Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-77/13 March 1978 Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas Volume II: Effects on Coastal Communities w H ^0CUM£/y cou£c TiON Fish and Wildlife Service 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: • 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 t-n 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. BS£5i _o S^^S^ ^^™»™^ ■ 3" mmmmmmm J3" ■^^^~ ni 5 cO ■ j m FWS/OBS-77/13 March 1978 Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas Volume II: Effects on Coastal Communities by Jeffrey Zinn 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 Volume IV: Regulatory Framework for Protecting Living Resources Volume V: Regional Status Reports (Individual Reports); Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 New England Mid and South Atlantic Gulf Coast California Alaska, Washington and Oregon This report should be cited thusly: Zinn, J. 1978. Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas. Volume II: Effects on Coastal Communities. The Conser- vation Foundation, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-77/13. 60 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 endorsement 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 TV ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PREFACE This report is intended to provide the link from primary OCS develop- ment to the secondary growth effects it induces and the ecological impacts that may accompany such growth. If used in conjunction with other volumes in this series, the content of the report should enable the reader to examine the full range of impacts on fish and wildlife resources that might be associated with OCS development. The primary aim of this report is the illustration of procedures used in forecasting community development that accompanies major industrial development, such as OCS development. Forecasting growth is an inexact science at best and no claims are made for its validity nor ability to accurately predict impacts. Whils uninitiated readers will not be prepared to conduct forecasting after reviewing this report, they should understand which factors are important in predicting community demand, and how these factors interact with each other. The text is designed to emphasize the close relationships between OCS industrial development and community development, on the one hand, and community development and resource conservation, on the other. In this way, the report attempts to close the gap of understanding of the total ecological consequences of OCS industrial development. The report is presented in four sections that introduce the reader, step by step, to the forecasting process and its connection to impacts on habitat and living resources. The process is presented in simplified format so that the key components stand out distinctly. Examples from published OCS-related studies are included to illustrate the type of discussion and language that the reader will confront in review and evaluation of growth forecasts. An extended list of references has been included for readers who wish to pursue aspects of this topic in greater detail . Jeffrey Zinn Senior Associate TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS VOLUME II: EFFECTS ON COASTAL COMMUNITIES Page FOREWORD 1 PREFACE v LIST OF FIGURES vm LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF EXAMPLES * ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS *i 1 . INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Nature of Development "1 1.2 The Forecasting Process 3 2. FORECASTING EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION 6 2.1 Some Commonly Used Procedures 6 2.1.1 Input/output Analysis 6 2.1.2 Bureau of Land Management Analysis 6 2.1.3 Scenarios 1 10 13 13 14 16 19 19 21 24 3. 2.2 Outline of a Sample Forecast 2.3 Working Through a Sample Forecast 2.3.1 Direct Employment 2.3.2 Indirect Employment 2.3.3 Induced Employment 2.3.4 Total Employment 2.3.5 New Resident Employees 2.3.6 Families 2.3.7 Total Population Added COMMUNITY FACILITIES 3.1 Housing 3.2 Public Utilities and Services 3.3 Transportation 3.4 Schools 3.5 Recreation 3.6 Commercial Facilities 26 26 28 28 28 32 32 VI Table of Contents - Continued Page 4. POTENTIALS FOR ECOLOGICAL DISTURBANCE 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 40 41 41 41 42 4.1 Navigational Improvements 4.2 Piers 4.3 Bulkheads 4.4 Beach Stabilization 4.5 Site Preparation 4.6 Site Development 4.7 Artificial Waterways 4.8 Roadways and Bridges 4.9 Water Supply Systems 4.10 Sewage Systems 4.11 Overland Transmission Systems 4.12 Storm Water Systems 4.13 Solid Waste Systems REFERENCES APPENDIX A Employment and Locational OCS-Related Facilities APPENDIX B Additional Literature Sou Factors for Direct 43 46 is 53 OCS Facilities 53 OCS Lease Sales 54 Regional Experiences 56 Socioeconomic Effects 57 vn LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A comparison of estimated OCS production schedules for the mid Atlantic lease sale 11 2. A simplified process for forecasting development 12 3. The general pattern of direct employment during different phases of OCS development 14 4. Relationships of phases of OCS field development to facility operations 15 5. Hypothetical calculation illustrating the steps required to derive total population added 25 vm LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Examples of Multipliers Used in OCS Studies 20 2 Percentages of New-Resident and Other Employees During Successive Phases of Field Development, as Estimated in Selected Studies 21 3 Family Size Estimates in Selected Studies 23 4 Net Residential Density Standards 27 5 Factors Used to Estimate Public Services Demands in Sel ected Envi ronmental Studies 29 6 School Acreage Needs 32 7 Factors Used to Estimate Educational Service Demands in Selected Environmental Studies 33 8 Recreational Facility Needs 34 9 Typical Characteristics of Neighborhood Shopping Centers... 36 IX LIST OF EXAMPLES Example Page 1 Assumptions Underlying an OCS-Development Scenario 8 2 One Scenario's Estimate of Non-Construction Jobs Resulting from a Proposed Mid Atlantic Lease Sale 9 3 A Discussion of Indirect Employment 17 4 Discussion of the Induced Employment Multiplier 18 5 Differing Estimates of New Resident Employees in Two Studies of the Mid Atlantic Lease Sale 22 6 Family Population from the Anticipated Workforce in an Impact Study of a Platform Fabrication Yard 24 7 Local Transportation Discussion from the Brown and Root Impact Study, 1975 30 8 Recreation Standards Used in the Brown and Root Impact Study, 1975 35 9 Estimate of Employment Associated with Production Platforms in the Mid Atlantic Lease Area 48 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many colleagues at The Conservation Foundation assisted ably in the preparation of this report. John Noble contributed extensively to development of concepts and to the presentation itself, as did John Clark, project leader. J. Clarence Davies, Executive Vice President, provided institutional review. Craig Richardson assisted with research and manuscript preparation. Mrs. Laura O'Sullivan was supervisor of manuscript production and Ms. Claudia Wilson was graphics and design director. In addition, David Williams provided advice on the concepts and format for presentation. John Ludwigson edited the final version of the manuscript. The author is grateful for the guidance provided by the Office of Biological Services of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, particularly by Drs. Allan Hirsch, William Palmisano and Howard Tait. Larry Shanks of that office was especially helpful in substantive aspects of the work, in painstaking editorial assistance, and in coordination of the manuscript review process. XI 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT The process of recovering oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS development) requires considerable industrial activity on land as well as at sea. Giant offshore steel platforms must be constructed. Food, fuel, and drilling supplies must be assembled and shipped to the offshore work site, pipelines must come ashore at some point, and storage tanks and pumping stations must be built. The workers from these enterprises need housing and community facilities and services. Many, if not most of these actions, may affect—directly and indirectly--fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. Within limits, it is possible to forecast the effects of OCS-related actions. A number of established techniques are available, and much of the work may already have been done by planning agencies or industry. To understand these forecasting processes and, especially, their inherent limitations, consider the nature of the development process. Review of permit applications and other documents routinely submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service typically begins with consideration of the activity proposed, then the likelihood of disturbances resulting from it, and finally the effects to be expected from those disturbances. This forecasting process can be shown as follows: ACTIVITIES DISTURBANCES EFFECTS (such as dredging (such as dis- (such as and filling) * charge of spoil) ^turbidity, sedimentation) Reviewing OCS development is likely to require additional analysis. The development process can be characterized as a network of items, each flowing from the preceding one. The network begins with "primary (or direct) development": both offshore projects (such as exploratory drilling) and onshore ones, such as the establishment of fabrication yards for OCS platforms. Each of these major projects may require a number of component subprojects.such as navigation improvements or site preparation. Each subproject will result in activities, disturbances, and effects as shown below. PROJECT SUB-PROJECTS ACTIVITIES DISTURBANCES EFFECTS Platform — > fabrication yard. Navigation - improvement Site prep- aration Dredging, - spoil dis- posal -^ Clearing, grading Spoil dis- -^Turbidity, charge, dredge oxygen de- spillover pletion Soil erosion,— >Sedimenta- loss of cover tion, runoff pollution Primary development usually creates demand for secondary development. Secondary development has two major components: indirect development, typified by those industrial projects that serve and support the primary projects, often through sub-contracts; and induced development, the construction or expansion of community facilities and services (such as housing, utilities, transportation, schools, recreation and commercial facilities) to serve the added population attracted by employment opportunities in direct, indirect, and induced developments. With the addition of these secondary developments, which produce environmental effects through the same sort of chain of events as primary development, an example of one portion of the network of items to be aware of in evaluating the potential onshore impact of OCS development now looks like this: DIRECT PROJECT SUB-PROJECTS Platform — ^ Navigation — 9 fabrication improvement yard Site INDIRECT OR INDUCED PROJECT Housing — develop- ment preparation ACTIVITIES Dredging, spoil disposal .Site preparation Sol id waste systems Clearing, grading -> Clearing grading DISTURBANCES -> Spoil dis- — > charge, dredge spillover -^Soil erosion, - loss of cover EFFECTS Turbidity, oxygen depletion ■Sedimentation runoff pollution Soil erosion, — ^Sedimentation, loss of cover runoff pollution -> Filling of — >Loss of wetlands habitat -> Increased BOD An understanding of secondary development and its effects can help in evaluating the estimates in environmental statements and planning documents related to lease sales or proposed major OCS facilities. Such an under- standing can also be of help in the review of permit applications. Applicants often seek permission for actions that appear to be minor (in comparison to a refinery, for example), and for which they provide only simple documentation. Yet "minor" actions may be elements of larger projects that can bring significant secondary development. In commenting on a dredge and fill permit application, for example, it is essential to take note of the potential for secondary development of the project and to predict its effects. Failure to do so can result in resource and habitat damage that could have been avoided. 1.2 THE FORECASTING PROCESS How much secondary development will a particular OCS-related facility stimulate? What kinds of development? Where? Finding answers to these and other questions in a specific case requires a forecast methodology that goes through a sequence of analyses and estimates. Some steps in that sequence involve non-quantitative analysis of the specific facility and and its proposed location. Others involve the application of a factor ("ratio" or "multiplier") derived from experience with growth responses in a locality, a region, or perhaps for the whole nation. The estimating process is subject to a number of limitations that should be kept in mind; three are especially important. First, forecasts of the kind and amount of secondary development and its effects rarely can be precise. This is particularly true for major projects, such as refineries or for lease sales, which may affect large areas. Uncertainties usually are unavoidable, so rough approximations are the rule, not the exception. The approximations in one case may prove to be fairly accurate; others may prove to be way off base. Nonetheless, approximations seem the best available way to forecast the consequences of major facilities, including effects on living resources. Second, the processes used to forecast secondary development are limited by their selected regional boundary. Whichever process is chosen, it will be confined to a defined study region. The size and shape of the chosen region can enormously influence the resulting apparent effects of the proposed OCS activity. As one study put it [1]: The choice of 'region' is crucial to the measurement of impact. What may be dramatic change in economic activity for a small town may be trivial for a state and infinitesimal for a nation. The regions chosen for forecasting potential impacts of OCS lease sales are typically large, because OCS oil and gas recovery operations can affect a large area, and the forecasting process must consider the full range of impacts. Also, certain impacts beyond the regional boundaries are recognized in the analysis; for example analyses of proposed leases along the Atlantic coast have recognized services provided from established industry bases along the Gulf Coast. There is considerable disagreement over what are the appropriate regional boundaries for a study. One study of a mid-Atlantic lease sale, for example, analyzed impact within a region including "southern New Jersey, the New York City-Newark Metropolitan area, Philadelphia and surrounding counties, and the two northernmost counties of Delaware" [2]. A different study of the same lease sale established a region that included "the coastal zones (up to 150 miles inland) of North Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and the New York City metropolitan area and Long Island" [2]. A third analysis covered coastal counties in "New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia" [2]. Definition of regional boundaries also strongly affects studies of 0CS- related facilities such as platform fabrication yards, refineries, or combinations of several inter-connected facilities. For such major facilities, the region may be very large. One study suggested that [1]: In general, the area should be large enough to include the major fiscal impact--those associated with industrial activity, with its employees, with the supporting activities generated, and with their employees. For practical purposes, it is probably sufficient to limit the study area to one that includes 80 to 90 percent of the commuting pattern. Regardless of the boundaries selected, the processes to be discussed in this volume provide no help in predicting the location of the proposed development within the region. Rather, these processes estimate the kinds and amounts of development that will occur somewhere within the study region. An important question about both primary and secondary developments is their siting flexibility. A third limitation to this type of estimation process is that, in the absence of specific proposals, it is important to consider whether particular OCS-related facilities are likely to be built at all. One measure of this factor can be called the feasibility threshold. It is •elated to five basic variables that affect the decision of industry to bi'ld new facilities: the extent of the oil and gas "find"; distance from established company bases; available labor supply; transportation costs; and the existence of onshore infrastructure. An onshore facility is more likely to be built if the find is large, if the OCS area is a long way from existing company bases, if skilled labor is available locally, if the cost of transporting the needed items from other bases is high, and if other industrial support services already are available in the area. The answers from the forecasting process, though directly useful for some purposes, often require further interpretation in order to provide direct guidance on issues that arise during permit reviews. For example, the reviewer needs to know whether development is likely to affect a particular resource or habitat. What can be done about this insufficiency? Detailed development planning is one possibility, but time and money often are unavailable for such studies, and even they may be able to provide only partial answers. In many such cases, the best approach is to analyze the_ resource to be protected rather than the proposed development. Then it will be possible to determine the sorts of disturbances that might threaten that resource and identify the kinds of secondary development that might cause those disturbances. FORECASTING EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION 2.1 SOME COMMONLY USED PROCEDURES Processes of varying sophistication are used to forecast OCS development-related activities and their effects, including those of secondary development. The more complex analyses, typified by those in environmental impact statements prepared for OCS lease sales and proposed major facilities, often use one or more of the following: input/output analysis, the Harris model, or development scenarios. 2.1.1 Input/output Analysis The purpose of input/output analysis is to provide an accounting system to trace the flow of goods, services, and money from one sector of the economy to all other sectors. It does this by describing the interrelation- ships among all the sectors within a specific region at a specific time and expressing these interrelationships as mathematical coefficients. Thus, if one sector of a regional economy generates a certain amount of activity, the effects of that activity on other sectors can be estimated by applying the coefficients for those sectors to the numbers describing the known activity. For OCS-related forecasting, selection of the region to be considered, and use of coefficients appropriate to that specific region may be the most important considerations. Economic structure varies considerably within the country, making the use of national coefficients for industrial classifications potentially misleading. For example, coefficients for the marine mining sector, which includes offshore petroleum development, are significantly different for Louisiana, which has a well -developed offshore industrial base, than for the United States as a whole. The result of an input/output analysis indicates the demand an industrial activity will exert on other sectors of the economy, but does not indicate employment requirements or induced community effects. 2.1.2 Bureau of Land Management Analysis The Bureau of Land Management has used a sophisticated economic model, known as the Harris Model, to examine the need for new industrial facilities in a region. The model uses industrial interrelationships to portray ties among the industries of a defined region; like input/output analysis, it does not directly indicate induced community effects. Among the basic items considered in using the model are population movements, demand for products, costs of production and transportation, and industrial input/output coefficients (from input/output analysis) [2]. These are used to predict changes in production activities resulting from hypothetical oil and gas finds. The model thus compares changes in industrial inter- relationships with and without discovery. Predicted changes are used to forecast such items as employment, earnings, population movements, and overall personal income and expenditures. The forecasts prepared in this way for one year may then be used in preparing forecasts for succeeding years. This incremental process, a component of many economic models, has some practical limits, most notably an increase in the uncertainty of the forecasts as time passes. 2.1 .3 Scenarios Scenarios are the most popular tool for predicting offshore and onshore OCS-related development and its impact. Of published OCS studies, well over half use scenarios. Scenarios are descriptions of anticipated future situations that would result from assumed changes in specified components. For example, siting of oil or gas facilities near a community (the assumed change) would probably result in population growth, new political problems, and increased require- ments for community services and facilities (the future situation). The accuracy of the scenario (how many people? which political problems? what facilities?) necessarily depends on the accuracy of estimates of the assumed changes. OCS lease sales—actions with potential for far-reaching effects over large areas--have been common subjects for scenarios. These may include assumptions for resource quantities; leases, sales, and lease productivity; industry procedure; and material availability (see Example 1). Many published OCS studies have contained from two to four alternative scenarios based on assumptions associated with no discovery of oil, a low find, a medium find, and a high find. Scenarios are used to project change over time. They may be used to picture a sequence of events at varying magnitudes which might include the number of drilling rigs and production platforms employed in each of several consecutive years, the length of time required to complete a single exploratory well, and the predicted development pattern of onshore support facilities (see Example 2). Scenarios can be made at many levels of complexity. In OCS studies, they range from verbal descriptions based on a few broad assumptions, to sophisticated computer models where they may be combined with input/output analysis or other economic models, such as the Harris model. The need to use scenarios suggests a major problem in planning for OCS- related development: it is impossible to precisely predict development patterns and impacts based on a resource of unknown quantity and characteristics. In addition, oil and gas each require different EXAMPLE 1. Assumptions Underlying an OCS-Development Scenario (Source: Reference 3) Decisions for Delaware applied the following assumptions in predicting onshore impacts: 1. Two lease sales will be held roughly two years apart; one late in 1975 and one in mid-1977. 2. In each sale, 4,000,000 acres will be offered and 2,000,000 will actually be leased. 3. Each sale will result in production of 500,000 barrels a day; a total of 1,000,000 barrels per day from the entire Mid-Atlantic region. 4. Because the Baltimore Trough is a group of relatively simple structures, it is estimated that only 150 exploratory wells will be required to verify the production from each lease sale. 5. It is estimated that one platform will be required for every four lease blocks and that an average of 36 wells will be drilled per platform. Each will produce 1,000 barrels per day. 6. It is estimated that from 45 to 60 days will be required to drill a well to reach the hydrocarbon- bearing geologic structures. 7. The fundamental unit for estimating population and economic impact is the number of drill rigs and from that the size of the mining labor force. An average of 60 men per rig is assumed. To determine the size of directly and indirectly associated labor force, two multipliers are added to mining manpower. A third multiplier is then used to convert the sizeable labor force to a total popula- tion...as will be seen in calculation details the multipliers applied to the mining manpower in this study are 2.0 to determine the directly associated labor force; 3.0 to determine the indirectly associated labor force; and 4.0 to arrive at an estimated total population. In addition to these seven basic assumptions, other detailed assump- tions indicate that 150 exploratory wells will be drilled in a 7-year period and approximately 42 production platforms will be required to develop the entire Baltimore Trough. Development plans also include the estimated number of active rigs, crew boats, work boats, and helicopters required each year between 1976 and 1986, details about logistics of port capabilities, and other needs. Q44 □ 4 o>d>04^'«'O>«>O'£1a O * 01 -j J" v» - ' ■— *J — O «3 3J - J J- -- ff- _ - j — 3 -<5 CO ~J 3* | 1 m n x r ■a 3 w»3w*ooooooooooao©oooo - , * 0 — -1 3J at r* i » Q < — — — *oKJt-e-e-fi-'X0D»J000OOOSCDC0 10 -1 to 1 -0 < 1 ^ m _ _ _ — [3 X — — — .fO*JC-£*C-C-.0,3.0-0^ — — — — OO 13 J= www»*f>JMN**J*****,,e'**0000£*** , 3 3 ■0 i- c 0 n m f8 c < a rv * c m 0 a 0 <■* so ? 7 0) 0 sj^i_nOOuw>V>'-rt'-"wO--iw W 3 0 3 a r» -O fD -s 1 O 0O •u 0 »uw9t9>0DCB4>O«a)^>'- "^ O fD Ov»^>0O-«^vi^nwiv>O^>w> 0 l/> 3 *< CD OJ D- -S ? ■b 12 O ■«7,*7''V'V1»>-'M'-"- | "3 n Q_ l/l 1 *« 0 3= m a rt- 1 ' — ■ rt- Q, _4. 3 3 t "^ or O r+ 0) ^- ►— Wy>'99SN^9*WUN,*' 1 *™ O" — ■* rt- *• #* -J »->9£o07>oaD«'C*c09>aaoisic> —1 01 fD O WUItfj ^ a moo a. 3 GO 1 0) O —• 0 fD 3 ? A 3" Ln 1 »-C-C-CiOO — -*w-ww-> "" ^«-^coaaa>N)N9,^ff'9| 0 3 " — ■ c ^c n GO 0 O r+ 1 z -s 0 O 3 S" -6 •- ] "3 1 "O 0 >ffJ'i?'f>?(>W,W- ■ 1 '""* S 0 O" 9S3SSOaffl--»j 0 1 *< 3 »- ?o (/> 1 11 3 IT) i z -h ;o fi-c-£-c-£»C-£-c-w*J — 0 (D fD -5 fD C i ? son 3 — ' O r+ 0> X 30 30 CO ■■£> -O -O C -o *- — 3 o fD -■• S a 3 •Old 3 30 -h -s 0 3 r J>.J> J- .-■£-£-£-. 3* j>3'«^j-«j-jXi*J *- •^ < ^HM«ag)»M ^- — c-^r-aiw 0 0 — «< -1 0 ... 1 ; ? 1 0 1 -1 . "1 1 - 1 n I ^ ' 1 1 , -1 H ji»C"'w Total Employment 4-J c c o £_ ■i — CD +j 3 +J C OJ CO •r— s- s_ +J OJ HI C O. a. o O o <_> ^ i — r-~ ro •r— Z> / 4J <+- Q. o ra "O 00 < Cl •f— .c: • • 00 (U C o O s- ■ r- :3 +J o (O 00 ^— (1) a; on • c ^ o •i — 0) +j s- ai 3 5- Ol cu •r— a. U- o > 0) S- o o o CD CL ■o O o +J CO a) o Q S- O >■> O O u ra Q. O a c o CD I ral *! Q- a> or ai ai ai a> 01 s_ S- S- s_ o o o o .c -C JC JT V) (/I l/> M- 4- M- 4- (J Ol ai CD a> a. D. c o. TJ ■a o Tl a> Cl cu +j •*-» 4J CO ro 10 IO i — ai ai CD a> s_ S- S- S- 4J •t-> +-> ■M o o o O Ol .1° i— s_ "S E >- i— en ai c en i- c 0J C3 O fa O u 01 a. s- o +J Ol o 4-> 0) 01 o o 1- en c 01 Total Population Added^- 2,879 25 3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Total population added to the region under study becomes the basis for the next step in the forecasting process: determining the potential demand for public and private community facilities.1 The location, design, construction and operation of community facilities can affect fish and wildlife and their habitats. Facilities may, for example, require substantial land areas; their construction may require grading or other land alterations; they may produce runoff. Among the facilities that may have such effects are: housing, public utilities and services, transportation, schools, recreation and commercial establishments. These six are discussed in this section. Other facilities such as police and fire stations and medical and social service may also cause environmental effects, although they do so less frequently or on a smaller scale than the foregoing facilities. Planning agencies for the locality, state, or region likely already have detailed analyses of facility needs or are preparing them. Even in the absence of such analyses, invaluable information and standards may be obtained from these agencies. These contacts, as well as the information they can make available, should help in understanding the planning process used by public agencies, applicants, and others. Of course that process is often concerned with many impacts besides those that affect living resources and their habitats; many of these broader impacts are deliberately omitted from this discussion. 3.1 HOUSING Assessing housing demand is difficult because of the interplay between housing demand and supply. In simple terms, housing demand is a function of the individual household's income (ability to pay for housing), the total number of units demanded by these households, and the price required for each unit of housing. Additional variables also play a significant role in this demand- supply interplay, including: family size and stage in the family cycle (that is, number and age of children); the local vacancy rate; the condition and nature of existing housing; the capabilities of the housing construction industry in the area; and the loan criteria used by local lending institutions. Family size and stage in the family cycle are important indications of the type of housing required for households moving into the community. xThis discussion considers only facilities needed to serve added population. It does not include the facility needs of industry. 26 Preference will vary among single family, multi family, and mobile units, as well as rental and purchase units. The existing condition and the vacancy rate of community housing not only indicate the availability of housing, but also lead to initial estimates of the demand for new construction. Many rates hover around 5 percent. If the percentage is some additional population without new construction costs is more likely. communities' vacancy higher, absorption of or inflation of housing Residential space needs for the new population can be estimated, widely used planning reference lists residential density standards (Table 4). These densities can be compared with any estimates of new housing demand to determine the approximate area required. One Table 4. Net Residential Density Standards (Source: Reference 19) Dwelling Unit Type One- and two-family One-family unit detached One-family semidetached or Two-family detached One-family attached (row) or Two-family semidetached Multifamily 2 story 3 story 6 story 9 story 13 story Density of Units per Net Acre Desirable Maximum 10 16 25 40 65 75 85 12 19 30 45 75 85 95 27 3.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES In assessing the demand for utility services, the demand for each service (water, sewers, solid waste, and electricity) must be determined. Table 5 shows demand figures used in selected environmental studies. After demand is estimated, it should be compared to the capacity for the existing water, sewer, solid waste, and electric service systems and facilities in the study region. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Assessment of transportation needs (mainly roads and highways) is extremely difficult; needed information on local road travel is frequently unavailable. Highway transportation is measured by average daily traffic and peak hour volumes which are then compared to highway capacity. Increased population and industrial activity can cause congestion as the capacity of a highway, a constant, is attained or exceeded. The capacity of a highway is expressed in a number of vehicles passing a point each hour. Highway congestion typically results from two changes in travel patterns. One is congestion around new industrial or commercial facilities where vehicles congregate. Second is congestion around new supporting development stimulated by highway access. Transportation projects typically consist of expanding and improving portions of existing facilities. Short sections of highways may be constructed in new locations. Typical projects include widening two-lane highways to four lanes, straightening curves, constructing turning bays, or improving traffic signals. The usual goal of these projects is to improve the smoothness and rate of traffic flow. Example 7 is a discussion of local transportation from one of the few studies made to date of the impact of a proposed major OCS-related onshore facility (a platform construction yard) on a community. Cape Charles, Virginia, is a fishing and agricultural center on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay, near the southern end of the Delmarva Peninsula. 3.4 SCHOOLS Determining the impact of added population on school demand requires: 1. An estimate of elementary, junior high, and high school age children by location. The national average figure for all school children per household is 0.63 [23], 2. Application of these estimates to local or state standards for school area and classroom size. Alternatively, school acreage needs may be estimated by reference to widely used planning standards (Table 6). 28 to -o c £ Q <1J CO o .a 3 Q- 3 (/) -(-> UJ in o , +J (D +J "O C a; aj l/l b ZD c p l/> S- S- 'r— o > 4-> c O LlJ (13 u- -c • O lo 91 r— a> 0) r— co -Q <0 c s- s- OJ OJ s_ D. S- Q. OJ -C OJ CL-t-> 3 Q. 3 C s: n: c o c m O E t£) O -C in O lOf 5. o s- s. O i. c oj IO OJ OJ • OJ o 3 o Q. t-~ CL CL O O. E ai S. i— i- i- s. c • c > s- >> i— S- >, -a a> to a. 03 • c • OJ 03 OJ 03 •i- +j c -o to O to O.T3 IO Q.T3 ■— to o o -Q (O J3 O o o S- ■— s- >> ■— S- l- CO J_ 5. oo 3 o ai oj ro OJ OJ • OJ OJ n i— o. to O.T3 id aa naa to s. >> >> >> >i >» o u "v. 03 ~^ 03 03 +J •I — to "O •— *->. i— ^~ i— i— "^^_ i— -^. o CO O CO O 3 E i/> to to to to QJ O ° 5r o s- o s- o s- o s- oo "O o aj CSJ OJ CSJ OJ (\J OJ O OJ ^^ , a. i— a. 1— CL r— a. i— a. ^^ >> >) >> >> (J \ » 03 "^. 03 03 •^ to -o to -a 10 T3 CO T3 s- +> ■ — -^ i— ~^ ^— "*^ i— ^ OJ tO > 4- >>s- O 1 — r— 0) 03 03 C >>-a cn S- ' C •!- TJ t- c s_ OJ OJ «s:4- 3 03 OJ -r- OJ -C > • ai +J >» ■o jz -a +-> ■l-J OJ ^— % C !_ to c P 3 18 to CSJ to «c c 03 ■— 2 4- CSJ 4- +-> T3 < o • 4- O O. O C OJ ^-^ O O OJ ai •r- 03 OJ O C OJ •1- J= 03 i— • in 4-> ■!- c •r- OJ • to +J ^~ ■t-J CO 00 Q. 03 00 O OJ • 03 C o 10 TJ OJ •I- to 03 O t= (J E to ^-» O •!- M •i- « S. to oj s- >> 3 03.T- o *r~ co S_ S- ■C5 J3 t- 1/1 -p-O (D >,-r- O ■!-> SZ CL4-> OJ Q. n3 03 >» c c 2 i— OJ 03 03 ^- +J t|_ .r- 03-i- i— 03 E 03 -i- S_ +-> t|_ to O 03 >) 03 > +J 03 E i— C > T3 03 OJ c OJ • C 03 03 >> •*- to c a «gj 03 -r- OJ 3 to O C OJ tfl i — to 03 •i— T3 ^— 03 03 O S- Q ■p i.a OJ •r- OJ E •i- OJ Q- 4- 1Z 3 E 03 O r— OJ C E O •!- +J $- +-> <_> C OJ 2 "O «t 03 O-r— 3 o -P> >, OJ 03 O CO oo o to <£ > O C OJ 03 T3 c >— • 03 r— IO ■»-> o +■> 1. 14- 03 OJ 0) CL 03 (O LP OJ O 03 CO +J +J O £ ■a • O Q. C O tj O C OO C Q. . i >> 03 > u 03 > -S^O OJ O OJ 'r- 'r- o 03 Q-+-> 5 OJ ■r- J= E o o ^ Or- S_ O 03 1 o o >> +J c £ c +-> i— * 03 -c o a> OJ s- 03 O OJ 3 C t— • 03 03 00 UJ CJ 3 03 to W 30 (0 tO S- T- to i — 0J LO , ■r- O +-> l*- OJ TJ to 4- C 03 ■!-> 03 > 4- OJ •— E l— 4- 4-> to E E o O S- c 03 4- 2 CD U C O OJ 03 c «-- O < ~o o to o 03 03 OJ O « OJ OJ I— LU UT -O S- o 03 C +J ac to E S_ to Z T3 4- 03 C rt-> OJ 3 s- O to T3 o o s- 4-> i— 0J < 4- 03 C 4- ■*-> C o s- s_ •f— *3- 4-> •!- o; o o -a U 03 Q O CO C 03 OJ to O • 1 — ait- > o s at q. c OJ S- C 4- C c OJ c "3 t4- 3 OJ S- to T3 t-~ OJ O t— 03 r- 1 -i- LU O 4- OJ o OJ OJ 4- S. to o +J C » ■r- 4. O ••- u to f— ^ 4- J= +-> -C C C OJ ^3 -C U 03 to O o u »T" to 03 +-> r— OJ +-> Q- 4-> 4-> 2 03 to OJ 4-> JC • c I— OJ o c 03 CD E o OJ 2 4- 4- l— S- OO to OO 3 a. to O 03 c , — -O 4- 03 4- C (. x: c OJ 4- 4- T- O o C • O a. t/1 I — •r— 03 C 4- X o o CO +-> o 3S O oj o a. o o ■=> O c o s- •r" > c -a o cu T3 C 03 E CU a o> o > CU CO 03 c o •r— •4-> 03 o 3 -a 03 O +J ■o CU to :d to to Nl Q. Q. ■(-> +j •i— C c to to to CU cu +J +J "D -O E E c E c E 3 3 O O CU O CU o +■> •*-> O o "O o T3 O to OO 1. S- 3 S- 3 S- r^ to lO +-> 10 +-> W s ° CO 00 in to to to to £ ° • 03 03 "3 re o ^ CO r— i — LO r— P0 l— ■ o CM O l_> cm o CM o •~ ■ to s- o o 03 U_ to +-> c *--£ cu s- ai o. c to CU TD Q- O a. s- o Q.T- 3 CU tO '!- ^ to m to D. +J -M cu to cu +J ■»-> +j C 03 c +J s- c c £ t/1 CU ■— c: cu cu CU -l-> c •O 3 4- w ?. T3 T3 T3 c o 3 a. o "O cu 3 -i- 3 CU •!- -fJ o 3 C +-> to ■»-> -o +j 00 o. S- 4-> 10 CU 00 c 3 03 CD CO O s- o 4-> r— LO O .Q o LO en to 00 3 • o E LO O r-v 2 CM S- Q. CM O 3 r^ « • cu • , >>E CU CU C ■o -a o -C > 3 3 03 3 >> +J CU O 4-> C •!- to -l-> 3 co • to o to o c c 4-» +J in cow M- •^ »r-" cn 03 •» •r 01 OTJ •r- SZ 03 S- x: CU oo E Q. c S- 4- 03 to +J O '1- • 4- -l-> c >, Q. 03 3 • O 4-> •i- to • •!- > ^-.0 3 o •— O J- • s- *-+ 00 oo cu s- ■^? 5- S o M 03 r— CU >> ^-^ ~. w >>•>- o CO jQ r— CM +J g C 0) +-> CU **" E CTi+J O i— +-> <4- •"" 03 03 O to i— 03 > 03 to CM .p. — ' O V- 03 t- « — if- +J 03 +-> 03 CU 2 S- *— * CU -l-> c > -a to >, a. 5- •»-> c-o aoj SZ >> 4- C 03 >r- cu >, E 03 C E o to <; cu rr> +-> ■4-> T3 4- 03 +■> j- -o s- o 03 •r- Q- 03 cu cu C 5 3 CU i— C U 03 • 3 o o a O s- -o 3 Ol o +-> +J < ioa>> 4J M- E o cu O . o cu E s- co O) co ■l-> M- o •i- JC r— ^^ «Z Ol oi s_ CO S- -i- 03 O <_> E -•-> CU — to Ol r™ o -a • O Q-r— +j ^— o SZ N If. (fl C , c c +-> ' — ^> c cu C (/> s: CO «i 3 03 CU cr o o O CO •o 03 +j o c •"" <4- (O O" a. 03 S- s_ o c to ft 3 s: fO •r" O CU — - O 03 E 03 cu cu >> o 03 4- -O J- +-> i"- CT) SZ CU i— i— i to 00 S- 03 O •— LU 03 4-» +j 03 -C c • T3 •=c to o 2 i +-> c CU U C o +J t- to 4-> -i- 03 C f r- a o >> o •r" CU r— CU o O 3 -a tf- CU 03 cu O »r- S- a> •1— »*- "O 4- 03 E nn CU &- (0 M- CU S- E S- CU O S- CJ3 S- +-> o to c If- 4J C r— CU O «r- 03 c c •i- CU •■- CU tO T- •r- S- O > cu o o to to c to H- ■o < >>> O O C C SZ 4-> >, O •!- ZD o SZ 3 c 3 E •^ r^ »^ SZ • LU 2 4-> T3 O- i— Q. CT> •fJ r— 03 o Q. T3 03 ■*-> CO to CO o S- E 03 O i- % TD O T3 >— o 03 •F" C O O c • c S- , zn 03 Q-> z 03 O'i- IOD 33 0) o en i~ a> M- CU CU o s- 3 o oo 00 "O CU CU 03 o (0 CD S- o CU CO a> n3 CU CU s- N o • i— E oo s- --. E o a> =s o o O o .— E O o o o O o Q-->- O o o o o o O X O o •» m n fl CD fO *N •» o ^t- o *s- a. s: 00 0\J CM «* LO cu N •r* 00 **■. E o o o O o o CU 3 o o o o o o i— E o a o o o o Q--r- 1. VI #1 CI « ■t O C *d- CM CM CO o «d- CU T- 1— <3- LO a. s: 0) N •^ 00 CU "O i- S_ o ro E "O 00 o o C CU o S- CM oo (O S- f^ o 1 i o o +-> o 1 LO o o ID oo =£ m CM o o o sz LO un UO r> •^ o CM CM CM LO oo 0) 00 i— ^— r— ^— CM ^-» S- s- O o o o o CU O CU o o o o o r— •=C a. o o o o o o J= _ _ "O -o o o o o JZ -C >> s- S- 4J o o 00 •^ -Q -O J* CU r^ _E3 -C S_ s- 00 •r— CT> u> O) rO s_ o ■^ •1 — -M Q- 3 o CU 3 f0 •^ r-~ fO CT) Q. o a. +-> CU C >> S- (0 •1— (J 1— o> r— CU l»- S- •r- >> (0 s- >> o ^~ J3 r— o CU 1^ u s- o co to S- O) d) o CD Q. O .c to -o o o j= s- o -O -C CD •I— CD O to U •i— to •r— t. > d) re >> ^s"^. I""~ • *r— ld o U- E p~. o • re ^— 00 U. CO d) r— s- O co 03 o o O d) +-> o re CO i- o o •> o 1— *• ■* CM re o • r--. CO r— «3" c o •i — +j .. o o re d> o o r— (J o ** 3 T- * « o > • CM CD S- s- <_> i— CO •r- O0 CD S- 0) en O o E c o o O T- o CO +-> -^ n3 " ** CO S_ O) CM r^ 3 rO S- ro LO t_> O- ■< CO o> s- -o o o co CL) CO > •r- e •i- C s_ i — o r— O a> ■r™ CO •i- CO CO E s_ E s- re CD re d) c u_ Q. U_ Q_ o "l~ o o o o +-> o o o o re * S- CD d> s- to O +-> *» CO CD s- >> o S- +-> O) CO c o d) •^ S- +-> -o CO s- »e ** x: a> S- n o QJ +■> S- CO o CD -(-> 3 CO J_ ■D CD C. W\ ■ ^ a. c o re JZ d> CO r— o >> s- >> d) s_ J^ T3 re J3 "O c «* re +J CD >» ^f s_ S- T3 ro c E 3 ro ■o ^~ o o ■i t- S- o d) 1 — "O S- 3 re r— Q. o c >> •r— ■!-> 3 ■a re r^ ai 3 Si O jr *» CO o. o S- x: d) to +-> c S- d) ai CJ -Q S- CD ro c JO •r— Q. A a. +-> o c .c ro co S- C 3 O CO ro t- •1— 4-> -l-> J= 10 ro r— CO +J S- CO 36 4. POTENTIALS FOR ECOLOGICAL DISTURBANCE After the demand for new public and private facilities generated by OCS development has been forecast, the next step is to consider the activities that will be necessary to create those facilities. These activities can have adverse effects on fish and wildlife and their habitats. Housing, utilities, transportation, schools, recreational, commercial, and other projects can most conveniently be analyzed by breaking them down into subprojects. Among the variety of possible subprojects that might be involved, the. following often have the most significant impact on living resources in coastal areas (the numbers in parentheses refer to the standardized list of subprojects appearing in Volume III of this series): o Navigational Improvements (Subproject 1) o Piers (Subproject 2) o Bulkheads (Subproject 3) o Beach Stabilization (Subproject 4) o Site Preparation (Subproject 5) o Site Development (Subproject 6) o Artificial Waterways (Subproject 7) o Roadways and Bridges (Subproject 8) o Water Supply Systems (Subproject 9) o Sewage Systems (Subproject 10) o Overland Transmission Systems (Subproject 11) o Storm Water Systems (Subproject 12) o Solid Waste Systems (Subproject 13) o Pest Control (Subproject 16) The reader is referred to Volume III for a detailed discussion of subprojects. Each is briefly reviewed below to provide basic orientation to disturbances resulting from coastal development. 37 4.1 NAVIGATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS Most navigation dredging in marine basins that accompany OCS-related community development is required by the expansion of recreational boating. A large increase in population will cause an increase in boating activity which requires navigational improvement. Exactly how much increased boat traffic and marina development, and therefore channel dredging, might be required is difficult to predict. The major potential adverse environmental effects of dredging on coastal water systems are: increased turbidity; sediment buildup; reduction of oxygen content; disruption and removal of productive estuarine bottom and the life it contains; creation of stagnant deepwater areas; disruption of estuarine circulation; increased upstream intrusion of salt water and sediments; obliteration of wetlands; and degradation of oyster beds, coastal regions and other vital areas. These problems can be avoided for the most part through careful planning and attention to the natural processes at work in coastal ecosystems and to the probable effects of dredging. 4.2 PIERS An increase in piers and docks along navigable waterways may result from the recreational boating demand accompanying increases in population. These piers and docks are built to provide berthing for new pleasure craft docked at marinas or at individual homesites. Uncontrolled proliferation of piers and docks can lead to blockage of circulation, loss of vital areas, accelerated pollution, and a general reduction of carrying capacity. Properly guided, there can be a substantial increase of such facilities without major adverse ecological effects. 4.3 BULKHEADS An increase in housing, commercial development, or other community growth in coastal areas in response to OCS facilities may cause an increase in bul kneading of property. Bulkheads are built to protect shorelines (usually of protected waters) from erosion, to serve aesthetic purposes, to provide boat-docking convenience, or to hold fill materials deposited for the conversion of low-lying land, wetlands, or water areas to real estate of greater value. Major environmental objections to bulkheading arise from the loss of coastal marsh (often from dredge filling behind the bulkhead) and other vital habitat areas, the reduction in size of water bodies, the accompany- ing water pollution, and the interruption of the movement of fresh water into the estuary. In conformance with recent federal and state regulatory guidelines, bulkheads are typically approved for protection of unvegetated, eroding shorelines within estuaries. Bulkheads designed to permit expansion of real estate acreage by filling shorelines or to provide dock frontage for boats are discouraged. 38 4.4 BEACH STABILIZATION The expansion of coastal communities causes expansion of residential, commercial, and transportation projects at the beachfront and an increase of proposals for construction of seawalls, groins, or other stabilization and erosion prevention structures. Any plan that requires the construction of beach stabilization structures is given the closest scrutiny because these stabilization measures are often ineffective, sometimes counterproductive, and typically can be avoided if nonstructural protection measures are used. Solutions include placing structures well inland of the active part of the shore and taking positive action both to prevent the removal of sand from any storage element (dune, ridge, berm, or beach) and to prevent blocking the free movement of sand from any storage element into active transport via such processes as littoral drift. Further protection includes dune and berm management employing such measures as sand fences, and dune grass planting. In this way, structures which obliterate ecologically valuable dune and backbeach habitats can be avoided and the loss of beaches can be prevented. 4.5 SITE PREPARATION Whenever urbanization occurs, new tracts of land are opened for development. Construction of transportation systems, recreation facilities, homes, schools, public utility works, and commercial sites all require site alteration in one form or another. Many severe ecological problems of new development occur at the stage of clearing and grading the land surface before construction begins. During this clearing and grading, critical wildlife habitats may be lost and stream courses altered. Removing the natural vegetation exposes soils to the erosional forces of wind and water. The unprotected soils may be eroded and washed into tributaries or directly into coastal waters, where they degrade water quality and interfere with biological processes. Site development processes frequently alter the drainage system adversely by filling or draining marshes, bogs, and swamps, and diverting, obliterating or channelizing natural drainageways. Preventive measures include wetland, streambank, and watercourse protection, critical habitat and buffer area preservation, runoff water detention and soil stabilization. 4.6 SITE DEVELOPMENT A large OCS facility could generate considerable site development activity in a community short on facilities to provide for housing, transportation, recreation, and commercial needs. Site development includes activities that follow clearing and grading; such as, excavating ditches, installation of cables and pipes, paving of surfaces, building bulkheads, and erecting structures. Paved roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and other impervious surfaces decrease the land's ability to retain precipitation, cause surge flows of runoff, and thus adversely alter the quality, quantity, and rate of flow of runoff from any watershed. The adverse impacts of 39 bulkheads, ditches, and transmission lines are discussed in other subprojects. 4.7 ARTIFICIAL WATERWAYS The land available and desirable for community growth in low-lying coastal communities may require drainage before construction. Many communities that would attract OCS onshore facilities are in low- lying coastal areas with considerable water-soaked land. Drainage of these near-wetlands and wetlands by canals and ditches 1s often proposed, as is the excavation of lakes or canals and use of the material to fill the adjacent land. Canals may be dug to provide boat channels back into the land, or ditches may be dug to drain land for mosquito control. This variety of activities can accompany housing, recreation, transportation, and all other components of development in low-lying communities. Whatever the specific reason, canal, ditch, and artificial lake excavation can have serious adverse effects. For example, when the natural flow pattern is disrupted, the water-cleansing function of the vegetation is reduced, and freshwater flow into the estuaries occurs in surges. Moreover, drainage may cause shrinkage of organic soils and subsidence of land and eliminate the critical ecological functions of wetlands. The main solution is to avoid any uses of these lands that require drainage. 4.8 ROADWAYS AND BRIDGES Increased population and community growth that result from OCS activities encourage construction or improvement of roadways. If enough new traffic is generated, there will be a need for more highways and accompanying bridges in addition to local roads. If this road expansion requires crossing of tidal rivers, bays, or wetlands, there is a high potential for adverse ecological effects. A particular problem is solid- fill causeways that block the upper portions of estuaries; these blockages lead to stagnation and eventually to total deterioration. Supports and abutments can also have a partial stagnating effect on the cutoff portion. Roadways may obliterate wetlands due to the filling for roadbeds and approaches, channeling for equipment access, disposal of spoil, and blocking of wetland tidal flows. Solutions lie in aligning roadways to avoid wetland alteration and in protecting surface water flows. 4.9 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS Communities have two major alternative sources of water: subsurface (groundwater) and surface. In coastal areas, groundwater may be a preferable source either because of a lack of fresh surface water, or the presence of easily accessible aquifers. There are problems involving both recharge and withdrawal of groundwater. Water diversion caused by paved 40 surfaces and altered water drainage may reduce the amount of natural recharge that would replenish groundwater. At the same time, overpumping of groundwater supplies near the shore can lead to the drying out of wetlands and salt intrusion into aquifers. Solutions lie in reducing impervious surfacing and in controlling well sites. 4.10 SEWAGE SYSTEMS Any increase in population caused by OCS expansion will add to a community's sewage load, increasing the amount of effluent produced. Many coastal water basins receive effluent from sewage plants that contain greater concentrations of nutrients, organic matter, toxic substances, and pathogenic organisms than the basin can assimilate. In low-lying areas with naturally high water tables, liquid waste from septic systems may saturate the soil and cause overflow. This pollution potential from septic tanks is intensified in flood-prone areas, where high tides and storms periodically saturate the soils. The problem can be solved by avoiding the use of septic tanks in low-lying areas and by providing proper levels of sewage treatment and disposal . 4.11 OVERLAND TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS All aspects of community growth involve transmission systems for electricity, water, sewage, power, and gas. A small OCS-related facility might not be accompanied by any significant secondary expansion in these systems, but a large refinery might require expansion. There are potential problems with transmission systems in the alignment, construction, and, to a lesser extent, in leakage of transmission systems. Like roadways, these systems may obliterate vital ecological areas or degrade them during clearing, excavation, or installation. For example, wetlands have been favorite locations for sewage gravity mains and pipe crossings. A solution is to align routes to avoid critical and vital areas and use appropriate safeguards to prevent ecological disruption during construction. 4.12 STORM WATER SYSTEMS Increased community facilities creates additional demand for storm sewers because of the build-up of impervious surfaces (roads, parking areas, and roof-tops) in the community. Rainfall in urbanized areas is considered a nuisance and a hazard. The resulting runoff is removed as quickly as possible by construction of storm drains and sewers. In the coastal zone, standard practice has been to pipe runoff directly into surface waters with little or no treatment. Natural subsurface purification is therefore bypassed by channeling contaminants directly into a water body. Runoff may have higher biochemical oxygen demands (BOD) and greater concentrations of various pollutants than domestic sewage. Problem resolution may lie in appropriate detention and treatment of storm waters and, particularly, in the use of alternative, more natural, drainage systems. 41 4.13 SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS All elements of OCS associated community growth—transportation, utilities, schools, recreation, commercial, and housing—generate solid wastes. Solid waste disposal may present problems where, because of community growth, available disposal sites become scarce. The location of sanitary landfills is the major consideration. Solid waste landfills that preempt wetlands or other vital habitat areas can do considerable ecological damage. The problem can be avoided by locating such landfills back from the water's edge in appropriate, non-critical, upland sites, where they will not pollute surface waters or groundwater. 42 REFERENCES 1. Management and Economic Research, Inc. n.d. Industrial Location As a Factor in Regional Economic Development. Prepared for the Office of Regional Development Planning, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C. 2. Resource Planning Associates, Inc. 1976. Identification and Analysis of Mid-Atlantic Onshore PCS Impacts. Prepared for the Middle Atlantic Governor's Coastal Resources Council. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 3. Joel M. Goodman. February, 1975. Decisions for Delaware: Sea Grant Looks at PCS Development. University of Delaware. Marine Advisory Services. Newark, Delaware. 4. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. December, 1975. Technical Paper Number 1: Economic Study of the Possible Impacts of a Potential Baltimore Canyon Sale. Bureau of Land Management New York, Outer Continental Shelf Office. New York City, New York. 5. State of California, Governor's Office, Office of Planning and Research. January, 1976. Onshore Impact of Offshore Southern California PCS Sale 35 (Draft) . Sacramento, California. 6. Personal communications with M. Levy, Columbia LNG Corporation, November, 1976. 7. Massachusetts Gffice of State Planning. November, 1976. Pffshore Oil Development: Implications for Massachusetts Communities. Boston, Massachusetts. 8. The Conservation Foundation. 1977. Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas. Volume 1: Recovery Technology. Prepared for the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.b. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 9. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. October, 1975. Mid Atlantic Regional Study: An Assessment of the Onshore Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute. Washington, D.C. 10. Florida State University. 1976. Florida Coastal Policy Study: Impact of Offshore Oil Development. Tallahassee, Florida. 43 11. Mathematical Sciences Northwest. 1975. An Economic and Social Impact Study of Oil Related Activities in the Gulf of Alaska. Prepared for the Gulf of Alaska Operators Committee. Bellevue, Washington. 12. Gulf South Research Institute. December, 1974. Offshore Revenue Sharing: An Analysis of Offshore Operations on Coastal States. Governor's Offshore Revenue Sharing Committee. Prepared for the State of Louisiana. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 13. Council on Environmental Quality. April, 1974. PCS Oil and Gas: An Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Resource Planning Associates, Inc. 5 Vols. Washington, D.C. 14. Dames and Moore. October, 1974. Environmental Assessment Study Proposed Sale of Federal Oil and Gas Leases Southern California Outer Continental Shelf. Prepared for the Western Oil and Gas Association. 15. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. May, 1976. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed 1976 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale Offshore the Mid-Atlantic States. OCS Sale No. 40. New York Outer Continental Shelf Office. New York City, New York. 16. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. 1976. Rapid Growth from Energy Projects Ideas for State and Local Action. Washington, D.C. 17. Personal communication with the Census Bureau, April, 1977. 18. Urban Pathfinders, Inc. February, 1975. Brown and Root Impact Study. Prepared for the Northampton County Planning Commission. Baltimore, Maryland. 19. F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. 1976. Urban Land Use Planning (Second Edition). University of Illinois Press. Urbana, Illinois. 20. Commonwealth of Virginia, Governor's Office, Division of Industrial Development. March, 1975. Analysis of Hampton Roads Energy Company's Economic Impact on Portsmouth and the Metropolitan Area. Prepared for the Mayor and City Council of Portsmouth. Richmond, Virginia. 21. BDM Corporation. December, 1975. Final Report: A Study of New Use Demands on the Coastal Zone and Offshore Areas of New Jersey and Delaware, Appendix IV, Employment and Infrastructure Effects of Offshore Development, A Technical Report submitted to the Office of Technology Assessment, Contract OTA-C-8. Vienna, Virginia. 44 22. Western Analysts. November, 1975. An Application of a Procedures Manual for Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact of the Construction and Operation of Coal Utilization Facilities in the Old West Region. Prepared for the Old West Regional Commission. Billings, Montana. 23. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, March, 1976. "Marital Status and Living Arrangements," Current Population Reports Series p-20 306. Washington, D.C. 24. John S. Gilmore and Mary K. Dubb. 1975. Boomtown Growth Management, A Case Study of Rock Springs - Green River Wyoming. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. 25. Joseph DeChiara and Lee Koppelman. 1969. Planning Design Criteria. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York, N.Y. 26. Arthur D. Little, Inc. November, 1975. Petroleum Development in New England: Regional Factors. Vol. 3. New England Regional Commission. Boston, Massachusetts. ?.7. U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard. 1976. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: LOOP Deepwater Port License Application. U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Marine Environment and Systems, Washington, D.C. 3 Vols. 28. New England River Basins Commission. August, 1976. Factbook: Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development Onshore (Staff Draft) . Boston, Massachusetts. 29. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. May, 1976. The Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development Process: A Background Paper for State Planners and Managers. Unpublished Manuscript prepared for the Joint Bureau of Land Management and Office of Coastal Zone Management Study of Onshore Needs Related to OCS Development. Washington. D.C. 30. Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. 1976. Managing the Social and Economic Impacts of Energy Development for Energy Research and Development Administration. Washington, D.C. 45 APPENDIX A Employment and Locational Factors for Direct OCS-Related Facilities Profiles of 15 major facilities are presented below. Types of employment are described for construction and operation of each facility. Time requirements for construction and operation are also presented. This information is drawn from prior experiences rather than estimated requirements whenever possible. Each profile also includes a discussion of the coastal dependence and lease dependence of each facility. Facilities that serve more than one lease sale or field have greater flexibility in choice of a site. A.l. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYING: Geophysical surveying has little effect on employment in nearby onshore communities. Although some employment positions may be filled locally, most employees on geophysical survey vessels travel with the vessel from job to job. One form of geological exploration, stratigraphic test drilling, can have greater effect. This process requires the drilling of a well from a drilling rig to attain core samples (but not to test directly for oil or gas). Its employment consequences are similar to those of an exploratory drilling rig. A. 2. EXPLORATORY DRILLING: The three types of drill rigs (jack-up, semi- submersible, and drillship) have somewhat different employment consequences. Estimates of employment per rig range from 113 (for a drillship) to 217 (for a semi-submersible rig) [21, 15]. Employees who work on an exploratory rig typically migrate with the rig from job to job. Their homes are often near the rig's home port, and many of them return home when off duty. If they do take up residence in a distant drilling area, they do so only temporarily and make minimal demands on the community. Nevertheless, exploratory drilling may have some effects on employment in nearby onshore communities. In one study involving a semi-submersible rig, it was estimated that 80 of 217 employees would be hired locally; that 87 others would maintain temporary local residences during drilling; and that 50 would commute to homes out of the local area while off duty [21]. Local hiring is likely to be principally in the unskilled category. 46 A. 3. PRODUCTION PLATFORMS: Production platforms operate in three phases: (a) drilling, (b) production, and (c) workover. (a) Production drilling, when wells are sunk, requires about the same number of employees per platform, performing similar roles, as are needed for each exploratory drill rig. The proportion of local employment, however, is likely to be higher, since the platform is a fixed facility that will be in place for a substantial period. (b) Production, after drilling is completed, requires only a \/ery small labor force to monitor and maintain the platform and wells. One study, for example, estimated that 16 employees per platform would be needed; others estimated as few as 8 [15, 26]. Because production is a long-term operation, however, the workers are very likely to live in nearby coastal areas. (c) Workover, which is a process of improving well production, occurs infrequently on a given well but continually in a large field. It may require about as many employees as production drilling, but many are likely to be specialists imported for the occasion. In estimating the employment consequences of production platforms, it is essential to recognize that there may be a number of platforms within a single lease area (Example 9). The short-term employment consequences of production drilling can be great, since drilling is likely to take place on many platforms simultaneously. A. 4. PIPELINES: The location of pipelines is tied to each offshore field site and (usually) the shortest distance to a landfall and connecting lines. The locational flexibility of pipelines is somewhat limited because of high construction costs but bottom conditions, or environmental decisions, may dictate use of other than the most direct route to shore in some areas. Seafloor pipelines may also be laid to link production platforms with storage and ship-loading facilities offshore and thus avoid landfall altogether. (a) Construction: Pipelaying barges may employ some 160 to 175 people [10]. Like workers on drilling rigs, most pipelaying workers migrate with the vessel from job-to-job. Perhaps 50 workers would be recruited locally, principally unskilled labor or specialized workers such as welders [10]. If these workers are unavailable locally, pipeline construction is likely to bring new residents to the community. Most pipelines are no more than 200 miles long; a rule of thumb for pipelaying progress is approximate- ly one mile per day. Construction is seasonal, and may take as little as 6 months or as much as 2 years because of such factors as bottom topography, wave conditions, and weather. 47 EXAMPLE 9. Estimate of Employment Associated with Production Platforms in the M" 'd Atlantic Lease Are a. (Source : Reference 4) Production Drilling Production No. of tmp 1 oy- No. of Production Year Platforms ment Platforms Employment 1976 1977 1978 1979 8 520 1980 12 780 1981 18 1170 8 128 1982 18 1170 14 229 1983 20 1300 20 320 1984 20 1300 26 416 1985 18 1170 32 512 1986 15 975 38 608 1987 10 650 42 672 1988 8 520 45 720 1989 6 390 47 752 1990 4 260 48 768 1991 2 130 19 789 1992 1 65 50 800 1993 800 1994 800 1995 800 A. 5. OFFSHORE MOORING AND TANKER OPERATIONS: One type of offshore mooring, known as a single point mooring, is essentially a large buoy connected to a storage/pumping facility by pipeline and to tankers usually by floating hoses. These are the princioal components of deepwater ports, such as the proposed LOOP and Seadock installations in the Gulf of Mexico. These large, complex ports include offshore moorings, submarine pipelines, and onshore facilities for storage, transportation, or processing. Offshore moorings may not be dependent upon a particular offshore field or lease sale. They can accommodate tankered oil from all over the world. Another function of an offshore mooring buoy is to allow tankers to take on oil directly from one or more wells which have subsurface 48 completions (wellhead on the sea floor, with no fixed platform overhead). These facilities have minor employment requirements. Construction of a deepwater port may take about 2 years. The off- shore buoy itself is likely to be built in an existing marine construction yard, away from the port site, thus creating minimal onsite employment. The pipelines will have employment consequences as described above. Onsite employment required to construct a deepwater port may be roughly 1,000 (with a peak force of 1,500) if port facilities alone are built [27]. If storage facilities or refineries are also provided, the employment consequences would be as described in paragraph A. 11 (storage) or A. 12 (refineries). Deepwater ports, such as those proposed by LOOP or Seadock would require about 300 workers each to maintain, monitor, and operate the facilities, according to one estimate [27]. A. 6. SERVICE BASES: These essential facilities, which must be located on the coast, may be temporary or permanent. They usually serve single fields and attempt to locate as close to the lease area as possible. Temporary service bases support exploratory operations and last only so long as exploration continues. Temporary bases use existing facilities insofar as possible, so any construction is likely to require at most a few months and to provide few jobs. During exploratory drilling, the number of employees depends on the number of rigs being serviced. At one temporary base in Florida, for example, employment was 32, including 12 positions filled by local residents [28]. If exploration leads to commercial production, the temporary base may evolve into a permanent service base, which will remain throughout the life of the production platforms it services. Base size depends on the avail- ability of services from nearby companies: large bases are more likely to be constructed at less developed ports, where fewer such services are available. Construction of a permanent base may take up to a year, with average employment of about 20 and maximum of about 90 [10]. After construction is completed, employment at service bases fluctuates with the level of activity on the production platforms being serviced. One study estimates that employment may be more than twice as great during drilling and workover as during production [28]. A. 7. MARINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: Marine repair and maintenance services, located along the coast in developed harbors, are needed throughout the life of oil and gas fields. Although these services are already available in many ports, 0CS development brings another customer whose specialized demands and number of vessels may require construction of some additional facilities. Where no marine repair and maintenance facilities are avail- able, oil companies (or contractors) may build them in conjunction with their service base. 49 Time to construct repair and maintenance facilities will usually be short and the labor force small . The continuing labor force needed to provide repair and maintenance services also will be small . Employees with specialized skills may be brought into the area, while the less skilled workers are likely to be hired locally if available. A. 8. GENERAL SHORE SUPPORT: General shore support is provided by contractors or vendors, who supply specialized services to support OCS development. A few shore support industries are in the "direct" industrial category, but a 'majority are "indirect" or support industries. Support services are needed throughout the production life of the field, although many individual services are needed for limited periods. (For example, a mud supplier is required only during drilling). While vendors prefer coastal sites, most do not require one. Some vendors serve a single oil and gas field from different facilities, while others serve world-wide markets from one or two locations. When possible, these companies minimize construction expenditures and employment by using existing facilities. Even so, the total labor force needed to construct or modify facilities for all services may be substantial if a large field is discovered. The size of the labor force providing shore support will depend on the size of the field. Larger fields attract more local facilities for service companies, which would otherwise serve the field from their established facilities. Much of the support labor force will require specialized skills, and accordingly is likely to be hired outside the region and migrate into it. A. 9. PLATFORM FABRICATION YARDS: Platform fabrication yards, which require a coastal site, serve markets around the world. The yards are not constructed until initial platform orders are imminent or signed. There- after, a yard is constructed rapidly, using a labor force typically exceeding 500 people. Construction may be completed in less than a year. Employment during operations fluctuates depending on the size and number of platforms being constructed. Many large orders mean high employ- ment; if there are no orders, the yard may close temporarily. Operators of a large yard now under construction at Northampton, Virginia initially estimated employment of up to 2,000 people, mostly fabricators and welders [18]. Few places in the nation could provide such a large work force of specialized labor without substantial immigration. A. 10. PIPE-COATING YARD: Pipe-coating yards, like platform construction yards, are coastal facilities that are constructed rapidly when the need for them becomes clear, but have an uncertain duration because future demand cannot be known. Pipe-coating yards serve a much smaller market area than platform fabrication yards because of the high cost of shipping the heavy, coated pipe. 50 Construction of the yard seldom takes more than 6 months. The labor force for construction would probably not exceed 50 workers [28]. During the operational phase, employment fluctuates. A pipe-coating yard may employ up to 200 people for 8 months to process 200 miles of 30-inch pipe. Between orders, a skeleton crew of only 40 to 45 is retained [28]. Although supervisory personnel are likely to be brought into the region, many operating jobs are likely to be held by local residents. A.ll. OIL STORAGE: Oil storage terminals are not necessarily associated with a single 0CS lease. They are often built to support a single field or source, but as the source becomes depleted, it may be replaced by other sources, such as imports. Terminals are located along or near the coast. Storage terminals take about 2 years to construct, the length of time varying with the size of the terminal, the size of the work force, and the staging of construction. According to one estimate, 565 workers would be required to construct a facility capable of handling 250,000 barrels of oil per day [27]. Many of the needed workers are metal fabricators and welders. Storage terminals operate with a small labor force to monitor and maintain the facility. The facility described above will employ approximately 90 individuals [29]. Major improvements or modifications are contracted out. A. 12. REFINERIES: Refineries are not tied to a single lease or crude oil source. Although a change in the source of crude oil can require major refinery modifications, these are less expensive than constructing a new refinery. They are usually located along the coast or near water bodies to minimize transportation costs and to have large volumes of water available for processing. During construction, refineries employ the largest labor force of the 15 types of 0CS facilities. One study estimates the average labor force to be 1,800 and maximum 2,900 during construction of a refinery with a capacity of 200,000 barrels per day. Approximately 1,000 of these would be skilled labor. Construction takes approximately 3 years [10]. The effect of a labor force of this size on nonmetropolitan communities would be great. Operating employment estimates for the same refinery range from 550 to 650 [10, 30]. Of the 550, 55 would be in administrative support, 55 in specialized support, and 440 in operation and maintenance. Of this latter total, 396 would be skilled workers [10]. A. 13. PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES: Petrochemical plants are closely tied to refineries and their products. As in the case of refineries, petrochemical plant sites are not determined by the proximity to 0CS oil or any other specific source but do require substantial supplies of refined oil and a large supply of fresh water. 51 During a construction period of perhaps 3 years, a primary petro- chemical complex would have an average labor force estimated at 1,600 to 1,900 to build a facility producing 1 billion pounds of ethylene per year [9, 26]. Very few locations have a construction force of that size available. Another study estimates the basic construction employment would be 50 percent unskilled, 40 percent skilled, and 10 percent management and administrative [26]. Petrochemical operation is highly automated. The same hypothetical plant employing 1,900 during construction would employ 420 people during operation, of whom 50 would be administrative and 295 skilled [26]. A. 14. GAS PROCESSING: Gas processing plants are tied into the productive life of a field (or fields, if more than a single field is connected by pipeline to the facility). These facilities do not require a coastal site. During a 2-year construction period, a gas processing plant with capacity of 300 million cubic feet per day requires about 300 workers; a plant with capacity of 1 billion cubic feet per day would employ a maximum of 550 [2, 28]. Much of the construction work requires specialized labor skills. Operation of the plants, which are highly mechanized, requires few employees. The smaller plant (300 million cubic feet per day) would require 21 people, while the larger one (1 billion cubic feet per day) would employ 35 [21, 28]. A. 15. LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PROCESSING (LNG): LNG plants, like refineries, are tied to a world system of supply. They are located at or near the coast. All the plants existing or anticipated in the United States are regasifica- tion plants converting the gas from a liquid state into a gaseous state). Construction of an LNG plant, with a capacity of a billion cubic feet per day would employ approximately 600 individuals and require about three years [6]. The skills needed for construction are similar to those needed to build a refinery. To operate an LNG plant with capacity of a billion cubic feet per day requires about 100 employees [6]. 52 APPENDIX B Additional Literature Sources In addition to references cited in the text, there are many additional sources of information describing or analyzing the effects of OCS develop- ment. The most important works available at this time are listed in this appendix. These sources are grouped into four categories: OCS facilities, OCS lease sales, prior regional experience, and socio economic effects. OCS FACILITIES: This section includes descriptions of specific facilities prepared by independent analysts. Promotional material prepared by the industry is not included. OCS LEASE SALES: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has encouraged or required assessment of environmental effects of entire lease sale areas. This scale of analysis includes large coastal regions within which facilities to support offshore operations may locate. The sources listed review potential OCS operations at this regional scale. REGIONAL EXPERIENCES: Coastal areas that have experienced offshore oil exploration and production, and related onshore development offer useful lessons to those areas that anticipate similar patterns of enterprise in the future. These sources describe such experiences. SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS: Socio economic effects of energy-related develop- ment, including location of large facilities in rural areas, has been analyzed in a variety of studies. The sources listed review socio economic effects specific to OCS development along with analagous non-OCS studies. OCS FACILITIES 1. Alaska Consultants, Inc. July 1976. Marine Service Bases for Offshore Oil Development. Prepared for the State of Alaska, Division of Community Planning, Juneau, Alaska. 2. Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendorff. October, 1975. Proposed Offshore Crude Oil Terminal and Submarine Pipeline, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands: Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Prepared for Hess Oil, Virgin Islands, for submission to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . 53 Hunter, Mary Louise(Ed. ) . 1974. Perspective on Oil Refineries and Offshore Oil Unloading Facilities. Proceedings of the Fourth New England Coastal Zone Management Conference. New England Center for Continuing Education, Durham, New Hampshire. Parkinson, Thomas W. January, 1976. Location of Onshore Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development. Department of Engineering Economic Systems. Stanford University. Palo Alto, California. Alaska Sea Grant Program. December, 1975. Stuc1-' Plan: Social and Economic Impact Assessment of Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Development. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. Sea Grant Report 75-15. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. State of Georgia. December, 1974. Petroleum Refinery Feasibility Study of Coastal Georgia. Office of Planning and Budget, Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session. 1974. Energy Facility Siting in Coastal Areas. Washington, D.C. OCS LEASE SALES Ahern, William R. , Jr. 1973. Oil and the Outer Coastal Shelf: The Georges Bank Case. Bal linger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Doyle, William T. (Ed.) n.d. Proceedings of the Symposium on Off- shore Oil Potential and Related Land Use Impacts in the Central California Coastal Zone. Co-sponsored by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, and the Coastal Marine Laboratory of the University of California, Santa Cruz Campus. University of California Special Publication No. 3. Santa Cruz, California. Emory, Benjamin R. April, 1975. Can They Cope? Are the New England States Prepared for Offshore Oil and Gas Development. New England Natural Resources Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Gri gal unas, Thomas A. 1975. Offshore Petroleum and New England: A Study of the Regional Economic Consequences of Potential Oil and Gas Development. Marine Technical Report No. 39. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. 54 5. Jenny, Mary and Joel Goodman (Eds.). 1974. A Study of the Socio- Economic Factors Relating to the Outer Continental Shelf of the Mid- Atlantic Coast. 9 Volumes. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. University of Delaware. College of Marine Studies, Newark, Delaware. 6. McAlister, John, Willi am Linvill and Harry Saunders (Eds.) July, 1975. A Technological Assessment of the Impact on California's Coastal Zone from proposed Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California. 7. New England River Basins Commission. November, 1976. Estimates for New England: Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Prepared for the Resource Land Investigations Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. Boston, Massachusetts. 8. New England River Basins Commission. November, 1976. Medium Find Scenario. lr\_ Tech Update No. 11. Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Offshore Oil Task Group. February, 1973. The Georges Bank Petroleum Study. 3 Volumes. Offshore Oil Task Group, Ocean Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Report No. MITSG73-5. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 10. Plate, Douglas C.(Ed.). 1976. South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration, Development and Production. Citadel Press, Charleston, South Carolina. 11. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. November, 1976. Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Systems: An Assessment of Oil and Gas Systems, Deepwater Ports, and Nuclear Powerplants off the Coast of New Jersey and Delaware. Volumes I and II. Washington, D.C. 12. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session. National Ocean Policy Subcommittee Hearings. September, 1974. The State Role in Outer Continental Shelf Development: The California Experience. Washington, D.C. 13. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. August, 1975. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed 1975 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas General Lease Sale Offshore Southern California. OCS-No. 35. 5 Volumes. Washington, D.C. 14. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1976. Draft Environmental Statement: Lower Cook Inlet, PCS Sale No. CI. 3 Volumes. Alaska Outer Continental Office. 55 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1976. Draft Environmental Statement: Proposed 1977 Lease Sale Offshore the North Atlantic States, PCS Sale No. 42. New York Outer Continental Shelf Office, New York. 16. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. November, 1974. Virginia and the Outer Continental Shelf: Problems, Possibilities and Posture. Prepared for the Office of the Governor. Richmond, Virginia. REGIONAL EXPERIENCES Baldwin, Pamela L. and Malcolm F. Baldwin. 1975. Onshore Planning for Offshore Oil: Lessons from Scotland. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. Fasham, Douglas R. January, 1974. A Review of Oil-Related Develop- ment in the UK Following the North Sea Discoveries with Particular Reference to the Scottish Highlands and Islands. Highlands and Islands Development Board. Aberdeen, Scotland. Hutton, John. 1975. Impacts of Offshore Oil on North East Scotland. Report No. 75-15. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Lyddon, W.D.C. 1976. Planning Aspects of Oil Related Development. Jjt_ Tech Update No. 6. New England River Basins Commission. Boston, Massachusetts. Mac Kay, D.I. and G.A. MacKay. 1975. The Political Economy of North Sea Oil . Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. Mitchell, James K. October, 1976. Onshore Impacts of Scottish Offshore Oil: Planning Implications for the Middle Atlantic States, hi American Institute of Planners Journal. Washington, D.C. pp. 386-398. Mumphrey, Anthony et al . 1976. The Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Development on LaFourche Parish. Louisiana State Planning Office, Contract No. SPO-76-14. University of New Orleans Urban Studies Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana. National Association of Counties. 1976. Serving the Offshore Oil Industry: Planning for Onshore Growth, Northampton County, Virginia. Washington, D.C. 56 9. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development. 1975. The Impact of Offshore Oil - New Hampshire and the North Sea Experience. Concord, New Hampshire. 10. Scottish Development Department. 1973. North Sea Oil and Gas Interim Coastal Planning Framework: A Discussion Paper. Edinburgh, Scotland. 11. Scottish Development Department. August, 1975. North Sea Oil and Gas Development in Scotland: A Physical Planning Resume. Scottish Economic Planning Department. Edinburgh, Scotland. 12. Stallings, E.F. 1976. Outer Continental Shelf Impacts, Morgan City, Louisiana: Phase I Report. University of Southeastern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana. 13. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session. 1974. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing off Southern California: Analysis of Issue. Washington, D.C. 14. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session. National Ocean Policy Subcommittee Hearings. September, 1974. The State Role in Outer Continental Shelf Development: The California Experience. Washington, D.C. 15. White, Irvin L. 1973. North Sea Oil and Gas: Implication for Future United States Development. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman, Oklahoma. 16. Wilcox, Susan M. and Walter J. Mead. February, 1973. The Impact of Offshore Oil Production on Santa Barbara County, California. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sea Grant Office. Washington, D.C. SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS 1. Alaska Sea Grant Program. December, 1975. Study Plan: Social and Economic Impact Assessment of Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Development. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Manage- ment, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. Sea Grant Report 75-15. University of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska. 2. Bish, Robert L. March, 1976. Fiscal Effects on State and Local Government from Offshore Oil /Gas and Port Development. Review Draft. University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. 57 3. Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. n.d. A Procedures Manual for Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact of the Construction and Operation of Coal Utilization Facilities in the Old West Region. Prepared for the Old West Regional Commission. Washington, D.C. 4. Centaur Associates. July, 1976. Managing the Social and Economic Impacts of Energy Developments. Prepared for the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. Washington, D.C. 5. Coastal Environments, Inc. August, 1976. A Process for Coastal Resource Management and Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Louisiana State Planning Office, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 6. Devanney, J.W. Ill, et al. 1976. Parable Beach: A Primer in Coastal Zone Economics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 7. David M. Dornbusch and Co., Inc. n.d. Management of OCS-Related Industrial Development: A Guide for Alaska Coastal Communities. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community Planning, Juneau, Alaska. 8. Drobe, Ronald and James Younger. 1976. Economic Impact of Oil Resource Development on the Alaskan Economy 1975-1985. Prepared for the Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D.C. 9. Economic Analysis Study, Chamber of Commerce of the United States. 1973. What New Jobs Mean to a Community. Washington, D.C. 10. Fields, Barry C. 1976. Secondary Economic Impacts of Coastal Facilities. J_n Tech Update No. 10. New England River Basins Commission. Boston, Massachusetts. 11. Georgia Conservancy Inc., and Georgia Coastal Zone Management Program. 1976. Onshore Impacts Conference: Executive Summary. Savannah, Georgia. 12. Grubb, Herbert W. and William C. McCray. 1974. Benefits and Costs of State and Local Governments in Texas Resulting from Offshore Petroleum Leases on Federal Lands. Office of the Governor, Austin, Texas. 13. Hi 11 man, Daryl and Matityaku Marcus. 1970. A Critical Analysis of Employment Projection Methods: A Test Case of New Jersey. New Jersey Water Resources Research Institute, Rutgers-The State University. New Brunswick, New Jersey. 14. Isard, Walter, et al . 1 972 . Ecologic-Economic Analysis for Regional Planning. The Free Press. New York. 58 15. Kalter, Robert J., Thomas Stevens and Oren Bloom. August, 1974. The Economics of Accelerated Outer Continental Shelf Leasing. Cornell Agricultural Economic Staff Paper No. 74-18. Ithaca, New York. 16. Management Consultant Services. 1974. Construction Impact Study. Prepared for the Construction Impact Group. Seattle, Washington. 17. Mathematical Sciences Northwest and Human Resources Planning Institute, Inc. 1976. A Social and Economic Impact Study of Off-shore Petroleum and Natural Gas Development in Alaska, Phase I. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Belleview, Washington. 18. Moore, David W. n.d. Public Attitudes and Coastal Resources in New Hampshire. Concord, New Hampshire. 19. New England River Basins Commission. January, 1976. A Methodology for the Siting of Onshore Facilities Associated with PCS Develop- ment, Draft Interim Report #1. Boston, Massachusetts. 20. Oxtoby-Smith, Inc. October, 1974. How Influential Citizens in East and Gulf Coast Cities View Offshore Drilling: Trends in Sentiment Since 1972. Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute, New York. 21. Research and Planning Consultants, Inc. n.d. Growth Impact Issues. Prepared for the Coastal Zone Management Program, General Land Office of Texas. Austin, Texas. 22. Research and Planning Consultants, Inc. May, 1976. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development: A Survey of Selected Modeling Techniques. 23. Tippie, Virginia and Clement Grissom (Eds.). 1976. Rhode Island and Offshore Oil: Digest of a Workshop. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. May, 1976. The Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development Process: A Background Paper for State Planners and Managers. 25. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. 1976. Effects of Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development in the Coastal Zone. Prepared for the Ad Hoc Select Committee on Outer Continental Shelf, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C. 59 26. Williams, David C. and Jeffrey A. Zinn. 1977. Sourcebook: Onshore Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development. Prepared by The Conservation Foundation for the American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, Illinois. 27. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. April, 1976. Effects on Commercial Fishing of Petroleum Development off the Northeastern United States. Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute. Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 60 Ci OS en 0 •rt ■U •rl c 3 O E o 0 O u O r-l Ul J-)