimated recoverable reserves as 0 to 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 0 to 2.5 trillion cubic feet of gas (9). Other estimates of potential resource yields add to the divergence of opinions. The American Petroleum Institute has estimated an upper limit of 16 oil and gas recovery for the OCS area between New York and North Carolina as 6 billion barrels of oil and 32 trillion cubic feet of gas (of which 6 trillion cubic feet would be recovered in association with crude oil )(12,p.ll ) Comparison of potential recoverable oil and gas resources for the Mid and South Atlantic OCS with those of currently producing OCS regions is im- portant in establishing the level of activity which may occur in the study area. For example, the past cumulative production of oil and gas (through December, 1974) for the Western Gulf of Mexico OCS is 6 billion barrels of oil and 67 trillion cubic feet of gas. For the Southern California OCS, production figures are 3 billion barrels of oil and 2 trillion cubic feet of gas (7, p. 32). The estimated undiscovered recoverable oil and gas resources for the entire United States, onshore and offshore, are 36 to 81 billion barrels of crude oil and 286 to 529 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Potential yields of the first lease sale (No. 40) in the Baltimore Canyon Trough are described by the BLM (l,p.3) as: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated in September, 1975, based on proprietary geophysical data, that the undiscovered recoverable resources of the 154 tracts included in the proposed lease sale area range from 0.4 to 1.4 billion barrels of oil and 2.6 to 9.4 trillion cubic feet of gas. Based on the Geological Survey's estimates of the potential undiscovered resources of the 154 tracts (876,750 acres) pro- posed for sale, the peak production could range from 90 to 320 thousand barrels of oil per day and from 0.85 to 3 billion cubic feet of gas per day, peaking approximately 10 years after production has commenced. 4.2 EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES Geophysical survey activities have been carried out in each of the three major Atlantic OCS regions (Georges Bank, Baltimore Canyon, and Southeast Georgia Embayment), although most operations have concentrated 17 on the Baltimore Canyon due to the execution of the August, 1976 lease sale in that area. Few activities other than seismographic surveys have been carried out in the South Atlantic area, whereas past exploration activities in the Mid Atlantic OCS area have included COST wells. Such action is commonly carried out by private contractors who may work for one or several oil com- panies at a time, or who may undertake the surveys of likely oil-bearing structures themselves and sell the resultant data to any interested parties. This type of activity requires no new shore-based facilities. Seismic vessels operate out of existing ports and may conduct tests anywhere in the world. The manner of geophysical exploration is described as follows: Geophysical surveying uses small shock waves set off near the water surface and sensitive recording devices towed behind small vessels to determine the density of sediments lying thousands of feet beneath the ocean bottom. Geophysicists interpret the re- sults of these surveys to predict where oil and gas deposits are likely to be found. (13, p. 15). (Figure 4). More recent exploration activities have consisted of the drilling of a COST (Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test) well in the Baltimore Canyon. This well which was started in December, 1975 and lies 73.6 miles off the New Jersey coast is the first step of a major program to collect actual subsurface information in offshore frontier areas (6, p. 20). Explor- atory wells are drilled, in this case, by semi-submersible drilling rigs which operate out of home ports (especially from the Gulf) and are used world-wide whenever needed. Little onshore support other than supplies, some personnel quarters (usually motels), fuel and food are needed. These deep test wells are part of a comprehensive program to find out what type of potential reservoir and source rock lies in sedimentary basins 18 Figure 4. Geophysical survey methods (Source: U.S. Department of the Interior). SONOBUOY 19 of the area. A total of about 35 million dollars has been spent by oil firms through early 1976 in exploratory activity on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. Less than one-third of this amount was expended on the South Atlantic region (5, p. 19), with data acquisition efforts for the Southeast Georgia Em- bayment receiving the lion's share mainly since the Blake Plateau area isn't scheduled for a lease sale until mid-1978 and lies in deeper water. Exploratory drilling follows lease sales, such drilling being done by sophisticated drill rigs. The three most commonly used types of rigs are semi-submersible, jack-up, or floating drill ships. Such drill rigs either move to the site under their own power or are towed to the designated field from existing ports or oil fields. The expected sequence of exploration ac- tivities is explained by Goodman (13, p. 17): The rigs are towed to the lease holdings from any of a number of worldwide locations. Support materials are usually stored onshore: drill pipe, drill bits, drilling mud (powder), cement (powder), casing (pipe), catered foods, crews, tools, etc. Transportation to drilling sites is provided by locally-berthed work boats (LOA up to 200-250 feet), crew boats (LOA up to 85-110 feet), and helicopters. Repair facilities, divers, ship chandlers, welders, mechanics, and other ancillary support usually locate in the immediate area to provide their special services, many of which are common trades. Exploratory drilling continues until the limits of the total field are defined. The number of exploratory wells required depends on the geological structure. The U.S. Geological Sur- vey of the Department of the Interior regulates the procedures for drilling and for numerous other activities related to com- pletion, platform installation, pipelines and other OCS op- erations by publishing "OCS Operating Orders" and by conducting inspections of facilities and operations. The Atlantic areas in general pose no known serious drilling problems. Water depths are shallow to moderate (600 feet)s and weather may be classed as moderate to severe, although storm conditions in the South Atlantic may be extremely severe on rare occasions. Most semi-submersible drill rigs will 20 probably be able to work year-round, while smaller semi's, drill ships, and jack-up rigs might work seasonally. Exploratory semi -submersible rigs capable of drilling in the Southeastern Georgia Embayment waters up to 300 feet deep are currently working in the Gulf of Mexico and could easily be moved to the new OCS region (5, p. 21). Drilling in the 1,000 foot depths of the Blake Plateau will require development of structures and techniques not yet in use in other offshore areas. Some exploratory drilling such as COST holes, may be undertaken by a consortium of oil companies to determine the nature of the structure as earlier indicated by geophysical data. Often, however, lease sales are held before any drilling is completed in the projected geological structure, and bids are based on information gathered from remote geophysical surveys. Estimates have been made that from 5 to 20 drilling rigs would be operating simultaneously in exploratory phases following OCS Sale No. 40 - Baltimore Canyon Trough (1, Vol. 11, p. 4). About five acres of coastal land are required for logistic support for terminal operations, storage, and technical support of each exploratory rig. Also estimates on the work force complement required for 10 rigs have been placed at about 260 people, of which about 220 would be rig crew members and would largely come from existing Gulf operations. In the South Atlantic, it has been estimated that 5 to 10 explora- tory rigs will be operating simultaneously (41). 4.3 LEASING The OCS Lease Sale No. 40 - Offshore of the Mid Atlantic States - took place on August 17, 1976. Geophysical data are used as a basis for requesting which blocks are put up by BLM for leasing. Also, interested parties such as 21 fishermen, shipping interests, the military, environmentalists, and others, request that certain blocks not be leased due to some significant restrictions such as major bottom fish or shellfish concentrations. Successful high bid- ders purchase the exclusive right for 5 years to explore for and develop oil and gas resources on 3 square mile tracts. If they do not actively explore for oil and gas and put it into production, the lease expires and returns to the U.S. government. For the Mid Atlantic, the entire sequence of choosing and leasing tracts is explained clearly by a BLM News Release (14): A tentative list of 154 tracts totaling 354,816 hectares (876,750 acres) is being made available for a proposed sale of oil and gas leases (OCS No. 40) on the Mid Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management an- nounced today. This proposed sale is tentatively scheduled for May 1976. On March 26, 1975, the Bureau of Land Management asked industry to nominate tracts on which it would like to bid if a sale is held, and also invited other Federal agencies, State and Local govern- ments, environmental groups, and the general public to specify tracts which, in their view, should not be offered in the proposed sale. The Mid Atlantic area considered in the call for nominations con- sisted of 1,151 tracts totaling 2.6 million hectares (6.5 million acres). Industry expressed interest in 557 tracts totaling 1.3 million hectares (3.2 million acres). BLM's recommendation of 354,816 hectares (876,750 acres) was based upon environmental protection and other resource uses, coastal State government concerns, and areas of high interest in oil and gas potential. Not included in the tentative tract selection list are 71 tracts which the commercial fishing industry requested be eliminated from lease con- sideration. The decision to eliminate these tracts from the proposed sale offering was made after the fishing industry recommendation was supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of Interior, the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration (NOAA) in Commerce, and the views of coastal states. None of the area now being considered conflicts with known ocean dumping areas. 22 Of the 154 tracts offered, BLM received 101 bids; 93 were accepted. The eight rejected bids were for tracts BLM considered more valuable than the highest bid received (2,p.l). Lease sales for the South Atlantic OCS region were originally planned by BLM for November, 1976 (14, Fig. 2), but this schedule was not met due to various legal and environmental delays. Most likely, tracts will be offered for sale late in 1977, after the completed Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been reviewed by all parties concerned and all comments and problem areas are resolved. 4.4 PLANNING FOR PRODUCTION Planning in anticipation of oil and gas production in the Mid and South Atlantic OCS has been carried on for many years and along several fronts. A typical production scenario for consideration in the planning process is described in (8): The production phase includes offshore platform construction and erection; pipeline construction; more extensive develop- ment drilling (sometimes as many as 40 holes per platform); construction and installation of production equipment, including "Christmas trees" (the complex arrangement of valves that control product flow and facilitate the rework- ing of a well), and other related devices on the platforms or the bottom; construction of processing units offshore for separating sand, water and gas from oil, and onshore for stripping heavier fractions from oil; and finally, maintenance operations that keep the wells flowing. It is important to remember that the term "production" does not include process- ing activities such as refining. Under normal circumstances, transportation to shore of crude oil from platforms at sea takes place through pipelines. Large diameter pipe (gen- erally greater than 12-inch diameter) is welded together from short sections (40 feet long) on a barge and allowed to sag under its own weight to the sea 23 floor. (In deeper water, a curved pipe support called a "stringer" trails behind the lay-barge). In water depths less than 200 feet, USGS requires that in the Gulf the pipeline be buried. This is accomplished by jets of water forcing sediments away from the pipe, allowing the pipe to settle in the resulting trench. The disturbed sediments, after they settle, partly cover the pipe, but complete burial requires additional time (usually more than a year in deep waters). Complete burial may be achieved in certain bottom materials by making several passes with the jetting equipment. To prevent corrosion, pipelines are coated with materials such as epoxy compounds or thick, asphalt-like mastic. If extra weight is needed to keep the line in place or mechanical protection is needed, the pipe is also covered with a layer of dense concrete. As the pipeline comes ashore, it is buried deeply enough to avoid its being exposed by storm-associated beach erosion. Onshore pipelines are buried in trenches (either on upland or marsh). Planning functions of immediate concern here are those which will in- fluence environmental quality (biological, social, economic, physical). Even within this restricted scope of concern, these functions encompass a broad range of governmental, industrial, and public activities. Planning for OCS oil development has in general proceeded further, or at least more visibly, in the Mid Atlantic region than in the South Atlantic. As a consequence, most of the observations which are made here are based upon Mid Atlantic production planning. However, due to uniformity in national statutory requirements and relative homogeneity of social concerns about OCS development in both Mid and South Atlantic coastal states, the issues ob- served in the Mid Atlantic may well be representative of issues likely to 24 develop in the South Atlantic region. In the Mid Atlantic region there has been a substantial lack of har- mony in planning for offshore activity between state and Federal jurisdic- tions. In most cases these difficulties are cuased by a scarcity of quantitative data on anticipated production and well-field location, the reluctance of energy companies and federal managers (USGS,BLM) to share pro- prietary geophysical data on likely oil reserves, and the vastly different staffing and operating practices that exist between operating companies. Planning for production from a coastal zone manager's view is difficult and mostly hypothetical until offshore reserves are located, quantified, and the methods of extraction, collection and distribution clarified and operating companies have been identified. It is this feeling of inevitability of off- shore development regardless of local interest and inputs that has resulted in a generally negative attitude in the Hid Atlantic coastal zone states. This negative reaction has manifested itself in many ways, i.e., in the com- ments of state officials (Governor of New Jersey, Secretary of Delaware De- partment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Director of Delaware State Planning Office, etc.), in the comments of special interest constituen- cies at public hearings such as those held in Trenton, New Jersey, on poten- tial lease sales in the region, and by the formation of political action groups that lend greater weight to the regional publics' interests (i.e. MAGCRC, Mid Atlantic Governors' Coastal Resources Council). Locational analyses of such major facilities as described above signifi- cantly influence uses of coastal zone lands, alignment of pipelines, and de- mands on local labor markets and infrastructure (water supply, police, sewage treatment, health care, education). Development of onshore facilities also 25 requires large tracts of land with ready access to the ocean, with the potential for impacting prime ecological, aesthetic, or recreational uses. 4.5 POTENTIAL NEW ONSHORE FACILITIES The lack of specific information on the size of offshore oil and gas reserves in the Mid Atlantic and South Atlantic OCS Regions affects many decisions of industry as to what types and sizes of onshore facilities will be required and where to locate them. General types of installations which are required include: port services ; supply boat anchorages ; staging areas for pipe; equipment and provision yards; office and general storage buildings; ship repair facilities; helicopter bases; housing for workers and off-duty crews. If sizable offshore fields are located, it is probable that large- scale facilities would come into play, among them: construction yards for drilling/production platforms; tank farms for oil storage; refineries and associated petrochemical plants. In the Mid Atlantic region and South Atlantic Region many full service port facilities exist in close proximity to the lease areas which would be able to provide repair services, fuels, oils and other supplies, and equipment staging areas. In the Mid Atlantic these are usually located at the head of major bays or estuaries such as the Delaware or Chesapeake. In the South Atlantic they are more readily accessible to the OCS areas. Developed ports in the Mid Atlantic include New York City, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Bal- timore and Norfolk, whereas South Atlantic ports of this designation are Morehead City, Wilmington, Georgetown, Charleston, Savannah, Brunswick, and Jacksonville. Smaller harbors located along the Atlantic shoreline such as 26 Atlantic City, New Jersey; Cape Hay, New Jersey; Lewes, Delaware; Ocean City, Maryland and Cape Charles, Virginia would be capable of serving as centers for crew boats and smaller supply needs. Land needs for an average work boat supply and crew staging area would require about 40 to 60 acres, counting the usual secondary facilities also required (housing, gas stations, roads, etc. ) (19,42) . Based on estimates made by BLM for the Northeast Gulf area 4 to 5 times that acreage might be required in the general vicinity (several miles radius) of the onshore logistic support site as exploratory operations proceed. Barge, rail, and road access would be required. ■ The land-use impact of product delivery facilities has been estimated by BLM as being 40 acres for a tanker terminal with 500,000 barrels of stor- age and 40 acres per pipeline terminal, including 120,000 to 200,000 barrels of storage. The number of such sites will depend on the number and location of pipelines (13, p. 28). Due to the unknown levels of oil and gas production which will occur in either the Mid or South Atlantic regions, the numbers, types and locations of onshore facilities are as yet unknown. However, Goodman (13, p. 29) states: ...based on the estimated level of resource recovery (for the Mid Atlantic 0CS area), the total population increase due to exploration, drilling and production activity will probably be about 60,000 people for the entire Mid Atlantic region. Second, the total land use requirement in support of 0CS exploration and drilling activity is quite small, about 500 acres; less than 100 acres need be at the water's edge. The requirements for production facilities also would be about 500 acres of land. In the Mid Atlantic region, certain large land-use activities already have been committed, such as a 2,000 acre land acquisition by Brown and Root in Northampton County, Virginia, intended for platform and pipeline con- struction. Also, Offshore Services, Inc. is negotiating for a 600-slip 27 marina near Slaughter Beach, Delaware, to be used as a support facility for drilling activities in the Baltimore Canyon. A large industrial area in Lewes, Delaware is also being mentioned as a large support facility for crew and work boats (27). A number of potential sites for refineries have been identified during the past decade, many of which have met with local oppo- sition (Shell in Delaware is one good example). A large find might act as a stimulus to further interest in locating refineries in this coastal region. In the South Atlantic, due to the later proposed lease sale (late in 1977), less onshore activity has been planned for than in the Mid Atlantic area. Large ports such as Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Car- olina; Georgetown, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville, Florida, all have many of the facilities required to support offshore ac- tivity. The types of facilities needed will depend on where oil (or gas) is found, the reserves, and the economic restraints associated with their extraction and distribution. If a large discovery is made in this region, it is likely that new distribution networks and refineries would be built as explained in the next section. 4.6 PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION The Mid Atlantic region is one of the most densely populated and indus- trialized areas in the country. This region contains nearly all of the 1.6 million barrels per day refining capacity now located on the U.S. east coast. Potential oil and gas production from the Baltimore Canyon would provide about 10 percent of regional oil and natural gas requirements by 1985 (assum- ing medium demand and average production) (13). This would represent an important contribution to the region's energy needs but would not substan- tially offset the expanded need for supplemental energy supplies in the region. 28 It is expected that new OCS oil and gas sources would somewhat reduce imports of Middle East crude, or at least make up the difference between present im- port levels and higher future demand. If production from the Baltimore Canyon is low, then the oil is likely to be transported by tanker and processed in existing or expanded refineries in the industrial belt between Wilmington, Delaware and New York City. Al- though local environmental impacts may result from refinery expansion, the onshore impacts of low Baltimore Canyon production would be little noticed either positively or negatively. However, if oil production is high, it is likely that new refinery capacity would be required either in the form of expanded existing refineries or newly constructed refineries, (21, p. 131). Existing refineries are shown in Figure 5, and their capacities are given below: (28, Vol .3, p. 65). Location Company Capacity (bbl per day) New Jersey: Paulsboro Mobile Oil Co. 100,000 Westville Texaco Inc. 91 ,000 Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Atlantic Richfield 160,000 Gulf Oil Co. 168,500 Marcus Hook BP 93,200 Sun Oil 165,000 Maryland: Baltimore Amoco Oil Co. 11,000 Chevron Asphalt Co. 10,700 Virginia: Yorktown American Oil Co. 51 ,000 Delaware: Delaware City Getty Oil Co. 140,000 For the South Atlantic area, production of petroleum and petrochemical products is negligible in the 30-county coastal area and in the entire four-state area. 29 Figure 5. Study area refineries: Mid Atlantic (Source: Reference 28), PENIU Chevron American 30 Consumption is estimated for the entire four-state area as 428 million barrels per year, or 1,173,000 barrels per calendar day of refinery through- put, or 1,276 thousand barrels per stream (operating day) (26, p. 7) . Demand in the South Atlantic region is equivalent to about five re- fineries of 250,000 barrels each, and this should grow to about 7 by 1985 and 11 by 2000, independent of offshore drilling production. Prediction of the economic implications of resources discovered in the South Atlantic region vary widely. Those predicted on lease sale 43 conser- vatively predict export of crude to Gulf and Mid Atlantic refineries. Others say that the economics of refining and petrochemical production are in the process of change as is the total United States crude oil picture. What is likely to occur is a major shift to imports, large refineries, and large petrochemical complexes in the South Atlantic region, probably in a number of locations, and initially near the four deep ports of Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah and Jacksonville. By the time any offshore drilling production occurs, it will probably merely replace imports, thus firming up supply, and influencing refinery and petrochemical location in the gen- eral areas where pipelines are brought ashore (26). A 7,000-acre site near Savannah (Jasper County) has been acquired by the Chevron Oil Company, and speculation is that this site is to be used for a refinery. Several of the ports in this region have zoning for heavy industry, or have large industries in existence, among them Charleston, Savannah, George- town, Wilmington and Jacksonville. Distribution networks in the form of gas pipelines do exist throughout the four-state South Atlantic region, but oil (crude or product) pipelines are not available. Thus, a large gas find could be accommodated within the 31 existing distributional network, while a large oil find would require a new pipeline network, new refineries, or transshipment to existing refinery sites further north (Maryland and Delaware). 4.7 TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT NEEDS AND POTENTIALS The general needs and improved technological requirements which are asked of the oil industry in the Atlantic OCS regions may be listed as: (21, pp. 162-172) (a) Better technology to prevent spills, blow-outs, leaks and ruptures, especially via increased downhole pressure measurement abilities. (b) Increased ability to work in deep waters; up to 600 feet in the Baltimore Canyon and over 2500 feet on the Blake Plateau. (c) New developments to allow for use of subsea completion and production facilities. (d) Ability to work under more severe weather conditions than those experienced in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Santa Barbara Channel. (e) Minimize loading of oil and other effluents in the aquatic environment until the chronic effects of same have been determined. .(f) Improved structural integrity of drilling platforms to avoid loss to storms. (g) Minimization of adverse impacts from pipeline burial and from subsea debris which snares fishing gear. All of the above areas are subjects which are of concern to regional planners, government officials, and environmental groups. The oil industry is facing a different social and physical environment in the Atlantic than that in the Gulf, thus, not only must new technological innovations be forth- coming to minimize pollution potentials, but new techniques and ways of doing things must be instituted to take the different social concerns into consideration. All frontier OCS areas are similar in their technological and 32 environmental expectations of the way in which offshore oil and gas re- sources are exploited. Several areas place greater emphasis on protection of recreational beaches and shore communities (New England, Mid Atlantic, Southern California), although most regions have expressed concern about possible damage to fish and shellfishing resources. All frontier regions expect that OCS activities will be carried out with a minimum of oil spills and a maximum of planning consultation with local and state officials. 33 5.0 EFFECTS ON LIVING RESOURCES (PAST AND FUTURE) To date, there has been no significant offshore oil and gas activity other than the drilling of one exploratory strati graphic test well in the Baltimore Canyon area. Although oil spills and shipwrecks have occurred in the past, with impacts often similar to what might be expected from intense oil and gas activity, there have been no impacts yet from OCS development. The following discussion thus concerns itself with likely impacts as based on knowledge of the existing ecosystems in the Mid Atlantic and South At- lantic OCS regions, and on past experience from other areas where offshore oil and gas activity has been under way for a number of years. The general impacts of OCS activity on coastal ecosystems should be the same for both the Mid Atlantic and South Atlantic. This premise is based on the overall similarity between the two regions. Both areas are composed of the Atlantic coastal plain, which ranges in width from 20 to 30 miles in northern New Jersey to over 140 miles in North Carolina (23). The coastline of both study areas is one of submergence so that stream valleys are "drowned" and form broad tidal estuaries. The seaward margin is fringed with almost continuous beaches and bars, while landward, nearly continuous marshes border the estuaries. However, whereas the Mid Atlantic coast is fringed by barrier beaches and islands, the coastlines of South Carolina and Georgia are comprised of barrier islands. Various types of wetland classifications are given by Shaw and Fredine 34 (36) for the Mid and South Atlantic coastal regions. Whereas the Mid Atlantic region has numerous shallow and open fresh-water marshes and coastal salt meadows, the South Atlantic region has few of these types of marshes. However, the South Atlantic has vast acreages of open sounds and bays, inland fresh-water marshes, swamps, bogs, regularly flooded salt marshes, and irregu- larly flooded salt marshes. Wetlands value for waterfowl, by state in de- creasing order is given as (36): Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Delaware, and New Jersey. Ecologically, there is only an arbitrary dividing line between the bio- logical communities in the two study regions. Many organisms are distributed over a range wider than the bounds of just the Mid or South Atlantic. Fur- thermore, certain physical and chemical phenomena occurring in the two study regions are the result of conditions that have developed outside the study area, notably, the Gulf Stream (23, p. 0-2). Not only does the temperature effect of the close-to-shore Gulf Stream play a major role in biological zonation, but the sediment composition also comes into play as a differentiation characteristic between communities north and south of Cape Hatteras. The sandy bottoms of the Carolinian region have a much higher carbonate content than areas north of Cape Hatteras. These sediments support a benthic fauna which replaces some northern species with ones found only in the south, such as the surf clam, Spisula raveneHi re- placing its northern cousin, S. solidissima. Also, there appears to be introduction of new groups and greater diversity of species as one progresses from north to south of Cape Hatteras (23, p. 5-9). From a commercial viewpoint, surf clam harvesting is a major industry in the Middle Atlantic Bight, whereas its southern counterpart, Spisula 35 ravenell i is not fished extensively. Sea scallops are caught only north of the Cape and calico scallops only south of it. However, a large sea scallop harvesting industry exists off Cape Canaveral, Florida at the lower limit of the South Atlantic Bight. Bay scallops, consisting of two species covering the length of the U.S. East Coast, are harvested in both areas. The fishing industry, commercial and recreational, in the South Atlantic states is a major economic force. In Florida, for instance, about 12,350 commercial fishermen harvest an annual catch valued in excess of $40,000,000. Sport fishing generates an estimated $500,000,000 for Florida's economy, although the level of economic importance is less in the other states of this region (19, p. 145). Many migrating estuarine dependent species are primarily oceanic, but are still critically dependent on the shallow waters for their nursery areas. These fishes--flounder, bluefish, menhaden, king whiting--spawn in the open sea along the continental shelf. Their larval young, after hatching, drift and swim through the inlets and find refuge and food in the shallow waters and marshes. If the species is to survive, the juvenile fish must have an estuarine nursery area. Some migratory fish spawn in the waters of the estuary. Their young seek refuge in the shallowest waters after hatching, finding protection and abundant food in the rich estuarine zone. Fish in this group include weak- fish, drum, and shad (38). A short synopsis of the major sport and commercial fish species of both 0CS areas derived from a number of sources is given below (1,23,37): - Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) Occur from New England to Florida in shallow offshore waters. They spawn in the ocean over the continen- tal shelf; young spend several months in estuaries in spring and summer. 36 - Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) Occur from New England to North Carolina - inshore in the summer and along the edge of the continen- tal shelf in winter, between Delaware Bay and Cape Hatteras. - Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) From Maine to South Carolina. Spring to fall occurs in nearshore areas; winter to spring along the entire continental shelf edge. Is important for sport and commer- cial harvest. - Herrings (Alosa spp.) Occur from Newfoundland to South Carolina. Move offshore in winter but spawn in rivers in early spring. Are caught both offshore and in the estuaries. - Silver hake (Merluccius bi linearis) Occurs along entire Atlantic coast; principal fishing grounds are off Long Island and New Jersey but are fished in both Mid and South Atlantic. - Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) Occur in both OCS regions but, in the south, occur mostly north of Cape Hatteras. Juveniles make extensive use of marshes. Adults are caught offshore by trawls. - Black sea bass (Centropristes striatas) Occur in both OCS areas, principally offshore. Major winter fishery is at 20 to 70 fathoms off North Carolina and Virginia while summer fishery is coastal and occurs from central New Jersey north to Canada. - Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) Range is from St. Lawrence River to Lousiana. Center of abundance lies between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras. Spring to fall populations occur inshore and are im- portant to sport fishing, while winter to spring populations occur offshore along the continental shelf edge and are caught commer- cially. - American shad (Alosa sapidissima) Range is from Canada to Florida; center of abundance is from North Carolina to Connecticut - is of importance to sport and commercial fisheries. Spawns in rivers; spends most of its life at sea. - Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Range is from New England to Texas and is caught along entire Atlantic coast. North Carolina Sounds are a major commercial area. Distribution in both OCS areas is coastal and offshore. Bluefish migrate in schools from Florida in mid-winter, appearing off the Carol inas in March and off New York in April and May. Spawning occurs inshore. - Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Occur from the St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras, especially north of Delaware. Depth range is from the surface (near the coast in late spring) to the continental shelf edge bottom (in the winter). They are a major commercial species for the Mid Atlantic OCS area. 37 - Weakfish (Cynoscion regal is) Occurs from Gulf of Mexico to Massachusetts Bay and is mainly a coastal fish. It is a major sport fish in both OCS areas. - Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Occurs in all oceanic areas - not coast- ally dependent. Is common over the continental shelf of both OCS areas, but more abundant north of Mew Jersey. - White merlin (Tetrapturus aloidus) Oceanic in Atlantic Ocean - common south of New Jersey especially in summer. Occurs along continental shelf edge and beyond. Major sport fishing off Maryland and Delaware. - Blue marl in (Makaira nigricans) Oceanic in distribution; primarily beyond continental shelf edge. Major sport fishing centers at North Carolina and South Atlantic OCS area. 5.1 SPILLS AND LEAKS The Santa Barbara blow-out and oil spill in 1969 produced such a public outcry that offshore leasing outside the Gulf of Mexico ceased while the government reevaluated its policies regarding stiffer regulations and stricter enforcement. Environmentalists conclude that oil spills are inevitable, no matter how strict tne safeguards may be. Potential damage to marine life and coastal -dependent economies warrant cautious leasing practices (5, p. 2). Exploratory drilling is one of the most hazardous steps in the develop- ment of offshore energy resources, due to the possibility of a blowout (21, p. 58). A heavy fluid called "drilling mud" is circulated in the drill hole to counteract the rapid change in geologic structure pressure or the possible sudden flow of oil or gas. The blowout risk is proportional to hole depth and formation pressures. There is no geologic reason to believe that high formation pressures would be encountered in offshore Georgia (17, p. 180), or in the Baltimore Canyon area. Spill potential exists in tanker groundings, transshipment accidents, pipeline ruptures, production equipment failure, human error, and other minor sources of spills and leaks. The chances for major casualties or 38 accidents are intensified during severe storms which are more common to the South Atlantic region than the Mid Atlantic (22). With so many possible spill factors, it is difficult to predict the volume of potential oil spillage expected from Atlantic OCS operations. One frequently quoted estimate is that used by the Bureau of Land Management, which estimates that approximately 0.011% of the overall (2.36 billion barrels) OCS production of oil and condensate in the Gulf of Mexico from 1964 to 1972 was spilled. However, the amount of oil introduced into the oceans by off- shore production is quite small in relation to other sources. "The following assumptions concerning oil spills can be made: • Overall, offshore production is a relatively minor cause of general oil pollution. • However, major oil spills related to offshore production can and do occur. • These spills are characterized by "catastrophic" events of major proportions (including those attributable to natural events like storms), and by chronic, smaller spills. • Location, strict regulation, and adherance to regulations can reduce the potential for catastrophic spills, but the chance for error (and thus, major spills) can never be entirely eliminated." (13, p. 32) Biological effects of oil pollution in the Atlantic OCS regions fall into four categories: a. Long-term offshore effects due to chronic, low-level oil emissions. b. Short-term offshore effects from a massive accidental spill. c. Long-term nearshore or onshore effects due to chronic oil pollution from pipeline leaks, transfer operations, and ship support bases. d. Short-term nearshore or onshore effects due to beaching of a massive oil spill . 39 Studies undertaken by BLM predict a variety of likely oil spill trajec- tories if a spill were to occur in the OCS Lease Sale No. 40 area. Spills would move generally southwest and likely make contact with beaches in Dela- ware, Maryland, or further south and would generally require about two weeks to do so. It must be recalled that the areas which will be subjected to exploratory drilling are located from 47 to 92 miles off the coasts of New Jersey and Delaware and thus minimize onshore/nearshore impacts due to dis- tance from shore. A complete statistical analysis of the likelihood of spills contacting the shore cannot be given here but is presented in the BLM Final EIS for Lease Sale Mo. 40 (1 , pp. 56-94). However, the following gen- eralizations may be stated: a. the probability that a major spill (if one occurs) will come ashore for the entire project area is 10%. b. the probability that a major spill will impact one of the ten natural environmental resource categories is shown below (includes consideration of seasonal vulnerability): ( 1 ,p. 88) Group Probability (%) 1. Endangered Birds 1.5 2. Migratory Waterbirds 4.0 3. Shellfisheries 1.0 4. Coastal Finfish 7.0 5. Estuarine Finfish 1.0 6. Wetlands 3.0 7. Wildlife Refuges and Management Areas 6.0 8. Beaches with High-Intensity Use 2.0 9. Parks and Recreation Areas 5.0 10. Mid-Atlantic Bight Dumpsites 12.0 The resource characteristics of the Mid Atlantic onshore and offshore environment were categorized into ten groups in order to evaluate the poten- tial impacts if a spill did reach a critical natural environment. Among 40 these ten resource groups and their seasonal occurrence were the following eight of particular relevance (Nos. 9 & 10, parks and dumpsites, not discussed) 1. Endangered birds, such as the American peragrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, osprey (all seasons), which would be impacted by oiling during feeding activities. 2. Migratory waterbirds, wildlife management areas, refuges, and concentrations of geese and ducks occur along all the shores and marshes of the Mid Atlantic states (winter, spring, fall); adverse impacts to waterfowl would be immediate if a spill entered such an environment. 3- Shellfish: areas along the shore and in the major bay mouths contain surf clams, bay scallops, northern hard clams, and oysters (all seasons). 4. Coastal finfish: A strip about 25 miles wide along the entire coast line was identified as critical habitat for egg and larval stages of scup, porgy, and menhaden (summer and fall). In addition, the fisheries for bluefish, Atlantic mackerel, butter- fish, red hake, yellow-tail flounder, and fluke flounder could be seriously impacted by an oil spill (all seasons); in both nearshore and offshore areas. 5. Estuarine finfish: The Mid Atlantic area contains key estuarine habitat for weakfish, sea trout, whiting, and striped bass (spring, summer, and fall ) . 6. Wetlands: Large tracts of wetlands lie shoreward of the barrier islands along all of these coastal states and within Delaware and Chesapeake Bays (all seasons). 7. Wildlife Refuges and Management Areas: Many wildlife refuges and parks lie within a possible oil spill impact zone, such as: Dennis Creek Wildlife Management Area, Bombay Hook National Wild- life Refuge, Assateague Island National Seashore, Island Beach State Park, Cape Henlopen State Park (all seasons). 8. Beaches with high-intensity use: Sandy Hook, Barnegat, Atlantic City, Cape May County, New Jersey area beaches; Rehoboth Beach, Delaware area beaches; Ocean City, Maryland area beaches; Vir- ginia Beach, Virginia area beaches (all seasons). Nearshore spill trajectories were analyzed by M.I.T. (39) for both Mi d - and South Atlantic OCS areas. The reader is referred to this source document for a complete description of likely trajectories under various conditions. However, Figures 6 and 7 show the types of analyses which were completed for 41 Delaware Bay and Charleston Harbor, the two most likely centers of OCS support for each region. The following discuss these trajectories: Delaware Bay Figure 6 shows the map of Delaware Bay used by the computer in the nearshore spill analyses. The shoreline was broken down into 51 subareas. Two spill sites were studied: 1) One in the upper central bay between Mil ford Neck and East Point (shown in Figure 6); 2) And the other in the bay entrance midway be- tween Cape Henlopen and Cape May (not shown). The wind data used were those from Wilmington, Delaware, for the period 1963 through 1972. In winter, the most likely areas are to the east and southeast with very low probability attached to the north and most of the western shores. Spring exhibits a more diffusive pattern, but once again certain portions of the western shore are low-probability areas. In summer the lower bay is almost untouched, all the impact areas being con- fined to a band in the upper bay area. Autumn is rather similar to spring. In all seasons Egg Island Point is a very high- probability impact area with probability ranging from 29% in winter to 51% in summer. It would seem that analyses such as these could be profitably used in the design and deployment of spill containment and collection systems. Charleston Harbor Figure 7 shows the map of Charleston Harbor used by the computer. >iind data were based on Charleston, South Carolina, weather records, 1963 to 1972. The shoreline was broken down into some 51 areas. A single spill site was studied, located in the center of the main harbor. With minor exceptions, there is very little seasonal dependence as far as the initial impact areas are concerned. They are spread rather evenly over the main part of the harbor. Charleston Harbor is much smaller than the other two areas studied, and 60% of the spills are ashore within seven or eight hours. There is little seasonal dependence in the times to shore. Since the distances and times to shore are so small, the results are dominated by the tidal currents and seasonal wind rose properties. 42 Fiqure 6. Delaware Bay impact areas for spills occurrina at the upper bay site. Season - sprinq (Source: Reference 39). ^ IMPACT AREAS □ 0%- 2% 03 2% -5% M 5%- 10% §] 10% - 20% 20% -30% >30% 43 Figure 7. Charleston Harbor impact areas for spills at central harbor site. Season - spring (Source: Reference 39). IMPACT AREAS □ 0%-2% 2% - 5% 5%- 10% ^ 10% -20% 20% -30% >30% 44 Areas in which more than 20% of the spills come ashore in winds over 12 knots are localized in the Charleston-Hog Island areas once again with little seasonal variation. However, as might be expected given the smaller distances, the initial impact areas are more sensitive to initial spill size. The smaller the area, the more important the spill spread is rela- tive to spill transport. The foregoing analyses are meant to be exemplary in nature. The choice of sample harbors does not imply advocating any of these locations. Rather, the analyses undertaken are intended to be models of the sort of work which could be done in any oil handling area under consideration. The possibility that oil spills from the offshore production areas would affect the natural environment is summarized by BLM (1, p. 92-94): In summary, it seems reasonable to conclude that although there is a 39% probability that at least one oil spill greater than 1,000 barrels will reach shore during the anticipated 25-year production life of this area, any effects on the nearshore or onshore environment would be due to the residual oil, and not the more toxic lighter fractions which would have already dis- appeared into the offshore environment. In the worst case, it took four days for one of the 2,800 hypothetical spills to reach shore, however, the lighter, more toxic fractions of crude oil boil off (evaporate) during the first few hours of an oil spill leaving the heavier, less toxic hydrocarbons remaining. It also seems reasonable to conclude that, due to the weathering process and the constant reduction in the amount of remaining residual hydrocarbons combined with the constantly improving effectiveness of oil spill containment and recovery equipment, the impacts associated with an oil spill reaching a shoreline would be relatively small. It is possible that impacts could occur in the form of well -weathered oil reaching shore in beach and wetlands areas. In addition, that well -weathered oil that enters the water column and reaches the ocean floor could impact various shellfish and finfish habitat areas. Adverse impacts from low-volume, chronic oil leaks from pipelines, gas/ oil separation plants, pumping stations, and ship support facilities may prove to be significant on a local level although precise statistics as to what levels of oil leaks to expect are not available. Data for oil pipeline 45 leaks are lumped together with breaks in pipelines caused by commercial fishing pier damages, the dragging of anchors across pipelines, and struc- tural failures, as well as with chronic leaks due to mechanical problems or material failures. Thus, it is not possible to directly assess the impacts of oil leaks on natural resources until the level of OCS activity is known, production platforms placed, and pipelines and gas plants located. It is important to be aware of the decreased likelihood of major spills if oil is brought ashore via pipeline rather than by tanker, as highlighted in the conclusions of the M.I.T. study - Analysis of Oil Spill Statistics (39, part 2), which are reproduced here (the purpose of the M.I.T. analysis was to utilize past spill experience to estimate the likelihood of spills along the Atlantic continental shelf): 1. It has been determined that the size range of an individual oil spill is extremely large--eight orders of magnitude. The great majority of all spills are at the lower end of this range. But most of the oil is spilled in a few very large spills. 2. For all the reasons given in 1, point estimates of spillage and spillage rates are practically meaningless. Further, from the biological points of view, the frequency and magnitude of indiv- idual spills is at least as important as total spillage. There- fore, an estimate of the probability densities of the number of spills of a given category which will occur from a given hypo- thetical development and the probability density of the size of these spills are both of particular significance. These esti- mates are broken into six categories and result from the appli- cation of an assumed spill incidence. Tanker/Barge Platform Offshore Pipel ine ^^OOO gal Ions •^2,000 gallons 46 3. With respect to tanker spills above 42,000 gallons, the results indicate that for a small find (500 MM bbls in place) likelihood of no tanker spills is about .7, the likelihood of one such spill is about .25, and it is quite unlikely there would be more than one spill. However, for a large find (10,000 MM bbls in place) there will with high probability be somewhere between 4 and 10 spills, with the probability rather equally spread over these possibilities. The estimated size of these spills is spread over three orders of magnitude, with a mean of two million gallons. [MM bbls = millions of barrels. --Ed.] 4. With respect to tanker spills below 42,000 gallons, the number of spills is much larger; in the hundreds for the small find and thousands for the large find. However, most of these spills are quite small. The mean size is 318 gallons and it is quite likely that an individual spill will be smaller than the mean. For an offshore mono-buoy platform (SBM) total volume spilled will almost certainly be lower for an SBM installation as opposed to an equivalent shoreside terminal. [Probably due to a larger number of transshipment operations necessary to get large tankers into a shore facil ity.--Ed.] 5. With respect to platform spills over 42,000 gallons, the analysis indicates that for a small find, there is a .75 probability of no such spill, a .2 chance of one such spill, and it is quite unlikely that we will experience two or more such spills. For a large find, with high probability we will experience between one and seven such spills with the probability rather equally spread over the possibilities. The size of these spills is spread over two orders of magnitude, with a mean of about one million gallons and a standard deviation of 1.8 million gallons. The probability that such a spill will be less than 100,000 gallons is about .2. The probability that it will be greater than 5 million gallons is .05. 6. With respect to offshore pipeline spills over 42,000 gallons, the probability that we will have no large pipeline spills from a small find landed by pipeline is .75. The probability we will have one spill is about .2 and it is rather unlikely we will have more than one such spill. For a large find landed by pipeline, with high probability we will have somewhere between 1 and 9 large pipe- line spills, with the probability rather equally spread over these possibilities. The size of these spills is dispersed over an extremely large range. The size of these spills is not easily determined. The mean is 1.9 million gallons; the standard de- viation is 3.9 million gallons. 7. With respect to offshore production spills less than 42,000, the total number of both small platform and small pipeline spills will be in the hundreds for a small find and in the thousands for a large find. According to the EPA data, approxi- mately 90% of these spills will emanate from the platforms. 47 Almost all these spills will be quite small. The mean of these spills is about 100 gallons, and it is quite likely that an individual spill will be less than the mean. 8. With respect to total volume spilled over the field life, the mean for the small find is about 900,000 gallons for the small find landed by pipeline and 1,100,000 gallons for the small find landed by tanker. The variance is quite large and there is a substantial probability in both cases there will be no large spills at all. The standard deviation for the small find landed by pipeline is over 2.65 million gallons; if landed by tanker, 2.45 million gallons. Thus, there is a slightly higher chance of both small total spillage and wery large total spillage with the pipe- line rather than the tanker, reflecting our greater uncertainty about pipelines. For a large find, the mean of the total spillage is 15 million gallons for pipeline transport and 19 million gallons for tanker. The ratio of the standard deviation to the mean is not quite so large for the large find as the small find, as the law of large numbers is beginning to work, although weakly. The stan- dard deviation of the total spillage assuming tanker transport for the large find is 10.3 million gallons, and for the pipeline option is 11.5 million gallons. 9. All the above estimates of probabilities can reasonably be regarded as moderately pessimistic. They assume no improvement in technology or operations over the recent past. 10. Finally, it is extremely important to realize that the above estimates of probabilities do not represent the net effect of 0CS development. The net effect will depend on what one assumes about the oil which would be landed in the absence of the devel- opment. For example, if one assumes the same amount of crude will be landed on the East Coast with or without a development, then according to the analysis there is a substantial probability that there will be as many large spills without the find as with the find. 5.2 COASTAL ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Coastal ecosystems which may be affected by 0CS activities include: a. the offshore, oceanic region; b. the nearshore zone; c. major estuaries and bays; d. salt marshes and wetlands. 48 Possible adverse effects of OCS oil development on coastal ecosystems fall under the following categories: a. Oil spills from platforms and transport systems; b. Discharge of drilling mud and formation waters; c. Operation of the production platforms; d. Pipeline burials; e. Industrial discharges; f. Ship traffic and ocean disposal. The living resources of the offshore OCS region which might be affected include: a. Fisheries (commercial and sport fish) — -pelagic and bottom fish, -larval and egg stages; b. Benthic communities; c. Zooplankton populations; d. Phytoplankton population; e. Marine mammals; f. Water quality. As indicated in the introduction to this section, the regional varia- bility of impacts will be minor, that is, an oil spill offshore of New Jersey will adversely affect the benthic community as readily as an oil spill off North Carolina. The difference lies in the organisms affected; in the former it would be primarily the surf clam, and in the latter, the calico scallop. Impact of offshore activities on entire coastal fisheries will likely not be dramatic during development and production of the offshore fields. How- ever, significant localized effects may occur. The impact on fish will vary according to the size of the spill, time of the year (large numbers of 49 migratory fish may be in the area), and the chemical make-up of the crude oil. Though fish can, and may, avoid contaminated areas, many will likely not be able to do so. Also, low dilutions of petroleum hydrocarbons can have behav- ioral and physiological effects and can cause tainting of the fish flesh. This last effect could render certain portions of a catch inedible for a cer- tain period of time. Nearshore area fish populations can similarly be affected by oil spills and leaks. Since a great amount of spawning activity occurs in these shallow waters, the likelihood of increased damage to egg and larval stages of fish populations does exist. Though unlikely, a massive coastal spill could thus drastically reduce a regional fish population if such a spill occurred during the height of the spawning season. Anadromous species such as striped bass, shad, and herring would be especially vulnerable during their movements into and out of estuaries if a spill occurred in the nearshore zone. Spills during the spawning season could prevent eggs from hatching or fry from developing. Discharge of formation waters is generally a by-product of oil produc- tion. In those instances where such waters are not discharged, they are re- injected to the substrate. Formation waters are generally brines with sal- inities many times greater than that of sea waters, containing high concentra- tions of mineral salts, petroleum hydrocarbons (up to 30ppm), and some traces of heavy metals. Due to lack of actual drilling experience in the Mid- and South Atlantic lease area, the precise component concentrations of formation waters cannot be known at this time. Based on USGS estimates of 90,000 to 320,000 barrels of oil per day at peak production, we can expect a maximum of about 300,000 barrels per day of formation waters. These waters are treated to reduce their oil content to 30 ppm before discharge. 50 Discharge of formation waters could produce local water quality changes which would probably be avoided by fish. The extent of the mixing zone would also be a function of tides, winds, and wave action. Rapid mixing of such waters near a production platform is anticipated. The effect of water soluble petroleum aromatic compounds not removed in the separation process might be harmful at sublethal levels (l,p.l52). In general, however, for- mation water discharge effects will be very localized. Fish populations in coastal areas, as delineated in the introduction to this section, could also be adversely impacted by the discharge of drill cuttings and drilling mud. The latter material commonly contains high con- centrations of barium and chromium, and consists otherwise of clays and small amounts of organic and inorganic chemicals. Estimates of drilling muds which may be discharged into the Mid Atlantic OCS area range from 55,540 to 458,464 tons ( 1 ,p. 99) . Damage to fish populations, if it occurs, could come from localized effects of: increased turbidity, smothering of bottom-feeding habitat, and possible uptake of heavy metals (specifically barium from the drilling mud) and some petroleum hydrocarbons. Commercial and sport fisheries can further be adversely affected by re- moval of the sea floor and pelagic areas from fishing use due to platforms and pipelines. Especially vulnerable would be shellfish such as scallops, crabs, shrimp, and finfish such as flounder and whiting. In the Mid Atlantic OCS region it is estimated that a maximum of 810 to 3,240 acres could be removed from commercial fishing at any one time during development. For continuous production, a maximum of 50 platforms, at five acres each would be required. This would mean a minimum of 250 acres of actual land lost, but to which a buffer zone must be added, plus areas lost 51 to pipeline corridors. Trawling in both OCS regions occurs to depths of 120 to 555 feet in the Mid Atlantic; thus oil development will have some impact on com- mercial fishing. Species most immediately impacted would be crabs, lobster, scallops, mackerel and flounder. Further problems may arise in that the platforms present navigational obstructions. Also, offshore oil development will increase ship traffic in an already heavily used area. Pipelines may pose a problem to bottom trawling techniques and cause fishing gear to snag. However, such pipelines will have to be buried in water depths less than 200 feet and may be laid in corridors to minimize possible problems. Also, pipeline locations will be marked on maps and announced in the Notice to Mariners. The overall impact to sport fishing should be minor. In the Mid Atlantic OCS lease area sport fishing is not commonly carried out as far as 40 to 90 miles offshore except for marl in, swordfish and tuna fishing in parts of the Baltimore Canyon Trough and in areas of offshore North Carolina and Florida. There is an extensive offshore charter boat activity on "live bottom" areas in the South Atlantic which could be adversely affected. The sport fishing industry appears not to be affected by offshore platforms in the Mid Atlantic. However, because the width of the continental shelf is much narrower in the South Atlantic, offshore activities may be closer to nearshore sport fisheries and might have more impact. Long duration effects of minor impact are expected for nearshore sport fishing from burial of pipelines or use of support vessels. 52 Benthic communities, which are important as a commercial resource (clams, scallops, oysters, shrimp, crabs) and as a food source for important finfish and shellfish species, will suffer significant adverse effects but probably on a localized scale. Activities of greatest potential impact will be: a. construction of pipeline corridors and burial of pipes; b. emplacement of platforms; c. deposition of drilling wastes near the platforms. As many as 3,000 acres of benthic habitat could be affected by platform construction and operation, while pipelines will require a several -hundred-foot swath from the platform to shore. Drilling wastes may impact benthos by form- ing mounds near platforms several hundred feet in diameter and several feet deep, causing sessile organisms to be lost. Increased turbidities associated with pipeline burial and drilling waste disposal will further impact the ben- thos as well as all other local marine communities. Effects of small amounts of oil, hydrocarbons and heavy metals in the drilling wastes on the benthos has not been well established and may be negligible. Recolonization of disturbed sediments will take place rather quickly (probably between 3-6 months) along pipelines and other areas which are not regularly disturbed by such activities as discharge of drilling cuttings. Impact on zooplankton and phytoplankton communities may stem from oil spills, discharge of drilling muds and formation waters, and from turbidities caused by pipeline burial activity. The offshore plankton communities are less concentrated than those in the bays and nearshore areas (4:3, p. 279). Thus, a spill in the production area would likely cause less damage than one in the estuarine zone. Turbidities would be caused by several factors previously mentioned, but especially by drilling 53 mud which is discharged along with drill cuttings. The mud is mostly composed of fine clays which readily form long-lasting turbid suspensions. If the pro- jected maximum of offshore production platforms (50 for the Mid Atlantic) is realized, then the combined operations could possibly cause a diminution in regional planktonic populations. The locations of the production platforms cannot yet be determined, but it is estimated that one platform will be re- quired for e^ery four lease blocks (over 20,000 acres)(13,p.23). Phytoplankton communities form the base of the marine food chain in that they are able to photosynthesize, fix carbon, and produce complex mole- cules. Such organisms--algae and diatoms--are eaten either by the zooplankton or by planktonivorous fish such as shad. Indications are that, for the Atlan- tic 0CS region, planktonic species are generally evenly distributed although the population biomasses may exhibit extreme "patchiness" (l,p.H6). Phytoplankton are found in the euphotic zone, which may extend to the 200 foot depth off the Atlantic Coast. Thus a spill or extensive amount of turbidity may have no effect one month but cause massive problems at a different time, depending on the concentration of plankton. Of major consideration in the plankton are pelagic larvae of fish and shellfish. The distribution and concentration of the ichthyoplankton varies with the seasons. Such planktonic larvae may suffer mortalities on a seasonal basis by events such as an oil spill. Other commercially important species that may be impacted include the planktonic larvae of the surf clam, soft-shelled crab, sea scallop, American lobster, lue crab, rock crab, Jonah crab, ocean quahog, southern quahog, northern quahog, and American oyster (1 ,p.H6). Marine mammals may be affected by 0CS development in the Atlantic, but probably only to a very slight degree. There are no known concentrations 54 of marine mammals in the study area. There are also no known breeding sites for pinnipeds (seals and walruses) on the Atlantic coast. Only occasional strays of harbor and hooded seals have been reported in the area. The harbor seal is a coastal species, while the hooded seal is a pelagic (offshore) species. Thus, due to their habitat, harbor seals could be impacted by a nearshore spill, while hooded seals would be affected by spills in the pro- ducing lease area. The direct effects of oiling on marine mammals could include the matting of pelage, irritation of skin and eyes, indigestion-causing internal disorders, and possible clogging or inflammation of respiratory passages. Again, the low population numbers of pinnipeds in the region indicate that few such occur- ences will result (l,p.l53). The impact of OCS activities on cetaceans is given by the BLM as (1, p. 154-156): Thirteen species of cetaceans, including three endangered species (right, fin and humpback whales) have been sighted in recent times (the last 50 years) in the Mid Atlantic. There is, however, little information on the life histories of the cetaceans in the area. There is little factual information on the effects of oil on cetaceans. No record is reported of cetacean deaths due to the direct effects of oil pollution. There were no reported sightings of dead whales following the Santa Barbara oil spills. Because of the endangered species status of some cetaceans, and their apparent limited distribution or occurrence in the Mid Atlantic region, any impact to individual cetaceans could have consequences on specific populations or distribution. Because of the apparent paucity of cetaceans in the Mid Atlantic, the probability of an individual being in a specific area at the time of an oil spill appears low. Therefore, while potential for an impact exists, cetacean species and populations are unlikely to be impacted as a result of the proposed Mid Atlantic sale. Impacts of offshore oil and gas operations on water quality will depend on the ultimate level of production which is maintained in the OCS lease areas. 55 For the Mid Atlantic, production levels are estimated as 90,000 to 740,000 barrels of oil per day peak production, Thus, a scenario of 740,000 barrels per day would represent the maximum level of impact on water quality, Changes in local water quality may be caused by: a. Discharge of formation waters and drill cuttings; b. Discharge of drilling muds; c. Resuspension of bottom sediments; d. Oil spills, blowouts and pipeline ruptures. The most severe degradation of the existing offshore water quality can be attributed to oil spills and discharges of formation waters and drilling muds. Deposition of drill cuttings, consisting of substrate components such as sand, ground rock, and mud, should not pose any long-term water quality changes. It is assumed that turbidities caused by such disposal, and by pipe- line burials will be short-lived and will settle out within several hundred feet of the site of activity. Pollutants which could be reintroduced into the water column, such as heavy metals, are generally associated with partic- ulate matter and settle out as turbidity is reduced. The bio-accumulation and effect of low concentrations of metals in the marine ecosystem are poorly documented. The effects of oil spills or blowouts on water quality would be to increase the level of petroleum hydrocarbons and trace metals in surface and near surface waters. Deeper waters would be contaminated by oil carried down with suspended solids and incorporated into the sediments. The effects of oil and hydrocarbons in the water column on plankton, fish and marine mammals have been delineated earlier. 56 Formation waters from the oil fields can be expected to contain low levels of hydrocarbons, dissolved mineral salts, and traces of heavy metals. A common rule of thumb of production of formation waters is that about one barrel of water is discharged for each barrel of oil produced. Although legal requirements call for removal of oil to a 30 ppm level, these waters will still contain high concentrations of salts and metals. Most of the salts consist of sodium and calcium chlorides and some sulfates and bromates. Since dilution in the open ocean would be immediate, any increases in salinity or minerals would not be detectable beyond a few hundred feet of the discharge point. More significant water quality degradation would occur from used drilling mud discharged into the sea. Drilling muds consist of clays, barite, and small amounts of organic and inorganic chemicals. The composition of the mud is varied according to the specific drilling substrate requirements and each drilling operation or company. Drilling mud from exploratory wells is con- tinuously sampled for fossils and paleontological evidence indicating likely oil-bearing formations. For this reason it cannot be recycled and is dis- charged at the drill site. Production wells do allow for re-use of the mud; about 10% is lost due to contact with drill cuttings, however. Discharge of drilling muds is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, which may limit such discharges if heavy metal levels approach toxic levels. When drilling mud is added to sea water, the fine clays remain in suspension for a considerable time. Associated with the clays are the metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. Although some of these polluting substances will go into solu- tion in the water column, the greatest portion will settle out with the clays a few hundred (or thousand) yards from the platform. 57 5.3 SHORELAND HABITATS Shoreland habitats for this discussion include the portions of the inter- tidal zone above mean low tide — brackish water marshes, fresh water wetlands, and all terrestrial habitats such as beaches, dunes, old fields, and wood- lands. The Mid Atlantic region (New York through Virginia) estuarine and nearshore environments are dominated by large estuaries, barrier islands, and coastal marshes which form in the quiet estuarine and barrier island lagoon environments (23). All of these areas, as well as the barrier beaches and sea islands of the South Atlantic region, are of importance to regional wild- life, waterfowl, and marine species. Impacts of these areas must be consid- ered adverse and significant. The most conspicuous wildlife in the Atlantic coastal region are the numerous migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. A major segment of the Atlantic Flyway bird population passes through this region each spring and fall, and many overwinter. More than 75 percent of the Flyway' s Canada goose population winters on or near tidewater, from Kent County, Maryland to Hyde County in North Carolina. The marshes and grain fields of the Delmarva Peninsula are particularly attractive to Canada geese and to grain-feeding black ducks and mallards. About half of the whistling swans in North America winter on the estuaries of Chesapeake Bay and Currituck Sound. The total wintering population of waterfowl exceeds 3,000,000 birds. The region is the center for waterfowl hunting in the eastern United States, and each year it attracts thousands of hunters. The extensive marshes along the coast and streams of the coastal plain provide habitat for innumerable species of aquatic birds (both resident and migratory) and mammals. Additionally, the estuarine marshes are a vital link 58 in the food chain and life cycle of many estuarine and marine species of fish and invertebrates upon which the sport and commercial fishery is based. Sev- eral species of furbearers--e.g. , the muskrat, nutria raccoon, mink--provide a substantial annual commercial harvest. A generalized appraisal of the nearshore habitats of the Mid Atlantic region is given by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (24, pp. 13-14) , of which certain sections are excerpted here: In New York, the western section of Long Island has a very irregular coastline, with numerous deep bays and promontories. The North Shore possesses narrow, rock or pebble beaches with high bluffs and small marshes. This contrasts with the South Shore's barrier beaches and quiet back bays. The Raritan Bay region is characterized by high bluffs and marshlands fronted by narrow beaches inter- sected by numerous tidal creeks. The region to the south of Raritan Bay consists of long sandy barrier islands with back bays, salt marshes, and meadows that in some areas extend several miles inland. In Delaware and Maryland there are long, low, narrow barrier beaches fronting a series of embayments with infrequent narrow inlets connecting them to the ocean. Virginia has more variation north to south going from barrier island, mainland small buffer islands, mainland and barrier beach. The barrier islands in Maryland such as at Ocean City have undergone extensive develop- ment as compared to Virginia's barrier islands which are prin- cipally privately or federally owned conservation areas. Pennsylvania's entire estuarine environment consists of a 45-mile reach of the Delaware River within the tidal influence. The Delaware River and estuary is the second largest seaport in the United States and is the site of the largest concentration of oil refineries on the east coast. Despite this, the estuary contains extensive tidal and freshwater marshes and is a very productive coastal region. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the largest estuaries in the world, with a surface area of approximately 4,400 square miles and a length of almost 200 miles. Because of the variations in sal- inities, the Bay supports a wide variety of fish life, is the spawning area and nursery for many ocean fishes, and is a favored habitat for many important shellfish. If considered as a whole, this region falls into the Virginian classification and acts as a transition zone between Arcadian and Carolinian regions. Oyster grounds, reefs, or "rocks" occur in abundance in the shallow bays of the coast of this region 59 especially from New Jersey southward. The salt marshes of this region show a subtle shift from the New England type to that more characteristic of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain. Here, there are limited areas of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) with saltmeadow grass (Spartina patens) occupying the largest area. There is a similar zonation pattern found on the eastern shore of Maryland. The western shore of the Chesapeake Bay with its stronger freshwater influence has Spartina alterniflora in areas covered by tides, but giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) often borders tidal streams. The South Atlantic nearshore region consists of almost continuous ex- panses of barrier islands, sea islands, marshes, and estuaries. These barrier and sea islands commonly shelter productive marshes on the landward side, as shown in Figure 8. Toward the southern portion of this region, i.e., the Florida East Coast, the coastline consists of sea islands broken irregularly by inlets. Along most of the North Carolina coast extends a series of barrier islands known as the Outer Banks. Behind the islands lie large estuaries containing small islands, and the mainland shore. The primary differences between these barrier islands as compared to those further north is the dis- tance between the islands and the mainland. The Outer Banks lie 20-30 miles off the mainland while further north about 10 miles is the greatest distance between barrier islands and mainland (24, p. 15). The Outer Banks barrier islands are composed of two types: Those stab- ilized by man's efforts and the natural. The natural islands have wide beaches, up to 600 feet, and a long zone of low dunes and sparse vegetation. Overwash and the opening and closing of inlets is common for such beach islands (25, p. 155). The stabilized dunes of man-altered areas are much higher, have very short, steep beaches, and are maintained primarily by heavily fertilized American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata)(25,p.158). 60 ID ai o c CD s_ CD CD CD O s- o CO (D O O (0 CD s- o CD o o CD 10 I 10 CO o s_ c_> 00 CD S- to 61 Major estuaries of the South Atlantic Region are (24, p. 16): Pamlico River Pamlico Sound Alligator River Cape Fear Croatan Sound Georgia Salt Marshes Bogue Sound Albemarle Sound New River Currituck Sound Topsail Sound North Carolina possesses more acres of oyster beds than all the other states in this region combined. This reflects the exten- sive shallow water areas behind the barrier islands and the waters are less turbid than those in Georgia. The Pamlico River is one of the major rivers in this region. This estuary is wide and shallow with wide sandy areas along the shore. The marshes behind the Outer Banks of North Carolina consist of either vast, pure stands of black needlerush, primarily Juncus roemerianus , or stands of Spartina patens that resemble the salt meadows of New England. The area south of Cape Lookout, North Carolina is the region for optimum development of salt marshes in the United States. These low marshes characterized by vast expanses of smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterni flora, form behind narrow barrier islands in areas influenced by heavy silt deposition from large rivers. There is only a small amount of open water behind the barrier islands. This region includes the famous Sea Islands of South Carolina and Georgia. The broad, level expanses of grass and soft sediment develop dendritic creeks and deep tidal channels in vast numbers that are characteristic when viewed from the air. Oyster reefs, which are found in the brackish region from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, generally occur in salinities between 5 to 28 ppt (23, p. 6-23). Because of this physiological restriction, they are common to almost all brackish estuaries from New England to Florida, though the exact location of local reefs must be determined from state fishery agencies. In this way, the alignment of pipelines can be arranged to bypass productive oyster grounds. Impacts on nearshore and shoreland habitats from OCS oil and gas devel- opments may be similar to impacts which occurred from past activities such as 62 dredging, construction in marshes, oil spills from transportation sources, demographic changes, and harbor support facilities. Habitats which may be adversely affected include; marshes, oyster reefs, beaches, dune regions, fish and shellfish nursery grounds, wildlife habitat and refuges, coastal islands, and farming lands. The digging of pipeline trenches in various habitats (near shore, wet- lands, and uplands) causes considerable localized impacts. The 50 to 60 foot swath needed for construction equipment movement and burial of the pipeline is the most seriously altered. If pipeline corridors are to be used, the path of disturbance would encompass a wider area locally but would also disrupt less land on a total scale. The following description of likely impacts on Mid and South Atlantic OCS onshore habitats is taken from BLM's Final EIS on the Lease Sale No. 40 (pp. 316-319): Upland vegetative communities are liable to be impacted from pipeline burials or construction of onshore facilities. Impacts upon them would primarily be their removal in the clearing pro- cess prior to construction and while dredging from the burial of pipelines. This would initiate a period of secondary succes- sion in the immediate area affected. These areas would be rela- tively small but the plant succession associated with them would continue for a long time. The principal vegetative covers in the storage areas would probably be grass for the convenience of working in close proximity to storage facilities. Other aspects of onshore facilities can impact vegetation, including maintenance activities, changes in air quality, and toxic spills. Impacts on vegetation due to pipeline and storage facility spills can occur. Herba- ceous or sessile forms receive the greatest impacts due to direct toxicity or smothering while large mobile forms are not covered by oil and are less likely to be impacted (1 , p. 318-319). On a long-term basis the possibility of impacts would probably continue at least as long as the various facilities are in use 63 which would ultimately depend on the life of the proposed offshore fields and continuation of imports thereafter. Impacts of oil spills on wetlands will vary with the extent of the spill, season, and flushing action of the tides. Also important in assessing potential damage to marsh plants are the type of oil and the plant species involved. Various studies referenced in the BLM Impact Statement reveal that marsh plants can generally survive light to moderate oiling from a single dose, but repeated dosings tend to be lethal. Also, weathered oil, which has lost the more toxic aromatic petroleum hydrocarbon fractions, is less toxic than fresh oil. Some smothering from heavy crude oil can occur in marsh habitats. Impact of oil on marsh plant species can depend on time of year. It would probably have the greatest impact during the growing season as com- pared to other times. It may influence flowering, seed development, and vegetative reproduction. Annual or herbaceous species may suffer more than perennials as they cannot survive by regeneration from roots. Additional effects of oil spills in marshes would be to reduce the faunal component of the ecosystem. Organisms may be killed by direct toxic action, smothering, starvation from loss of food supply or may be damaged physiologically from intake of oil. Edible shellfish, fish and crabs, which constitute a major interest for local sport fishing, could ingest enough petroleum hydrocarbons to taint their flesh and render them inedible for a period of time. Higher level animals in the food chain could also be adversely affected by oil spills in marshes. Among these might be; geese, ducks, hawks, gulls, wading birds, song birds, muskrats, raccoons, nutria, turtles, and amphibians. Most such effects would arise from soiling of feathers and fur, 64 thus preventing flight and causing loss of insulation, or from ingestion of oil during attempts to cleanse themselves. Potential effects of OCS-related operations on the near shore environ- ment of the South Atlantic coastal zone are presented below (including dredging, pipeline filling and onshore facility construction, super tanker operations, oil spills) :(17) Impact Significance Biological 1 2 Biological Disruption of near shore, and es- tuarine habitat and ecosystems. Disruption of feeding and breed- ing of birds, fish, reptiles and mammals in intertidal zone. 3. Decrease in primary and secon- dary productivity. 4. Disruption of natural drainage and water current patterns. 5. Toxic and sublethal effects on marine organisms from chronic pollution. 6. Oiling or lethal effects of spills. Non-Biological 1 . Beach damage. 2. Navigation hazard. 3. Aesthetic degradation. 4. Damage to archaeological or other cultural resources. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Near shore area is nursery for 60% of commercial fish. Loss of shell fish beds. Possible interruption of anadro- mous fish migration. Decrease of fresh water supplies. Loss of species diversity. Change of aquatic environment leading to population re- distribution. Disruption of food web. Concentration of toxic fractions through food chain. Non-Biological 1. Loss of recreation value. 2. Hazards for small craft (fishing boats, shipping). 3. Possible erosion or siltation problem. 4. Loss of aesthetic or cultural resources. As shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11, there are many important recreation and conservation areas that are vulnerable to oil spill damage because of their coastal locations. 5.4 FISH AND SHELLFISH The effects of offshore oil and gas development on future fish and shell fish resources fall under several possible headings: 65 CD O c CD S- WK 3RI3ANTINE LIGHT 3TATE ?ARK BARNEGAT BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE \ SRIGA'ITINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ORTH 2RIGANTIHE NA7UPAL -SEA ARSONS ISLET MATURAL AREA A I", ISLAND "Sh MID ^ilslife "asage^nt area te'i'iis :reek fish ano kildlife management area /* / I SiK....j//>/ ; / — ^ j / / 40 ft. Chariest Port Roya I Savannah Brunswi ck Fernand i na v Jacksonvi I I e Canavera I NOTES: I ) Depths referenced to mean low water. 2) Key West harbor deep- ened to 34 feet by the U.S. Navy. 3) Miami harbor existing channel maintained at 30 feet. 4) Channel depths may not be uniform throughout ent i re channe I . The f i gures I i sted here are the major ship channel inland from the outer bar areas. Palm Beach *\ 35 ft Port'lE vera lades « 37 ft •J 38 ft V Key West ^ r^ f 82 Ocean and Camden would welcome the economic changes brought on by onshore OCS activity in their counties, whereas Cape May County feels that possible losses to the tourism industry would be greater than benefits from the oil industry (35). Delaware as a state has a coastal zone law which, while not yet tested in the courts, prevents heavy industrial development of coastal lands. However, smaller facilities such as support bases and marinas could still be placed in limited-use industrial zones, such as that which exists in Lewes. Virginia has few broad-scale laws covering the coastal zone and in general, seems to favor the development of offshore oil and gas. The Newport News-Hampton Roads-Virginia Beach complex lends itself well to large scale support of OCS activities even though it is located somewhat to the south of the present lease areas. North Carolina has the unique position of being too far to the south of recent Baltimore Canyon lease areas to provide any significant support. Also, the major ports, such as Wilmington, are along the southern coast of the state and may well provide services if the Cape Fear Arch area between North and South Carolina is leased and explored (32). For the South Atlantic, less public sentiment over the likely socio econ- omic effects of offshore oil and gas activity has been voiced due to the future date of the Southeast Georgia Embayment lease sale (late 1977). Re- cent meetings of the Charleston Trident Chamber of Commerce Task Force on Offshore Drilling held at the Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina, have again voiced the concern of local people about the massive changes in life styles and environment that might occur with a large offshore find. Also, though, the need for energy and jobs, and the possi- bility of such centers as Charleston, Jacksonville or Savannah absorbing the 83 growth without undue stress was emphasized. In the South Atlantic region, the general feeling seems to be one of accepting OCS activity as long as the states have a final say-so on planning for the inevitable socio- economic and environmental changes which will take place (33). Two recent developments have taken place which may affect OCS impacts on economic and social systems. One took place in the late summer of 1976; President Ford signied a $1.6 billion bill which set up a system of "energy impact" aid to help coastal states cope with changes accompanying speeded-up oil and gas development offshore. The bill provides for loans and grants over eight years to help planning, programs and construction related to off- shore energy activities. If, for example, a coastal community's school population were increased because of workers who moved there as a result of intensified oil drilling in offshore waters, the community could get a loan or grant to build a new school. The law contains three main sections: $800 million for an "energy impact fund," $400 million for Outer Continental Shelf formula grants and $464 million for related planning and research. The impact money includes loan, grant and bond guarantees to provide the public facilities needed to meet energy activities offshore. The formula grants will pay for loss to recreation or the ecology from drilling and production, or for some related services. The other money goes for settling coastal zone standards, guaranteeing public access to public beaches, extending state planning assistance and conducting new research or studies. Through this plan many of the obvious socio economic impacts may be 84 ameliorated. The second development was the recent presidential election which resulted in Mr. Carter entering that office. Since there is evidence that Mr. Carter's stand on energy has been one of more rapid development of the United States coal reserves and on energy conservation rather than on an all-out OCS leasing program in e\/ery conceivable region of the United States, the nation may well take a more leisurely approach to offshore leas- ing, thus possibly affecting the timing of the South Atlantic, and other lease sales. 85 7.0 REFERENCES 7.1 REFERENCES CITED 1. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1976. Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale - Offshore the Mid Atlantic States - OCS Sale No. 40. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vols. 1-4. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 2. University of Delaware Sea Grant Newsletter. Sept. 1976. Delaware Sea Grant - OCS Update. Vol. 1, #5. Marine Advisory Service, University of Delaware Sea Grant Program. 3. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. June 1976. Request for Proposal No. AA550-RP-6-20, OCS Environmental Benchmark, South Atlantic/Georgia Embayment. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 4. Task Force on Offshore Drilling, Charleston Trident Chamber of Commerce. Oct. 17, 1975. Seminar on Offshore Oil. The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina. 5. League of Women Voters. 1976. The Onshore Impact of Offshore Oil - Current Focus. League of Women Voters, Washington, D.C. 6. Oil and Gas Journal. Jan. 19, 1976. U.S. Offshore Frontiers: How Promising Are They? Oil and Gas Journal. Vol. 74, #3. Tulsa. 7. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. Geological Estimates of Undiscovered Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources in the United States. Geological Survey Report #725, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. 8. University of Delaware Sea Grant Newsletter. March 1976. Delaware Sea Grant - OCS Update. Vol. 1, #2. Marine Advisory Service, University of Delaware Sea Grant Program. 9. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. House of Representatives. March 1, 1976. Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Development: Oil and Gas Systems. Office of Technology Assessment - Congress of the United States, Washington, D.C. 86 10. Natural Resources Defense Council. Comments on the Draft Environ- mental Statement on PCS Sale No. 40. Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C. 11. Florida Energy Office and State University System of Florida. Dec. 1975. Florida Coastal Policy Study: Impacts of Offshore Oil Development. Florida Energy Office and State University System of Florida, Florida Department of Administration, Tallahassee. 12. Woodward-Clyde, Consultants, Inc. Oct. 1975. Mid Atlantic Regional Study - An Assessment of the Onshore Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Prepared for American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. 13. Goodman. J.M. Feb. 1975. Decisions for Delaware - Sea Grant Looks at PCS Development. Marine Advisory Services - University of Dela- ware Sea Grant Program. 14. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 20 August 1975. Mid-Atlantic Tentative Tract Selection Announced for Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale (PCS WW. News Release. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 15. Olson, N.K. 1974. Carol inas - Georgia Offshore Potential for Oil and Gas. In Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States. Coastal Plains Centers for Marine Development Services, South Carolina State Development Board, Columbia. 16. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. June 1975. Revised Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Schedule. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 17. Office of Planning and Research, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. May 1975. Activities in Georgia's Coastal Waters: Past Trends and Future Prospects. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Office of Planning and Research, Atlanta. 18. Marjenhoff, A.J., D. C. Plate. Oct. 17, 1975. Offshore Oil : impacts and Implications. In Seminar on Offshore Oil held at the Citadel. Charleston, South Carolina. 19. Florida Energy Office and State University System of Florida. December, 1975. ' Florida Coastal Policy Study: The Impact of Offshore Oil Development. 20. University of Georgia Marine Institute and Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission. Oct. 1968. The Future of the Marshlands and Sea Islands of Georgia - A record of a Conference convened by the Georgia Natural Areas Council of University of Georgia Marine Institute and the Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission, Brunswick, Georgia. 21. Council on Environmental Quality. April, 1974. PCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental Assessment - A Report to the President. Vol . 1 . Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. 87 22. U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard. 1972. Polluting Incidents in and Around U.S. Water. Environ- mental Protection Program, United States Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. 23. University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center. No date. Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. University of Rhode Island, Marine Pub. 2 Vols. Ser. No. 2 and 3, Kingston, Rhode Island. 24. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. July 1975. An Assessment of Estuarine, and Nearshore Marine Environments. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 25. Dolan, R., P.J. Godfrey, and W.E. Odum. 1973. Man's Impact on the Barrier Islands of North Carolina. American Scientist, 61:152-162. 26. Planners, Inc. Sept. 1974. A Socio Economic Environmental Baseline Summary for the South Atlantic Region Between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Vol. 5 - Socio- Economic Inventory, prepared by Planners, Inc., for the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 27. University of Delaware Sea Grant Program. Oct. 1976. Seadrifts t Delaware Sea Grant Program, Vol. 1, No. 10. Marine Adviso'ry Service, University of Delaware. 28. Jenny, M. and J. Goodman (eds.). 1975. A Study of the Socio Economic Factors Relating to the Outer Continental Shelf of the Mid Atlantic Coast. 9 Volumes. College of Marine Studies, University of Dela- ware for the Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 29. Baldwin, P.L. and M.F. Baldwin. 1975. Onshore Planning for Offshore Oil - Lessons from Scotland. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 30. Urban Pathfinders, Inc. Feb. 1975. Brown and Root Impact Study. Pre- pared by Urban Pathfinders, Inc. for the Northampton County Planning Commission, Eastville, VA. 31. Personal communication, November 23, 1976. Chief of Land and Water Management - Water Resources Commission, Columbia, South Carol ina. 32. Personal communication, November 22, 1976. Director of the Coastal Office of the Georgia Conservancy, Savannah, Georgia. 33. Personal communication, November 30, 1976. Special Assistant to the President for Planning. The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina. 34. Delaware State Planning Office. Sept. 1973. Coastal Zone Act - State of Delaware: Proposed Definition of Heavy Industry, Guidelines for Acceptable Manufacturing Uses, and Plan for Manufacturing Uses in Delaware's Coastal Zone, Delaware State Planning Office, Dover. 88 35. The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 17, 1975. Oi 1 , Oil Everywhere. But Many Shore Towns Not Sure They Want Its Problems, p. B-l. 36. Shaw, S.P. and C. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States - Their Extent and Their Value to Waterfowl and Other Wildlife. Circular 39, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 37. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1974. Fishery Statistics of the United States - 1974. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 38. Clark, J. 1967. Fish and Man: Conflicts in the Atlantic Estuaries. American Littoral Society, Spec. Pub! . No. 5, 78 pp. 39. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. April 1974. Primary, Physical Impacts of Offshore Petroleum Developments. Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. 40. Moore, H.B. 1960. Marine Ecology. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 41. Citadel. June, 1976. South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration, Development and Production. Prepared for the Task Force on Offshore Drilling of the Charleston Trident Chamber of Commerce by the Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina. 42. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1977. Proposed 1977 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sal e , South At] anti c PCS Sale No. 43 Draft EIS. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 43. Sverdrup, H.U., M. W. Johnson and R. H. Fleming. 1942. The Oceans - Their Physics, Chemistry, and General Biology. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 44. Coastal Zone Management Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1975. Coastal Management Aspects of PCS Oil and Gas Development. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 45. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. April 1974. Method for Beach and Sand Dune Protection. In Tri -State Conference Report. March 31 - April 2, 1974. 'Jekyll Island, Georgia. 89 7.2 ANNOTATED LIST OF KEY PUBLICATIONS GENERAL 1. PCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental Assessment. A Report to the Presi- dent by the Council on Environmental Quality. April, 1974. 5 Volumes. These five volumes present a comprehensive review of the outer continental shelf oil leasing program, including onshore and offshore effects, econ- omic considerations, socio economic changes, relevant OCS oil and gas technology, offshore oil spills, oil spill trajectories, and the ecology of the various regions involved. Primary interest was centered on the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Alaska frontier areas. 2. Primary, Physical Impacts of Offshore Petroleum Developments. Massachu- setts Institute of Technology. April, 1974. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. An analysis of past oil spill statistics, projections of possible OCS spills and leaks, and an analysis of likely oil spill trajectories is presented herein. Three areas are specifically analyzed: Delaware Bay, Charleston, S.C. Harbor, and Narragansett Bay. 3- Petroleum in the Marine Environment. Workshop on Inputs, Fates, and the Effects of Petroleum in the Marine Environment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,1975. 90 The report presents an extremely concise, scientific assessment of the effects of oil in the marine environment. MID-ATLANTIC 1 . Final Environmental Statement - Proposed 1976 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale Offshore the Mid Atlantic States - PCS Sale No. 40. Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior, 4 Volumes, May 25, 1976. This EIS covers all aspects of the proposed Mid Atlantic Lease Sale No. 40 and predicts possible environmental, social, and economic impacts. Ex- tensive descriptions of the proposed project and of the baseline condition of the environment provide significant data for an understanding of the region's offshore and nearshore characteristics. 2. Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. University of Rhode Island, Marine Pub. Ser. No. 2 and 3, Kingston, Rhode Island, 2 Vols. The two volumes of this series cover existing coastal and offshore en- vironmental information in great detail, specifically: oceanography, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic fauna, fisheries, marine mammals, birds, coastal vegetation, marine geology, offshore weather and climate, and coastal zone utilization. 3. A Study of the Socio Economic Factors Relating to the Outer Continental Shelf of the Mid Atlantic Coast. 9 Volumes. Mary Jenny and Joel Goodman (eds.) College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware for the Bureau of Land Management. 91 This series is valuable in its treatment of the socio economic baseline conditions of the Mid Atlantic area and the likely changes which might arise from OCS activities. Of major interest are the volumes on land and water use, recreation, demography, and OCS target areas. 4. Mid Atlantic Regional Study - An Assessment of the Onshore Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for the American Petroleum Institute, October, 1975. A good synopsis of the overall onshore effects of the predicted OCS activities. The report's value lies in its general treatment of the entire spectrum of activities and projected effects on the social, economic, and environmental systems. Numerous maps aid in an under- standing of the presented data. SOUTH ATLANTIC 1 . A Socio Economic Environmental Baseline Summary for the South Atlantic Region Between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Prepared by Planners, Inc., for the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, September, 1974. 5 Volumes. These five volumes cover the topics of: socio economic inventory, geological oceanography, chemical and biological oceanography, clima- tology, and physical oceanography, and are valuable source documents for an understanding of the environmental baseline condition. 2. South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration, Develop- ment, and Production. Prepared for the Task Force on Offshore Drilling of the Charleston Trident Chamber of Commerce by the 92 Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina, June, 1976. This summary of a series of studies presents a concise view of the expected OCS activities of the South Atlantic area. The entire scope of activities, from national energy needs to local economic and environ- mental requirements are presented in short synopses; this presents a useful picture of regional goals and attitudes. 3. Florida Coastal Policy Study: The Impact of Offshore Oil Development. Florida Energy Office and State University System of Florida, December, 1975. A comprehensive study of past and future offshore oil and gas activities in Florida and the expected socio economic and environmental effects and planning requirements necessary to properly meet such effects. 4. Activities in Georgia's Coastal Waters: Past Trends and Future Prospects, Office of Planning and Research, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, May, 1975. Georgia's coastal environment is described and analyzed in regard to past activities and likely future uses, including impacts of offshore oil and gas leasing. OU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 197 8 -71+5-421/ k k 8 5 REGION NO. 4 93