5-120

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

tivities in Federal and State waters and both Alaskan

and foreign-import tankering. The greatest oil spill

risk to marine mammals in the project area results

from tankering operations. This risk is tempered by

recently implemented or proposed mitigation (such as

the rerouting of tankers farther offshore along the

central California coast) and, as discussed in section

5.1.3, by modern oil spill response capabilities.

If an oil spill were to occur in the project area

during the period 2002-2006, impacts to marine mammals could range from negligible to high, depending

on spill size, location, season, and a number of other

factors. Most at risk are pinniped pups. Seasonally,

the most sensitive areas are rookeries on the northern Channel Islands (particularly San Miguel Island)

and along the mainland coast north of Point Conception.

The probabilities that one or more oil spills will

occur during the period 2002-2006 from existing and

proposed offshore oil and gas activities are 94.9 percent for a spill of 200 bbl or less and 41.2 percent for a

spill of 2,000 bbl. The probability of a 22,800-bbl tanker

spill occurring during this period is 38.8 percent.

5.2.9 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT

ANALYSIS FOR THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED SPECIES

This section analyzes the impacts of the Proposed Action on threatened and endangered species in

the project area. Threatened and endangered species

may be vulnerable to several potentially adverse impacts from operations associated with the Proposed

Action. Operations assumed to occur as a result of

this project include towing and anchoring the MODU,

support vessel traffic, helicopter flights, drilling, various discharges, barge transit and anchoring, and well

abandonment. These operations are described in section 2. As discussed in section 5.1.1, no oil spills are

expected to occur from the proposed drilling activities

associated with this project; therefore, no impacts to

threatened and endangered species from oil spills are

expected.

Impact level definitions used in this analysis are

as follows:

HIGH

Impacts result in a population decline in the

project area due to direct mortality, reduced survivorship, declines in reproduction, and/or a shift in distribution. The decline, which could involve more than 5

percent of the total population, would be at a level

and over a large enough area that the continued existence or recovery of the species involved would be at

risk.

MODERATE

Impacts result in a local (e.g., single colony)

population decline due to direct mortality, reduced

survivorship, declines in reproduction, and/or a shift

in distribution. The decline, which could involve from

1 to 5 percent of the total population, could increase

the length of time projected for full recovery and removal from the endangered species list, depending on

the species involved. Effects are expected to continue

for 1-5 years.

LOW

Impacts result mainly in local (e.g., a small area

around a platform, a limited stretch of beach or, rocky

shore), short-term (a few days to a few weeks) changes

in behavior (e.g., disruption of foraging) and/or displacement from roosting or foraging habitats due to

disturbance. Mortality, if any, would be limited to the

loss of a few animals up to 1 percent of the total population of the species or stock. A small number of animals would also suffer from sublethal effects. Effects

are expected to continue for less than 1 year. Projected recovery time and removal from the endangered

species list would not be affected.

Impacts below these levels, involving no death

or life-threatening injury of any threatened or endangered organism, no displacement from preferred habitat, and no more than minor disruption of behavioral

patterns, are defined as negligible. For purposes of

this document, high and moderate impacts are considered to be significant; low impacts are considered to

be insignificant.

5.2.9.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED MARINE MAMMALS

Section 5.2.8.1 describes the potential impacts

of the Proposed Action on marine mammals in the

project area. The primary impact-producing activities associated with the Proposed Action include delineation drilling operations with associated support

activities and are common to all the units. The major

impact agents expected from these proposed activities

are noise and disturbance and drilling discharges. The

potential use of explosives in the abandonment of the

delineation wells also raises the possibility of lethal

impacts to marine mammals.

Blue Whale. Marine mammal responses to noise

and disturbance are discussed in section 5.2.8.1. The

minor and temporary increases in sound levels produced during the delineation drilling activities are

unlikely to affect blue whale movements through the
5-121

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

project area waters. Blue whales are frequently sighted

from area OCS platforms during the summer and fall

months.

There have been few detailed studies of the reactions to vessels by rorqual species other than humpback whales (Richardson et al., 1995). Blue and fin

whales summering in the St. Lawrence Estuary have

been observed to react most strongly to rapid or erratic approaches by vessels (Edds and McFarlane,

1987). As discussed in section 5.2.8.1, blue whales

would be likely to react to the close approach of crew

or supply boats, and some temporary (less than 1-hour)

displacement could occur under these circumstances.

However, the level of surface traffic to and from the

proposed project areas is unlikely to have a detectable

effect on blue whales during their summer and fall

presence in southern California waters.

Similarly, the level of helicopter traffic associated with the proposed delineation activities is expected

to result in temporary (less than 1-hour), localized

disturbances to blue whales (see section 5.2.8.1). These

impacts are considered to be negligible.

Blue whales are unlikely to swim near enough

to the delineation drilling rig to pass through effluent

mixing zones. In addition, the zooplankton that form

the blue whales’ primary prey would be unlikely to

remain in the vicinity of the rig long enough to

bioaccumulate toxins. Based on limited data, the impacts of effluents, particularly muds, cuttings, and

produced water, on plankton generally appear to be

limited to the several hundred to several thousand

meters extent of the discharge plume for the brief period (perhaps several hours) that the organisms are

in the plume (Raimondi and Schmitt, 1992; MMS,

1996). This could result in some mortality of zooplankton in the immediate vicinity (tens of meters) of

the discharge and perhaps some reduced productivity

farther away, to the extent of the plume. However,

given their short generation time, on the order of

hours or days, populations of plankton over broader

areas should remain unaffected. For these reasons,

the EPA’s biological assessment for Section 7 consultation on the reissuance of their general NPDES permit for OCS facilities (SAIC, 2000a) concluded that

blue whales off southern California would not be impacted by OCS discharges. Thus, no impacts on blue

whales are expected from the effluent discharges associated with the Proposed Action.

Section 5.2.8.1 describes the potential use of explosives in the delineation well abandonment process.

As discussed, the low level of abandonment activities

would make it unlikely that any marine mammal injury or mortality would occur as a result of well abandonment operations associated with the proposed delineation activities. However, an animal close to the

detonation site potentially could be injured or killed,

or suffer permanent or temporary hearing damage. If

blue whales were present in the general vicinity of the

detonation area, some disturbance also could occur,

but this would be expected to minor and temporary

(less than 1 hour in duration). Overall, impacts from

this source are expected to be low. These impacts could

be further reduced through the implementation of a

wildlife mitigation plan designed to minimize impacts

on marine mammals and other marine animals (see

Mitigation MM1, section 5.2.8.1.2).

In conclusion, impacts to blue whales in the

project area from routine activities associated with the

proposed delineation activities are expected to be negligible to low. These impacts would be common to all

units and would remain the same for all units combined. Implementation of the wildlife mitigation plan

described in Mitigation MM1 would reduce overall

impacts to negligible.

Fin Whale. As discussed in section 4.6.7, fin

whales are present in greatest numbers off southern

California in summer and fall (Dohl et al., 1981, 1983;

Barlow, 1995; Forney et al., 1995). Fins are sighted

in the Santa Barbara Channel, although they generally occur farther offshore and in waters south of the

northern Channel Island chain (Leatherwood et al.

1987; Bonnell and Dailey, 1993; MMS, unpubl. data).

They are less common than blue or humpback whales

in the project area. In general, impacts to fin whales

in the project area are expected to be similar to those

described for blue whales. Routine activities associated with the proposed delineation activities are expected to cause negligible to low impacts. These impacts would be common to all units and would remain

the same for all units combined. Implementation of

the wildlife mitigation plan described in Mitigation

MM1 would reduce overall impacts to negligible.

Sei Whale. Due to the low numbers of sei whales

estimated to frequent California waters—possibly tens

to a few hundreds of animals (Bonnell and Dailey, 1993;

Barlow et al., 1997; Reeves et al., 1998b)—routine activities associated with the Proposed Action are not

expected to affect this species. No impacts to sei whales

are expected.

Humpback Whale. Like blue whales, humpbacks

are frequently sighted from area platforms during the

summer and fall. The minor and temporary increases

in sound levels produced during the delineation drilling activities are not expected to affect humpback

whales in the project area.

The reactions of humpback whales to vessels vary

considerably. Humpbacks often move away when vessels are within several kilometers, (Baker and Herman,

1989; Baker et al., 1992), but may show little or no

reaction when much closer (Richardson et al., 1995).

They appear less likely to react overtly when feeding.

As discussed for blue whales, humpbacks would be

likely to react to the close approach of crew or supply

boats, resulting in some temporary (less than 1-hour)
5-122

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

displacement and, possibly, disruption of feeding activity. However, the level of surface traffic to and from

the proposed project areas is unlikely to have a detectable effect on humpback whales during their summer and fall presence in southern California waters.

Similarly, the level of helicopter traffic associated with the proposed delineation activities is expected

to result in temporary (less than 1-hour), localized

disturbances to humpback whales. These impacts are

considered to be negligible.

Humpback whales are unlikely to swim near

enough to the delineation drilling rig to pass through

platform effluent mixing zones. In addition, as was

discussed for blue whales, the zooplankton and small

schooling fishes that form their primary prey would

be unlikely to remain in the vicinity of the platforms

long enough to bioaccumulate toxins. For these reasons, the EPA’s biological assessment for Section 7

consultation on the reissuance of their general NPDES

permit for OCS facilities (SAIC, 2000a) concluded that

humpback whales off southern California would not

be impacted by OCS platform discharges. Thus, no

impacts on humpback whales are expected from the

effluent discharges associated with the Proposed Action.

As discussed for the blue whale, impacts to humpback whales from delineation well abandonment operations are likely to involve minor, temporary disturbance. Overall, impacts from this source are expected to be low.

In conclusion, impacts to humpback whales in

the project area from routine activities associated with

the proposed delineation activities are expected to be

negligible to low. These impacts would be common to

all units and would remain the same for all units combined. Implementation of the wildlife mitigation plan

described in Mitigation MM1 would reduce overall

impacts to negligible.

Northern Right Whale. As discussed in section

4.6.7, the right whale population in the North Pacific

is very small (NMFS, 1991), and right whales are

rarely seen off southern California (Carretta et al.,

1994). The probability that a northern right whale

would be affected by routine activities associated with

the Proposed Action is extremely low. No impacts on

the northern right whale from the Proposed Action

are expected.

Sperm Whale. As discussed in section 4.6.7,

sperm whales are a pelagic species with a preference

for deep waters (Watkins, 1977; Gosho et al., 1984).

Although they are occasionally sighted in the Southern California Bight, they are generally found farther

offshore (Dohl et al., 1981, 1983; Bonnell and Dailey,

1993). Thus, sperm whales are unlikely to be present

near enough to the proposed delineation well drilling

activities or traffic corridors to be disturbed by routine activities from these sources.

They also are unlikely to approach near enough

to the drilling rig to be directly affected by effluent

discharge plumes. No impacts on sperm whales from

the Proposed Action are expected.

Steller Sea Lion. As discussed in section 4.6.7,

Steller sea lions are now uncommon in southern California waters; their southernmost active rookery, Año

Nuevo Island, is approximately 400 km north of the

project area. They would not be affected by routine

activities or discharges associated with the Proposed

Action. No impacts on Steller sea lions from the Proposed Action are expected.

Guadalupe Fur Seal. Although a few Guadalupe

fur seals appear on the Channel Islands each year

(Bonnell and Dailey, 1993; DeLong and Melin, 2000),

the Mexico-based population is still quite small (Gallo,

1994). They are almost never sighted at sea off California (Bonnell and Dailey, 1993). As was the case

with the Steller sea lion, it is extremely unlikely that

any routine activities associated with Proposed Action would affect more than one or two individuals.

No impacts on Guadalupe fur seals from the Proposed

Action are expected.

Southern Sea Otter. Direct measurements of sea

otter hearing sensitivity are lacking (Richardson et

al., 1995). Although no direct information is available on the potential impacts of delineation and development drilling operations on sea otters, Riedman

(1983; 1984) did observe sea otter behavior during

underwater playbacks of drillship, semi-submersible,

and production platform sounds and reported no

changes in behavior or use of the area. Most of the

otters observed by Riedman (1983) were at least 400

m from the projector; all observed by Riedman (1984)

were at least 1.2 km away. Although sea otters at the

surface were probably receiving little or no underwater noise, some otters continued to dive and feed below the surface during the playbacks. At 1.2 km, the

received sound levels of the strongest sounds were

usually at least 10 dB above the ambient noise level

(Malme et al., 1983; 1984). Drilling activities associated with the Proposed Action would occur at least 7

km (4.5 mi) offshore. California sea otters, except for

juvenile males, rarely move more than 2 km offshore

(Ralls et al., 1988; Riedman and Estes, 1990), and thus

could be expected to be at least 5 km away from the

nearest drilling activity. Because of this distance and

the evidence from the playback experiments described

above, no effects on sea otters from these activities

are expected.

Although sea otters will often allow close approaches by boats, they will sometimes avoid heavily

disturbed areas (Richardson et al, 1995). Garshelis

and Garshelis (1984) reported that sea otters in southern Alaska tend to avoid areas with frequent boat traffic, but will reoccupy those areas in seasons with less

traffic. The vessel traffic corridors between the support base at Port Hueneme and the proposed delinea-
5-123

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

tion well locations pass 4 km or more offshore. No

effects on sea otters from service vessel traffic are expected.

No systematic studies have been made of the reaction of sea otters to aircraft and helicopters

(Richardson et al., 1995). During aerial surveys of

the California sea otter range conducted at an altitude of about 90 m (300 ft) (Bonnell et al., 1983), no

reactions to the two-engine survey aircraft were

observed. The helicopter trips supporting the proposed

delineation activities will be out of the Santa Barbara

and Santa Maria airports and are expected to pass to

the south of the main sea otter range. Helicopter traffic is not expected to affect sea otters.

Because of their distance from the proposed delineation well locations, no effects to sea otters are

expected from well abandonment activities associated

with the Proposed Action.

Similarly, no effects to sea otters are expected

from effluent discharges associated with the proposed

delineation well drilling operations.

In conclusion, no impacts to sea otters in the

project area are expected from routine activities associated with the proposed delineation activities. These

impacts would be common to all units and would remain the same for all units combined.

5.2.9.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED MARINE MAMMALS

(2002-2006)

Cumulative Impacts without the Proposed

Action (2002-2006): Section 5.1.2 describes the

projects considered in the cumulative analysis for the

proposed delineation activities. Possible sources of

cumulative impacts in the project area include on-going and proposed oil and gas activities in Federal and

State waters, Alaskan and foreign-import tankering,

and military operations. Cumulative impacts to threatened and endangered marine mammals may also occur from commercial fishing operations, shipping activities, and other anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources. These impacts would be common to all

the units.

The projects discussed in this section include

past, present, and foreseeable actions that may produce impacts during 2002-2006, the expected duration

of the proposed delineation activities. Potential cumulative impacts are discussed below.

Offshore Oil and Gas Activities. Section 4.0 describes the routine offshore oil and gas activities that

may result in impacts to marine mammals. These include geophysical surveys, construction, drilling and

production activities with associated support activities, and the abandonment, or decommissioning, of

wells and offshore facilities. As discussed in section

5.2.8.1, the major impact agents expected from these

proposed activities are noise and disturbance. The

potential use of explosives in the abandonment of wells

and offshore platforms also raises the possibility of

lethal impacts to marine mammals.

Section 5.2.8.1 discusses the potential impacts

to marine mammals from routine offshore oil and gas

activities including well drilling, support vessel and

helicopter traffic, and well abandonment. Section

5.2.8.2 discusses the potential impacts from geophysical surveys, construction, and platform-based development and production operations.

Geophysical Surveys. As discussed in section

5.2.8.2, no seismic surveys have been proposed for the

Pacific OCS or State waters in the near future, and

none are currently foreseen for the period 2002-2006.

Construction. As described in section 5.2.8.2,

marine mammal reactions to construction activities

would likely involve temporary avoidance behavior at

distances of 2 km (1 nm) or less from the operations.

Development and Production. As discussed in

section 5.2.8.2, the predicted radius of response to the

noise produced by development and production activities for baleen whales, including endangered species,

would also be less than 100 m. Richardson et al. (1995)

predicted similar radii of response for odontocetes and

pinnipeds.

Vessel Traffic. As discussed in section 5.2.8.2,

the continued levels of support vessel traffic associated with offshore oil and gas activities in the project

area are expected to result in temporary (less than 1-

hour), localized disturbances to some marine mammals, primarily endangered baleen whales. Collisions

between support vessels and marine mammals, while

possible, are considered to be highly unlikely events.

Aircraft. As discussed in section 5.2.8.2, the

levels of helicopter traffic associated with offshore oil

and gas activities in the project area are expected to

result in temporary (less than 1-hour), localized disturbances to some marine mammals, including threatened and endangered species.

Offshore Facility Decommissioning. As discussed

in section 5.2.8.2, no offshore decommissioning activities are expected to occur in either Federal or State

waters during the 2002-2006 duration of the proposed

delineation activities.

Oil Spills. Section 5.1.3 discusses the cumulative oil spill risk for the project area, which results

from several sources: ongoing and projected oil and

gas production from existing OCS facilities in the Santa

Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin, several proposed development projects on the Federal OCS, ongoing production from one facility in State waters in the

Santa Barbara Channel, two likely oil and gas projects

in State waters, and the tankering of Alaskan and foreign-import oil through area waters. As discussed in

section 5.2.8.2, the most likely oil spill scenario is that
5-124

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

one or more oil spills in the 50-1,000-bbl range would

occur from offshore oil and gas activities over the period 2002-2006, and that such a spill would be 200 bbl

or less in volume. The probability that one or more

spills of this size will occur this period is 75.9 percent

(table 5.1.3.1-2). The maximum reasonably foreseeable oil spill volume from offshore oil and gas activities is 2,000 bbl, assumed for purposes of analysis to

be a pipeline spill. The probability of a spill of this

size occurring during the period 2002-2006 is 23.3 percent (table 5.1.3.1-3). Based on data from tanker spills

in U.S. waters, the mean size for a tanker spill is assumed to be 22,800 bbl (with a probability of occurrence of 99 percent for this period; table 5.1.3.1-3).

The potential impacts to threatened and endangered

cetaceans and pinnipeds in the project area from spills

of each of these three sizes are discussed below. Sea

otters are addressed separately.

The level of impacts from such spills will depend

on many factors, including the type, rate, and volume

of oil spilled and the weather and oceanographic conditions at the time of the spill. These parameters would

determine the quantity of oil that is dispersed into the

water column; the degree of weathering, evaporation,

and dispersion of the oil before it contacts a shoreline;

the actual amount, concentration, and composition of

the oil at the time of shoreline or habitat contact; and

a measure of the toxicity of the oil.

A generic discussion of the effects of oil spills on

cetaceans and pinnipeds is presented in section 5.2.8.2.

Sea otters, which rely almost entirely on maintaining

a layer of warm, dry air in their dense underfur as

insulation against the cold, are among the most sensitive marine mammals to the effects of oil contamination (Kooyman et al., 1977; Geraci and St. Aubin, 1980;

Geraci and Williams, 1990; Williams and Davis, 1995).

Even a partial fouling of an otter’s fur, equivalent to

about 30 percent of the total body surface, can result

in death (Kooyman and Costa, 1979). This was clearly

demonstrated by the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Davis, 1990;

Ballachey et al., 1994; Lipscomb et al., 1994). Earlier

experimental studies had indicated that sea otters

would not avoid oil (Barabash-Nikiforov, 1947;

Kenyon, 1969; Williams, 1978; Siniff et al., 1982), and

many otters were fouled by oil during the Alaskan spill;

approximately 360 oiled otters were captured and taken

to treatment centers over a 4-month period, and more

than 1,000 dead sea otters were recovered (Geraci and

Williams, 1990; Zimmerman et al., 1994). Ballachey

et al. (1994) concluded that several thousand otters

died within months of the spill, and that there was

evidence of chronic effects occurring for at least 3

years.

As stated above, it is assumed that the most likely

size for a spill occurring from offshore oil and gas activities in the Pacific OCS Region is 200 bbl or less. If

a spill of this size were to occur in the Santa Barbara

Channel or Santa Maria Basin, it could contact the

mainland shoreline or one of the northern Channel

Islands, which are part of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and National Park. However, a 200-bbl spill would be unlikely to reach San

Miguel Island, which is approximately 40 km (20 nm)

from Platform Heritage, the nearest offshore facility.

Data from moored current meters and surfacedrifter trajectory observations (section 5.1.3) indicate

that north of Point Conception a spill could move northward along the mainland coast, typically during relaxation current events when the wind is low. Individual drifters made landfall along the coast as far

north as Point Lobos within 10 days. However, when

averaged over all flow regimes, the most likely northern limit of shoreline spill contact is Ragged Point,

near the southern end of the Big Sur coast and within

the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (section 4.6.9).

As discussed in section 5.2.8.2, it is unlikely that

a 200-bbl spill would have more than a negligible impact on cetacean or pinniped populations at sea in the

project area, including threatened and endangered

species. As discussed in the 1984 EIR/EIS for development of the Point Arguello Unit (ADL, 1984), likely

impacts could involve the oiling of a few individuals

and/or temporary displacement from small areas of the

Santa Barbara Channel or Santa Maria Basin.

As stated above, the most likely maximum size

of a major oil spill from future oil and gas development—the maximum reasonably foreseeable oil spill

volume—is 2,000 bbl. A 2,000-bbl oil spill in this area

could have more serious impacts on marine mammals,

including longer-term displacement and some mortality.

If a 2,000-bbl spill were to occur during the summer or fall, it could contact part of the area used for

feeding by blue and humpback whales in the Santa

Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin (see section

5.1.3). Based on experiences from past spills, it is unlikely that any direct mortality would result from such

a spill, and there is no evidence that blue or humpback whales would avoid oiled areas. In Prince William Sound following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill,

humpbacks were observed feeding in areas that had

been heavily oiled, although none were observed feeding in oil (von Ziegesar et al., 1994). The whales did

not appear to favor areas that had not been oiled.

However, blue and humpback whales could be temporarily displaced from a portion of their foraging area

by the cleanup activities associated with the response

to a spill of this size. Impacts to blue and humpback

whales from a spill of this size would range from negligible to low.

Although fin whales are seen in the Santa Barbara Channel, they generally occur farther offshore

and in waters south of the northern Channel Island
5-125

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

chain (Leatherwood et al. 1987; Bonnell and Dailey,

1993; MMS, unpubl. data); they are less likely than

blue or humpback whales to be affected by an accidental oil spill.

The remaining endangered whale species are even

less common in the project area. Low numbers of sei

whales are estimated to frequent California waters—

possibly tens to a few hundreds of animals (Bonnell

and Dailey, 1993; Barlow et al., 1997; Reeves et al.,

1998b). The right whale population in the North Pacific is very small (NMFS, 1991), and right whales are

rarely seen off southern California (Carretta et al.,

1994). Sperm whales are a pelagic species with a preference for deep waters (Watkins, 1977; Gosho et al.,

1984). Although they are occasionally sighted in the

Southern California Bight, they are generally found

farther offshore (Dohl et al., 1981, 1983; Bonnell and

Dailey, 1993). Thus, these species are unlikely to be

present in the project area in sufficient numbers to be

affected by a 2,000-bbl spill.

Similarly, as discussed in section 5.2.8.2, the very

low numbers of Steller sea lions and Guadalupe fur

seals in southern California waters make it unlikely

that either species would come in contact with an oil

spill in the project area. No impacts are expected from

a 2,000-bbl oil spill.

Marine Tankers. As discussed in section 5.1.3,

none of the oil produced on the Pacific OCS is transported by tanker. However, the transport of foreign

and Alaskan oil along the U.S. west coast does present

an oil spill risk. The effects of a 22,800-bbl tanker

spill on marine mammals in the project area potentially could be much more serious. Although, as discussed in section 5.2.8.2, cetaceans are considered to

be less vulnerable to the effects of oiling than pinnipeds (Geraci, 1990; Würsig, 1990), a 22,800-bbl tanker

spill would probably have some effect on cetaceans in

the project area. It is unlikely that mortality would

occur, but blue, humpback, and, to a lesser extent, fin

whales could be subject to disturbance and displacement over a greater area and for a longer duration.

These impacts would be expected to be low overall.

Given their low densities in the project area, effects of a tanker spill on the remaining threatened and

endangered marine mammal species would be expected

to be negligible.

As discussed in section 5.2.8.2, there is a chance

that even a 200-bbl spill could contact the mainland

shoreline within the present southern sea otter range.

For this EIS, R.G. Ford Consulting conducted an analysis of the risk of oil spills to the southern sea otter

from ongoing and projected production from existing

federal OCS facilities, from hypothetical development

of the 36 undeveloped leases, and from tankering for

the periods 2002-2006 (through 2005) and 2006-2030

(appendix 5.5). This analysis provides the basis for

the discussion presented here and in section 6.2.9.1.

As described in appendix 5.5, the analysis used sea

otter numbers and distribution as recorded during the

spring 1999 survey of the southern sea otter range.

For an upper bound for platform and pipeline spills,

the model used the estimated maximum reasonably

foreseeable spill size of 2,000 bbl (section 5.1.3). For

tanker spills, the size distribution was truncated at

350,000 bbl, which represents the maximum capacity

of tankers transiting this portion of the California

coast (Ford and Bonnell, 1995); a run was also conducted using the mean tanker spill size of 22,800 bbl

(section 5.1.3). Using output from MMS’s OSRA Model

to estimate the likelihood of shoreline contact, the

model simulated the effects of a potential spill from

each of the potential sources of risk 100,000 times.

To maintain consistency with the oil spill risk analysis presented in section 5.1.3, contacts for platform

and pipeline spills were calculated for 10-day periods;

for tanker spills, with their much greater potential

volumes, 30-day runs were used. The results, presented as worst-case percentiles, are shown in appendix table 5.5-3.

The results of the model runs are ranked in ascending order based on the numbers of otter contacts.

For example, the 0.01 worst case is the maximum number of otters that the model predicts would be contacted in 99 out of 100 trials. For ongoing and projected production from existing federal OCS facilities

during the period 2002-2006, the model predicts that

there is a 1 in 100 chance that 4-5 sea otters would be

contacted by a spill. Likewise, for the period 2002-

2006 the model predicts that there is only a 1 in 1,000

chance that 38 otters would be contacted by an oil

spill resulting from existing federal OCS activities, and

an extremely slight (1 in 10,000) chance that as many

as 86 otters would be contacted. Five (5) otters represent about 0.2 percent of the current estimated southern sea otter population (2,317; section 4.6.7); 38 otters would represent 1.6 percent. Thus, the model

analysis indicates that there is a very low probability

of sea otter contacts occurring as a result of spill associated with existing federal OCS facilities during this

period.

This is basically consistent with the conclusion

reached by Ford and Bonnell (1995), in their analysis

of the potential impacts of an Exxon Valdez-sized spill

on the southern sea otter, that oil spills occurring at

the southern end of the otter range present the smallest risk to the population. However, as discussed

above, data from moored current meters and surfacedrifter trajectory observations (section 5.1.3) indicate

that north of Point Conception a spill could move northward along the mainland coast under certain conditions.

If a spill were to occur, the magnitude of expected

sea otter mortality would vary with a number of factors, including the time of year, volume of oil spilled,

wind speed and direction, current speed and direction,
5-126

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

distance of the spill from shore, volume of oil contacting the shoreline, condition of the oil contacting the

shoreline, the success of containment operations, number of animals contacted, and the effectiveness of otter cleaning and rehabilitation.

In its draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter (FWS, 2000), the FWS makes the assumption that, lacking reliable data on the survivability of oiled sea otters in the wild, all sea otters coming

into contact with oil within 21 days of a spill will die.

The FWS recognizes that activation of the California

Department of Fish and Game’s wildlife care facilities

and oil spill response protocols would mitigate these

impacts to some extent and that this assumption is

probably conservative. Rapid and effective oil spill

cleanup response (as discussed in section 5.1.3) would

also lessen impacts on otters in the spill area. As indicated by Brody et al. (1996), sea otter contact with

an oil spill does not necessarily equate to mortality.

The oil spill risk analysis for the southern sea

otter conducted by R.G. Ford Consulting indicates that

non-OCS tanker oil spills during the period 2002-2006

would have a 1 in 1,000 chance of contacting 550 sea

otters, and a 1 in 10,000 chance of contacting as many

as 1,413 otters (appendix 5.5). The former number

represents nearly 24 percent of the current estimated

southern sea otter population (2,317; section 4.6.7).

Although an unlikely occurrence, this would be a high

impact as defined by the impact level criteria presented

in section 5.2.9.

Another 30-day run of the Ford model was made

for the mean tanker spill size of 22,800 bbl, assuming

shoreline contact along the mainland north of Point

Conception (appendix 5.5). The results indicate that

such a spill would be a very serious threat to the otter

population. It was estimated that a spill of this size

would oil a mean stretch of 192 km (104 nm) of coastline, with a 95-percent probability of at least 26 km

(14 nm) and a 5-percent probability of up to 922 km

(498 nm) being contacted. The model calculated a 10-

percent chance that 699 sea otters would be contacted

and a 1-percent that up to 1,505 would be. The former

number represents 30 percent of the current estimated

sea otter population (2,317; section 4.6.7).

In summary, model runs for oil spills associated

with ongoing and projected production from existing

federal OCS facilities for the period 2002-2006 indicate that there is a 1-percent chance of contact to 4-5

sea otters within 10 days. If all contacts resulted in

mortality (a conservative assumption—see above), the

impacts to the southern sea otter would be considered

low as defined by the impact level criteria presented in

section 5.2.9. Although an unlikely event, a non-OCS

tanker spill along the sea otter range would present a

serious threat to the population.

Military Activities. As discussed in section

5.2.8.2, military operations in the project area are

expected to have temporary hearing and disturbance

effects on marine mammals, primarily pinnipeds on

land. It is unlikely that more than one or two individuals of either of the threatened pinniped species

found in the project area, the Steller sea lion and

Guadalupe fur seal, would ever be present in the vicinity of military operations. Thus, they are not expected to be affected by these activities. If deployed in

project area waters, operation of the U.S. Navy’s

SURTASS LFA sonar system potentially could have

noise-related impacts on marine mammals at sea. No

information exists on the potential impacts of military operations on sea otters.

Commercial Fisheries. Section 5.2.8.2 discusses

the incidental take of marine mammals in commercial

fisheries along the U.S. west coast. Based on data

from 1990 to 1998, 16 or more Steller sea lions are

taken each year, but most of these animals are taken

intentionally in the British Columbia aquaculture predation control program (Ferraro et al., 2000). The

estimated annual take of Stellers in the CaliforniaOregon drift gillnet fishery is very low (1.2 animals).

There is no information on fisheries-related mortality for Guadalupe fur seals, although drift and gillnet

fisheries exist along the length of Baja California, as

well as in U.S. waters (Forney et al., 2000). Fur seals

have stranded in central and northern California with

net abrasions around the neck, fish hooks, and

monofilament line (Hanni et al., 1997; Forney et al.,

2000).

As discussed in section 5.2.8.2, large whales,

particularly rorquals such as blue and fin whales, are

reported to be capable of swimming through nets without entangling, although some mortality may go unobserved (Forney et al., 2000). Two sperm whales were

observed taken in the drift gillnet fishery in 1996 and

1998. Based on 1994-1998 data, the mean annual fisheries take of sperm whales is 2.5 animals, which is

above the calculated Potential Biological Removal

(PBR) for this stock (Forney et al., 2000). Some humpback whale mortality in gillnets may also be occurring—two strandings in the Southern California Bight

have been attributed to entanglement (Heyning and

Lewis, 1990), and incidents of entanglement (predominantly of calves) have been reported from waters off

Hawaii and New England (Mazzuca et al., 1998;

Weinrich, 1999). The mean annual fisheries take of

humpbacks, based on the 1994-1998 data, is less than

0.2 animals. No fisheries take of blue, fin, sei, or northern right whales was reported for the 1994-1998 period (Ferraro et al, 2000; Forney et al., 2000).

Coastal set net fisheries have intensified within

the southern sea otter range in recent years (FWS,

2000). Forney et al. (2001) estimated that set gillnets

in Monterey Bay may have killed 17-125 sea otters

during the 4-year period from 1995 to 1998, averaging

about 4-26 sea otters per year. During 1999, one sea

otter was observed taken with a 23-percent observer

coverage of the halibut gillnet fishery, yielding a mor-
5-127

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

tality estimate of 5 otters for that calendar year

(Cameron and Forney, 2000). This recent incidental

take is due to an increased use of set nets in southern

Monterey Bay and an increased use of deeper waters

in that area by sea otters (FWS, 1999). An emergency

closure in waters less than 60 fathoms was implemented for this fishery north of Yankee Point in

Monterey County on September 14, 2000, to protect

sea otters and seabirds.

Other Anthropogenic Sources of Impacts. As

discussed in section 5.2.8.2, fin whales are the whale

species most frequently struck by ships (Laist et al.,

2001). Off the U.S. west coast, ship strikes accounted

for single fin whale mortalities in 1991, 1996, and 1997;

the average observed annual mortality for 1994-1998

was 0.4 animals (Forney et al., 2000). Ship strikes

accounted for 2 humpback whale mortalities in 1993,

1 in 1995, and possibly 1 in 1997; the 1994-1998 average was at least 0.2 whales per year (Forney et al.,

2000). No ship strikes of other endangered whale species were reported for the 1994-1998 period (Forney et

al., 2000). Ship strikes are not a significant source of

cetacean mortality in California waters.

Section 5.2.8.2 discusses the potential impacts

of whale-watching activities on cetaceans. In the Santa

Barbara Channel, whale-watching activities in the

summer and early fall have focused on blue and humpback whales in recent years, and these trips appear to

be growing in popularity. In 1999, eight operators

conducted whale-watching trips from Channel harbors

(NOAA, unpubl. data).

Although a subsistence hunt for Steller sea lions does exist in Southeast Alaska, Stellers from the

eastern U.S. stock compose a very small percentage of

the total take (12 were recorded in 1992-1997; Ferraro

et al., 2000). Subsistence hunters in Canada harvest

an unknown number. The estimated annual mortality for the eastern U.S. stock from illegal shooting is

2.8 sea lions, but these are reported from Oregon,

Washington, and Alaska (Ferraro et al., 2000). There

is no information on other sources of human-related

mortality for the Guadalupe fur seal.

Illegal shooting is apparently the major non-fisheries source of human-related mortality for sea otters.

A review of sea otter mortality from 1968 to 1989 indicated that shooting accounted for 4.6 percent of the

recorded deaths (FWS, 1999).

Section 5.2.8.2 discusses the potential health

hazards presented by marine pollutants for marine

mammals. The planktivorous diet of blue, right, and,

to a lesser extent, sei whales apparently makes them

less susceptible to the accumulation of organochlorine and metal contaminants than species such as fin

or humpback whales, which seem to feed more regularly on fish (O’Shea and Brownell, 1995; Reeves et

al., 1998a, b). Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and heavy metals have been reported

for humpback whale tissues from Atlantic and Caribbean waters (Taruski et al., 1975; NMFS, 1991a).

Although there is no evidence that levels of these substances in any baleen whales are presently high

enough to cause toxic or other effects, very little is

known about the possible long-term effects of exposure to pollutants (O’Shea and Brownell, 1995; Reeves

et al., 1998a, b).

Sydeman and Allen (1999) theorized that contaminants might be a contributing factor to the continued decrease of the Steller sea lion population on

the Farallon Islands off San Francisco in recent years,

possibly through reproductive effects. From 1973-1983,

premature births accounted for 20-65 percent of pup

mortality (Hastings and Sydeman, 1998). Although

organochlorine and trace metal contaminants have

decreased in central California Steller sea lion pups

during the past decade, measured levels are still elevated (Jarman et al., 1996a). Currently, no information is available on the potential impacts of marine

pollutants on Guadalupe fur seals.

Sea otters’ high metabolic demands and consequent daily foraging rate make them vulnerable to

contaminant loading (FWS, 1999). Among the trace

metals, mercury is of particular concern. There are

abundant geologic sources of mercury in the Coast

Range and a long history of mining and associated

groundwater contamination (FWS, 1999). Several

watercourses in the sea otter range, including Elkhorn

Slough and San Simeon Creek, have elevated mercury

levels (FWS and NMFS, 1998). Livers of otter carcasses collected at Elkhorn Slough contained high levels of mercury—up to 60 mg/kg, compared to the 4

mg/kg considered “normal” for river otters (Wren,

1986). Acute mercury poisoning affects the central

nervous system and is associated with sensory and

behavioral symptoms. Currently, however, the level

of sea otter exposure to mercury and the impacts on

the population are unknown.

Although no specific research has been conducted

on the effects of organochlorines on sea otters, terrestrial mustelids (Mustela spp.) have been shown to be

very sensitive to effects (FWS, 1999). Risebrough

(1989) measured PCB levels in sea otters that were

higher than those known to cause reproductive failure in mink. Jarman et al. (1996b) suggested a connection between PCBs and the high rate of pre-weaning mortality in southern sea otters.

Current measured levels of DDT, DDE, and other

organochlorine pesticides in sea otters do not seem to

be toxicologically significant (FWS, 1999). However,

Nakata et al. (1998) reported that southern sea otters

that died from infectious disease and other causes, such

as neoplasia, emaciation, and esophageal impaction,

did contain elevated concentrations of PCBs and DDTs.

Also, a recent review of contaminants in sea otters

that compared animals from California, Southeast

Alaska, and the Aleutians found comparatively high

levels of DDT, DDE, and PCBs in southern sea otters
5-128

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

(Bacon et al., 1999; FWS, 2000). Since higher PCB

levels were found in otters from the Aleutians, where

populations are healthy, the authors thought it unlikely that PCBs alone were having a detrimental effect on the southern sea otter population, although

they felt the impacts of high levels of DDT and DDE

were less clear.

The anti-fouling agent tributyltin and its degradation products (BTs) have been found in the tissues

of dead otters (Kannan et al., 1998). Although their

use was limited in the 1980’s, BTs persist in the marine environment for several years and are found in

areas frequented by large ships, such as Monterey

Harbor. BTs are known to suppress the immune potential in mammals. Southern sea otters that died of

disease were found to contain higher concentrations

of BTs than those that died of trauma (Kannan et al.,

1998).

Non-anthropogenic Sources of Impacts. Section

5.2.8.2 discusses the potential impacts of disease on

wild marine mammal populations. Little is known of

the role played by disease in the natural mortality of

large cetaceans, such as the endangered baleen species and the sperm whale (NMFS, 1991a, b; Bonnell

and Dailey, 1993; Reeves et al., 1998a, b).

Viral and bacterial diseases, such as the San

Miguel sea lion virus and leptospirosis, are found in

Steller sea lions (Dierauf, 1990; Sydeman and Allen,

1999). Sydeman and Allen (1999) reported that these

diseases were found in debilitated animals at the

Farallon Islands and hypothesized that these factors

may be contributing to the continued decline of that

population. Currently, no information is available on

the potential impacts of diseases on Guadalupe fur

seals.

The rate of infectious disease in the southern

sea otter population may have been high throughout

the century, although, except for parasites, the rate

has not increased since 1992 (BRD, 1998; FWS, 1999).

Thomas and Cole (1996) reported that the rate of infection in the southern sea otter was higher than expected in a wild population. This included infection,

primarily of juveniles and pups, by larvae of the acanthocephalan parasite Polymorphus spp. Since otters

apparently are not suitable hosts for the parasite, the

larvae aberrantly migrate through the intestinal wall,

which can lead to fatal cases of peritonitis or contribute to decreased resistance to disease.

Thomas and Cole (1996) also found fatal cases

of protozoal encephalitis (caused by Toxoplasma

gondii) and San Joaquin Valley fever (caused by the

fungus Coccidioides immitis) in subadult and adult

otters. Additional deaths were attributed to various

bacterial infections (FWS, 1999).

As discussed in section 5.2.8.2, naturally occurring marine toxins are known to have killed marine

mammals, including humpback whales (Geraci et al.,

1989; Geraci and Lounsbury, 1993).

Incremental Impacts of the Proposed Action (2002-2006): As discussed in section 5.2.9.1,

routine activities associated with the proposed delineation activities are expected to result in temporary

(less than 1-hour), localized disturbances to blue, fin,

and humpback whales in the project area. These impacts are considered to be negligible to low. No impacts to sei, right or sperm whales, Steller sea lions,

Guadalupe fur seals, or southern sea otters are expected from these activities. No impacts threatened

or endangered marine mammals are expected from effluent discharges.

Summary and Conclusions (2002-2006): The

North Pacific stocks of most of the great whales, including the blue, humpback, fin, sei, northern right,

and sperm whale, were reduced to a fraction of their

estimated pre-whaling abundance by commercial whaling (Forney et al., 2000). Currently, the eastern North

Pacific populations of three endangered whale species,

the blue, fin, and humpback whales, appear to be increasing. The status of the eastern North Pacific

stocks of the remaining species is uncertain. Although

sperm whale populations in the North Pacific as a

whole are quite large, abundance off the U.S. west

coast is variable (Forney et al., 2000). Sei whales are

rare in California waters. The northern right whale

population in the North Pacific is believed to be very

small, consisting of no more than 100-200 animals.

Although incidental take in commercial fisheries and

ship strikes do occur, these and other identified anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic factors do not

appear to have significant impacts on endangered cetacean populations in the project area.

The eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lions is stable

or increasing in the northern portion of the range (particularly in British Columbia), but continues to decline at the southern end in central California (Ferraro

et al., 2000). The reasons for this decline are unknown,

although possible factors may include reduced prey

availability (due to ocean temperature changes), competition with other pinniped species, and the effects of

contaminants and disease (Sydeman and Allen, 1999).

The Guadalupe fur seal population, in contrast, is

growing, although the species remains rare in project

area waters.

The status of the southern sea otter population

is also somewhat uncertain at present. Following a

number of years of uninterrupted growth, the population apparently declined in the late 1990’s, when the

number of otters seen during the annual spring surveys decreased steadily over a four-year period. Numbers increased again in 2000, when nearly as many

were counted as during the peak census in 1995. Major

impacts to this population currently result from incidental take in commercial fisheries, shooting, and disease, with possible contribution from environmental

contaminants.
5-129

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

As discussed in section 5.2.8.2, the effects of noise

and disturbance generated by the proposed project are

not expected to be significant in themselves, but will

add to the cumulative noise and disturbance levels that

threatened and endangered marine mammals are exposed to in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa

Maria Basin. However, there is no evidence that the

noise and disturbance created by offshore oil and gas

activities in both Federal and State waters and by increasing vessel traffic (of which oil and gas support

vessels are a small part) have resulted in adverse impacts on threatened and endangered marine mammal

populations. By the impact level criteria adopted for

this document (section 5.2), these impacts are considered to be low. The very minor effects in space and

time projected to occur as a result of the proposed delineation activities are not expected to add measurably to cumulative impacts to threatened and endangered marine mammals in the area.

No oil spills are expected to result from the Proposed Action. However, accidental oil spills do present

an ongoing source of potential impacts to marine mammals. The cumulative risk of oil spills arises from

multiple sources, including offshore oil and gas activities in Federal and State waters and both Alaskan

and foreign-import tankering. The greatest oil spill

risk to marine mammals in the project area results

from tankering operations. This risk is tempered by

recently implemented or proposed mitigation (such as

the rerouting of tankers farther offshore along the

central California coast) and, as discussed in section

5.1.3, by modern oil spill response capabilities.

If an oil spill were to occur in the project area

during the period 2002-2006, impacts to threatened

and endangered cetaceans and pinnipeds could range

from negligible to low, depending on spill size, location, season, and a number of other factors. Oil spills

associated with ongoing and projected production from

existing federal OCS facilities in the project area would

be expected to result in no more than low impacts to

the southern sea otter during this period. Non-OCS

tankers represent the greatest oil spill risk to sea otters.

The probabilities that one or more oil spills will

occur during the period 2002-2006 from existing and

proposed offshore oil and gas activities are 94.9 percent for a spill of 200 bbl or less and 41.2 percent for a

spill of 2,000 bbl. The probability of a 22,800-bbl tanker

spill occurring during this period is 38.8 percent.

5.2.9.3 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

ON THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED BIRDS

This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed

projects on threatened and endangered birds. Threatened and endangered birds may be vulnerable to several potentially adverse impacts from routine operations associated with the proposed project. Routine

operations assumed to occur as a result of the proposed projects include: towing and anchoring the

MODU, support vessel traffic, helicopter flights, drilling, various discharges, barge transit and anchoring,

and well abandonment. These operations are described

in section 2. As discussed in section 1.0, no oil spills

are expected to occur from the proposed drilling activities that make up these projects, and therefore, no

impacts to threatened and endangered birds from oil

spills are expected.

Five threatened or endangered bird species that

both occur in the project area and that could be vulnerable to project-related impacts are considered in this

analysis. These are: California brown pelican, California least tern, bald eagle, western snowy plover, and

light-footed clapper rail. Routine operations associated with the proposed projects described in section 2

that could have an effect on threatened and endangered birds are: towing the MODU, support vessel traffic, helicopter flights, barging, and well abandonment.

Other potential sources of disturbance, including the

noise and activity associated with drilling operations,

are not expected to have an effect. Platform discharges

are not expected to have a measurable effect due to the

high degree of dilution that would occur and the fact

that bioaccumulation of associated pollutants is not

expected (SAIC, 2000).

California Brown Pelican. Nesting and roosting

brown pelicans are probably the most sensitive to disturbance. The activities associated with moving and

positioning the MODU, support vessel traffic, and barging will be conducted well away from pelican breeding

colonies on Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, and

impacts on nesting pelicans are not expected from the

proposed projects. Although pelicans frequently use

jetties and breakwaters associated with ports (e.g., Port

Hueneme) for roosting, the pelicans using these areas

are exposed to high levels of vessel traffic and have

become habituated to this source of disturbance; no

impacts on roosting pelicans from the MODU, support

vessels, or barge activities are expected. These activities can also disturb pelicans at sea, but these effects

would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the disturbance and would be very short in duration (e.g., a

few minutes or hours). Vessel traffic of various types

is common throughout the project area, and pelicans

have most likely become habituated to this activity.
5-130

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

Helicopter flights can have a negative impact on

pelicans, although their reaction to helicopters and

other aircraft is complex, depending on the activity of

the pelicans being exposed (e.g., feeding, roosting, nesting); previous exposure levels; and the location, altitude, and number of flights (Hunt, 1985). Seabirds,

including pelicans, may also habituate to air traffic

over time (Hunt, 1985). Nesting and roosting pelicans are probably the most sensitive to helicopter traffic. The number of helicopter flights planned for each

unit for the proposed projects is shown in table 4.0.1-

7. Low-flying aircraft, especially helicopters, can disturb nesting pelicans, causing them to leave their nests

unattended. However, pelican colonies are far removed

from any activities associated with the proposed

projects and no helicopter flights over pelican colonies are expected. Roosting pelicans can also be disturbed by helicopter flights. Due to the high background level of aircraft flight activity that occurs

throughout much of the project area, pelicans may be

somewhat habituated to this type of disturbance.

However, flights at low altitudes may still cause pelicans to flush from roost sites. These impacts would

be very temporary (a few minutes to a few hours) and

would be limited to helicopter flight paths across the

mainland coast; helicopter flights over the Channel

Islands, where large numbers of pelicans roost, are

not expected. Because flights for the proposed projects

will only originate from the Santa Barbara and Santa

Maria Airports (see section 2), only pelican roosts

along the coast between these airports are likely to be

exposed to helicopters. Most of the pelican roosts in

this region are on Vandenberg AFB, where they are

afforded some protection because the base restricts

flights across many of them to no less than 1,000 ft.

Because of the low number of flights associated with

these projects, the small area that might be affected,

and the protection afforded by Vandenberg AFB flight

restrictions, no impacts to roosting pelicans from helicopter flights associated with these projects are expected.

Another activity associated with these projects,

well abandonment, could harm pelicans under certain

circumstances. Each of the delineation wells will be

permanently plugged and abandoned (section 2). As

part of the abandonment process, the casings for these

wells may be cut either mechanically or with explosives. Although no injuries to pelicans from well abandonment with explosives have been reported, pelicans,

cormorants, gulls, and phalaropes have been killed or

injured due to other sources of underwater explosions

(Fitch and Young, 1948). To be killed or injured during well abandonment with explosives, a pelican would

have to be submerged at the exact moment of the explosion and in relatively close proximity to the well

(e.g., directly under the MODU). Pelicans capture submerged fish near the surface by plunge diving; pelicans remain submerged or partially submerged for only

an instant during this process. Also, explosive charges

will be set off 5 m (15 ft) below the sea floor, which

would tend to dampen the effect of the blast. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that pelicans would be at

risk of injury or death from this process.

In conclusion, no impacts to California brown

pelicans from routine operations associated with these

projects, including helicopter flights and well abandonment, are expected either for all units combined or

any individual unit.

California Least Tern. Since least terns nest

along the mainland coast and feed within a few miles

of the shore, they will not be exposed to most routine

operations associated with the proposed projects. The

only activity that might have an impact on terns is

helicopter flights, if they cross over colonies at low

(<1,000 ft) altitudes. Helicopter flights can have a

negative impact on least terns, although their reaction to helicopters and other aircraft is complex, depending on colony size; previous exposure levels; and

the location, altitude, and number of flights (Hunt,

1985). Seabirds, including least terns, may also habituate to air traffic over time (Hunt, 1985). The number of helicopter flights planned for each unit for these

projects is shown in table 4.0.1-7. Low-flying aircraft,

especially helicopters, can disturb nesting terns, causing them to leave their nests unattended. Although

the adult(s) may be absent from the nest for only a

short period of time, eggs and nestlings may be lost

either due to exposure or predators. Due to the high

background level of aircraft flight activity that occurs

throughout much of the project area, terns may be

somewhat habituated to this type of disturbance.

Based on the location of least tern colonies in the

project area (see section 4.6.7) and the origination of

flights from the Santa Barbara and Santa Maria Airports (see section 2), only those tern colonies that

occur along the coast of Santa Barbara County between these airports could be exposed to helicopter

flights. Helicopter flights from the Santa Barbara

Airport cross the coast at one location (T. Marr, Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., pers. comm.), which is well

to the east of any tern colony. Two of the three small

colonies that occur in this area are on Vandenberg

AFB, where flights across tern colonies are restricted

to no less than 2,000 ft. This should be sufficient to

protect nesting terns on the base from this source of

disturbance. Although most flights should be south

of the small Mussel Rock/Guadalupe Dunes colony,

which is to the north of Vandenberg, it is possible that

a few flights may cross this area. This would only be

a problem if the flights are below 1,000 ft, but pilots

maintain an altitude of 1,000 ft or more in the Santa

Maria River area where this colony is located (see section 5.2.1.1 for marine mammals). Based on the prob-
5-131

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

ability that no low-level flights over tern colonies during the breeding season are expected to occur as a result of these projects, no impacts to least terns from

helicopter flights are expected.

In conclusion, no impacts to California least

terns from routine operations associated with these

projects, including helicopter flights, are expected either for all units combined or any individual unit.

Bald Eagle. Because most bald eagles in coastal

southern California are found on Santa Catalina Island, which is well away from the proposed projects,

no impacts to bald eagles from routine operations are

expected either for all units combined or any individual

unit.

Western Snowy Plover. Since snowy plovers nest

and forage on beaches, they will not be exposed to most

routine operations associated with the proposed

projects. The only activity that might have an impact

on plovers is helicopter flights, if they cross over nesting beaches at low (<1,000 ft) altitudes. The number

of helicopter flights planned for each unit for the proposed projects is shown in table 4.0.1-7. Low-flying

aircraft, especially helicopters, can disturb nesting

plovers, causing them to leave their nests unattended.

Although the adult(s) may be absent from the nest for

only a short period of time, eggs and nestlings may be

lost either due to exposure or predators. Due to the

high background level of aircraft flight activity that

occurs throughout much of the project area, plovers

may be somewhat habituated to this type of disturbance. Based on the origination of flights from only

the Santa Barbara and Santa Maria Airports (see section 2), only those plover nesting beaches that occur

along the coast of Santa Barbara County between these

two airports, most of which are on Vandenberg AFB,

could be exposed to helicopter flights. Helicopter flights

from the Santa Barbara Airport cross the coast at one

location (T. Marr, Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., pers.

comm.), which is not a snowy plover nesting area.

Vandenberg AFB flight restrictions over plover nesting beaches vary from 1,000 ft or more in some locations to 2,000 ft or more in others, which should not

be a problem. Off the base, helicopters also maintain

an altitude of 1,000 ft or more (see section 5.2.1.1 for

marine mammals). Based on the relatively low number of flights associated with these projects, helicopter flight paths, and altitude restrictions, no impacts

to snowy plovers from helicopter flights are expected.

In conclusion, no impacts to western snowy plovers from routine operations associated with the proposed projects, including helicopter flights, are expected

either for all units combined or any individual unit.

Light-footed Clapper Rail. Because light-footed

clapper rails are restricted to saltwater marshes along

the mainland coast and project-related activities, including helicopter flights, are not planned for these

areas, no impacts on rails are expected from the proposed projects either for all units combined or any individual unit.

5.2.9.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED BIRDS (2002-2006)

Since there are no impacts from the Proposed

Action to threatened and endangered birds, no analysis of cumulative impacts is appropriate here. However, impacts to threatened and endangered birds could

occur if development of the 36 undeveloped leases occurs. These impacts are discussed in section 6.2.9.2.

5.2.9.5 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON SEA TURTLES

This section provides a general discussion of the

potential effects of the identified impact factors, including noise and disturbance and effluent discharges

on sea turtles in the project area. The potential use of

explosives in the abandonment of the delineation wells

also raises the possibility of lethal impacts to sea

turtles. These potential impacts are common to all

the units.

Noise and Disturbance. The primary sources of

noise and disturbance from the Proposed Action are

the delineation well drilling operations and support

vessel barge, and helicopter. These activities are described in section 2. Section 5.2.8.1 provides a discussion of the sound sources levels and frequencies associated with these sources.

Relatively little is known about the hearing ability of sea turtles (Davis et al., 1998). Only two species, loggerhead and green sea turtles, have been studied. Ridgway et al. (1969) determined that juvenile

green sea turtles detected sound frequencies in the

range of 200-700 Hz and displayed a high level of sensitivity at about 400 Hz. A recent study by Bartol et

al. (1999) indicated that the hearing of juvenile loggerheads was most sensitive at 250-1,000 Hz. Sensitivity declined rapidly above 1,000 Hz and was highest at 250 Hz. While these studies cannot be used to

calculate hearing thresholds, they do suggest that sea

turtles can hear low-frequency sounds such as those

produced by the routine activities associated with the

Proposed Action.

No systematic studies have been conducted on

the effects of man-made noise on sea turtles, although

it is assumed that noise from offshore sources such as

support vessel traffic could elicit a startle reaction from

sea turtles and produce a temporary, sublethal stress

(MMS, 1996). In the Gulf of Mexico, sea turtles are

known to be attracted to and feed around offshore platforms, indicating some tolerance for low-frequency,
5-132

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

man-made noise (MMS, 1996). Given the low densities of sea turtles in southern California waters, no

impacts to sea turtles from these sources are expected

in the proposed project area.

Section 5.2.8.1 describes the potential use of explosives in the delineation well abandonment process.

Underwater explosions can cause injury or death to

sea turtles at close range. Since 1986, three sea turtles,

all loggerheads, are known to have been injured during the use of explosives for platform removal in the

Gulf of Mexico (Twachtman, Snyder & Byrd, 2000).

One turtle was killed; the other two were rehabilitated

and released.

Young (1991) calculated safe distances for several marine animals from underwater explosions of

various sizes. These calculations were for open-water

blasts and did not take into account the dampening

effects of the type of subterranean blasting used for

platform removal. For an approximately 23-kg (50-lb)

charge, the estimated safety distance for sea turtles

was 640 m (2,100 ft).

As discussed in section 5.2.8.1, the low level of

abandonment activities would make it unlikely that

injury or mortality would occur to marine animals

such as sea turtles as a result of well abandonment

operations associated with the proposed delineation

activities. Sea turtles are unlikely to be present in

the general vicinity of the detonation area during abandonment operations, and impacts from this source are

expected to be negligible. The potential for impacts to

sea turtles could be reduced even further through implementation of a wildlife mitigation plan designed to

minimize impacts on marine mammals and other marine animals (see Mitigation MM1, section 5.2.8.1.2).

Effluent Discharges. The potential effects of OCS

discharges on sea turtles include 1) direct toxicity

(acute or sublethal), through exposure in the waters

or ingestion of prey that have bioaccumulated pollutants; and 2) a reduction in prey through direct or indirect mortality or habitat alteration caused by the

deposition of muds and cuttings (SAIC, 2000a, b).

However, there is no toxicity information on the effects of muds and cuttings and produced-water discharges on sea turtles. Comprehensive reviews by the

National Academy of Sciences (1983), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1985), and Neff (1987)

do not address the potential effects of routine OCS

discharges on this group of animals (MMS, 1996).

No significant impacts have been associated with

these animals, in part, because they are highly mobile

and their range far exceeds the extent of a platform

discharge plume. An indirect effect related to the displacement or reduction of food/prey species is more

likely (MMS, 1996).

Leatherback Sea Turtle. Although leatherbacks

are the most common sea turtles off the U.S. west coast

(Dohl et al., 1983; Green et al., 1989; NMFS and FWS,

1998a), densities in southern California waters are

still very low. It is very unlikely that routine activities associated with the proposed delineation activities would have a detectable effect on this species.

Impacts on leatherback sea turtles from the Proposed

Action are expected to be negligible. These impacts

would be common to all units and would remain the

same for all units combined.

Green Sea Turtle. Off southern California, green

sea turtles are uncommon in waters north of the San

Diego area (NMFS and FWS, 1998b) and are rarely

seen in the vicinity of the project area (Dohl et al.,

1983). No impacts on green sea turtles from the Proposed Action are expected.

Pacific Ridley Sea Turtle. As discussed in section 4.6.7, Pacific ridley sea turtles are infrequent visitors to waters north of Mexico and are unlikely to

occur in the vicinity of the proposed delineation activities. No impacts on Pacific ridleys from the Proposed Action are expected.

Loggerhead Sea Turtle. Like Pacific ridleys, loggerhead sea turtles are near the northern limit of their

range off southern California and are likely to be infrequent visitors to the project area (Stebbins, 1966;

NMFS and FWS, 1998d). Impacts on loggerhead sea

turtles from the Proposed Action are expected to be

negligible. These impacts would be common to all

units and would remain the same for all units combined.

5.2.9.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES (2002-

2006)

Cumulative Impacts without the Proposed

Action (2002-2006): Section 5.1.2 describes the

projects considered in the cumulative analysis for the

proposed delineation activities. Possible sources of

cumulative impacts in the project area include on-going and proposed oil and gas activities in Federal and

State waters, Alaskan and foreign-import tankering,

and military operations. Cumulative impacts to sea

turtles may also occur from direct take on the nesting

beaches and at sea, commercial fishing operations, and

other anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources.

The projects discussed in this section include

past, present, and foreseeable actions that may produce impacts during 2002-2006, the expected duration

of the proposed delineation activities. Potential cumulative impacts are discussed below.

Oil and Gas Activities. Section 4.0 describes the

routine offshore oil and gas activities that may result

in impacts to sea turtles. These include geophysical

surveys, construction, drilling and production activities with associated support activities, and the aban-
5-133

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

donment, or decommissioning, of wells and offshore

facilities. As discussed in section 5.2.9.5, the major

impact agents expected from these proposed activities

are noise and disturbance. The potential use of explosives in the abandonment of wells and offshore platforms also raises the possibility of lethal impacts to

sea turtles.

Noise and Disturbance. Section 5.2.9.5 discusses

the potential impacts to sea turtles from routine offshore oil and gas activities, including well drilling and

other development and production activities, support

vessel and helicopter traffic, and well abandonment.

As discussed in section 5.2.9.5, no systematic studies

have been conducted on the effects of man-made noise

on sea turtles, but it is assumed that noise from offshore sources could result in temporary disturbance

to individual animals.

As discussed in section 5.2.8.1.2 (Mitigation

MM1), implementation of mitigation similar to that

employed for platform removal in the Gulf of Mexico

would make it unlikely that any sea turtle injury or

mortality would occur as a result of the use of explosives in decommissioning operations.

Oil Spills. No oil spills are expected to result

from the Proposed Action. Section 5.1.3 discusses the

cumulative oil spill risk for the project area, which

results from several sources: ongoing and projected

oil and gas production from existing OCS facilities in

the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin,

several proposed development projects on the Federal

OCS, ongoing production from one facility in State

waters in the Santa Barbara Channel, two likely oil

and gas projects in State waters, and the tankering of

Alaskan and foreign-import oil through area waters.

As discussed in section 5.2.8.2.1, the most likely oil

spill scenario is that one or more oil spills in the 50-

1,000-bbl range would occur from offshore oil and gas

activities over the period 2002-2006, and that such a

spill would be 200 bbl or less in volume. The probability that one or more spills of this size will occur this

period is 75.9 percent (table 5.1.3.1-2). The maximum

reasonably foreseeable oil spill volume from offshore

oil and gas activities is 2,000 bbl, assumed for purposes of analysis to be a pipeline spill. The probability of a spill of this size occurring during the period

2002-2006 is 23.3 percent (table 5.1.3.1-3). Based on

data from tanker spills in U.S. waters, the mean size

for a tanker spill is assumed to be 22,800 bbl (with a

probability of occurrence of 99 percent for this period;

table 5.1.3.1-3). The potential impacts to sea turtles

in the project area from spills of each of these three

sizes are discussed below.

If a sea turtle comes into direct contact with oil,

a number of physiological effects may occur (Lutz,

1985; MMS, 1996). Oil spills can adversely affect sea

turtles by toxic external contact, toxic ingestion or

blockage of the digestive tract, disruption of salt gland

function, asphyxiation, and displacement from preferred habitats (Lutz and Lutcavage, 1989; Vargo et

al., 1986). Sea turtles are known to ingest oil

(Gramanetz, 1988); this may occur during feeding (tar

balls may be confused with food) or while attempting

to clean oil from flippers. Oil ingestion frequently results in blockage of the respiratory system or digestive tract (Vargo et al., 1986). Some fractions of ingested oil may also be retained in the animal’s tissues, as was detected in turtles collected after the Ixtoc

spill in the Gulf of Mexico (Hall et al., 1983).

It is unclear whether adult sea turtles actively

avoid spilled oil (MMS, 1996). In some instances,

turtles have appeared to avoid oil by increasing dive

times and swimming away (Maxwell, 1979; Vargo et

al., 1986). Other observers have suggested that sea

turtles actually may be attracted to some of the components found in crude oil (Kleerekoper and Bennett,

1976).

The low densities of sea turtles in the project

area make it unlikely that any turtle would come in

contact with an oil spill of 200-2,000 bbl. A 22,800-bbl

tanker spill would have a greater probability of contacting sea turtles at sea, but no more than one or

two animals would likely be affected. Impacts on sea

turtle populations would be expected to be negligible.

Military Activities. As discussed in section

5.2.8.2, military operations that may have offshore

impacts in the project area include those conducted

from NAS Point Mugu and Vandenberg AFB, and the

U.S. Navy’s proposed deployment of the SURTASS LFA

sonar system. A recent draft EIS (U.S. Navy, 2000)

analyzes the potential impacts of ongoing and proposed

military activities in the U.S. Navy’s Point Mugu Sea

Range, which occupies a broad expanse of offshore

waters in the Southern California Bight and Santa

Maria Basin. Navy activities in the Sea Range include vessel, aircraft, and missile operations. The EIS

concludes that, given their low densities in the project

area, the probability of interaction between Naval activities and sea turtles would be very low and any impacts would be less than significant. The same would

likely be true of the U.S. Air Force’s missile operations from Vandenberg AFB. In its final EIS for the

SURTASS LFA sonar system (U.S. Navy, 2001), the

U.S. Navy concludes that, given proposed mitigation

and the small number of systems to be deployed worldwide, LFA operations would be unlikely to result in

significant impacts to sea turtle populations at sea.

Commercial Fisheries. All four species of sea

turtles are taken incidentally in commercial fisheries

in both pelagic and coastal areas in the North Pacific

(NMFS and FWS, 1998a-d). Leatherback sea turtles

are caught in gillnets off Washington, Oregon, and

California (Stick and Hreha, 1989) and have long been

taken in longlines and drift nets in the central North
5-134

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

Pacific (NMFS, 1995; NMFS and FWS, 1998a). There

is concern that the increasing numbers of Asian

longline tuna vessels operating in the Pacific may have

devastating cumulative impacts on this species (NMFS

and FWS, 1998a).

Green, Pacific ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles

are also taken in several commercial and recreational

fisheries, including shrimp bottom trawls in the Gulf

of California, gillnets, traps, and haul and beach seines

(NMFS and FWS, 1998b-d). In other parts of the Pacific, trawls, purse seines, hook and line, longlines,

and driftnets all take an unknown number of these

species (NMFS and FWS, 1998b-d). Although largely

undocumented, take by shrimp trawlers is probably a

major mortality factor for green turtles in Mexico

(Groombridge, 1982); similar take also occurs off Central America (NMFS and FWS, 1998b). Loggerhead

sea turtles apparently are one of the most commonly

caught sea turtles in the pelagic squid driftnet fishery

(Gjernes et al., 1990; NMFS and FWS, 1998d).

Other Anthropogenic Sources of Impacts. As

discussed in section 4.6.7.3, sea turtle populations have

been greatly reduced by over-harvesting and, to a lesser

extent, coastal development of nesting beaches in developed countries (Ross, 1982). In the Pacific, all four

species continue to be subject to a number of humanrelated threats on their nesting grounds, including the

direct take of adults and eggs, coastal construction

and other beach activities, and artificial lighting

(NMFS and FWS, 1998a-d; NMFS, 1999). These factors can result in direct mortality, disturbance, and

loss of habitat.

Although there is no known directed take of sea

turtles in U.S. waters, the harvest of sea turtles at

sea in other areas is considered a widespread threat

to these species that could accelerate the extinction of

local and regional stocks (NMFS and FWS, 1998a-d).

It is known that leatherbacks are occasionally taken

off coasts of Mexico, Peru, and Chile (NMFS and FWS,

1998a) and that green sea turtles are taken illegally

in Mexican waters (NMFS and FWS, 1998b).

Collisions with boats (including jetskis) are a

potential threat to sea turtles, particularly in heavily

populated, nearshore waters (NMFS and FWS, 1998ad; NMFS, 1999). McDonald and Dutton (1992) reported that boat collisions were implicated in 80 percent of green sea turtle deaths recorded in San Diego

and Mission Bays.

Entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris is

a serious problem for sea turtles in the eastern Pacific

(NMFS and FWS, 1998a-d). Sea turtles entangle in

abandoned fishing gear, lines, ropes, and nets and, as

a consequence, may be unable to submerge to feed or

surface to breathe. Apparently mistaking them for

prey, leatherbacks, greens, and the other sea turtles

commonly ingest debris such as plastic bags, plastic

sheets, balloons, latex products, styrofoam, six-pack

rings, tarballs, and other refuse. The resulting mortalities may be due to poisoning or obstruction of the

esophagus.

Construction activities such as marina and dock

development projects and dredging have direct impacts

on coastal green, Pacific ridley, and loggerhead sea

turtle habitat in Baja and southern California (NMFS

and FWS, 1998b-d). In San Diego Bay, green sea turtles

may be directly killed by dredging machinery (Stinson,

1984; McDonald and Dutton, 1992). The indirect effects of these activities result from increased levels of

ship traffic, pollution, and general activity.

The impacts of environmental contaminants on

sea turtles are unknown, although contamination of

coastal waters where species such as green and loggerhead sea turtles are likely to be found is widespread

(NMFS and FWS, 1998b-d). San Diego Bay, the only

identified foraging area for green sea turtles in the

western U.S. (Stinson, 1984; Dutton and McDonald,

1990a, b), is heavily polluted with heavy metals and

PCBs (NMFS and FWS, 1998b). PCBs are known to

cause lesions and mortality in fish and invertebrates,

and small lesions have been observed in green sea

turtles (McDonald and Dutton, 1990). Coastal pollution may also contribute to declining productivity in

algal and seagrass communities (NMFS and FWS,

1998b).

Other known anthropogenic sources of impacts

to sea turtles at sea include construction blasting,

dynamite “fishing,” and power plant entrapment

(NMFS and FWS, 1998a-d).

Non-anthropogenic Sources of Impacts. There

are few data on the extent to which disease and parasites affect sea turtle populations in the wild (NMFS

and FWS, 1998a-d). Fibropapilloma tumor disease is

known to be widespread in the Hawaiian green sea

turtle population and may be fatal (NMFS and FWS,

1998b). The disease has not been reported in the Mexican nesting population, but there are some observations of turtles with what has been described as early

stages of the disease in San Diego Bay (McDonald and

Dutton, 1990).

Only a few predators, including sharks and killer

whales, are big enough to consume full-sized sea turtles

(NMFS and FWS, 1998a-d). Off Mexico, killer whales

have been observed feeding on leatherback and ridley

sea turtles (NMFS and FWS, 1998a, c). Billfish attacks on green sea turtles also have been documented

(Frazier et al., 1994). Predation on leatherback

hatchlings by sharks is thought to be relatively high

(NMFS and FWS, 1998a).

Natural phenomena may also have impacts on

sea turtle populations. Storms at sea can blow migrating sea turtles off course. El Niño events may

cause green, Pacific ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles

to migrate northward into colder water, where they

can experience cold stunning, and may also reduce food

availability (NMFS and FWS, 1998a-d).
5-135

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

Incremental Impacts of the Proposed Action (2002-2006): As discussed in section 5.2.9.5,

routine activities associated with the proposed delineation activities are expected to result in negligible

impacts to sea turtles in the project area.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (2002-2006):

Sea turtle populations in the North Pacific are

under continued threat from human activities, both

on their nesting beaches and at sea. Harvest of adults

and eggs on the beaches, destruction of nesting habitat, and both directed and incidental take of turtles at

sea appear to be the major sources of mortality.

As discussed in section 5.2.9.5, the effects of noise

and disturbance generated by the Proposed Action are

not expected to be significant in themselves, but will

add to the cumulative noise and disturbance levels that

sea turtles are exposed to in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin during the period 2002-

2006. However, sea turtles densities are very low in

project area waters. There is no evidence that the

noise and disturbance created by offshore oil and gas

activities in both Federal and State waters and by increasing vessel traffic (of which oil and gas support

vessels are a small part) have resulted in adverse impacts on sea turtle populations. By the impact level

criteria adopted for this document (section 5.2.9), these

impacts are considered to be negligible. The very minor effects in space and time projected to occur as a

result of the proposed delineation activities are not

expected to add measurably to cumulative impacts to

sea turtles in the area.

No oil spills are expected to result from the Proposed Action. However, accidental oil spills do present

an ongoing source of potential impacts to sea turtles.

The cumulative risk of oil spills arises from multiple

sources, including offshore oil and gas activities in

Federal and State waters and both Alaskan and foreign-import tankering. The greatest oil spill risk in

the project area results from tankering operations.

This risk is tempered by recently implemented or proposed mitigation (such as the rerouting of tankers farther offshore along the central California coast) and,

as discussed in section 5.1.3, by modern oil spill response capabilities. If an oil spill were to occur in the

project area during the period 2002-2006, impacts to

sea turtles would be negligible.

5.2.9.7 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED AMPHIBIANS

California Red-legged Frog. Since no oil spill

associated with the proposed delineation activities is

expected, and the proposed activities are not expected

to contact land, no adverse impacts to the California

red-legged frog would be expected to result from the

Proposed Action.

5.2.9.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED AMPHIBIANS

 (2002-2006)

Since there are no impacts from the proposed

delineation drilling activities on threatened and endangered amphibians, no analysis of cumulative impacts is appropriate for the period 2002-2006. However, impacts may occur if development of the 36 undeveloped leases occurs. These impacts are discussed

below in the cumulative section for 2002-2030.

5.2.9.9 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED FISH

Section 5.2.6.1 describes the potential impacts

of the proposed action on marine fish resources in the

project area. The primary impact-producing activities associated with the proposed project include delineation drilling operations with associated support

activities and are common to all the units. The major

impact agents expected from these proposed activities

are drilling discharges, anchoring activities, and explosive abandonment of the delineation wells, if this

option is used.

Tidewater goby. No adverse impacts to tidewater gobies are expected from the proposed delineation

project. Tidewater gobies, which are found in shallow coastal lagoons, stream mouths and shallow areas of bays will not be impacted by effluent discharges,

anchoring events, or the potential explosive removal

of the delineation wells.

Steelhead Trout. No adverse impacts to steelhead trout are expected from the proposed delineation

project. While steelhead trout migrate widely along

the Pacific Coast, and may pass through the vicinity

of the proposed delineation drilling activities, no impacts from effluent discharges, anchoring, or explosive removal of wellheads would be expected.
5-136

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

5.2.9.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED FISH

(2002-2006)

Since there are no impacts from the proposed

delineation drilling activities on threatened and endangered fish, no analysis of cumulative impacts is

appropriate for the period 2002-2006. However, impacts may occur if development of the 36 undeveloped

leases occurs. These impacts are discussed below in

the cumulative section for 2002-2030.

5.2.9.11 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED PLANTS

Because the Proposed Action does not include

any onshore activities, no impacts to threatened and

endangered plants are expected either for all units combined or any individual unit.

5.2.9.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED PLANTS (2002-2006)

Since there are no impacts from the Proposed

Action on threatened and endangered plants, no analysis of cumulative impacts is appropriate here. However, impacts to threatened and endangered plants

could occur if development of the 36 undeveloped leases

occurs. These impacts are discussed in section 6.2.9.6.

5.2.10 IMPACTS ON ESTUARINE AND

WETLAND HABITATS

This section discusses impacts from the proposed

project on biological resources found in estuarine and

wetland habitat.

5.2.10.1 IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON ESTUARINE AND

WETLAND HABITAT

Criteria used to assess impacts to these resources

here, and in chapter 6 are:

HIGH

Impacts that result in a measurable decline in a

population beyond that which can be explained by

normal variability, result in a measurable change regionally in species composition, ecological function or

community structure, or result in a measurable reduction in regionally important habitat are considered

to be high impacts. These changes would be at a

level, areal extent, and duration that it would be expected to place an individual species at risk, or alter

the community structure or habitat on a regional scale

for many years. Irreversible alteration of regionally

important habitat or reduction of protected habitat

would be considered high impacts.

MODERATE

Impacts that result in a measurable decline in

species composition, species abundance, ecological

function or community structure over several localized areas or result in alteration of locally important

habitat are considered moderate impacts. These

changes, while individually may persist for many years,

are localized and cannot be detected on a population

or regional level.

LOW

Impacts that result in a short-term change in

species abundance or composition, a temporary loss

in ecological function or community structure, a shortterm disturbance or temporary loss of access to locally important habitat are considered to be low impacts.

In this document, high and moderate impacts are

considered significant; low impacts are considered to

be insignificant. Irreversible alteration of wetland

habitat, because of the protection afforded it by local

and State laws, is considered a high impact. The

threshold for significance is determined by scientific

judgement, and takes into consideration the relative

importance of individual species and/or habitat.

5.2.10.1.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL UNITS

There are no identified impacts to wetlands from

the Proposed Action.

5.2.10.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR ESTUARINE AND WETLAND

RESOURCES

The following cumulative impact analysis section contains two separate analyses: 1) An analysis

of cumulative impacts which would be additive to the

impacts described as occurring for the proposed

projects which occur between 2002-2006, and 2) An

analysis of all of the cumulative impacts associated

with the potential future development of the 36 Undeveloped OCS leases, with a total project life estimated

as being 2002-2030.
5-137

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

5.2.10.2.1CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002-2006)

Since there are no impacts from the Proposed

Action on this resource, no analysis of cumulative

impacts is appropriate here. However, impacts to this

resource could occur if development of the 36 undeveloped leases occurs. These impacts are discussed later

in the cumulative section for 2002-2030.

Table 5.2.11-1. Summary of impacts of the Proposed Action to the biological resources of

Channel Islands and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries and the Channel Islands

National Park.

5.2.11 IMPACTS ON REFUGES, PRESERVES,

AND MARINE SANCTUARIES

Impacts to refuges, preserves, and marine sanctuaries occur when their resources are affected. Impacts to these resources may be found in section 5.2.1

through section 5.2.23, where appropriate. The impacts to the biological resources of the Channel Islands and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

and the Channel Islands National Park are summarized in table 5.2.11-1.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 Resource Impacts 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Rocky and Sandy Beach No impacts are expected to occur to these resources from the proposed 

 Habitats action. See section 5.2.3. 

Seafloor Resources No impacts are expected to these resources because activities 

 associated with the proposed action will not occur within sanctuary or 

 park boundaries. See section 5.2.4. 

 

Kelp Beds No impacts are expected to these resources because activities 

 associated with the proposed action will not occur within sanctuary or 

 park boundaries. See section 5.2.5. 

Fish Resources Although activities associated with the proposed action will not occur 

 within sanctuary or park boundaries, fish can be highly mobile and may 

 move in and out of these areas. Impacts to fish resources are expected 

 to range from negligible to low. See section 5.2.5. 

Marine and Coastal Birds No impacts are expected to occur to these resources from the proposed 

 action. See section 5.2.7. 

Marine Mammals Although activities associated with the proposed action will not occur 

 within sanctuary or park boundaries, marine mammals are highly 

 mobile and may move in and out of these areas. Impacts to marine 

 mammals are expected to range from negligible to low. See section 

 5.2.8. 

Threatened and Endangered Species Although activities associated with the proposed action will not occur 

 within sanctuary or park boundaries, many of these species are highly 

 mobile and may move in and out of these areas. Impacts to threatened 

 and endangered species range from none to low. See section 5.2.9. 

Estuaries and Wetlands No impacts are expected to occur to these resources from the proposed 

 action. See section 5.2.10. 

Onshore Biological Resources No impacts are expected to occur to these resources from the proposed 

 action. See section 5.2.12. 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 
5-138

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

5.2.12 IMPACTS ON ONSHORE BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES

This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed

project on onshore biological resources. The biological resources of the onshore project area are described

in section 4.6.10. Information used in preparing this

section includes the Point Pedernales Project Environmental Impact Report/Statement (A.D. Little, 1985),

the San Miguel Project Environmental Impact Report/

Statement (URS, 1986), and the Draft North County

Siting Study (County Santa Barbara, 2000). Onshore

biological resources may be vulnerable to several impacts associated with offshore oil and gas development

including onshore pipeline and processing facility construction and accidental onshore oil spills. Although

there are no onshore activities planned for these proposed projects, the development of the 36 undeveloped

leases, if it occurs, would involve onshore activities.

These potential onshore activities are described in section 5.1.2.

In preparation for this analysis, the following

impact level definitions were developed:

HIGH

Impacts that result in a measurable decline in a

population beyond that which can be explained by

normal variability, result in a measurable change regionally in species composition, ecological function or

community structure, or result in a measurable reduction in regionally important habitat are considered

to be high impacts. These changes would be at a level,

areal extent and duration that it would be expected to

place an individual species at risk, or alter the community structure or habitat on a regional scale for

many years. Irreversible alteration of regionally important habitat or reduction of protected habitat would

be considered high impacts.

MODERATE

Impacts that result in a measurable decline in

species composition, species abundance, ecological

function or community structure over several localized areas or result in alteration of locally important

habitat are considered moderate impacts. These

changes, while individually may persist for many years,

are localized and cannot be detected on a population

or regional level.

LOW

Impacts that result in a short-term change in

species abundance or composition, a temporary loss

in ecological function or community structure, a shortterm disturbance or temporary loss of access to locally important habitat are considered to be low impacts.

For the purposes of this document, high and

moderate impacts are considered to be significant,

while low impacts are insignificant.

5.2.12.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION TO ONSHORE BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES

The proposed projects do not entail any onshore

activities, and therefore, no impacts to onshore biological resources are expected.

5.2.12.1.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND

CONCLUSION

No impacts to onshore biological resources are

expected as a result of operations associated with these

projects, either for all units combined or any individual

unit.

5.2.12.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR ONSHORE BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES (2002-2006)

Since there are no impacts from the Proposed

Action to onshore biological resources, no analysis of

cumulative impacts is appropriate here. However,

impacts to this resource could occur if development of

the 36 undeveloped leases occurs. These impacts are

discussed in section 6.2.12.

5.2.13 IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

This section explains what actions may constitute a significant level of impact to cultural resources

(archaeological and Native American concerns regarding traditional cultural resources) under various laws

and regulations discussed in section 4.7. It also analyzes project-related and cumulative impacts from the

Proposed Action in the time period from 2002 to 2006.

For cumulative impacts related to the hypothetical

development scenario in the period 2002 to 2030, please

see section 6.2.13.

What is a significant level of impact?

A significant archaeological resource is one that

meets the published criteria of

• the National Register of Historic Places

• California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix K
5-139

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

• Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources

Program administered by the State Lands Commission

Any impact to a significant archaeological resource is considered a high level of impact. In other

words, although a bit of a tautology, any impact to a

significant archaeological resource is a significant

impact, there is no moderate or low impact to a significant resource. This relationship between resource

significance and impact significance is explained by

the matrix, table 5.2.13-1.

Therefore, significant impacts to archaeological

resources occur when the integrity of a significant or

potentially significant site is eliminated or reduced.

How is an archaeological resource’s significance

determined?

A resource’s significance is determined with reference to the following criteria that establish its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.

• Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of

our history.

• Associated with lives of persons significant in

our past.

• Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,

period or method of construction, or that represent work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and

distinguishable entity whose components may

lack individual distinction.

• Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Under the California Environment Quality Act

guidelines (Appendix K), an archaeological resource

is important if it is “unique” or “important” by meeting one of the following criteria:

• Associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or American

History or recognized scientific importance in

prehistory.

• Can provide information that is both of demonstrable public interest and is useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable

or archaeological research questions.

• Has special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving

example of its kind.

• Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity.

• Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered

only with archaeological methods.

The Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources

Program administered by the California State Lands

Commission defines “submerged archaeological site”

and “submerged historic resource.” The definition

includes any

• submerged object, structure, building, watercraft or vessel and any associated cargo, armament, tackle, fixture, human remains or

remnant, or

• Any site, area, person, or place, which is historically or archaeologically significant in prehistory or history or exploration, settlement,

engineering, commerce, militarism, recreation

or culture of California and which is partially

or wholly embedded in or resting on State submerged or tidal lands.

The archaeological or historic significance of a

site is determined by reference to its eligibility for the

National Register of Historic Places. Any submerged

archaeological site or submerged historic resource remaining in State waters more than 50 years is presumed to be archaeologically or historically significant. Hence, table 4.7.4.2-2 lists wrecks that have

only occurred in the more than 40 years ago (to allow

for project timing through 2006).

Table 5.2.13-1. Definition of significance and impact for cultural resources.

Is the site or resource “significant”? 

Yes No 

Is there impact to the site Yes Significant Impact Insignificant Impact 

or resource? No No impact No impact 
5-140

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

5.2.13.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESOURCES

Impacts to archaeological resources may occur

in an “area of operations” defined as the geographic

area within which direct effects and indirect effects

take place. (The “area of operations” is the same as

the “area of potential effects.) Direct effects include

those operations and activities, such as anchor placement, that may affect the physical integrity of bottom-founded archaeological resources. Indirect effects

include long-term disturbances that interfere with the

detection of the resource by remote sensing instruments, such as deposition of ferromagnetic materials

that could “mask” detection of an archaeological resource by a magnetometer. Impacts may result from

accidents including oil spills and oil spill cleanup.

Two conditions must be present to have a direct

impact to an archaeological resource. First, an operation must physically disturb the bottom. Second,

the resource must be present in the area disturbed.

The following operations may cause physical disturbance to the bottom:

• Anchoring. The most likely potential source

of disturbance comes from anchor deployment

and recovery operations for the MODU, barge,

and support vessels. The MODU typically deploys eight, 45,000-pound anchors, two from

each corner of the rig, placed at predetermined

locations varying distances from the rig based

on water depth. Anchor scope, the ratio distance at which the anchors are set from the

rig to the depth of the exploration well location, varies from unit to unit. In anchoring

the MODU, an anchor tender boat motors away

from the rig running the anchor chain out to

the required length. Approximately half way

to the anchor location, the tender begins to

lower the anchor on a work wire while continuing toward the final anchor location. Finally, the anchor is lowered to the seafloor and

the appropriate tension is placed on the chain.

Support vessel and barge anchoring may also

act as the source of impacts.

• Delineation Drilling. Another potential

source of disturbance results from delineation

drilling operations, including setting down the

guide base, setting casing, and drilling; and

from abandonment operations including cutting the casing and removing guide base. These

disturbances occur in the immediate vicinity

of the MODU, well within the area of direct

effects from MODU anchoring.

• Pilferage. Finally, a potential, although rare,

source of direct disturbance is the unauthorized recovery of objects by divers or other personnel.

Impacts Common to All Units: Since archaeological impacts are site specific, no impacts common

to all units are anticipated.

IMPACTS UNIQUE TO EACH UNIT:

Bonito Unit. According to data furnished by the

operator, the MODU anchors will be deployed in a

3,000-foot radius around the vessel. Delineation drilling operations described above will take place at one

or two locations on the Unit. As noted by table 4.7.4.1-

1, no vessels have been reported as lost on the leases

nor has any resource site been detected on the lease

by analysis of geophysical hazard survey data. A

Fisherman’s Contingency Fund Claim for gear loss

due to unknown causes (which may indicate a potential cultural resource site) was reported on OCS-P0500, at a location well outside the area of operations.

Point Sal Unit. According to data furnished by

the operator, the MODU anchors will be deployed between 1,100 to1,900 feet around the vessel. Delineation drilling operations described above will take place

on the Unit at a single location. As noted by table

4.7.4.1-1, a prior remote sensing survey and report

for lease OCS-P-0416 revealed indication of potential

archaeological resource sites. Additional data analysis and survey have been ordered for the area of operations to identify any sites that need to be avoided.

The southeast portion of lease OCS-P-0422 may contain a relict lagoon, estuary, or embayment and potential prehistoric resource sites. This area would be unaffected by operations. No vessel is listed as being lost

on the leases. As noted by table 4.7.4.1-1, no vessels

have been reported as lost within the Unit.

Purisima Point Unit. According to data furnished by the operator, the MODU anchors will be

deployed between 1,100 to 1,900 feet around the vessel. Delineation drilling operations described above

will take place on the Unit at a single location. As

noted by table 4.7.4.1-1, a prior remote sensing survey and report for lease OCS-P-0432 revealed indication of potential archaeological resource sites. Additional data analysis and survey have been ordered for

the area of operations to identify any sites that need

to be avoided. As noted by table 4.7.4.1-1, no vessels

have been reported as lost within the Unit.

Gato Canyon Unit. According to data furnished

by the operator, the MODU anchors will be deployed

between 2,500 to 3,500 feet around the vessel. Delineation drilling operations described above will take

place on the Unit at a single location. As noted by

table 4.7.4.1-1, no vessels have been reported as lost
5-141

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

within the Unit. A Fisherman’s Contingency Fund

Claim for gear loss due to unknown causes (which

may indicate a potential cultural resource site) was

reported on OCS-P-0462 and -0464, at a location well

outside the area of operations. Additional data analysis and survey have been ordered for the area of operations to identify any sites that need to be avoided.

Impact Analysis from Accidents: Indirect impacts

may result by the accidental deposition of ferro-magnetic debris on the seafloor that would mask the detection of potential archaeological resources by remote

sensing instruments. Accidents are not anticipated to

cause unique impact to cultural resources on any unit.

5.2.13.1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND

CONCLUSIONS

No known or suspected cultural resources are

within the area that could be affected by proposed operations from the project, including anchoring and

drilling. Therefore, there is no impact to any single

unit or all units.

5.2.13.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED

ACTION

Federal regulations require certain actions on

the part of operators to protect archaeological resources. Prior to start of operations, the preferred

mitigation is to move or modify operations so there is

no effect to known significant archaeological resources

or to anomalies or geomorphic features that may represent areas containing archaeological resources. Alternatively, the operator may conduct additional investigations and submit a report to establish to the

satisfaction of the MMS, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and others that an archaeological

resource is or is not present or will not be adversely

affected by operations. The investigation is conducted

by an archeologist and geophysicist using survey equipment and techniques identified by the MMS. MMS will

inform the operator of any mitigating measures necessary to alleviate or minimize the potential effects on

significant archaeological resources, such as data recovery and artifact curation. After start up, if any archeological resource is discovered, the operator must

immediately halt operations in the area of the discovery and inform the MMS POCS Regional Director. If

further investigation determines that the resource is

significant, MMS will inform the operator on how to

protect the resource.

Cultural Resources 1. Operator Briefing. Prior to

start of operations, brief the operator of the requirement

to avoid known resource sites and the provisions regarding discovery of a site after operations commence.

5.2.13.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.2.13.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002 TO

2006)

Cumulative Impacts Without the Proposed

Action (2002 to 2006): Without the proposal, physical disturbance caused by non-OCS development activities will be the source of cumulative impacts to

submerged sites and upland sites. These sources include installation of seafloor cables, construction of

sewage treatment infrastructure, commercial trawl

fishing, anchoring, dredging, and unauthorized removal of artifacts by recreational scuba divers. Onshore, cumulative impacts may occur from a full range

of construction activities and pilferage. Natural processes, such as shoreline erosion, also contribute to

the destruction of cultural resources. Because of stringent monitoring and mitigation of local, State, and

Federal agencies for actions that may affect cultural

resources, permitted actions are likely to cause little

cumulative impact.

Because of the nature of clean-up operations, oil

spill related impacts are not expected offshore. Onshore, archaeological sites could be affected by oil spills

from OCS production or non-OCS tankering and associated containment and cleanup activities. Oil spills

could alter the chemical composition of archaeological materials and render them useless for carbon-14

dating. Oil-soaked soils would also be difficult to excavate and process. Oil spill containment and cleanup

activities could result in extensive impacts to site deposits from the excavation of containment barriers

(dams, berms, and trenches) and the mechanized removal of oil-soaked earth.

Since there are no impact from the Proposed

Action on cultural resources, no analysis of cumulative impacts is appropriate here.

5.2.13.3 NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS

Native Americans are concerned with any project

or alteration to the area, which may cause a change

to their way of life, with any condition, which may be

considered as an intrusion into the spiritual nature of

the area, or with any project which may impact prehistoric archaeological sites. The main impacting

agents to Native American concerns in regards to the

Proposed Action are offshore structures, onshore facilities, and oil spills. Please see the more extensive

discussion of Native American concerns in the Cultural Resources Affected Environment Section.

Impact level definitions used in this analysis are

as follows, with significant impacts being moderate

and high.
5-142

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

HIGH

Religious or ceremonial sites unusable for more

than a year, or gathering sites contaminated with one

or two important subsistence or traditional use resources becoming locally unavailable for 1 to 2 years.

MODERATE

Religious or ceremonial sites are disturbed, or a

gathering site disturbed with one or more important

subsistence or traditional resources becoming locally

unavailable for less than a year.

LOW

Structures are located within the viewshed of

major religious or ceremonial sites, or gathering sites

disturbed with subsistence resources being affected for

a period of less than one year, but no resource would

become unavailable.

5.2.13.3.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON NATIVE AMERICAN

CONCERNS

Project impacts occur from the MODU being located within the viewshed of major religious or ceremonial sites, such as the site at Point Conception—a

site that consulting archaeologists have identified as

being eligible for inclusion in the National Register as

a traditional cultural property. This section analyzes

project-related and cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action in the time period from 2002 to 2006.

For cumulative impacts related to the hypothetical

development scenario in the period 2002 to 2030, please

see section 6.2.13.

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL UNITS:

 No impacts have been identified as being common to all units.

IMPACTS UNIQUE TO EACH UNIT:

Bonito Unit. The MODU is anticipated to be on

the Unit for between 90 and 180 days from the end of

March through October of 2002. The wells will be

sited at up to two of locations. (The MODU would be

at each of the two sites for up to 90 days.) The result

is a low level of impact.

Significance criteria for this resource area are

broader than for general visual resource impact. For

Native American concerns, the impact occurs if the

structure is within the viewshed of the site. The

MODU will be within the viewshed of Point Conception, However, as discussed in the Visual Resources

section, since the MODU visual impact resource area

does not cross the coastline, there will be no impact to

visual resources.

Under the above impact criteria, for the MODU

to create a moderate or high impact to the site, the

drilling unit would have to create a “disturbance” or

render the site “unusable” for a year. These effects

may be analyzed with reference to National Register

Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King,

2001). Does presence of the MODU make the site ineligible? At the time the evaluation was made as to

the site’s potential eligibility, offshore oil and gas structures from the Point Arguello field were (and still are)

visible from Point Conception. As such, their presence did not affect the integrity of relationship or integrity of condition that must be present for a site to

be considered eligible.

Bulletin 36 notes “in order to be eligible for inclusion in the Register, a property must have ‘integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association’. In the case of a traditional cultural property, there are two fundamental

questions to ask about integrity. First, does the property have an integral relationship to traditional cultural practices or beliefs; and second, is the condition

of the property such that the relevant relationships

survive? “

“Assessing the integrity of the relationship between a property and the beliefs or practices that may

give it significance involves developing some understanding about how the group that holds the beliefs

or carries out the practices is likely to view the property. If the property is known or likely to be regarded

by a traditional cultural group as important in the

retention or transmittal of a belief, or to the performance of a practice, the property can be taken to have

an integral relationship with the belief or practice, and

vice-versa” (Parker and King, 2001).

The proposed project does not appear to alter

this integral relationship to cultural practices or beliefs.

For the second criterion, the bulletin notes, “like

any other kind of historic property, a property that

once had traditional cultural significance can lose such

significance through physical alteration of its location,

setting, design, or materials. In some cases a traditional cultural property can also lose its significance

through alteration of its setting or environment . . . .

A property may retain its traditional cultural significance even though it has been substantially modified,

however. Cultural values are dynamic, and can sometimes accommodate a good deal of change.... The integrity of a possible traditional cultural property must

be considered with reference to the views of traditional
5-143

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

practitioners; if its integrity has not been lost in their

eyes, it probably has sufficient integrity to justify further evaluation” (Parker and King, 2001).

Concern over the past, current, and potential development on Point Conception and the effect that development may have on the qualities of the site have

been expressed and are of an ongoing concern to some

Chumash people (Khus-Zarate 1998). This project will

have a temporary, low impact and it does not appear

to affect the integrity required by the second criterion.

5.2.13.1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND

CONCLUSIONS

The MODU will have a temporary, low impact to

the traditional cultural properties value of the Point

Conception site.

5.2.13.3.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED

ACTION

No project-related mitigation measures have been

identified.

5.2.13.3.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS

Cumulative impacts discussed below are in addition to those listed above for archaeological resources.

Impacts to pre-historic archaeological sites, even those

not considered significant, are a particularly acute

concern to Native Americans.

5.2.13.3.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002 TO

2006)

Cumulative Impacts Without the Proposed

Action (2002 to 2006): Without the proposal, impacts will come from further non-OCS related development in the Point Conception area. Expanded commercial space launch activity has been cited as an activity of concern.

The impact of an OCS production oil spill or nonOCS tanker spill would be site specific. However, if

traditional use resources were affected by the oil spill,

the impact could be of moderate to high significance if

the resources are present and become locally unavailable for a period of time. The effect of a spill on the

values ascribed by the Chumash to Point Conception

have not been evaluated at this time, but will be addressed in on-going consultation. These impacts are

in addition to those described above for archaeological resources, which are also of great concern to Native Americans. Native American monitoring of clean

up activities is also an issue of concern. These issues

were apparent during the Avila Beach spill in 1992

when access to areas by clean-up crews could have

impacted sensitive archaeological areas including burials (MMS 1993).

Incremental Impacts of the Proposed Action (2002 to 2006): For the period of time the MODU

is on the Bonito Unit, it is within the viewshed with

existing offshore oil and gas platforms of Point Conception. The result is a low level of impact.

Summary and Conclusion (2002 to 2006):

Non-OCS cumulative impacts include effects of potential expansion of commercial launches at

Vandenberg AFB and an oil spill from any sources.

For the period of time the MODU is on the Bonito

Unit, it is within the viewshed with existing offshore

oil and gas platforms of Point Conception. The result

is a low level of impact.

Potential Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Impacts: In past projects, moderate to high

impacts have been successfully mitigated by local,

State, and Federal regulations and mitigation measures. These measures are presumed to be part of the

project. No additional measures have been identified.
5-144

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

5.2.14 IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

Impacts to visual resources result from the presence of the MODU within an area that is in view of

the public. Based on a similar project in State waters

(Continental Shelf Associates, 1995), the issue is to

what extent the project might affect visual receptors.

Generally, the analysis assumes that the area of impact, the visual resource impact area, extends 8 kilometers (5 miles) from the MODU location. This radius of the VRIA defines the limit of the visual resources

impact area because at this distance

(1) it is generally said that details of large objects,

such as the MODU, are too small to be distinguished;

(2) such large objects tend to become silhouettes;

and

(3) at this distance such objects tend to become

part of the background and appear to the observer to be less obtrusive.

This definition is subjective and individual perceptions differ. However, there is general agreement

that increased industrial development in a scenic natural environment results in the degradation of the relatively undeveloped seascapes. Also, it applies to only

mobile units. The size and longevity or OCS production platforms and other infrastructure requires a more

sophisticated methodology for examining project-related effects of these structures compared to the

MODU. Please refer to the visual resources section of

previous offshore development environmental impact

statements for a description of this methodology that

examines effects using the dimensions of visual character, visual sensitivity, and visual quality. These reports, whose geographic scope for visual resources

overlap, include the northern Santa Maria Basin (URS

1986); the central Santa Maria Basin (Arthur D. Little

1985); the southern Santa Maria Basin (Arthur D.

Little 1986); and the western Santa Barbara Channel

(U.S. Geological Survey 1974, Science Application Inc.

1984, SLC 1992).

While the VRIA is used to assess direct project

impacts from the MODU, evaluation of the cumulative effects of the MODU emplacement requires a

slightly modified methodology. The cumulative effect

of the MODU must be considered in light of a possible

existing significant-but-mitigated impacts from existing production facilities.

This section analyzes project-related and cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action in the time

period from 2002 to 2006. For cumulative impacts

related to the hypothetical development scenario in

the period 2002 to 2030, please see section 6.2.14

5.2.14.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON VISUAL RESOURCES

The visual impacts from delineation drilling will

be dependent on the level of public access to area, the

length of time the MODU is on the unit, and the degree to which the MODU presents a degree of change

inconsistent with the existing viewshed. The following criteria classify the visual impacts from the MODU.

HIGH

For project impacts, the VRIA encompasses major public viewing areas during the highest use period

(Memorial Day through Labor Day). For cumulative

impacts, the MODU expands the area of existing visual impacts from major public viewing areas due to

offshore development during the highest use period

(Memorial Day through Labor Day).

MEDIUM

For project impacts, the VRIA encompasses major public viewing areas during moderate use period

(generally, April through Memorial Day and Labor Day

through October). For cumulative impacts, the MODU

expands the area of existing visual impacts from major public viewing areas due to offshore development

viewing areas during the moderate use period (generally, April through Memorial Day and Labor Day

through October).

LOW

For project level impacts, the VRIA encompasses

areas of public viewing during the non-peak season

(November, December, January, February, March). For

cumulative impacts, the MODU expands the area of

existing visual impacts from major public viewing areas due to offshore development during the viewing

during the non-peak season (November, December,

January, February, March).

NEGLIGIBLE

For project level impacts, the VRIA does not encompass major public viewing areas. For cumulative

impacts, the MODU does not expand the area of existing visual effects from offshore development.

Impacts classified as medium or high are considered significant impacts. Impacts classified as low are

considered adverse, but not significant. Since the

MODU is on a particular site for a short period of

time, direct project impacts and cumulative effects from

MODU operations are considered local.
5-145

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL UNITS

Since the visual impacts of the MODU are location specific, no impacts common to all units have been

identified.

IMPACTS UNIQUE TO EACH UNIT:

Bonito Unit. The MODU is anticipated to be on

the Unit for between 90 and 180 days starting in the

third quarter of 2002. The wells will be sited at up to

two of four locations indicated on figure 5.2.14.1-1.

(The MODU would be at each of the two sites for up

to 90 days.) As illustrated in figure 5.2.14.1-1, an 8

km (5 mi) arc from each potential drill location defines the visual resources impact area, VRIA.

Visual resource impact is negligible since the

VRIA does not cross the coastline (at its closest point,

the VRIA boundary is approximately 6 km from Point

Arguello). The MODU will be visible for a short period of time in an area not readily accessible to the

public. The offers limited public access. Visibility is

often reduced because of meteorological conditions.

Point Sal Unit. The MODU is anticipated to be

on the Unit for approximately 68 days starting in the

fourth quarter 2002. The single well will be sited at

one of three locations indicated on figure 5.2.14.1-2,

with the preferred location at the northwest corner of

the unit. As illustrated in figure 5.2.14.1-2, an 8 km

(5 mi) arc from each potential drill location defines

the VRIA.

Visual resource impact is negligible since the

VRIA does not cross the coastline (at its closest point,

the VRIA boundary is approximately 2.5 km from Pt.

Sal). The MODU will be visible for a short period of

time during the off-peak tourism season. (In 2000,

Point Sal State Park was closed to visitors.) The area

offers limited public access. Visibility is often reduced

because of meteorological conditions.

Purisima Point Unit. The MODU is expected to

be on the Unit for approximately 68 days starting in

the first quarter of 2003. The single well will be sited

at the location indicated on figure 5.2.14.1-2. As illustrated in figure 5.2.14.1-2, an 8 km (5 mi) arc from

the drilling location defines the VRIA.

Visual resource impact is negligible since the

VRIA does not cross the coastline (at its closest point,

the VRIA boundary is approximately 3.5 km seaward

of Purisima Point), there is limited public access to

the area at Jalama Beach County Park and the Southern Pacific Railroad line, the MODU will only be on

station for a short period during the off-peak tourism

season.

Figure 5.2.14.1-1. Bonito Unit visual resources impact area.
5-146

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

Figure 5.2.14.1-2. Purisima Point and Point Sal Unit visual resource impact area.

Figure 5.2.14.1-3. Gato Canyon Unit visual resource impact area
5-147

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

Gato Canyon Unit. The MODU is expected to be

on the Unit for approximately 92 days starting in the

second quarter of 2003. The single well will be sited

at the location indicated on figure 5.2.14.1-3. As illustrated in figure 5.2.14.1-3, an 8 km (5 mi) arc from

the drill location defines the VRIA.

Visual resource impact is negligible. The VRIA

boundary extends less than 0.5 km inland from the

coastline in the area east of El Capitan State Beach,

and Highway 101 and the Southern Pacific Railroad

tracks. The VRIA does not, however, encompass these

areas, which offers the only public access in the area.

While the MODU will be on station for a short period

of time during the peak recreation and tourism use,

possibly during the period of most intense use, the

prevalent public view areas will be outside the VRIA.

In general, the area has a history of intensive onshore

and offshore development. As such, the MODU, while

it adds a visual element to the seascape, is not inconsistent with other elements in the viewshed..

5.2.14.1.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The effect of the Proposed Action on visual resources is negligible on each of the four Units. The

VRIA either does not cross the shoreline on three of

the four units (Pt. Sal, Purisima Point, and Bonito).

Furthermore, on these units, meteorological conditions

will generally obscure the MODU visibility from a

shoreline that offers little public access. The VRIA

from the Gato Canyon Unit drill site does cross the

shoreline for a short distance in the vicinity of El

Capitan State Beach, but does not encompass public

viewing areas. Although, present during a potion of

the peak tourism and recreation season (the time of

most intense viewing), no direct project impact results

since the public viewing area is outside the VRIA.

5.2.14.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

IMPACT FROM THE PROPOSED

ACTION.

None identified.

5.2.14.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FOR

VISUAL RESOURCES

The visual impact of offshore production structures and onshore processing facilities has been a major

concern of the public since the inception of offshore

oil development more than a century ago (Lima1994;

MMS 1996). A number of strategies developed to address visual impacts from drilling on state offshore

leases including restrictions on where development

would be permitted, technology that would be used for

development (platforms, subsea completions, slant

drilling from upland locations), and the location of

onshore facilities. In 1967, to minimize the number of

onshore processing plants, Santa Barbara County developed criteria for the siting of consolidated onshore

processing facilities. These criteria were eventually

crafted into zoning ordinances requiring the use of

consolidated facilities for the processing of offshore

oil and gas (Lima, 1997).

5.2.14.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002 TO

2006)

This section examines the cumulative impacts

to visual resources from the Proposed Action using

the criteria specified above, which are different than

the criteria for project-related impacts.

Cumulative Impacts Without the Proposed

Action (2002 to 2006): Cumulative impacts are

unchanged from current conditions without the proposal. No additional new offshore structures will be

placed in the area from other projects and no change

is anticipated to existing offshore infrastructure.

INCREMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002 TO 2006):

Gato Canyon Unit. While not resulting in any

direct project impacts, MODU placement on the Unit

expands an already significant-but-currently mitigated

visual impact from the Santa Ynez Unit platforms by

placing an additional offshore structure into the

viewshed. (See discussion under cumulative effect below.) The placement of the MODU will expand the

“cluster” of offshore structure eastward in closer proximity to El Capitan State Park, the major public use

viewing point in the area. Placement of the MODU

will also result from the infrastructure being viewed

along a greater distance of the transportation corridor of Highway 101 and the Southern Pacific Rail

Road. As a result, for the time that the MODU is on

the Unit, it will result in a moderate to high cumulative visual impact even though it does not result in a

project impact.

Bonito, Purisima Point, Point Sal and Combined

Units. As noted above, the effect on visual resources

of the MODU on all but one Unit is insignificant. The

VRIA for the MODU does not overlap with any existing offshore infrastructure seen from a public viewing

area. As a result, the project results in no new cumulative impacts to visual resources for any single Unit.

Summary and Conclusion (2002 to 2006):

The MODU on the Gato Canyon Unit results in a

moderate to high cumulative impact to visual resources. This impact will last as long as the MODU is
5-148

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

on the Unit. The MODU on the Bonito, Purisima

Point, or Point Sal Unit will not result in a cumulative impact to visual resources.

Potential Mitigation Measures for Cumulative

Impacts: Since the 1980s, operators of the Santa Ynez

Unit, the Point Arguello Unit, and the Point Pedernales

Unit have made payments to the Coastal Resources

Enhancement Fund, which provides enhancement

projects that will compensate for residual impacts to

coastal resources that are not otherwise mitigated.

Santa Barbara County Findings of Approval for past

offshore oil and gas projects in Santa Barbara County

have found adverse project and cumulative impacts to

recreation, tourism, and aesthetics, from construction

and operation of the project. To mitigate general, diffused, project and cumulative impacts in these and

other areas, Santa Barbara County created a Coastal

Resources Enhancement Fund which receives annual

payments over the life of the project to be used for

projects that enhance coastal recreation, aesthetic,

tourism, or other environmentally sensitive resources

(SBC, 1993).

Visual Resources-1. Placement During NonPeak Use Time. Conducting delineation drilling operations from the MODU on Gato Canyon during nonpeak times will reduce the level of impact.

5.2.15 IMPACTS ON RECREATION

Generally, impacts to coastal and beach recreation and associated tourism from offshore development that may result from the following:

1. temporary effects from offshore development

activity such as use of campground facilities

by construction crews, change in use patterns

from the activity, or beach or campground closures due to offshore to onshore pipeline construction.

2. long-term effects from the presence of onshore

infrastructure such as processing facilities and

offshore oil platforms that may change use patterns.

3. temporary and long-term effects of an oil spill

that may change use patterns.

As explained below, project impacts from the

MODU will fall into the first category, while cumulative effects will fall into all three categories.

While related to recreation, separate sections

analyze effects from the project on recreational fishing, visual resources, and community resources and

tourism.

 Significance criteria and mitigation to analyze

the impact to recreation have been developed for coastal

energy projects in the region (Arthur D. Little, 1996).

For recreation, an impact is considered significant when

it causes

• Permanent or long-term preemption of a recreational use or temporary preemption or conflicts during peak season use;

• Long-term use or degradation (extending beyond the construction period) of the recreational value of a major recreational use.

While these criteria are most applicable to routine operations, they have also been applied to analyze the impacts from oil spills. (See, for example,

Aspen Environmental Group, 1992.)

For further specification, these impacts can be

classified as:

HIGH

Complete closure of water-oriented recreational

facilities for a short period during the peak season for

recreation or a partial closure for most or all of the

peak season, or a 15 percent or greater economic loss

to the industry over a comparable time period of previous years.

MODERATE

Complete closure of water-oriented recreational

facilities for a period during the low use season, or a

partial closure for an extended period during other

than peak season for recreation and tourism, or a 5

percent or greater economic loss to the industry over

a comparable time period of previous years.

LOW

Partial closure of water-oriented recreational

facilities for a short period at any time of year, or a

less than 5 percent economic loss to the industry over

a comparable time period of previous years.

These categories explicitly recognize that a water-oriented facility does not have to be closed or completely inaccessible in order for significant impacts to

occur. A facility may remain opened, but the recreation quality diminished to the point that a significant impact (moderate or high) has occurred. However, three other factors, which enter into the assessment of impact, are implicit in the determination. The

first factor accounts for location, the degree to which

substitutes for the activity or site exist or do not exist

nearby and remain accessible and unaffected. The second factor recognizes that some activities which require additional training, skill, or special equipment

(surfing, scuba diving, kayaking) often have a higher

associated value than other activities. The third fac-
5-149

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

tor recognizes that water-oriented recreation is separable from other types of recreation and locations. The

determination of impact examines the value of wateroriented recreation as opposed to the entire recreation

sector. Moreover, water-oriented activity does not

necessarily occur on the water or at or near the water’s

edge. By definition, all recreation activity that occurs

on an island is water-oriented.

5.2.15.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON RECREATION

This section analyzes project-related and cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action in the time

period from 2002 to 2006. For cumulative impacts

related to the most likely development scenario in the

period 2002 to 2030, please see section 6.2.14.

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL UNITS

The delineation drilling project requires no new

onshore facility construction. No significant demand

from project-related employment in-migration (crew

of the MODU and support vessels and other supporting operations) for campground facilities is expected

from the delineation drilling project. As such, temporary effects from offshore development activity are nonexistent to insignificant.

IMPACTS UNIQUE TO EACH UNIT

There are no recreational impacts unique to each

unit. Visual impacts, which may affect some recreation activities, are discussed in a separate section.

5.2.15.1.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND

CONCLUSIONS.

No impacts to recreation have been identified as

a result of delineation drilling on the Gato Canyon,

Bonito, Purisima Point, or Point Sal Unit. The visual

impacts to recreation areas are discussed in a separate section.

5.2.15.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSAL

No impacts to recreation have been identified as

a result of delineation drilling on the Gato Canyon,

Bonito, Purisima Point, or Point Sal Unit. Therefore,

no mitigation measures are proposed.

5.2.15.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR RECREATION

This section examines the

• factors that affect cumulative impacts to recreational resources from offshore oil and gas

development;

• the cumulative impacts to recreational resources from the proposal—delineation drilling on Gato Canyon, Bonito, Purisima Point

and Point Sal Units;

For cumulative impacts related to the most likely

development scenario in the period 2002 to 2030, please

see section 6.2.15.

While not precisely defined, communities in the

region often cite sustainable coastal recreation as a

public policy and planning goal. Essentially, sustainable tourism derives from full appreciation of the

unique qualities and resources of a particular coastal

region. Once a region’s natural and cultural amenities, and the threats to them, are thoroughly characterized, public and private investments can be directed

toward their sustainable management.

Achieving this goal requires meeting a number

of difficult objectives. To varying degrees, elements

contributing to cumulative effects to recreation include:

• continued sprawl development,

• restricted public access,

• non-point pollution problems caused by urban

and other runoff,

• resolving conflicts among coastal recreation

activities,

• other forms of environmental degradation

caused by intensifying development and multiplying recreational activities, and,

• cumulative effects of environmental and socioeconomic trends.

Many factors affect recreational resources including supply, demand, site quality and accessibility,

and site closures and restrictions, as well as diversification and expansion of activities (Pollock 1997). Communities recognize recreation opportunities, especially

coastal-dependent and coastal-enhanced recreation, as

a defining characteristic of the community for both

resident and visitor (King 1997, MMS 1996a, b, and c,

MMS 2000). Population growth is a robust predictor

of demand for recreation (Science Applications Inc,

1984). By 2040, population is projected to grow 145

percent for San Luis Obispo County, 110 percent for

Santa Barbara County, and 90 percent for Ventura

County.
5-150

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

Routine offshore energy development impacts recreational resources through construction activity

which may impact recreation facilities, use of campground facilities as temporary housing sites for inmigrant workers engaged in the construction of onshore and offshore facilities, and use conflicts created

by the presence of offshore and onshore infrastructure. Impacts from upsets and accidents include restriction on access to sites and preclusion of certain

activities at sites.

From 1985 through 1995, a socioeconomic monitoring and mitigation program evaluated impacts from

offshore oil, gas, and pipeline projects to Santa Barbara and Ventura County. While impacts varied from

project to project, the impacts from construction

worker use of campgrounds were of sufficient magnitude to trigger mitigation payments to Santa Barbara

County. Campground use accounted for approximately

$99,000 or 1 percent of the total socioeconomic impact

mitigation payment. No mitigation payment for campground impacts was made to Ventura County (MMS

2000).

Santa Barbara County Findings of Approval for

past offshore oil and gas projects in Santa Barbara

County have found adverse project and cumulative

impacts to recreation, tourism, and aesthetics, from

construction and operation of the project. To mitigate

general, diffused, project and cumulative impacts in

these and other areas, Santa Barbara County created

a Coastal Resources Enhancement Fund which receives

annual payments over the life of the project to be used

for projects that enhance coastal recreation, aesthetic,

tourism, or other environmentally sensitive resources

(SBC, 1993).

Restriction of ocean water contact activities,

through water quality advisories or beach closings,

have occurred and are expected to occur in the area.

Also, some areas have been closed to public access to

protect the nesting of shorebirds.

For the purposes of accidents, researchers suggest that there are three periods of time that need to

be evaluated in determining impact (Deacon and

Kolstadt 2000).

1. Closure period when the beach is officially

closed for clean up.

2. Physically degraded period when the beach is

open but the experience is degraded because

there is still evidence of pollution.

3. Perceptually degraded period when the beach

is physically clean yet the memory of the accident is fresh enough that the quality of the

experience may be somewhat degraded.

As such, the duration of impact may exceed the

time that the beach is closed or physically degraded.

While estimated value of the consumer surplus for recreation varies, the practice in California enforcement

actions values general beach use at $13.19 per participant day ($ CY 1990). A 25% premium is added to this

base for activities that require additional skill or training, such as surfing. Value for diminished use, rather

than total loss of use, reduces this base value. These

enforcement actions occur independent of significance.

5.2.15.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002 TO

2006)

Cumulative impacts during this period will consist of those impacts that will occur without delineation drilling and those that will occur as a result of

delineation drilling.

Cumulative Impacts Without the Proposed

Action (2002 to 2006): Other large-scale construction projects in the area that result in an in-migration of temporary workers would similarly contribute

to the demand for campsites at public recreational facilities. No other large-scale projects have been identified in the timeframe anticipated for offshore and

onshore facility construction. Seasonal closure of

beach areas north of Point Conception for the protection of nesting shorebirds is expected to continue. As

noted above, payments to the Santa Barbara County

Coastal Resources Enhancement Fund mitigate impacts from existing OCS development over the life of

the project.

Advisories and beach closures from degraded

water quality attributable to non-point sources are

expected to continue. Depending on the duration of

these notices, locally significant impacts could result.

Other factors, such as closure of access at Point Sal

State Beach or restrictions on access due to seasonal

beach erosion, could be locally significant.

Coastal access points for recreation along the

coast from Point Sur in Monterey County to Point

Fermin in Los Angeles County tend to be fairly concentrated. Generally, 4 to 10 formally identified access points cluster in 5 to 7 mile segments, with the

higher concentrations in shorter segments in highly

developed areas. Access ranges from high use recreational beaches offering a range of amenities and activities to stairways to pocket beaches. In less-developed areas, formally identified access is fairly isolated.

These units tend to be State and county parks that

feature a mix of day and overnight uses and provide

the only recreational access in the area (California,

1997).

Table 5.2.15.2.1-1 presents data on the length of

shoreline that may be affected for various sized oil

spills. Cleanup of a smaller spill (200 barrels or less)

may take one to two weeks to clean up whereas a larger

spill may take up to 30 days or more (Pers Comm,

Tarpley 2001). Effects to recreation would be very

location specific and may vary seasonally.
5-151

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

A spill of 200 barrels from OCS production would

probably not be regionally significant. However, closing a remote beach that provides the area’s only access for one week to two weeks during a period of high

use could be locally significant. Cumulative impacts

could result if attendance had been affected by advisories and closings due to runoff from contamination

from runoff or sewage spills.

Increasing the spill size to 2,000 barrels from

OCS production or to 22,000 barrels from non-OCS

tankering, increases the likelihood of regionally significant impacts. The wider the area oiled the more

locations that may be impacted, affecting greater numbers of participants. As the area increases, substitution, the ability to do the same activity at a different

location, becomes more difficult. In addition to the

closure of mainland access points, a spill that results

in the closure of the area’s small craft harbors from

deployment of containment booms at harbor entrance’s

means that vessels will not be able to enter or leave

the harbor.

For example, the level of water-oriented recreational activity that occurs at Channel Islands National Park and the Channel Islands National Marine

Sanctuary. Closing small craft harbors at Santa Barbara, Ventura, or Channel Islands (Oxnard) would

preclude much of this activity for the duration of the

closure. Similarly, on-island activity would be affected,

with greatest reduction in visitor days occurring to

Anacapa or Santa Cruz Island. (During the peak season, inter-island substitution may not be possible since

the islands have restriction on the maximum number

of visitors at any given time and the hauling capacity

of park concessionaires is limited by boat occupancy

restrictions. The peak season for island visitation

occurs March through October with the greatest use

occurring May through June.)

A spill affecting a community’s “beach area” described in section 4 could have a variety of consequences. Since beach areas are geographically compact and concentrate water-oriented activities, impacts

from a spill could be significant, despite the relatively

small area affected.

Incremental Impacts of the Proposed Action (2002 to 2006): No significant new demand on

the area’s recreation facilities results from the crew

of the MODU and support vessels. Because of the

typical nature of MODU operations and crew scheduling (extended periods on the rig with workers returning home during their time off) delineation activities

are not expected to contribute significantly to this

demand. No significant long-term impact results from

the placement of the MODU on the Units to existing

or anticipated recreational uses of those areas.

Summary and Conclusion (2002 to 2006):

Several factors singly or in combination may have a

significant cumulative effect on recreation resources

depending on the duration of restricted or degraded

use. Most of these impacts will be local, but an oil

spill of 2,000 or 22,000 barrels could have regionally

significant impacts. However, MODU operations will

not contribute to the cumulative impacts.

Potential Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Impacts: CREF payments to mitigate cumulative effects of OCS development continue over the

life of the project. No additional mitigation measures

are identified.

Table 5.2.15.2-1. Oil spills for cumulative impact analysis.

Source Size of Spill 

(bbl) 

95% probability that spill 

reaching shore will contact 

length of coastline greater 

than x km (mi.). 

5% probability that spill 

reaching shore will contact 

length of coastline greater 

than 

x km (mi). 

OCS production 200 1.04 (0.65) 18.9 (11.7) 

OCS production 2,000 2.84 (1.76) 52.5 (36.2) 

Tankering 22,800 8.87 (5.52) 161.4 (100.3) 
5-152

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

5.2.16 IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY

CHARACTERISTICS AND TOURISM

RESOURCES

The development of a community’s conditions and

resources, including its sense of place, develop over a

long period of time and is the product of many interaction, of continuity and change. Tourism is one roust

indicator of a community’s characteristics. At any

point in time, a community may be the sum of past,

existing, and emerging social, cultural, and economic

forces. A community’s development is not static; it is

the product of continuity and change. This section

addresses the impacts of the Proposed Action and cumulative effects from production on Ventura, Santa

Barbara, and Ventura County, the areas most proximate to the offshore activity evaluated in this document.

The following categories classify community characteristics impacts in general and tourism resources

impacts in particular.

HIGH

· Impacts to the affected activity or community

are unavoidable.

· Proper mitigation would reduce impacts somewhat during the life of the project.

· The affected activity or community would experience unavoidable disruptions to a degree

beyond what is normally acceptable.

· Once the impacting agent is eliminated, the affected activity or community may retain measurable effects of the Proposed Action indefinitely, even if remedial action is taken.

MODERATE

· Impacts to the affected activity or community

are unavoidable.

· Proper mitigation would reduce impacts substantially during the life of the project.

· The affected activity or community would have

to adjust somewhat to account for disruptions

due to impacts of the project.

· Once the impacting agent is eliminated, the affected activity or community will return to a

condition with no measurable effects from the

Proposed Action if proper remedial action is

taken.

LOW

· Adverse impacts to the affected activity or community could be avoided with proper mitigation.

· Impacts would not disrupt the normal or routine functions of the affected activity or community.

· Once the impacting agent is eliminated, the affected activity or community will return to a

condition with no measurable effects from the

Proposed Action without any mitigation.

NEGLIGIBLE

No measurable impacts.

The analysis to support each conclusion must

analyze and describe the intensity, duration, and geographic extent (or size) of the impacts to the affected

resource. An impact is significant if it is in the moderate or high category.

5.2.16.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON COMMUNITY

RESOURCES AND TOURISM.

Impacts Common to All Units: The delineation

drilling project requires no new onshore facility construction. No sizeable demand from project-related

employment in-migration (crew of the MODU and support vessels and other supporting operations) for lodging is expected. The drilling operations will take place

proximate to areas that have in the recent past or presently experience some degree of offshore and onshore

petroleum extraction. Direct delineation activities

on the Units take place outside the urban boundaries

of any nearby community. Support activities for development will originate primarily in Ventura County’s

Port Hueneme that has community characteristics

compatible with offshore development activity. While

the project may cause an increase in activism within

the community during the decision making process,

as do many coastal development projects in Santa

Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties and its constituents communities, the status quo should return

to the community after the projects are complete.

Santa Barbara County government has well established administrative routines and bureaus with the

organizational capacity to address issues related to

the projects. As such, no change to governance is

expected. The intensity of the MODU operations is

low compared to existing levels of development. Duration of the projects is short. The geographic extent of
5-153

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

the impact is limited to areas outside developed communities. As such, the impact to the community characteristics and tourism from the Proposed Action will

be negligible. Also, no other projects have been identified which in combination with MODU activities are

likely to affect community characteristics or tourism.

Impacts Unique to Each Unit: There are no community characteristics and tourism resources impacts

unique to each unit. Visual and recreation impacts,

which may affect tourism, are discussed in a separate

section.

5.2.16.1.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Community characteristics and tourism resources impacts from the Proposed Action are negligible for the Point Sal, Purisima Point, Bonito, and

Gato Canyon Units because of the short duration, remote location near areas already experiencing energy

development, and low intensity of the action.

5.2.16.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED

ACTION

No mitigation measures have been identified.

Please see the visual resources and recreation resources sections for analysis and mitigation measures

for these related resources.

5.2.16.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR COMMUNITY RESOURCES AND

TOURISM

This section examines the cumulative impacts

to community characteristics and tourism resources

from the Proposed Action—delineation drilling on Gato

Canyon, Bonito, Purisima Point and Point Sal Units

in the time period from 2002 to 2006. For cumulative

impacts related to the most likely development scenario in the time period from 2002 to 2030, please see

section 6.2.16.

5.2.16.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002 TO

2006)

Cumulative Impacts Without the Proposed

Action (2002 to 2006): Since community characteristics and tourism resources analyzed in this section are evolutionary and slow to change, that process that will continue as it currently exists for the

four year period.

Incremental Impact of the Proposed Action

(2002 to 2006): Since project impacts of the Proposed Action are negligible and of short duration, the

Proposed Action is not expected to contribute to a

change in community characteristics or tourism resources.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (2002 TO

2006):

Since community characteristics and tourism resources analyzed in this section are evolutionary and

slow to change, that process that will continue as it

currently exists for the four year period.

POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:

None identified.

5.2.17 IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT AND

POPULATION

The following significance criteria levels were

used in the impact analysis for social and economics

to determine whether the proposed delineation projects

activities could result in social and economic impacts.

HIGH

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) regional change in population or employment by at least 1⁄2% or a change in

the population or employment is equal to or greater

than 75% of the annual change in population or employment. A short term (less than two years) change

in employment or population by at least 3⁄4% or a

change in the employment or population of 40% to

74% of the average annual change for the study area.

MODERATE

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) regional change in population or employment by at least 1⁄4% or a change in

the population or employment is between 40% to 75%

of the annual change in population or employment. A

short term (less than two years) change in employment or population by at least 1⁄2% or a change in the

employment or population of 10% to 39% of the average annual change for the study area.
5-154

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

LOW

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) regional change in population or employment of less than 1⁄4% or a change in

the population or employment is less than 40% of the

annual change in population or employment. A short

term (less than two years) change in employment or

population off less than 1⁄2% or a change in the employment or population of less than 10% of the average annual change for the study area. This level of

change from the baseline is insignificant.

5.2.17.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON EMPLOYMENT AND

POPULATION

Delineation activities use offshore and onshore

support services. If delineation activity is increased

beyond the existing threshold for support services;

changes in employment and population could occur.

Change in employment result from both of direct and

indirect component effects. If warranted, increased

employment would draw from the local labor force and

could induce immigration for new jobs.

The proposed delineation activities will be common for all proposed delineation wells. Thus, there

are no impacts unique to any unit.

One Mobile Drilling Unit (MODU) is proposed

to drill 4 to 5 wells over a 14-month period. The Proposed Action is expected to employ 110 people directly

on the MODU. Employment on the MODU is expected

to use workers who live on the MODU while working

and return to their home base during their off times.

In addition to the 110 employees directly connected to

the MODU 35 other workers are expected to support

the drilling activities. The additional support workers are expected to be current employees of service

providers to the offshore industry and no new employees are anticipated as a result of this Proposed Action.

Over the 14-month period routine supplies will be supplied by onshore services. The required services from

one MODU over a short period of time will stimulate

business for support services, but is insufficient to

require any measurable changes to employment. Population increases result from increased employment and

in-migration associated with employment opportunities. With no anticipated increase in local employment

it is unlikely that any measurable in-migration will

occur.

5.2.17.1.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

No impacts on employment and population are

anticipated from the Proposed Action. Given there

will be only a small demand for local workers, no

change in employment from the proposed project is

expected. With no change in employment, the Proposed

Action will have no effect on the population.

5.2.17.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED

ACTION

None identified. No impacts are anticipated from

the Proposed Action.

5.2.17.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR EMPLOYMENT AND

POPULATION

5.2.17.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002-

2006)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WITHOUT THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006)

Depending on economic conditions, general employment is expected to stay steady or slightly increase

during the period. However, for some time oil and gas

sector employment has declined in the study area, a

trend that is expected to continue. Therefore, population impacts related to offshore oil and gas development are expected to remain less than 0.32% of the

total population.

INCREMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006)

Given the level of proposed activity, no expansion of existing services is anticipated. The proposed

delineation activity may slow the rate of decline in the

local oil and gas sector or services or provided from

local service centers in the Los Angeles or Bakersfield.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION (2002-2006)

The proposed activity is not expected to have an

incremental increase on population or employment.

POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

None identified because of lack of impact.
5-155

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

5.2.18 IMPACTS ON HOUSING

The following significance criteria levels were

used in the impact analysis for social and economics

to determine whether the proposed delineation projects

activities could result in housing impacts.

HIGH

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand for housing at least 20%. Or the Proposed Action is likely to

result in a short-term (less than two years) local or

regional increase or decrease in the rate of change in

demand for housing at least 35%.

MODERATE

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand for housing between 10% and 19%. Or the Proposed Action is

likely to result in a short-term (less than two years)

local or regional increase or decrease in the rate of

change in demand for housing between 25% and 35%.

LOW

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand for housing of less than 10%. Or the Proposed Action is likely

to result in a short-term (less than two years) local or

regional increase or decrease in the rate of change in

demand for housing less than 25%. This change from

the base level is insignificant.

5.2.18.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON HOUSING

No change in population is expected from the

Proposed Action. Therefore, no change in the demand

for housing is expected from the Proposed Action.

5.2.18.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR HOUSING

5.2.18.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002-

2006)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WITHOUT THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006)

Without the Proposed Action, demand for housing will continue to grow as a function of projected

population growth. No other projects have been identified that would cause greater than expected growth.

INCREMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006)

No change in population is expected from the

Proposed Action. Therefore, no incremental change

in the demand for housing is expected from the Proposed Action.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION (2002-2006

Population growth is expected to increase over

the period due to demographic and other factors not

related to offshore oil and gas or other identifiable

projects. No cumulative impact in the demand for housing is expected from the Proposed Action.

5.2.19 IMPACTS ON INFRASTRUCTURE

The following significance criteria levels were

used in the impact analysis for social and economics

to determine whether the proposed delineation projects

activities could result in infrastructure impacts.

HIGH

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand on public

or private infrastructure or services by at least 20%.

Or the Proposed Action is likely to result in a shortterm (less than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand on public

or private infrastructure or services by at least 35%.

MODERATE

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand on public

or private infrastructure or services by between 10%

and 19%. Or the Proposed Action is likely to result in

a short-term (less than two years) local or regional

increase or decrease in the rate of change in demand

on public or private infrastructure or services by between 25% and 34%.
5-156

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

 Weekly Boat Trips Percent 

Increase 

 Crew Boats Supply Boats 

Total Trips 84 33 N/A 

 Bonito 2 3 4.27% 

 Gato Canyon 1 3 3.41% 

 Purisima Point 1 3 3.41% 

 Point Sal 1 3 3.41% 

Peak from proposal 2 3 4.27% 

LOW

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand on public

or private infrastructure or services of less than 10%.

Or the Proposed Action is likely to result in a shortterm (less than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand on public

or private infrastructure or services of less than 25%.

This change from the base level is insignificant.

5.2.19.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON INFRASTRUCTURE

As discussed in section 4, the Proposed Action is

expected to increase crew and supply vessel traffic and

the onshore support of the vessels by less than 3 percent. The Proposed Action will result in a short-term

increase in truck traffic at the Ports of Hueneme and

Long Beach, only the Bonito Unit is expected to impact the Port of Hueneme. The increase in truck traffic results from barging of drill stem test fluids. It is

likely that the fluids will be transported to the test

facility in 140 bbl tanker trucks. The number of trucks

required by unit and the increase in truck traffic at

the Ports of Hueneme and Long Beach are shown in

table 5.2.19.1-1.

All units are expected to share the same level of

impacts, which are low. The proposed delineation activities will be common for all proposed delineation

wells. Thus, there are no impacts unique to any unit.

5.2.19.1.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND

CONCLUSION

Crew and supply vessels trips are anticipated to

increase as a result from the Proposed Action. The

changes from each unit are shown in table 5.2.19.1.1-

1. The maximum change from the Proposed Action

results in a short-term increase in supply vessel trips

is 9.09%. The maximum increase in truck traffic as a

result of the Proposed Action is a short-term increase

of 72 trucks at the Port of Hueneme. The increase in

truck traffic at the Port of Hueneme would be for less

than 3 days. The extremely short-term nature of the

increase in truck traffic reduces an otherwise moderate impact to low. The maximum change at the Port

of Long Beach is less than one percent of daily truck

traffic for any unit. Table 5.2.19.1-1. shows the relative change by unit for the Ports of Hueneme and Long

Beach.

Table 5.2.19.1-1. Trucks for Drill Stem Test Program.

Table 5.2.19.1.1-1. Vessel Traffic Impacts.

 Total 

Trucks 

Daily Trucks Percent of Port of 

Hueneme Daily 

Truck Traffic 

Percent of Truck 

Traffic in Vicinity 

of the Port of Long 

Beach 

Bonito1 286 72 36% 0.3% 

Point Sal 375 72 N/A 0.3% 

Purisima Point 375 72 N/A 0.3% 

Gato Canyon 50 50 N/A 0.2% 

Total Trucks 1086 N/A N/A 
5-157

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

5.2.19.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION

No mitigation measures are identified since the

change in boat and truck trips are not significant.

5.2.19.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR INFRASTRUCTURE

5.2.19.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002-

2006)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WITHOUT THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006)

Crew and supply boats will continue to service

the offshore oil and gas industry and existing onshore

development will continue at the present levels of activity. No other activities that would impact infrastructure other than expected variation in port operations

have been identified.

INCREMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006)

A greater number of trips from the supply and

crew bases will result from the Proposed Action but

this will not significantly impact infrastructure requirements. A short-term increase in truck trips from

the Ports of Hueneme and Long Beach will likely occur but this change will not significantly impact infrastructure requirements.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION (2002-2006)

The greater number of trips from the supply and

crew bases resulting from the Proposed Action will

not significantly impact infrastructure requirements.

Additionally, the short-term increase in truck traffic

from the Proposed Action will not significantly impact infrastructure demand.

POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002-2006)

No mitigation measures are identified since the

change in boat or truck trips are not significant

5.2.20 IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FINANCE AND

SERVICES

The following significance criteria levels were

used in the impact analysis for the social environment

and economics to determine whether the proposed delineation projects activities could result in public finance and services impacts.

HIGH

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand for public

or private services by at least 20%. Or the Proposed

Action is likely to result in a short-term (less than

two years) local or regional increase or decrease in

the rate of change in demand for public and private

services by at least 35%.

MODERATE

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand on public

or private or services by between 10% and 19%. Or

the Proposed Action is likely to result in a short-term

(less than two years) local or regional increase or decrease in the rate of change in demand on public or

private services by between 25% and 34%.

LOW

The Proposed Action is likely to result in a longterm (more than two years) local or regional increase

or decrease in the rate of change in demand on public

or private services of less than 10%. Or the Proposed

Action is likely to result in a short-term (less than

two years) local or regional increase or decrease in

the rate of change in demand on public or private services of less than 25%. This change from the base level

is insignificant.

5.2.20.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON PUBLIC FINANCE AND

SERVICES

In general, the primary causes in change in demand for public and private services is a substantial

change demographic, economic, or social conditions

of an area in a short period of time. Furthermore,

local government land-use and air quality permitting

and regulation of offshore oil and gas development is

based on a fee-for-service charge to project applicants.

The Proposed Action in not expected to result in a

measurable change in the demand for public or private services.
5-158

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

5.2.20.1.1.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

No new public or private services are anticipated

as a result of the Proposed Action.

5.2.20.1.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED

ACTION

No potential mitigation measures are identified

because of lack of impacts. Past practice by Santa

Barbara County required participation by offshore oil

and gas operators in the Socioeconomic Monitoring

and Mitigation Program. The lack of impacts from

the delineation projects does not appear to warrant

re-establishing this program.

5.2.20.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR PUBLIC FINANCE AND

SERVICES

5.2.20.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002-

2006)

Cumulative impacts Without the Proposed

Action (2002-2006)

The existing demand for public and private services will continue. Property taxes in Santa Barbara

will continue to be enhanced by revenue generated by

offshore-related onshore development. Table 5.2.20.2-

1 shows the property tax contribution in Ventura and

Santa Barbara.

INCREMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006):

The Proposed Action will not generate impacts

to result in a noticeable change in demand for public

and private services.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION (2002-2006)

Demand for public and private services will continue during the period in variation with demographic

and other factors not related to offshore oil and gas or

other identifiable projects. No cumulative impact in

the demand for public and private services is expected

from the Proposed Action.

POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002-2006)

No potential mitigation measures are identified

because of lack of impacts. Past practice by Santa

Barbara County required participation by offshore oil

and gas operators in the Socioeconomic Monitoring

and Mitigation Program. The lack of impacts from

the delineation projects does not appear to warrant

re-establishing this or a similar program.

Table 5.2.20.2-1. County Revenue and Expenditures ($1,000).

 1998 Total 

Revenue 

1998 Total 

Expenditures 

Excess 

Revenue 

1998 Property Tax 

Offshore Oil and 

Gas Related 

Percent of Revenue 

from Offshore Oil 

Related Property 

Taxes 

 

San Luis $224,426 $210,907 $13,519 0 0 

Santa Barbara $410,068 $408,715 $1,353 $12,945 3.2% 

Ventura $627,133 $633,648 -$6,515 $442 0.07% 
5-159

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

5.2.21 IMPACTS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL

LAND USE

The following significance criteria levels were

used in the impact analysis for social and economics

to determine whether the proposed delineation projects

activities could result in non-residential land use impacts.

HIGH

New onshore facilities are required to meet the

demands of the Proposed Action and conversions from

other non-industrial land uses are required. Land uses

vary from those anticipated in local, State, or Federal

plans and projections and result in displacement of

competing uses and Proposed Actions.

MODERATE

Existing onshore facilities can be modified to meet

the demands from the Proposed Action, but modifications may require a change in the plant footprint and

permitted capacities or new facilities are required.

Land use may vary from those anticipated in local,

State, or Federal plans and projections.

LOW

Existing onshore facilities can accommodate

change in demand from the Proposed Action without

expansion beyond current plant footprint and permitted capacities. Any changes in land use are consistent with local, State, of Federal plans and projections.

The change from the baseline is insignificant.

5.2.21.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON NON-RESIDENTIAL

LAND USE

The Proposed Action is expected to have a no

impact on non-residential land uses since no new facilities will be needed for the project.

5.2.21.1.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND

CONCLUSION

There are no anticipated impacts from the Proposed Action on non-residential land uses.

5.2.21.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION

No mitigation measures are identified since the

Proposed Action requires no land use changes.

5.2.21.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE

5.2.21.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002-

2006)

Cumulative impacts Without the Proposed

Action (2002-2006): Existing onshore facilities are

expected to continue substantially as they are. No

changes in the onshore support facilities are expected.

Land uses supporting offshore oil and gas will continue as long as oil production is possible.

Incremental Impacts of the Proposed Action (2002-2006): The Proposed Action will not generate land use impacts.

Summary and Conclusion (2002-2006): Existing use of onshore facilities is expected continue without any effect from the Proposed Action. . No cumulative impact to land use is expected

from the Proposed Action.

Potential Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Impacts (2002-2006): No potential mitigation

measures are identified because of lack of impacts.

5.2.22 IMPACTS ON COMMERCIAL FISHING

AND KELP HARVEST

Commercial fishing has been an integral part of

California economics since the turn of the century

(MBC, 1989). Conflicts with offshore oil and gas operations surfaced as early as the 1940’s. Many of the

conflicts have been mitigated through oil and gas industry funding of programs, direct payment to fishermen for lost fishing opportunity and damaged or lost

gear, better communication, and the avoidance of major oil spills as production increased on the Pacific

OCS from 80,000-bbl per day to 220,000-bbl per day

since 1985.

The following measures are included in the Proposed Action and have been proposed by the oil industry as a means of reducing conflicts and improving

communication between commercial fishermen and the

operators during the proposed project:

• Industry will consult with the Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison Office to identify and contact potentially affected fishers and fleets.
5-160

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

• Industry will hold meetings with representatives of the potentially affected fishing fleets to

provide information to all potentially affected

fishermen describing the location of the proposed drilling program, the area to be traversed, the planned dates of initiation and

completion, and to obtain feedback.

• Industry will prepare a Notice to Fishermen

and Claim Form to be sent to all potentially

affected fishermen who would likely be precluded from fishing during the proposed operations explaining the procedures for submitting a claim for lost revenue. This process will

include meeting with individual fishermen to

discuss each claim submitted, and the determination of a fair and reasonable mitigation/

remuneration based on historic fish catch

records using the appropriate mitigation/remuneration methodology.

• a local fisherman will captain a scout boat to

survey the proposed well site area prior to the

MODU arriving onsite. The scout boat captain will attempt to contact the owner of any

gear found at the site and arrange for relocation of the gear.

• Industry will notify fishermen in writing 30

days prior and verbally 3 days prior to the commencement of operations. Notifications will

be sent to the U.S. Coast Guard, Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department, Energy Division, the Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison Office, and the Marine Advisory

Newsletter in Goleta. Notices will also be distributed to and posted at area fuel docks, ice

supply houses, wholesale fish buyers, and Harbor Master’s offices in the area harbors.

• Industry will notify the Joint Oil/Fisheries

Liaison Office immediately following the

completion of the drilling program.

• Industry will immediately notify MMS of any

conflict with commercial fishermen before,

during, and after the drilling operations.

• Industry will ensure that all vessels and work

boats associated with the proposed project will

comply with the traffic corridors established

by the Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison Committee.

• Industry and boat captains associated with the

proposed project will keep logs documenting

equipment lost overboard. Industry will notify

MMS of all lost items.

• Industry will require all offshore personnel

involved in the proposed project to attend the

Western States Petroleum Association’s Fisheries Training Program, appropriately

abridged.

• Industry will hold at least two pre-survey coordination meetings with MMS and and other interested agencies to review the status of the implementation of these mitigation measures.

Impact Level Definitions. Changes or impacts

to commercial fishing resulting from the proposed

project will be analyzed according to the following criteria:

HIGH

• Fishermen are precluded from 10 percent or

more of the fishing grounds during the proposed project;

• 10 percent or more of the fishermen are precluded from a fishing area for all or most of a

fishing season; or

• a decrease in catchability of target species exceeds 10 percent of the average annual landing.

MODERATE

• Fishermen are precluded from 1 to 10 percent

of the fishing grounds during the proposed

project;

• 1 to 10 percent of the fishermen are precluded

from a fishing area for all or most of a fishing

season; or

• a decrease in catch of target species between 1

to 10 percent of the average annual landing.

LOW

• Fishermen are precluded from 1 percent or less

of the fishing grounds during the proposed

project;

• 1 percent or less of the fishermen are precluded

from a fishing area for all or most of a fishing

season; or

• a decrease in catch of target species less than

1 percent of the average annual landing.

For the purposes of this document, high and

medium level impacts are considered significant, while

low level impacts are considered insignificant.
5-161

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

5.2.22.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON COMMERCIAL FISHING

The operators propose drilling 4-5 delineation

wells from a semi-submersible type Mobile Offshore

Drilling Unit (MODU) into the four different units: 1

on the Point Sal Unit, 1 on the Purisima Point Unit, 1

to 2 on the Bonito Unit, and 1 on the Gato Canyon

Unit. The delineation activities proposed are of temporary duration. The spud date for the first and last

wells are the 2nd quarter of 2002 (Bonito Unit) and the

fourth quarter of 2003 (Gato Canyon), respectively.

Each well could take anywhere from 23 to 52 days to

drill and 21 to 28 days to test. The drilling and associated activities should take 68 to 90 days to complete

at each of the well sites. See section 2.0 (Project Description).

Several actions associated with the proposed

project have the potential to impact commercial fishermen and fisheries. These activities include towing

the MODU between well sites, anchoring activities,

support vessel traffic, and barging activities. Discharge of drilling muds and cuttings, discharge of produced water, and the potential explosive removal of

the wellheads are analyzed in section 5.2.6 (Fish Resources).

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL UNITS:

Vessel Traffic. Commercial fishermen are found

throughout the SBC/SMB and conflicts could occur

as the MODU is towed to each of the 4-5 well sites.

Also, crewboats and supply boats will travel to and

from the drill site on a regular basis. The conflicts

could include preclusion from the area, lost fishing

time, and damage to equipment. Any traps or gillnets

in the traffic corridor of the project areas could become entangled and damaged or lost when the MODU

and support vessels pass through the area. Trawlers,

purse seiners, trollers, and hook and line fishers could

be forced to move from the area or change course, resulting in lost fishing time.

As described in section 5.0, support vessel traffic

for the proposed delineation drilling operations will

operate out of Port Hueneme, with some possible crew

boat trips originating from the Carpinteria Pier. Crew

boats will average 2-8 trips per month throughout the

14 months of delineation drilling activities; a total of

about 90 trips will occur. Supply boat trips will average 8-12 per month, for a total of approximately 148

trips over the 14 month period. As the location of the

delineation drilling activities shifts from units in the

Santa Maria Basin eastward into the western Santa

Barbara Channel, overall support vessel traffic will

peak during the first 6 months at about 20 trips per

month, then decrease to about 10 trips per month during the final 3 months of activity.

Additionally, fluid produced during the drill stem

test of each delineation well will be barged to Long

Beach (possibly Port Hueneme for the Bonito Unit) at

the end of the testing period. Transportation of the

barges will comply with established vessel traffic corridors. A total of 4-10 such trips are estimated to occur over the 14 month duration of the proposed delineation drilling activities.

The Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin

Oil Service Vessel Traffic Corridor Program is intended

to minimize interactions between oil industry operations and commercial fishing operations. It was developed cooperatively by the two industries through

the Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison Office. In addition to

providing transit corridors in and out of area ports,

the program routes support traffic along the Channel

seaward of an outer boundary line. East of Gaviota,

the outer boundary is defined by the 30-fathom line;

west of Gaviota, and north of Point Conception as far

as Pedernales Point, it follows the 50-fathom line. In

the area west of Gaviota, the 50-fathom line is 4 km (2

nm) or more offshore.

Transit to and from drilling sites will occur

within vessel corridors established for oil and gas service vessels in the SBC. Although vessel traffic will

increase during the proposed project activities, the oil

industry would minimize conflicts with commercial

fishermen by traveling within the established corridors. Conflicts are more likely to occur in the SMB

where traffic corridors have not been established due

to minimal oil and gas activity in the area. Conflicts

can be mitigated by negotiating traffic corridors to the

proposed well sites on the Purisima Point and Point

Sal Units.

Low impacts to commercial fishing are estimated

from vessel traffic associated with the proposed project.

Proposed mitigation measures would further minimize

the impacts, if adopted.

Siting/Anchoring of the MODU. The proposed

delineation drilling activities would occur from a

MODU. The MODU would be moored with eight anchors, which will extend 5 to 7 times the water depth

from the MODU. The proposed drilling sites range in

water depth from 71 – 352 m (233 – 1156 ft). On average, this could amount to approximately 0.4 - 19 km2

(0.16 – 7.4 mi2) of ocean area that will be precluded

from commercial fishing while the MODU is onsite

(approximately 90 days at each site). Approximately

2,435 km2 (940 mi2) of trawl grounds are available in

the SBC/SMB. Thus, each well site could take up to

0.01 percent of available trawl grounds. This does

not take into account the tendency of trawlers to fish

along specific depth contours, for debris that may be

lost, or for the differences in productivity within trawl

grounds. For these reasons, the actual area precluded

could be somewhat higher than estimated and the economic losses associated with preclusion more variable.
5-162

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

Some degree of lateral flexibility in anchor placement allows avoidance of potential sea floor hard bottom resources. A site-specific mooring analysis and

ocean bottom surveys will be conducted to ensure correct anchor placement. The mooring analysis will factor in any subsea obstructions, obstacles, and hard

bottom habitat. The anchors will be set to avoid these

areas, and ensure that the anchors are placed in adequate soils to provide the required holding capacity.

By using an anchor of sufficient holding power, drag

related scarring could be minimized to the 3 – 30 m

necessary to properly set the anchor. MEC Analytical

Systems (1995) evaluated the area of anchor impacts

on hard bottom from exploratory operations occurring between 1968 and 1989. The study showed that

the width of anchor scars ranged from 1 – 8 m (3 – 25

ft) and the length averaged 250 m (820 ft).

The proposed delineation drilling operations will

take place within an area corresponding to CDF&G

Fish Blocks 644 (Bonito Unit), 632 (Point Sal Unit),

638 (Purisima Point Unit), and 654 and 655 (Gato

Canyon Unit). Some types of fishing could be potentially affected by the proposed project more than others, and depending on the time of year certain fisheries could be affected. Commercial fishermen including

trawl, troll, hook and line, drift and set gillnet, purse

seine, and trap fishermen will be precluded from fishing within the proposed drilling areas for up to 90

days at each site. Fishermen precluded from the drilling area would target alternate grounds resulting in

crowding and potentially decreased profits for the primary fishermen of those grounds.

Trawl fishing is a mobile fishery. The net is on

the bottom and in fairly deep water can be a mile behind the vessel. Trawlers often work on the top edges

of steep drop-off slopes; to turn into deeper water would

force the net to drop off these slopes. This causes loss

of fishing time since the net has to be picked up and

reset. Similarly, rocky outcrops, wrecks, or other debris are located randomly with respect to the trawl

grounds. These features are hazards to the trawler

because of their potential to snag and hang up the

net. Through trial and error, trawlers become aware

of most of the snags to avoid in favored grounds.

Knowledge of these snags also limits the potential maneuverability of the trawler when towing a net(s).

Turning into such a snag may mean loss or damage to

the net(s), and potential hazard to the vessel itself if

the hang is significant and/or weather/sea conditions

are unfavorable. Since turning into such obstructions

would be hazardous, most trawlers would have to stop

towing and pull their gear in rather than turn. If the

proposed MODU is on site while trawl fishing activity

is taking place, it could potentially interfere with trawl

fishing. Trawlers typically give about 400 m (1300 ft)

berth to platforms. The MODU will have an anchor

spread of up 2.5 km (1.5 mi) from the drilling unit.

However, the mooring buoys of the anchor spread are

not as easily seen as a drilling rig, so trawlers would

likely give even more berth to the mooring buoys.

Conservatively, trawl fishermen should give approximately 460 m (1500 ft) berth to the mooring buoys of

the MODU unit when it is onsite and the anchor spread

is set. For the proposed drilling sites ranging in water depth from 71 – 352 m (233 – 1156 ft), this would

amount to from 886 – 2924 m (0.5 – 1.8 mi) berth from

the MODU. After the MODU has left the site, trawlers may experience conflicts due to anchor scars for

up to 4 years depending on the sediment type and bottom currents of the area.

Drift gillnets may be a mile to mile and half in

length and have restricted ability to maneuver. A drift

gillnet up to 2000 m (6,000 ft) long and 20-30 m (60-

100 ft) deep can be fished anywhere from right at the

surface to 10-15 m (30-40 ft) below the surface and

may drift for up to 30 km (18 mi). The end of the

gillnet not attached to the fishing vessel usually has a

radar reflector/lighted buoy attached to it, but may

not be immediately obvious because it is so far from

the vessel. Since drift gillnetting is usually done at

night, and often during the darker phases of the moon,

it would be difficult for the boat operator to be aware

of the anchor mooring buoys for the MODU. As a

result, drift gillnet fishers would be precluded from a

significant area up-current of the MODU site. The

preclusion zone would be a triangular-shaped area upcurrent from the MODU. The apex of the triangle

would lie at the MODU.

Set gillnets are found in the same general fishing grounds as crab and lobster pots, from shore to 30

to 50 fm, except in certain areas where deepwater rockfish nets are set. The set gillnet is attached to an

anchor and buoy line at both ends. Set gillnets range

in length from 300 – 2,500 ft in length. North of Point

Arguello, rockfish fishermen are currently setting

deepwater gillnets along rock outcrops areas in water

as deep as 50 – 130 fm, where the hook and line fishery has traditionally worked their gear. Set gillnets

would be precluded from within the anchor spread.

The commercial crab fishery seeks rock crab

throughout the project area and, in some years,

Dungeness crab from Point Arguello north through

the SMB. North of Point Conception, gear can found

out to 50 fm. Between Santa Barbara and Gaviota,

most gear is found inside 30 fm. Crab fishermen set

and move their “strings” of 5-25 individual traps on

an unpredictable time schedule dictated by crab population movements. From a practical standpoint in locating and avoiding a string(s) of pots, it is important

to consider the effects of tide and current strength on

the line and buoy, and windage on the buoy. During

conditions of high tide, strong currents, or high winds,

buoys may be below sea surface and invisible. Traps

could potentially be placed within the anchor spread
5-163

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

of the MODU, however this would result in a significant risk of vessel conflicts as work and crew vessels

travel to the MODU.

The numbers of purse seiners and their location

within the Santa Barbara Channel are highly variable and uncertain (table 5.2.22-1). The species fished

are primarily pelagic, such as anchovy, mackerel,

squid, and bonito. Because purse seiners follow schools

of these pelagic fish, it is difficult, if not impossible, to

predict how large or where the fleet will be at a given

time. When working an area, the purse seine fleet is

made up of a group of vessels. While searching, the

vessels often move on erratic or zig-zag courses, trying to spot schools visually or on their sonar. Although the season for pelagic fishes is open all year,

the CDF&G sets catch quotas. When quotas are filled,

the fishery is over for that year unless an extended

quota is subsequently issued. Purse seining would be

precluded from within the anchor spread and from a

cone-shaped area up-current of the MODU and anchor spread.

Table 5.2.22-1. Commercial Fishing Vessels within the Santa Barbara Channel Harbors (1990-1999).*

Harbor 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Annual 

Average 

Line Gear 

Port 

Hueneme 6 5 1 4 4 9 7 4 7 5 5 

Oxnard 47 41 24 35 46 59 54 59 49 61 48 

Santa 

Barbara 57 64 73 77 94 90 91 109 71 83 81 

Ventura 88 94 78 103 77 75 54 47 40 33 69 

Gill Net or Purse Seine 

Port 

Hueneme 24 27 15 24 34 48 63 50 34 90 41 

Oxnard 26 16 6 17 28 10 20 13 20 20 18 

Santa 

Barbara 62 59 40 42 27 21 33 20 24 27 36 

Ventura 80 68 50 55 49 53 56 40 38 61 55 

Pot or Trap 

Port 

Hueneme 4 4 3 2 3 5 2 6 2 4 4 

Oxnard 53 27 20 25 34 56 64 60 55 48 44 

Santa 

Barbara 98 87 87 78 100 99 102 96 98 85 93 

Ventura 38 35 39 33 34 42 57 36 42 29 39 

Troll 

Port 

Hueneme 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 <1 

Oxnard 1 0 0 0 0 12 4 7 13 2 4 

Santa 

Barbara 1 5 0 5 8 56 23 22 34 20 17 

Ventura 4 0 2 3 2 14 9 6 16 5 6 

Other Gear 

Port 

Hueneme 36 62 45 4 16 22 2 2 2 3 19 

Oxnard 126 116 116 119 111 118 90 84 74 72 103 

Santa 

Barbara 287 308 319 297 280 215 176 144 130 134 229 

Ventura 156 142 155 101 83 61 38 38 26 21 82 *

Information taken from the HESS-1 Form. 
5-164

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

The hook-and-line fishery targets primarily rock

cod over relatively deep rocky outcrops. This is mostly

a fall and winter month “fallback” fishery for fishers

who use other methods during other times of the year.

Typically a buoyed vertical longline with groups of

baited hooks is placed in the water upcurrent of a rocky

outcrop showing fish on a fathometer. The set drifts

through the target area while another set or sets are

baited and deployed. The sets are then retrieved

downcurrent and the process is repeated. Hook-andline rock cod fishing areas are limited, small areas,

and are often separated by many miles (Kronman 1995).

Hook and line fishing would be precluded from within

the anchor spread and from a cone-shaped area upcurrent of the MODU and anchor spread.

Trolling for salmon, albacore, and occasionally

bonito is done primarily in the Santa Maria Basin,

and to a lesser extent in the Santa Barbara Channel,

depending on the year and ocean conditions. As in

the hook-and-line fishery, trollers are often in another

fishery, and enter the troll fishery in the off-season of

their principal fishery. Trollers work in highly variable areas, since this fleet targets highly migratory

and widely ranging fish. Trolling would be precluded

from within the anchor spread of the MODU.

Preclusion from the proposed drilling areas could

cause low impacts on certain commercial fisheries

during the proposed delineation activities, depending

on the time of year. Also, anchor scars may cause

short- to long-term trawling difficulties resulting in

low impacts, depending on the bottom soils where the

anchors are placed. These are essentially space-use

conflicts, which is a common occurrence in all sectors

of high-use areas with multiple user groups such as

the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin.

IMPACTS UNIQUE TO EACH UNIT:

GATO CANYON.

Disruption of Fishing Operations. Gear damage

and/or loss of fishing time would cause a potential

short-term impact on commercial fishermen of the Gato

Canyon Unit area. Fishermen in areas unaffected by

the delineation drilling might experience short-term

crowding and reduced catch as fishermen precluded

from the Gato Canyon area fish alternate grounds.

Drift and set netting and trawling are the most common gear types within the project area. Occasional

purse seining operations for wetfish contribute relatively large catches. Similarly, irregular large catches

of salmon and albacore in the troll fishery occur in

the area. Hook and line fish occurs along hard bottom areas inshore from the proposed site. Generally,

the following fisheries are active every year in the Gato

Canyon Unit area out to Point Conception dependent

on the time of year (Mike McCorkle, Pers. com.):

• From August through January the drift gillnet

shark fishery occurs outside the 3 mile line

from shore.

• From Oct. 1 thru May 30, ridgeback shrimp

are fished in water depths of 90 fm and shallower.

• From Feb. 1 thru Nov. 1, spot prawns are

trawled between 85 and 140 fm.

• During the winter, sea cucumbers are trawled

between 60 and 90 fm.

• During the summer, sea cucumbers are trawled

from the 1 mi line out to 40 fm.

In order to analyze the economic losses due to a

decrease in catch of the target species and determine

if these values exceed 10 percent of the annual value,

landings must be estimated. Using CDF&G commercial fishing data, a determination of annual and average annual landings for Fish Blocks 654 and 655 was

made (tables 5.2.22-2 and 5.2.22-3).

The ensuing analysis is based on the following

assumptions:

• commercial trawl fishing effort would be precluded between the 45 fm isobath and the 200

fm isobath throughout CDF&G Fish Block 654

and 655;

• an average catch of the target species would

have been taken in 2002 from CDF&G Fish

Block 654 655.

The trawl fishery and the drift gill net fishery

are the most likely to be impacted by the proposed

project on the Gato Canyon Unit. The hook and line

fishery would also be precluded from within the MODU

anchor spread. It is not possible to predict whether

the troll and purse seine fisheries would be active in

the area due to the wide-ranging movements of the

fish involved in these fisheries. The peak swordfish

and thresher shark drift net season is October to December. The peak activity in the spot prawn and

ridgeback shrimp trawl fishery is in the spring (March

to June). The sea cucumber trawl fishery is most active from June thru September.

The thresher shark fishery in this part of the

SBC has been impacted by the platforms on the Santa

Ynez Unit. The area encompassed by the Gato Canyon Unit represents prime thresher shark drift net
5-165

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

Table 5.2.22-2. Primary Commercial Fish Catch (lbs) from CDFG Fish Block 654 (1989-1999).*

Table 5.2.22-3. Primary Commercial Fish Catch (lbs) from CDFG Fish Block 655 (1989-1999).*

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average 

Bonito 42,899 43,211 7,828 

Squid 29,982 189,609 19,963 

Purse 

Seine 

Total 42,899 43,211 29,982 189,609 27,791 

Rockfish 

(all spp.) 1,347 122 

Shark 

(all spp.) 307 5,410 6,402 1,074 

Set Net 

Halibut 655 4,427 5,430 11,976 8,192 2,957 3,058 

Total 962 5,774 5,430 17,386 14,594 2,957 4,282 

Thresher 

shark 4,402 2,084 468 632 

Drift 

Net 

Total 4,402 2,084 468 632 

Salmon 72,352 6,578 

Troll 

Total 72,352 6,578 

Urchins 47,038 45,573 90,648 145,633 82,182 83,341 134,739 123,546 155,537 67,717 35,437 89,016 

Dive 

Total 47,038 45,573 90,648 145,633 82,182 83,341 134,739 123,546 155,537 67,717 35,437 89,016 

Rock Crab 2,213 18,828 22,068 9,375 11,327 17,050 14,322 26,753 9,023 11,905 

Lobster 1,543 4,103 4,392 10,677 15,695 12,784 21,494 15,441 6,764 8,445 

Trap 

Total 2,213 1,543 22,931 26,460 9,375 22,004 32,745 27,106 48,247 24,464 6,764 20,350 

Sea cucumber 1,500 550 48,835 13,550 14,744 1,000 6,720 9,720 45,779 12,945 

Halibut 3,041 1,375 401 

Ridgeback 

Shrimp 11,218 1,153 5,797 12,884 9,810 17,103 20,309 21,584 130,779 20,967 

Spot 

Prawn 979 5,681 2,648 2,976 2,043 1,302 

Trawl 

Total 1,500 11,218 1,703 55,611 35,156 27202 21,079 30,447 31,304 176,558 35,616 

Total catch 

(all spp.) 55,000 60,000 141,000 238,466 214,994 179,140 473,928 188,257 246,113 132,350 233,000 196,568 

*

 CDFG data 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average 

Bonito 203,234 8,935 57,291 44,910 

Tuna 94,041 15,674 

Mackerel 200,500 395,000 5,074 100,096 

Sardine 80,500 13,417 

Purse Seine 

Squid 4,950 132,870 6,081 23,984 

Total 578,275 403,935 4,950 137,944 63,372 198,079 

Rockfish 

(all spp.) 2,938 490 

White seabass 2,002 4,935 1,156 

Set Net 

Halibut 5,079 1,675 1,126 

Total 5,079 3,677 2,938 4,935 2,772 

Shark (all 

spp.) 6,805 26,274 6,124 6,534 

Drift 

Net 

Total 6,805 26,274 6,124 6,534 

Rockfish (all 

spp.) 2,903 19,837 8,091 5,139 

White seabass 3,375 10,759 1,966 2,683 

Shark (all 

spp.) 1,618 4,989 4,881 1,915 

Hook and Line 

Total 7,896 35,585 14,938 9,737 

Urchins 147,341 92,298 107,205 130,640 80,060 67,842 104,231 

Dive 

Total 147,341 92,298 107,205 130,640 80,060 67,842 104,231 

Rock Crab 12,133 5,164 6,627 39,022 19,790 13,789 

Lobster 1,757 1,253 2,032 6,547 11,514 3,851 

Trap 

Total 13,890 6,417 8,659 45,569 31,304 17,640 

Sea cucumber 15,200 29,800 13,102 22,300 34,050 19,075 

Halibut 3,014 2,849 1,320 1,197 

Ridgeback 

Shrimp 1,655 34,711 141,981 216,139 65,748 

Spot 

Prawn 5,295 811 12,030 3,023 

Trawl 

Total 16,855 29,800 21,411 57,822 144,830 263,539 89,043 

Total catch 

(all spp.) 774,082 163,683 546,929 225,305 468,090 462,290 440,063 

*

 CDFG data
5-166

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

grounds (Fishermen scoping meeting, April 2001).

Activity on the Gato Canyon Unit between August and

January could affect this fishery and would likely cause

moderate impacts if the rig were on site for 45-90 days

of this season.

The hook and line rock cod fishery occurs along

hardbottom areas inshore of the proposed drilling site

and possibly within the anchor pattern of the MODU.

This fishery is mostly a fall-back fishery for hook and

line fishermen when weather precludes fishing the

Point Arguello area. If the anchor spread of the MODU

precludes hook and line fishing along the hardbottom

inshore of the drilling site, these fishermen would experience low impacts.

If approved, drilling on the Gato Canyon Unit is

scheduled to commence in the second quarter of 2003.

This timing coincides with the peak months for spot

prawn trawl in the area. These fishermen could experience moderate impacts due to preclusion from the

spot prawn trawl grounds during the peak fishing

months for this species. It would be difficult to schedule the proposed operations at a time that would avoid

impacts to commercial fishing because the area is

fished year-round for various species.

Anchor scars. One delineation well is proposed

on the Gato Canyon Unit. The well site identified by

the operator is in close proximity (2,100 ft) to a well

site approved in the original Exploration Plan. The

water depth at the site is approximately 230 m (755

ft). The proposed eight-point anchor spread predicted

for the Gato Canyon Unit project is 760 – 1070 m (2500

– 3500 ft). As a general rule, it is estimated that the

length of chain laying on the seafloor is about one

quarter to one third of the anchor radius. Thus approximately 250 – 350 m (825 – 1155 ft) of chain is

expected to rest on the seafloor for each of 8 anchors.

Some degree of lateral flexibility in anchor placement allows avoidance of potential sea floor hard bottom resources. A site-specific mooring analysis and

ocean bottom surveys will be conducted to ensure correct anchor placement. The mooring analysis will factor in any subsea obstructions, obstacles, and hard

bottom habitat. The anchors will be set to avoid these

areas, and ensure that the anchors are placed in adequate soils to provide the required holding capacity.

By using an anchor of sufficient holding power, drag

related scarring could be minimized to the 3 – 30 m

necessary to properly set the anchor. MEC Analytical

Systems (1995) evaluated the area of anchor impacts

on hard bottom from exploratory operations occurring between 1968 and 1989. The study showed that

the width of anchor scars ranged from 1 – 8 m (3 – 25

ft) and the length averaged 250 m (820 ft).

The anchor scars would likely persist for 3 – 4

years in the soft sediments of the area. Impacts to

commercial trawl fishers should be low due to the limited number of anchoring events.

BONITO UNIT

Disruption of Fishing Operations. Gear damage

and/or loss of fishing time would cause a potential

short-term impact on commercial fishermen of the

Bonito Unit area. Set netting, trolling, and trawling

are the most common gear types within the project

area. Occasional purse seining operations for wetfish

contribute relatively large catches. A drift gillnet fishery for thresher shark is occasionally active around

the most southerly proposed well site. Generally, the

following fisheries are active every year in the Bonito

Unit area dependent on the time of year (Timoschuk,

Pers. com.):

• The flatfish trawl fishery.

• The spot prawn trawl fishery.

• Rockfish trawl, hook-and-line, and set net fisheries.

• Salmon and albacore troll fishery.

• Drift gillnet for thresher shark at southern

portion of the Bonito Unit

In order to analyze the economic losses due to a

decrease in catch of the target species and determine

if these values exceed 10 percent of the annual value,

landings must be estimated. Using CDF&G commercial fishing data, a determination of annual and average annual landings for Fish Blocks 644 was made

(table 5.2.22-4).

The ensuing analysis is based on the following

assumptions:

• commercial trawl fishing effort would be precluded throughout CDF&G Fish Block 644;

• an average catch of the target species would

have been taken in 2002 from CDF&G Fish

Block 644.

The trawl fishery, set gillnet fishery, hook and

line, and the troll fishery are the most likely to be

impacted by the proposed project on the Bonito Unit.

It is not possible to predict whether the purse seine

fisheries would be active in the area due to the wideranging and sporadic movements of the fish involved

in these fisheries into the area. The peak swordfish

and thresher shark drift net season is October to December. The peak activity in the spot prawn trawl

fishery is in the spring (April to June). The troll fishery for salmon is most active from May to August.

Hook and line fishing for blackgill (sable fish) and

rock cod also is common in the area.
5-167

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

The Bonito Unit area is highly productive and

heavily fished when weather permits. The canyons

and hardbottom common to the area support a wide

range of commercially sought species. About 6-12

trawlers fish this area regularly for spot prawn and

for flat fish (rex and Dover sole) from April to August.

Up to 9 hook and line fishermen seek black cod and

rock cod in the area mostly heavily from June to February. The troll and gillnet fishery in the area is highly

variable and may include from 5-50 fishermen depending on the year. From a commercial fishery standpoint, the lightest fishing in this area is from March

to May when windy conditions often preclude fishing

from the area.

If approved, drilling on the Bonito Unit is scheduled to commence in the second or third quarter of

2002. This timing coincides with the peak months for

spot prawn and flatfish trawl, hook and line, and troll

fishermen in the area. These fishermen could experience low to moderate impacts due to preclusion from

the fishing grounds during the peak fishing months

for these species. Other fisheries that could be impacted if the proposed delineation project were to occur at other times, include: pink shrimp trawl and

Table 5.2.22-4. Primary Commercial Fish Catch (lbs) from CDFG Fish Block 644 (1989-1999).*

salmon troll from April to August; drift gillnetting

and rockfish set nets and set longlines from October

to December.

Anchor scars. One to two delineation wells are

proposed on the Bonito Unit. The well sites identified

by the operator were approved in the original Exploration Plan. The water depth at the sites is approximately 1,000 ft. The proposed eight-point anchor

spread predicted for the Bonito Unit project is about

915 m (3.000 ft), but could extend as far as 2,135 m

(7,000 ft) representing approximately 5.5 mi2.

Some degree of lateral flexibility in anchor placement allows avoidance of potential sea floor hard bottom resources. A site-specific mooring analysis and

ocean bottom surveys will be conducted to ensure correct anchor placement. The mooring analysis will factor in any subsea obstructions, obstacles, and hard

bottom habitat. The anchors will be set to avoid these

areas, and ensure that the anchors are placed in adequate soils to provide the required holding capacity.

By using an anchor of sufficient holding power, drag

related scarring should be minimized to the 3 – 30 m

necessary to properly set the anchor. The anchor scars

would likely persist for 3 – 4 years in the soft sedi1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average 

Sardine 42,355 3,850 

Squid 172,848 15,713 

Anchovy 6580 19,780 4,407 2,797 

Purse Seine 

Total 221,783 19,780 4,407 22,361 

Rockfish 

(all spp.) 1,049 18,680 6,991 35,104 11,993 18,861 19,736 10,219 

Lingcod 417 38 

Set Net 

Sablefish 3,287 299 

Total 1,049 19,097 6,991 35,104 11,993 18,861 23,023 10,556 

Swordfish 2182 198 

Drift 

Net 

Total 2182 198 

Salmon 3,200 1,094 7,308 1,055 

Albacore 112,394 10,218 

Troll 

Total 3,200 1,094 7,308 112,394 11,272 

Urchins 540 3,386 357 

Dive 

Total 540 3,386 357 

Spot Prawn 5,083 462 

Trap 

Total 5,083 462 

Sole 

(all spp.) 11, 060 1,005 

Halibut 1,114 101 

Rockfish 

(all spp.) 15,408 6,096 1,955 

Spot 

Prawn 18,025 2,411 1,566 2,000 

Trawl 

Total 33,433 2,411 17,156 2680 5,062 

Total catch 

(all spp.) 2,210 1,509 19,935 7,149 36,019 56,171 249,443 24,565 61,834 13,689 120,927 53,950 

*

 CDFG data 
5-168

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

ments of the area. Impacts to commercial trawl fishers should be low due to the limited number of anchoring events.

The proposed drilling program and associated

activities on the Bonito Unit are expected to take 88-

90 days.

POINT SAL UNIT AND PURISIMA POINT

UNIT.

Disruption of Fishing Operations. Gear damage

and/or loss of fishing time would cause a potential

short-term impact on commercial fishermen of the

Point Sal and Purisima Point Unit areas. Set netting,

trolling, crab trap, trawling, and purse seining are

the most common gear types within the project area.

Generally, the following fisheries are active every year

in the area dependent on the time of year (Timoschuk,

Pers. com.):

• The flatfish trawl fishery.

• The pink shrimp and spot prawn trawl fishery.

• Rockfish trawl, hook-and-line, and set net fisheries.

• Salmon troll fishery.

• Halibut trawl fishery inside the 45 fm isobath

to the 3-mi State boundary.

• Purse seining for wetfish.

• Rock crab (shore to 50 fm) and Dungeness crab

(shore to 70 fm) trap fishery.

In order to analyze the economic losses due to a

decrease in catch of the target species and determine

if these values exceed 10 percent of the annual value,

landings must be estimated. Using CDF&G commercial fishing data, a determination of annual and average annual landings for Fish Blocks 632 and 638 was

made (tables 5.2.22-5 and 5.2.22-6).

The ensuing analysis is based on the following

assumptions:

• commercial trawl fishing effort would be precluded throughout CDF&G Fish Blocks 632

and 638;

• an average catch of the target species would

have been taken in 2002 from CDF&G Fish

Blocks 632 and 638.The trawl fishery, set gill

net fishery, wetfish purse seine fishery, crab

trap fishery, and the troll fishery are the most

likely to be impacted by the proposed project

Table 5.2.22-5. Primary Commercial Fish Catch (lbs) from CDFG Fish Block 632 (1989-1999).*

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average 

Sardine 146,144 13,286 

Squid 1,454,179 132,198 

Purse 

Seine 

Total 1,454,179 146,144 145,484 

Rockfish 

(all spp.) 6,500 591 

Set Net 

Total 6,500 591 

Thresher 

shark 5,335 5,938 1,441 

Drift 

Net 

Total 5,335 5,938 1,441 

Salmon 1,408 12,899 3,344 1,605 

Albacore 11,985 1,090 

Troll 

Total 1,408 12,899 15,329 29,636 

Rockfish 

(all species) 9,898 8,965 30,630 8,102 4,717 9,203 6,501 

Hook 

& line 

Total 9,898 8,965 30,630 8,102 4,717 9,203 6,501 

Rock Crab 50,378 137,411 199,850 166,086 121,832 40,196 25,719 13,792 18,250 70,319 

Dungeness 

Crab 25,322 32,192 59,306 101,302 18,809 2,438 21,761 

Trap 

Total 162,733 232,042 225,392 223,134 59,005 28,157 13,792 18,250 87,500 

Sole (all spp.) 25,237 7,227 19,865 4,757 

Halibut 4,256 387 

Pink 

Shrimp 11,052 48,091 30,459 8,146 

Spot 

Prawn 6,803 12,363 1,803 3,276 3,184 2,494 

Trawl 

Total 6,803 23,415 1,803 3,276 80,768 10,551 

Total catch 

(all spp.) 50,525 0 165,379 235,379 234,230 1,734,465 239,870 76,225 129,831 70,540 91,616 275,278 

*

 CDFG data 
5-169

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

on the Point Sal and Purisima Point Units. A

drift gillnet fishery for swordfish and thresher

shark occasionally produces high catches.

However, it is not possible to predict whether

the drift net fisheries would be active in the

area due to the wide-ranging and sporadic

movements of the fish involved in these fisheries into the area. The peak swordfish and

thresher shark drift net season is October to

December. The peak activity in the spot prawn

and pink shrimp trawl fishery is in the spring

(April to September), though this fishery generally occurs just outside the proposed drilling sites (Fisherman scoping meeting, April

2001). The troll fishery for salmon is most

active from May to August. Rock crab traps

are found year-round, while peak Dungeness

crab activity is from December to April. Peak

activity in the flatfish trawl fishery occurs from

October to May. The rockfish trawl can occur

year-round, but is governed by quotas and trip

limits.

Table 5.2.22-6. Primary Commercial Fish Catch (lbs) from CDFG Fish Block 638 (1989-1999).*

About 6 trawlers regularly fish the area for halibut during all months of the year. The anchor spread

of the MODU would likely preclude halibut trawlers

from a portion of the halibut fishing grounds in the

area. Low to moderate impacts could be expected depending on the placement of the anchors.

About 12 to 15 trap fishermen from Avila and

Morro Bay fish for Dungeness crab in the Point Sal

and Purisima Point area from November to June. Rock

crab fishermen fish the area during all months of the

year. These fisheries would be precluded from within

the anchor spread of the MODU and conflicts with

support vessels would be expected. Low to moderate

impacts to the trap fishery would be expected from the

proposed activities.

The troll fishery for salmon is highly variable in

the area. From 5 to several hundred fishermen may

participate depending on the year and stock abundance.

The peak season is from May to August. Low to moderate impacts would be expected depending on the level

of fishing activity.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average 

Sardine 580,511 957,289 4,413,250 49,112 545,469 

Anchovy 26,200 688,730 64,994 

Squid 4,033,695 3,937,098 4,967,027 9,220,909 149,373 42,663 2,031,888 

Mackerel 500 499,602 146,821 350,256 486,323 134,864 

Bonito 47,150 3,618 14,429 5,927 

Purse Seine 

Total 47,150 4,034,195 5,020,829 6,111,766 14,673,145 684,808 42,663 2,783,141 

Rockfish 

(all spp.) 26,028 9,484 3,228 

Shark 

(all spp.) 2,908 264 

Halibut 3,749 341 

Set Net 

Total 26,028 2,908 9,484 3,749 3,834 

Salmon 364 13,472 8,770 9,500 2,919 

Albacore 44,782 4,071 

Troll 

Total 364 13,472 8,770 9,500 44,782 6,990 

Rockfish 

(all species) 701 640 6,707 4,366 1,129 

Hook

& 

line

Total 701 640 6,707 4,366 1,129 

Rock Crab 3,336 1,980 675 545 

Dungeness 

Crab 1,017 999 183 

Trap 

Total 3,336 1,980 675 1,017 999 728 

Pink 

Shrimp 500 45 

Spot 

Prawn 6,803 10,823 5,699 2,120 

Trawl 

Total 6,803 11,323 5,699 2,166 

Total catch 

(all spp.) 3,949 1,980 1,480 2,121 234,230 4,077,727 5,035,360 6,140,692 14,697,823 686,329 96,850 2,816,231 

*

 CDFG data
5-170

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

If approved, drilling on the Point Sal and

Purisima Point Units is scheduled to commence in the

fourth quarter of 2002. This timing coincides with

the peak months for the flatfish (including snad dabs,

English sole, and halibut) and rockfish trawl fisheries in the area. Crabs traps will likely be set during

this time also. These fishermen could experience moderate impacts due to preclusion from their fishing

grounds during the peak fishing months for these species.

Anchor scars. One delineation well is proposed

on the Point Sal Unit. The potential well sites identified by the operator were approved in the original Exploration Plan. The water depths at the site are approximately 90 m (300 ft). The proposed eight-point

anchor spread predicted for the Point Sal Unit project

is 335 – 580 m (1,100-1,900 ft), but could extend out

to 630 m (2100 ft).

Some degree of lateral flexibility in anchor placement allows avoidance of potential sea floor hard bottom resources. A site-specific mooring analysis and

ocean bottom surveys will be conducted to ensure correct anchor placement. The mooring analysis will factor in any subsea obstructions, obstacles, and hard

bottom habitat. The anchors will be set to avoid these

areas, and ensure that the anchors are placed in adequate soils to provide the required holding capacity.

By using an anchor of sufficient holding power, drag

related scarring should be minimized to the 3 – 30 m

necessary to properly set the anchor. The anchor scars

would likely persist for 3 – 4 years in the soft sediments of the area. Impacts to commercial trawl fishers should be low due to the limited number of anchoring events..

The proposed drilling program and associated

activities are expected to take 68 days at each site.

5.2.22.1.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND

CONCLUSION.

The proposed well sites are all located within

established commercial fishing grounds for all the

major gear types of the region. Fishermen of all gear

types will be precluded from fishing in the vicinity of

the MODU for up to 90 days at each well site. This

represents over half the open season for some target

species and will likely impact the peak fishing season

of one or more species regardless of the timing of the

proposed project. The trawl fishery may also experience long-term impacts due to artificial obstructions,

such as drill muds and cuttings, anchor scars, and

lost debris. Because of these conflicts, fishermen may

lose valuable fishing time and space during the project,

and in the case of trawlers, perhaps even after the

completion of the project. Furthermore, fishermen who

are precluded from the MODU site will likely fish alternate areas during the proposed project. This may

result in overcrowding of alternate fishing grounds

and could impact the income of the primary fishers of

those grounds.

The measures the operators have proposed to

reduce conflicts and encourage communication with

the commercial fishing industry during the proposed

project have been shown to be effective during past

OCS activities. If the measures are incorporated, the

impacts to the commercial fishing industry should be

addressed and minimized to the maximum extent feasible. The impacts would be expected to be low.

5.2.22.1.2 PROPOSED MITIGATION.

Mitigation CF1: MMS will consult with both

industries to verify that conflicts have been discussed

and negotiated to the satisfaction of both industries.

If negotiations between the operators and commercial

fishermen fail to resolve conflicts to the satisfaction

of MMS, MMS will meet with both industries to identify space-use conflicts and feasible mitigation measures.
5-171

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

5.2.22.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING (2002-

2006)

Section 5.0 describes the projects considered in

the cumulative analysis for the proposed delineation

activities. Possible sources of cumulative impacts in

the project area include on-going and proposed oil and

gas activities in Federal and State waters that may

cause space-use or preclusion conflicts, and accidental or upset conditions (oil spills or hydrogen sulfide

gas releases). Alaskan and foreign-import tankering,

dredging and discharge of dredged material, aquaculture, coastal development, agriculture runoff, and commercial and recreational fishing also add to the cumulative impacts on commercial fishing.

Damage to the fish resources from activities including dredging and discharge of dredged material,

aquaculture, coastal development, offshore oil and gas

development, agriculture runoff, and commercial and

recreational fishing add to the cumulative impacts on

commercial fishing. These impacts are analyzed in

section 5.2.6 Impacts on Fish Resources.

The projects discussed in this section include

past, present, and foreseeable actions that may produce impacts during 2002-2006, the expected duration

of the proposed delineation activities. Potential cumulative impacts are discussed below.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WITHOUT THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006):

Oil and Gas Activities. Section 5.0 describes the

offshore oil and gas activities that may result in impacts to the commercial fishing industry. These include geophysical surveys, construction, drilling and

production activities with associated support activities, and the abandonment, or decommissioning, of

wells and offshore facilities. As discussed in section

5.2.22.1, the major impact agents expected from these

proposed activities are space-use and preclusion conflicts. There is an oil spill risk associated with ongoing OCS and State oil and gas development activities, and with the tankering of Alaskan and foreignimport oil through the area. The potential lethal and

sub-lethal impacts to fish resources resulting from offshore oil and gas activities may also impact the commercial fishing industry and are discussed in section

5.2.6 Impacts on Fish Resources.

Space-use and Preclusion conflicts. Section

5.2.22.1 discusses the potential impacts to the commercial fishing industry from support vessel and helicopter traffic, and anchoring. The potential impacts

from geophysical surveys, construction, oil spills, and

platform-based development and production operations

including pipelines are discussed below.

Geophysical Surveys. Section 5.0 describes past

geological and geophysical survey activities in the

Pacific OCS Region. Since 1963, more than 400 geological and geophysical surveys, including both 2-D

and 3-D seismic surveys, have been conducted in the

Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin (table

4.0.1-1), and many others have occurred in state waters. Most of these surveys occurred during the 1970s

and 1980s; the most recent seismic survey offshore

southern California was the Exxon 3-D seismic survey conducted in the western Santa Barbara Channel

in 1995 (MMS, 1995). Additional 3-D seismic surveys

may occur during the next few years. However, no

Pacific OCS operators have approached MMS with

proposals to conduct such surveys to date.

The direct effects of air gun acoustic energy on

fish resources were analyzed in section 5.2.6 Impacts

on Fish Resources. This section will discuss the behavioral effects of airgun acoustic energy on fishery

resources, and the space-use conflicts commercial fishermen will experience during a seismic survey.

High energy seismic surveys are conducted from

a large support vessel that tows an energy source

(airguns) and hydrophone receivers. A computer onboard the support vessel collects and processes the data

received from the hydrophones. The energy source

towed behind the support vessel consists of linear

subarrays (at least seven airguns/array) of 28-64

airguns. The hydrophones towed behind the airgun

array consists of 1 – 12 cables in parallel, with up to

100 sensors/streamer cable, and may be up to 8000 m

long and covers an area 780 m across. Maneuverability of the support vessel during seismic operations is

limited and other activities within the survey area are

generally precluded.

Some commercial and recreational fishermen will

experience short-term preclusion from the area during a seismic survey. This is essentially a space-use

conflict, which is a common occurrence in all sectors

of high-use areas with multiple user groups such as

the Santa Barbara Channel. A seismic vessel with

about 3 km (2 mi) of towed cables will be in the operations area 24 hrs a day for up to 30 days, and will

traverse the area continuously during this time. Some

types of fishing could be potentially affected by the

proposed project more than others. Fixed gear fisheries (i.e. crab and lobster traps, set gillnets, set

longlines) are the most vulnerable because they cannot move, and it is difficult to see the marking buoys

in high seas. The close lane spacing and non-stop

nature of the survey makes it nearly impossible to

avoid interference with any commercial fishing operation that would happen to be within the survey area.

Commercial fishermen including trawl, drift and set

gillnet, purse seine, troll, hook and line, and trap fishermen will be precluded from fishing within the survey area for the duration of the survey.
5-172

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

Trawl fishing is a mobile fishery. But with nets

deployed, a trawling vessel is not readily maneuverable relative to a nearby working seismic survey vessel (including up to 3-km of hydrophone streamer being towed behind the survey vessel). The net is on the

bottom and in fairly deep water can be a mile behind

the vessel. Trawlers often work on the top edges of

steep drop-off slopes; to turn into deeper water would

force the net to drop off these slopes. This causes loss

of fishing time since the net has to be picked up and

reset. Similarly, rocky outcrops, wrecks, or other debris are located randomly with respect to the trawl

grounds. These features are hazards to the trawler

because of their potential to snag and hang up the

net. Through trial and error, trawlers become aware

of most of the snags to avoid in favored grounds.

Knowledge of these snags also limits the potential

maneuverability of the trawler when towing a net(s).

Turning into such a snag may mean loss or damage to

the net(s), and potential hazard to the vessel itself if

the hang is significant and/or weather/sea conditions

are unfavorable. Since turning into such obstructions

would be hazardous, most trawlers would have to stop

towing and pull their gear in rather than turn.

Drift gillnets may be a mile or mile and half in

length and have restricted ability to maneuver, as do

seismic survey vessels with 3 km of towed cables. The

end of the gillnet not attached to the fishing vessel

usually has a radar reflector/lighted buoy attached to

it, but may not be immediately obvious because it is

so far from the vessel. Since drift gillnetting is usually done at night, and often during the darker phases

of the moon, it is difficult for other vessels to be aware

of the configuration of drift gillnet operations. A drift

gillnet up to 2000 m (6,000 ft) long and 20-30 m (60-

100 ft) deep can be fished anywhere from right at the

surface to 10-15 m (30-40 ft) below the surface.

Purse seining for wet fish (i.e. mackerel, anchovies, squid) may also be impacted seismic surveys. The

vessels, in the 35 to 70 feet size range, are distinguishable by the extra pursing skiff usually carried astern,

and the tall boom and winch for pursing and hauling

in the seine. When a school of fish is spotted, the

vessel maneuvers into position near the school and

launches the skiff, which drags the seine around the

school of fish and back to the mother vessel. The purse

line of the seine is rapidly winched in to close the bottom of the net, and the entire net is then brought in

with a power block and winch. A successful set and

haul usually takes from 30 to 90 minutes, depending

on the size of the fish school, weather, and other factors. During the pursing process, the purse seine vessel is not maneuverable, and can be considered dead

in the water.

Trolling is done primarily in the SMB, and to a

lesser extent in the SBC, depending on where the fish

are from year to year. A troller is most often a relatively small vessel (from 20 to 40 feet long). Trolling

gear can trail the vessel by 100 to 300 feet. Trollers

work in highly variable areas, since this fleet targets

highly migratory and widely ranging fish. As in the

hook and line fishery, trollers are often in another fishery, and enter the troll fishery in the off-season of their

principal fishery.

Gear loss or damage is a common complaint during seismic operations, especially for fixed gear fisheries. Nets or buoys and hydrophone streamers can

become entangled, or traps can be dragged off. For

fishermen, the cost of replacing the equipment is

coupled with the loss of income while the equipment is

being replaced. For the seismic survey contractor, the

cost of repairs and downtime incurred with untangling

the fishing equipment from the streamers can be

substabtial.

Gear damage and/or loss of fishing time would

cause a potential seasonal impact on commercial fishermen. Some fisheries, such as salmon and tuna troll,

are seasonal and of short duration. These fisheries

are typically highly profitable to the fishermen who

target them successfully and serve as a major source

of income. A seismic survey that conflicts with one of

these short seasons can cause serious monetary impacts to the fishermen.

Airgun energy appears to have behavioral effects

on fish. Generally, pelagic schooling fishes seem to

swim away and leave the area, while demersal fishes

appear to respond by flattening to the bottom. Pearson

et al. (1987) exposed several species of rockfish to

acoustic energy in a controlled test. Three behavior

patterns were noted: (1) the school dove to the bottom

and remained motionless; (2) the school dove to

midwater and swam rapidly in changing directions;

and (3) the school broke into smaller schools and fled

in different directions. These patterns were not always maintained throughout the exposure, indicating

that fish may habituate to the sound. The fish returned to their pre-exposure behavioral patterns within

minutes after the end of the sound presentations eliciting responses. Rockfish aggregations, as measured

by fathometer, showed no significant areal difference

between control and seismic sound emission trials,

although a decrease in aggregation height was detected

(Pearson et al., 1987). Perhaps more importantly, this

study showed a decrease in CPUE (catch per unit effort) of 52.4 percent during air gun exposure. However, the study did not conclude how long this decrease

in CPUE would be expected to last or over how great

a distance this reduction might occur.

Studies by Engas et al. (1993) and Lokkeborg

and Soldal (1993) have attempted to look at the areal

extent of seismic survey effects on behavior and catchrates of cod and haddock during air gun operations

and on catchability after cessation of all seismic activity. Although the species in question are not found in
5-173

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

the Santa Barbara Channel, they have swimbladders

and form aggregations. Significant catch reductions

were found to occur at least 10 km (6 mi) in extent

from the seismic survey area (Lokkeborg and Soldal,

1993). Engas et al. (1993) found that distribution of

both species had not returned to all pre-survey levels

(as seen by hydroacoustics, trawl and hook-and-line

sampling) during the 5 days after air gun shooting

had ceased. There was some indication of a return to

normality in longline catches of cod, but not haddock,

within the 5 days, but no recovery was found by either trawling or acoustic methods. Both studies concluded that the fish would not have continued to actively avoid the survey area after the cessation of airgun

shooting. The studies cited above demonstrate that it

is difficult to support statements that attempt to measure the magnitude of behavior effects and to translate them into a decrease in catchability.

A number of experiments have exposed adult invertebrates to high level sounds and the intense shock

waves generated by high velocity explosives with apparently little effect. The effects from airgun seismic

arrays would be far less than those seen from high

explosives. McCauley (1994) reports one of the few

instances where pre- and post-seismic survey effects

on the prawn fishery have been monitored. No

changes were observed in the catch rate of prawn before and after a seismic survey in summer 1991 off the

southwest coast of Australia. The study monitored

cooperative fish data, which is believed to reflect a true

test of the catchability of prawn by trawl fishing in

that area. It is unlikely that an airgun seismic survey would have a residual effect on the catchability of

prawn, crabs, or lobster.

There appear to be no experiments specific to effects of noise from seismic activity on shark behavior.

The diving and avoidance responses to intense sound

reported for many fish species is in some part due to

the presence of a swimbladder (Turnpenny and

Nedwell, 1994). Since all sharks lack a swimbladder,

the magnitude of avoidance response is expected to be

limited. There is no doubt that sharks exhibit a rapid,

direct approach to a variety of underwater sound

sources. Certain observations suggest that under specific circumstances sharks may also withdraw from

such a source as quickly as they are attracted to it.

Myberg et al. (1978) elicited a limited rapid withdrawal

response from two species of pelagic sharks and discussed a similar pattern observed from one species of

inshore shark. After initial attraction to within 3 m

(10 ft) of a sound source, both pelagic and coastal

sharks would immediately and rapidly veer away from

the source if there was an abrupt and large increase

in sound transmission. The sharks would withdraw

beyond 30m (100 ft) of the sound source for 20 to 60

minutes. Habituation (no withdrawal) of all species

to changes in sound transmission was apparent during successive tests and occurred within 2 to 40 minutes. It is unlikely that an airgun seismic survey

would have a residual effect on the catchability of

sharks.

In conclusion, seismic surveys preclude commercial fishermen from the area of the survey for the duration of the survey. Furthermore, fishing success

may be adversely affected for up to 10 days following

the survey. This decline in fishing success due to behavioral response may be experienced as far as 10 km

(6 miles) from the survey area.

Construction and Operations. As described in

section 5.0, construction activities include the installation of platform jackets and topsides, the laying of

pipelines, platform hook-up and commissioning, and

the initiation of drilling. Operations include the daily

traffic between bases and installations, and maintenance of the platforms and pipelines on the Pacific OCS.

From 1967 to 1992, 19 OCS platforms and associated

pipelines were installed in the Santa Barbara Channel

and Santa Maria Basin (table 4.0.1-6). All of these

platforms are still in place. Seven offshore platforms

were installed in State waters in this area between

1958 and 1966, but only one, Platform Holly near

Goleta, remains. No new offshore construction is expected to occur during the 2002-2006 duration of the

proposed exploration activities.

The primary impacts to commercial fishermen

from construction and operations of the offshore oil

and gas industry include: conflicts with vessel traffic;

loss of harbor space; loss of commercial fishing grounds

due to debris littering the seafloor, anchor scars from

exploration and development activities and pipelines,

and platforms and pipelines placed on traditional fishing grounds. In fact, several local associations including the Central Coast Hook and Line Association

and the Southern California Trawlers Association,

were formed to defend its constituents against the

impacts of offshore development (Kronman, 1995).

Development and Production. Section 5.0 describes offshore development and production activities

in the Pacific OCS Region. There currently are 23

offshore platforms in the Pacific OCS Region. Of these,

4 are in the Santa Maria Basin, 15 are in the Santa

Barbara Channel, and 4 are in San Pedro Bay. As of

April 2000, more than 1,200 wells had been drilled in

the Pacific OCS Region. This number includes 881 oil

and gas development wells drilled from platforms and

326 exploratory wells drilled from a variety of rigs,

including mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs),

jack-ups, barges, and drill ships. Currently, based on

data from 1996 through 1999, slightly less than 2 development wells per month are begun from Region platforms. No exploratory wells have been drilled in the

Pacific Region since 1989.

Commercial trawlers have experienced the greatest impacts, and claim to have lost 40% of historic

trawl grounds due to mobile drill rigs, platforms, processing ships, pipelines, mud mounds, anchor scars,
5-174

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

and debris (Mike McCorkle, pers.com.). Generally, a

trawler will give a wide berth to obstructions if there

is no particular reason to go closer. One-quarter mile

is the expected buffer, however some fishermen of

southern California may trawl within 200 – 300 feet

of a fixed oil platform (without anchoring systems) if

the fishing is good. Based on experience in southern

California, fishermen do not avoid pipelines except for

specific locations, which may cause a severe snag (Centaur, 1981).

Gear loss and damage problems have been documented in the Santa Barbara Channel since the late

1960’s (Richards, 1990). The problems were believed

to be caused by obstructions such as exposed well

heads, snags on pipelines, and debris left around completed exploratory wells and platforms. In the early

1970’s, commercial fishermen worked with California

Sea Grant and the USGS to open lines of communication with the oil companies to find a solution to the

gear loss problem. An informal communications system was set up between the trawl fishermen and the

oil industry with USGS and Sea Grant as intermediaries. Some of the results included the translation of

wellhead positions on Lambert grid maps (used by the

oil industry) into Loran C positions (used by fishermen). The USGS also requested that oil companies

abandon any wells left in the SBC of which there were

no plans to re-open at a later date. In 1978, trawl

fleet representatives were invited to review plans for a

pipeline to be constructed between Platforms Hope and

Grace in the SBC. The fishermen felt the pipeline

would cause no particular problems if joints and flanges

were covered and no other obstruction such as anodes

or buoys were left exposed on the pipe to snag nets

and otter doors. However, after completion of the pipeline, the trawl fishermen found they could no longer

work in the 9-mile long area adjacent to the pipeline

due to mudding of their nets, later found to be the

result of anchor scars in the viscous mud sediment

left by the pipe-laying barge. The problem was eventually ameliorated by natural processes when major

storms in 1983 filled in many of the trenches.

Fishing vessels that drift with the currents while

working are precluded from the upwind or upcurrent

side of surface structures such as platforms or drill

rigs. The buffer distance for purse seines and hook

and line (buoyed vertical longlines) fishers from a surface structure is approximately 1 mi. This applies to

the altitude of a triangle upwind or upcurrent from

the structure. The base of this triangle is taken as

one half mile (2640 ft). Drift longlines and gillnets

may be precluded up to 10 – 20 miles upcurrent of a

surface structure (Centaur, 1981). The minimum

buffer zone for these vessels is taken as 200 ft for the

maneuvering distance needed for vessels to place their

gear.

Hook and line (rod and reel and set longlines),

and pot and trap fishermen can fish virtually next to

the surface structure in areas of rich catch. In the

case of dense supply boat traffic associated with operating platforms, and in the case of hydrogen sulfide

gas handling on the platform, the buffer zone is taken

as 800 ft. In the case of mobile drilling rigs with anchor spreads, hook-and line fishermen would be precluded within the radius of the anchor spread.

At some platforms on the Pacific OCS, fishermen are precluded from an area up to 840 feet downwind from the platform due to the dangers of a hydrogen sulfide gas release. There is no regulation requiring fishermen to avoid this hazard zone, however fishermen should be aware of the dangers and have an

exit strategy crosswind from these platforms should

they decide to work in this hazard zone.

Since 1984, fishermen have been invited, via the

Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison Office (JOFLO) to comment upon or help plan offshore oil and gas projects

such as pipelines and anchor patterns for exploratory

rigs in order to help avoid future impacts.

Vessel Traffic. Section 5.0 discusses crew and

supply boat operations in the Pacific OCS Region.

Current levels of support vessel traffic for offshore

platforms in both Federal and State waters are presented in table 4.0.1-6. Support of development and

production activities in the eastern and central Santa

Barbara Channel primarily involves crew and supply

boats. Crew changes for platforms in the Santa Maria

Basin are conducted by helicopter (see discussion in

next section), resulting in lower levels of support boat

traffic. In the Channel and Basin, approximately 90-

140 crew boat and 10-12 supply boat trips are made

each week. An additional 25 crew boat trips are made

each week to State Platform Holly. Support vessels

operate out of Port Hueneme, Ventura Harbor,

Carpinteria Pier, or Ellwood Pier. It should be noted

that many of these trips, particularly to the platforms

off Carpinteria, are relatively short and that many trips

may service more than one platform.

Vessel traffic has the potential to conflict with

commercial fishing operations through right-of-way

interactions, and gear damage if vessels travel through

crab and lobster grounds. These conflicts have been

effectively mitigated through the Joint Oil/Fisheries

Liaison Office (JOFLO). JOFLO helped draft guidelines that established voluntary, 1⁄4-mile-wide corridors

in which crew and supply boats could remain when

traveling between offshore platforms and supply bases.

The Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin Oil

Service Vessel Traffic Corridor Program is intended

to minimize interactions between oil industry operations and commercial fishing operations. It was developed cooperatively by the two industries through

the Joint Committee. In addition to providing transit

corridors in and out of area ports, the program routes
5-175

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

support traffic along the Channel seaward of an outer

boundary line. East of Gaviota, the outer boundary is

defined by the 30-fathom line; west of Gaviota, and

north of Point Conception as far as Pedernales Point,

it follows the 50-fathom line. In the area west of

Gaviota, the 50-fathom line is 4 km (2 nm) or more

offshore.

Transit to and from drilling sites occurs within

vessel corridors established for oil and gas service vessels in the SBC. Although vessel traffic increases during exploration and development activities, the oil industry would minimize conflicts with commercial fishermen by traveling within the established corridors.

Conflicts are more likely to occur in the SMB where

traffic corridors have not been established due to minimal oil and gas activity in the area. Conflicts can be

mitigated by negotiating traffic corridors to the proposed well sites on the Purisima Point and Point Sal

Units.

As discussed in section 5.0, the highest levels of

support vessel traffic to a platform may be expected

during the construction phase. During this phase,

crew boat trips may occur as often as three times per

day and supply boat trips twice per day for brief periods (table 4.0.1-7).

Aircraft. Section 5.0 discusses support helicopter operations in the Pacific OCS Region. Current

levels of support helicopter traffic for offshore platforms in both Federal and State waters are presented

in table 4.0.1-6. As discussed in section 5.0, the highest levels of support helicopter traffic to a platform

may be expected during the construction phase. During this phase, helicopter trips to a single platform

may occur as often as 7 times per day for brief periods

(table 4.0.1-7). Support helicopter traffic is confined

to platforms in the western Santa Barbara Channel

and Santa Maria Basin, where 6-8 helicopter trips occur per day. These flights originate from the Santa

Barbara and Santa Maria airports.

Some fisheries use spotter planes to track fish

movements in the SMB and SBC. Based on past experience and the volume of air traffic, negligible impacts

have occurred to the commercial fishing industry from

helicopter traffic to oil and gas platforms.

Offshore Facility Decommissioning. Section 5.2.6

Impacts to Fish Resources discusses the process of

exploratory well abandonment and the associated potential impacts to marine fish resources. Section 5.0

describes the processes involved in decommissioning

offshore facilities. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that decommissioning would encompass the

complete removal of a platform and associated pipelines, with none of the leg structure left in place to

form an artificial reef, and any shell mounds removed

to make the area trawlable again. To date, only one

OCS facility in the Pacific Region has been decommissioned—the Offshore Storage and Treatment (OS&T)

vessel that formerly served the Santa Ynez Unit platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. In addition, six

offshore platforms in State waters in the Channel have

been removed—two in 1988 and four in 1996 (table

4.0.1-6). No offshore decommissioning activities are

expected to occur in either Federal or State waters

during the 2002-2006 duration of the proposed exploration activities.

Commercial fishermen would be precluded from

approximately 7 mi2 around the platform during the

decommissioning process.

Oil Spills. As discussed in section 5.0, the cumulative oil spill risk for the project area results from

several sources: ongoing and projected oil and gas production from existing OCS facilities in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin, several proposed

exploration and development projects on the Federal

OCS, ongoing production from one facility in State

waters in the Santa Barbara Channel, two likely oil

and gas projects in State waters, and the tankering of

Alaskan and foreign-import oil through area waters.

Table 5.1-1 presents the estimated mean number of

spills of various sizes and the probability of their occurrence as a result of the described activities.

The most likely scenario for the proposed project

is that one or more oil spills in the 50-1,000-bbl range

would occur from offshore oil and gas activities over

the life of the period (2002-2006), and that such a spill

would be 200 bbl or less in volume. There is a 73.9

percent probability that one or more spills in this range

will occur over this period (table 5.1-1). The maximum reasonably foreseeable oil spill volume from offshore oil and gas activities is 2,000 bbl, assumed for

purposes of analysis to be a pipeline spill. The probability of a spill this size occurring over the period

2002-2006 is 23. 3 percent (table 5.1-1). Based on data

from tanker spills in U.S. waters, the mean size for a

tanker spill is assumed to be 22,800 bbl (with a probability of occurrence of 38.8 percent for this period; table

5.1-1). The rationale for these estimated spill sizes is

presented in section 5.0. The potential impacts to the

commercial fishing industry in the project area from

spills of each of these three sizes are discussed below.

The level of impacts from such spills will depend

on many factors, including the type, rate, and volume

of oil spilled and the weather and oceanographic conditions at the time of the spill. These parameters would

determine the quantity of oil that is dispersed into the

water column; the degree of weathering, evaporation,

and dispersion of the oil before it contacts a shoreline;

the actual amount, concentration, and composition of

the oil at the time of shoreline or habitat contact; and

a measure of the toxicity of the oil.

The impacts of oil on marine fish resources are

analyzed in section 5.2.6.2. An oil spill in the range of

200-23,000 bbl offshore California would result in low

impacts to marine fish resources of the region. Any
5-176

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

direct mortalities to fish would probably occur only in

the egg and larval stages found in the surface waters

in the immediate vicinity of the spill. Elevated hydrocarbon levels in nearshore invertebrates would be

likely, leading to increased stress and potential decreases in growth and reproduction in fish feeding

upon the invertebrates. These effects are expected to

be short-term under normal conditions; however, oil

may become sequestered in the sediments of low-energy embayments and persist for years.

The primary impacts to commercial fishermen

would likely be space-use and preclusion conflicts associated with oil spill clean-up. If an oil spill were to

occur near a harbor, the harbor would likely be closed

and fishermen would not be able to leave the harbor

to work. Fishermen would also be precluded from fishing in the area of the spill due to fouling of their boats

and equipment, and potential closures of some fisheries due to tainting by the oil. This could result in

crowding of fishing grounds when fishermen are forced

to leave the closed areas. The closing of the area near

an oil spill would likely last from 5 to 15 days depending on the size of the spill and ocean conditions.

Closure of a Harbor. If a large spill contacts a

port, oil containment booms could be placed across

the mouth of the port. The Coast Guard might also

close a port temporarily to avoid contamination of the

area from vessels returning form the oil spill site. If

fishing vessels are prevented from leaving port, as occurred during the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, economic losses could be high depending on the season

and the length of time the port is closed. A 2,000 to

23,000-bbl oil spill that contacts a port and results in

the closure of the port for 15 or more days would cause

moderate impacts to commercial fishermen, and might

even force a few fishermen out of business if it occured

during a peak fishing season.

Tainting of Fish. Fish can accumulate hydrocarbons from contaminated food, although this is a

temporary effect since fish metabolize hydrocarbons,

and can excrete both metabolites and parent hydrocarbons from the gills and the liver (NRC, 1985).

Nevertheless, certain fisheries within an oil spill zone

are usually closed and public perception also impacts

the marketability of fish caught near an oil spill. Commercial fishermen would likely sustain low impacts

for approximately one month after a spill and would

need to fish another area temporarily. This could lead

to crowding of the alternate fishing grounds and lead

to low impacts to the fishermen who use these grounds

as their primary fishing area.

Fouling of Fishing Gear and Vessels. Oil spills

can potentially cause economic losses to commercial

fishermen by contaminating fishing gear and vessels.

Oiled vessels would need to be cleaned, and oiled gear

either cleaned or replaced. This would result in lost

fishing opportunity while fishermen wait for vessels

and gear to be cleaned or replaced. Fishermen would

be expected to fish alternate areas to avoid fouling their

gear and vessels, leading to crowded alternate fishing

grounds for approximately one month. Low impacts

would be expected.

As stated above, it is assumed that the most likely

size for a spill occurring from offshore oil and gas activities in the Pacific Region is 200 bbl or less. The

probability that one or more spills of this size will occur as a result of existing OCS activities during the

period 2002-2006 is 73.9 percent (table 5.1-1). If a

spill of this size were to occur in the Santa Barbara

Channel, it could contact the mainland shoreline or

one of the northern Channel Islands. Depending on

the location, One or more harbors from Port Hueneme

to Santa Barbara could be closed for a few days.

Data from moored current meters and surfacedrifter trajectory observations (section 5.1.3) indicate

that north of Point Conception, a spill would move

northward along the mainland coast nearly 30 percent of the time. Individual drifters made landfall along

the coast as far north as Monterey Bay. However,

when averaged over all flow regimes, 80 percent of the

shoreline contacts occurred south of Ragged Point, near

the southern end of the Big Sur coast.

It is unlikely that a 200-bbl spill would have more

than a low impact on commercial fishing in the project

area.

As stated above, the most likely maximum size

of a major oil spill from future oil and gas development—the maximum reasonably foreseeable oil spill

volume—is 2,000 bbl. The probability that one or more

spills of this size will occur as a result of existing OCS

activities during the period 2002-2006 is 22.3 percent

(table 5.1-1). A 2,000-bbl oil spill in this area would

have similar impacts to commercial fishing in the

project area. Based on the Ford model, a 2,000-bbl

spill would be expected to oil a mean stretch of about

12 km (6 nm) of shoreline (Ford, 1985). The model

further predicts a 95-percent probability that a 2,000-

bbl spill reaching shore would contact a length of coastline greater than 3 km (1.5 nm) and a 5-percent probability that it would contact a length of shoreline

greater than about 52 km (28 nm). Overall, impacts

to commercial fishing from a spill of this volume would

be expected to be low.

The probability that one or more major tanker

spills will occur in the project area during the period

2002-2006 is 38.8 percent (table 5.1-1). The effects of

a 22,800-bbl tanker spill on commercial fishing in the

project area potentially could be more serious. Based

on the Ford model, a 22,800-bbl spill would be expected

to oil a mean stretch of about 39 km (21 nm) of shoreline (Ford, 1985). The model further predicts a 95-

percent probability that a 22,800-bbl spill reaching

shore would contact a length of coastline greater than

9 km (5 nm) and a 5-percent probability that it would
5-177

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

contact a length of shoreline greater than about 161

km (87 nm). This may be somewhat of an overestimate, since oil tankers are now voluntarily transiting

the coast north of Point Conception at distances of 90

km (50 nm) or more offshore, and a tanker spill in

this area would likely occur relatively far from shore.

The effects of a tanker spill of this size on commercial fishing would be most serious if the spill were

to occur near a harbor. As discussed above, harbors

could be closed during a spill. If the harbor was closed

for 15 or more days, commercial fishermen would likely

experience moderate economic impacts and a few might

even be forced out of business.

Summary. The oil industry has achieved peaceful co-existence with the fishing industry during the

past 15 years by funding mitigation programs, providing fishing gear, paying fishermen to avoid operations,

and avoiding major spills as oil production increased

from 80,000 barrels/day to 220,000 barrels/day between

1985 and 1995 (Kronman, 1995). The programs, however, have failed to prevent loss of access to fishing

grounds. It will be decades before the current facilities on the Pacific OCS are removed and fishermen

can access these areas again. Pipelines may be abandoned in place and could continue to pose an obstruction to trawl fishermen after all platforms offshore

California have been decommissioned.

Although relations between oil companies and

commercial fishermen have improved, part of this trend

can be attributed to a low level of new development on

the Pacific OCS since the mid-1980’s. The lack of development stems from the fact that no offshore leases

have been offered for sale in the SBC or SMB. Thus,

there has only been one high energy seismic survey

(Exxon, 1995), no exploratory drilling from mobile rigs,

and no new platforms on the Pacific OCS since Platforms Harmony and Heritage in 1989. Any future

development on Federal leases could test the effectiveness of mitigation and communication programs such

as the Joint Committee and Liaison Office, Santa Barbara County’s Fisheries Enhancement Fund and Local Fishermen’s Contingency Fund, and the Local

Marine Fisheries Impact Program. In conclusion, fishermen have experienced moderate impacts from past

and present oil and gas activities on the Pacific OCS.

However, the mitigation programs have helped to minimize these impacts to the maximum extent feasible.

These programs have not prevented the loss of important fishing grounds to development and exploratory

activities. Even with effective mitigation, the oil and

gas industry has added a significant increment to the

impacts on commercial fishing in the project area due

to preclusion from productive fishing grounds.

Other Activities. As fisheries stocks offshore

California have declined over the past two decades,

Federal and State regulators have imposed quotas and

restricted seasons for commercial fishermen. The natural and man-induced reasons for the stock declines

have been analyzed in section 5.2.6. As more fisheries

are closed, and seasons are shortened, commercial fishermen of southern and central California will experience economic hardship.

The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) is currently involved in a management

plan revision which will likely include “no take areas”, which will be off limits to commercial and recreational fishermen. Four preliminary scenarios are

being discussed that could close from 10 to 50 percent

of the Channel Islands to commercial and recreational

fishing.

INCREMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006):

As discussed in section 5.2 22.1.1, activities associated with the proposed delineation activities are

expected to result in temporary, localized preclusion

to some commercial fishermen in the project area. If

the proposed mitigation measures are enacted, these

impacts are considered to be negligible to low. No

impacts are expected from accidents or upsets.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION (2002-2006):

The modern fishing industry, which has benefited

from improved mechanization, echo-sounders, and GPS

among other innovations, has drawn closer scrutiny

from academia and regulators due to decreased fish

stocks. Unfortunately, it is difficult to apportion the

reasons for a fishery’s demise among overfishing, habitat degradation, pollution, and natural variability of

the population.

Management of the commercial and recreational

fishery is handled by the federal Pacific Fishery Management Council and the state Fish and Game Commission. Declines in the stocks of some fish species

have resulted in gear restrictions, fish size and bag

limits, and fishery closures. Unfortunately, many of

the species take years to rebound once the decline is

noted and the fishery management agencies impose

restrictions on the fishery. Species that grow slowly,

mature late, and have long life spans, such as many of

the rockfish species found in the SCB, are not resilient to heavy fishing pressure. These species depend

on a long reproductive life to sustain the population

during years of depressed recruitment due to environmental and oceanographic conditions. Once the mature, productive population is depressed, it may take

decades for the population to recover.

Fisheries managers need more detailed knowledge about fish life histories, including potential linkages between fish recruitment and long-term changes

in ocean climate to help prevent the overexploitation

and resulting population crashes of one fish species
5-178

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

after another. Many of these fish stocks have been

monitored for less than the span of one of their generations. It may take decades of monitoring to fully

ascertain the long-term feasibility of fishery restrictions, marine protected areas, and other fishery management options.

Although the effects of past and present oil and

gas development offshore California have not adversely

affected the fish resources of the region and their recruitment (section 5.2.6), the operations and structures associated with exploration and development

have caused user conflicts with commercial fishermen.

During periods of intense activity, such as the early

1980’s, the conflicts are greatest. The two industries

have worked together to establish communication and

mitigation programs that have ameliorated the conflicts. Although some OCS activities off southern California, such as construction and seismic surveys, have

declined over the past decade, fishermen stand to lose

more fishing opportunities as regulatory agencies restrict gear, close fisheries and perhaps even establish

no-take zones.

No oil spills are expected to result from the proposed activity. However, accidental oil spills do present

an on-going source of potential impacts to commercial

fishermen. The cumulative risk of oil spills arises from

multiple sources, including offshore oil and gas activities in Federal and State waters and both Alaskan

and foreign-import tankering. The greatest oil spill

risk to the commercial fishing industry in the project

area results from tankering operations. This risk is

tempered by recently implemented or proposed mitigation (such as the rerouting of tankers farther offshore

along the central California coast) and, as discussed

in section 5.0, by modern oil spill response capabilities.

If an oil spill were to occur in the project area

during the period 2002-2006, impacts to the commercial fishing industry could range from low to moderate, depending on spill size, location, season, and a

number of other factors.

The probabilities that one or more oil spills will

occur during the period 2002-2006 from existing and

proposed offshore oil and gas activities are 73.9 percent for a spill of 200 bbl or less and 22.3 percent for a

spill of 2,000 bbl. The probability of a 22,800-bbl tanker

spill occurring during this period is 38.8 percent.

Any future development on Federal leases could

test the effectiveness of mitigation and communication programs such as the Joint Committee and Liaison Office, Santa Barbara County’s Fisheries Enhancement Fund and Local Fishermen’s Contingency Fund,

and the Local Marine Fisheries Impact Program.

However, the low impacts projected to occur as a result of the proposed delineation activities are not expected to add measurably to cumulative impacts to

commercial fishermen in the area.

5.2.23 IMPACTS ON MARINE

RECREATIONAL FISHING

Impact Level Definitions. Changes or impacts to marine

recreational fishing resulting from the proposed project will

be analyzed according to the following criteria:

HIGH

• Fishermen are precluded from 10 percent or

more of the fishing grounds during the proposed project;

• 10 percent or more of the fishermen are precluded from a fishing area for all or most of a

fishing season; or

• a decrease in catchability of target species exceeds 10 percent of the average annual landing.

MODERATE

• Fishermen are precluded from 1 to 10 percent

of the fishing grounds during the proposed

project;

• 1 to 10 percent of the fishermen are precluded

from a fishing area for all or most of a fishing

season; or

• a decrease in catch of target species between 1

to 10 percent of the average annual landing.

LOW

• Fishermen are precluded from 1 percent or less

of the fishing grounds during the proposed

project;

• 1 percent or less of the fishermen are precluded

from a fishing area for all or most of a fishing

season; or

• a decrease in catch of target species less than

1 percent of the average annual landing.

For the purposes of this document, high and medium level

impacts are considered significant, while low level impacts

are considered insignificant.

5.2.23.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON FISH RESOURCES

The operators propose drilling 4-5 delineation wells from a

semi-submersible type Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit

(MODU) into the four different units: 1 on the Point Sal
5-179

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

Unit, 1 on the Purisima Point Unit, 1 to 2 on the Bonito

Unit, and 1 on the Gato Canyon Unit. The delineation

activities proposed are of temporary duration. The spud

date for the first and last wells are the 2nd quarter of 2002

(Bonito Unit) and the fourth quarter of 2003 (Gato Canyon),

respectively. Each well could take anywhere from 23 to 52

days to drill and 21 to 28 days to test. The drilling and

associated activities should take 68 to 90 days to complete

at each of the well sites. See section 2.0 (Project Description).

Several actions associated with the proposed

project have the potential to impact marine recreational fishermen and fisheries primarily through

space-use and preclusion. These activities include towing the MODU between well sites, support vessel traffic, and barging activities. Discharge of drilling muds

and cuttings, discharge of produced water, and the

potential explosive removal of the wellheads have the

potential to harm marine fisheries resources and are

analyzed in section 5.2.6 (Fish Resources).

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL UNITS:

Vessel Traffic. Marine recreational fishermen are

found throughout the SBC/SMB and conflicts will occur as the MODU is towed to each of the 4-5 well sites.

Also, crewboats and supply boats will travel to and

from the drill site on a regular basis. The conflicts

will include preclusion from the area, lost fishing time,

and damage to equipment.

As described in section 5.0, support vessel traffic

for the proposed delineation drilling operations will

operate out of Port Hueneme, with some possible crew

boat trips originating from the Carpinteria Pier. Crew

boats will average 2-8 trips per month throughout the

approximately 1 year of exploratory drilling activities;

a total of about 90 trips will occur. Supply boat trips

will average 8-12 per month, for a total of approximately 148 trips over the 1-year period. As the location of the exploratory drilling activities shifts from

units in the Santa Maria Basin eastward into the western Santa Barbara Channel, overall support vessel

traffic will peak during the first 6 months at about 20

trips per month, then decrease to about 10 trips per

month during the final 3 months of activity.

Additionally, fluid produced during the drill stem

test of each delineation well will be barged to Long

Beach (possibly Port Hueneme for the Bonito Unit) at

the end of the testing period. Transportation of the

barges will comply with established vessel traffic corridors. A total of 4-10 such trips is estimated to occur

over the 1-year duration of the proposed delineation

drilling activities.

Transit to and from drilling sites will occur

within 1⁄4-mile wide vessel traffic corridors established

for oil and gas service vessels in the SBC. In addition

to providing transit corridors in and out of area ports,

the program routes support traffic along the Channel

seaward of an outer boundary line. East of Gaviota,

the outer boundary is defined by the 30-fathom line;

west of Gaviota, and north of Point Conception as far

as Pedernales Point, it follows the 50-fathom line. In

the area west of Gaviota, the 50-fathom line is 4 km (2

nm) or more offshore. Due to the large number of

trips to and from the proposed work sites, recreational

fishermen would sustain a small increase in the potential for vessel conflicts and navigational hazards.

Losses of fishing gear would be negligible.

Low impacts to marine recreational fishing are

expected from vessel traffic associated with the proposed projects.

Siting/Anchoring of the MODU. The proposed

delineation drilling activities would occur from a

MODU. The MODU would be moored with eight anchors, which will extend 5 to 7 times the water depth

from the MODU. Assuming an average of 300 meters

(1,000 feet) water depth, this could amount to approximately 1,525 meters (5,000 feet) around the well sites

that would be lost to fishing while the MODU is onsite

(approximately 90 days at each site). Most marine

recreational fishing occurs inside the State boundary

3 nm from shore. However, some trolling for albacore

and salmon can occur during the peak season in both

the SMB and SBC. Given the maneuverability of trolling vessels and the small area that would be precluded

at each proposed site, conflicts are expected to be negligible.

Preclusion from the proposed drilling areas would

cause low impacts on marine recreational fisheries

during the proposed delineation activities.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND CONCLUSION.

The proposed well sites are all located outside

the major marine recreational fishing areas of the region. Depending on oceanographic conditions and

seasons, trolling for pelagic species can occur throughout the SMB and SBC. Trolling vessels would be expected to avoid an area up to 1,525 m (5,000 ft) around

the proposed well sites while the MODU is on site. An

increase in navigational hazards to marine recreational fishermen would be expected due to increased

vessel traffic associated with the proposed project.

Since the total area lost to recreational fishing is small

and of short duration, low impacts would be expected

to marine recreational fishermen in the project area.
5-180

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

5.2.23.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR MARINE RECREATIONAL

FISHING (2002-2006)

Section 5.0 describes the projects considered in

the cumulative analysis for the proposed exploration

activities. Possible sources of cumulative impacts in

the project area include on-going and proposed oil and

gas activities in Federal and State waters that may

cause space-use or preclusion conflicts, and accidental or upset conditions (oil spills or hydrogen sulfide

gas releases). Alaskan and foreign-import tankering,

dredging and discharge of dredged material, aquaculture, coastal development, agriculture runoff, and commercial and recreational fishing also add to the cumulative impacts on commercial fishing.

Damage to the fish resources from activities including dredging and discharge of dredged material,

aquaculture, coastal development, offshore oil and gas

development, agriculture runoff, and commercial and

recreational fishing add to the cumulative impacts on

commercial fishing. These impacts are analyzed in

section 5.2.6.2.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WITHOUT THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006):

The projects discussed in this section include

past, present, and foreseeable actions that may produce impacts during 2002-2006, the expected duration

of the proposed delineation activities. Potential cumulative impacts are discussed below.

Oil and Gas Activities. Section 5.0 describes the

offshore oil and gas activities that may result in impacts to the marine recreational fishing industry.

These include geophysical surveys, construction, drilling and production activities with associated support

activities, and the abandonment, or decommissioning,

of wells and offshore facilities. As discussed in section 5.2.23.1, the major impact agents expected from

these proposed activities are space-use and preclusion

conflicts. The potential lethal and sub-lethal impacts

to fish resources resulting from offshore oil and gas

activities may also impact the marine recreational fishing industry and are discussed in section 5.2.6.

Space-use and Preclusion conflicts. Section

5.2.23.1 discusses the potential impacts to the marine

recreational fishing industry from support and crew

vessel traffic and platform and rig emplacement. The

potential impacts from geophysical surveys, construction, and platform-based development and production

operations are discussed below.

Geophysical Surveys. Section 5.0 describes geological and geophysical survey activities in the Pacific

OCS Region. Since 1963, more than 400 geological

and geophysical surveys, including both 2-D and 3-D

seismic surveys, have been conducted in the Santa

Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin (table 4.0.1-

2), and many others have occurred in state waters.

Most of these surveys occurred during the 1970’s and

1980’s; the most recent seismic survey offshore southern California was the Exxon 3-D seismic survey conducted in the western Santa Barbara Channel in 1995

(MMS, 1995). Additional 3-D seismic surveys may

occur during the next few years. However, no Pacific

OCS operators have approached MMS with proposals

to conduct such surveys to date.

The direct effects of air gun acoustic energy on

fish resources were analyzed in section 5.2.6. This

section will discuss the behavioral effects of airgun

acoustic energy on fishery resources, and the spaceuse conflicts marine recreational fishermen will experience during a seismic survey.

High energy seismic surveys are conducted from

a large support vessel that tows an energy source

(airguns) and hydrophone receivers. A computer onboard the support vessel collects and processes the data

received from the hydrophones. The energy source

towed behind the support vessel consists of linear

subarrays (at least seven airguns/array) of 28-64

airguns. The hydrophones towed behind the airgun

array consists of 1 – 12 cables in parallel, with up to

100 sensors/streamer cable, and may be up to 8000 m

long and covers an area 780 m across. Maneuverability of the support vessel during seismic operations is

limited and other activities within the survey area are

generally precluded.

Some commercial and recreational fishermen will

experience short-term preclusion from the area during a seismic survey. This is essentially a space-use

conflict, which is a common occurrence in all sectors

of high-use areas with multiple user groups such as

the Santa Barbara Channel. A seismic vessel with

about 3 km (2 mi) of towed cables will be in the operations area 24 hrs a day for up to 30 days, and will

traverse the area continuously during this time. The

close lane spacing and non-stop nature of the survey

makes it nearly impossible to avoid interference with

any recreational fishing operation that would happen

to be within the survey area. Recreational fishermen

including private vessels and charter boat vessels will

be precluded from fishing within the survey area for

the duration of the survey.

Recreational fishing from boats in the open waters of the SBC and SMB is relatively uncommon. One

would expect these vessels to either be anchored or

drifting over rockfish and lingcod grounds, or trolling for pelagic species such as salmon or albacore.

Since the profits of the recreational fishing industry

are not governed by the numbers of fish caught, recreational fishing vessels can fish alternate areas away

from the survey without suffering an economic loss.
5-181

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

Airgun energy appears to have behavioral effects

on fish. Generally, pelagic schooling fishes seem to

swim away and leave the area, while demersal fishes

appear to respond by flattening to the bottom. Pearson

et al. (1987) exposed several species of rockfish to

acoustic energy in a controlled test. Three behavior

patterns were noted: (1) the school dove to the bottom

and remained motionless; (2) the school dove to

midwater and swam rapidly in changing directions;

and (3) the school broke into smaller schools and fled

in different directions. These patterns were not always maintained throughout the exposure, indicating

that fish may habituate to the sound. The fish returned to their pre-exposure behavioral patterns within

minutes after the end of the sound presentations eliciting responses. Rockfish aggregations, as measured

by fathometer, showed no significant areal difference

between control and seismic sound emission trials,

although a decrease in aggregation height was detected

(Pearson et al., 1987). Perhaps more importantly, this

study showed a decrease in CPUE (catch per unit effort) of 52.4 percent during air gun exposure. However, the study did not conclude how long this decrease

in CPUE would be expected to last or over how great

a distance this reduction might occur.

Studies by Engas et al. (1993) and Lokkeborg

and Soldal (1993) have attempted to look at the areal

extent of seismic survey effects on behavior and catchrates of cod and haddock during air gun operations

and on catchability after cessation of all seismic activity. Although the species in question are not found in

the Santa Barbara Channel, they have swimbladders

and form aggregations. Significant catch reductions

were found to occur at least 10 km (6 mi) in extent

from the seismic survey area (Lokkeborg and Soldal,

1993). Engas et al. (1993) found that distribution of

both species had not returned to all pre-survey levels

(as seen by hydroacoustics, trawl and hook-and-line

sampling) during the 5 days after air gun shooting

had ceased. There was some indication of a return to

normality in longline catches of cod, but not haddock,

within the 5 days, but no recovery was found by either trawling or acoustic methods. Both studies concluded that the fish would not have continued to actively avoid the survey area after the cessation of airgun

shooting. The studies cited above demonstrate that it

is difficult to support statements that attempt to measure the magnitude of behavior effects and to translate them into a decrease in catchability.

In conclusion, seismic surveys preclude recreational fishermen from the area of the survey for the

duration of the survey. Furthermore, fishing success

may be adversely affected for up to 10 days following

the survey. This decline in fishing success due to behavioral response may be experienced as far as 10 km

(6 miles) from the survey area. Low impacts to the

marine recreational fishing industry would be expected

since fishermen would be able to fish alternate areas

during the survey and suffer no economic loss.

Construction and Operations. As described in

section 5.0, construction activities include the installation of platform jackets and topsides, the laying of

pipelines, platform hook-up and commissioning, and

the initiation of drilling. Operations include the daily

traffic between bases and installations, and maintenance of the platforms and pipelines on the Pacific OCS.

From 1967 to 1992, 19 OCS platforms and associated

pipelines were installed in the Santa Barbara Channel

and Santa Maria Basin (table 4.0.1-6). All of these

platforms are still in place. Seven offshore platforms

were installed in State waters in this area between

1958 and 1966, but only one, Platform Holly near

Goleta, remains. There currently are 23 offshore platforms in the Pacific OCS Region. Of these, 4 are in

the Santa Maria Basin, 15 are in the Santa Barbara

Channel, and 4 are in San Pedro Bay. No new offshore construction is expected to occur during the 2002-

2006 duration of the proposed exploration activities.

At some platforms on the Pacific OCS, fishermen are precluded from an area up to 840 feet downwind from the platform due to the dangers of a hydrogen sulfide gas release. There is no regulation requiring fishermen to avoid this hazard zone, however fishermen should be aware of the dangers and have an

exit strategy crosswind from these platforms should

they decide to work in this hazard zone.

The primary impacts to recreational fishermen

from construction and operations of the offshore oil

and gas industry include conflicts with vessel traffic

and loss of harbor space. Recreational fishing has

probably benefited from emplacement of platforms and

pipelines, which serve as hard substrate and attracts

several species of fish and invertebrates. Private fishing vessels and charter boats often target platforms

as potential fishing areas due to the fact that platforms attract and serve as habitat for many species of

desirable fish and invertebrates. Low impacts have

occurred to recreational fishermen due to oil and gas

activities.

Vessel Traffic. Section 5.0 discusses crew and

supply boat operations in the Pacific OCS Region.

Current levels of support vessel traffic for offshore

platforms in both Federal and State waters are presented in table 4.0.1-6. Support of development and

production activities in the eastern and central Santa

Barbara Channel primarily involves crew and supply

boats. Crew changes for platforms in the Santa Maria

Basin are conducted by helicopter (see discussion in

next section), resulting in lower levels of support boat

traffic. In the Channel and Basin, approximately 90-

140 crew boat and 10-12 supply boat trips are made

each week. An additional 25 crew boat trips are made

each week to State Platform Holly. Support vessels

operate out of Port Hueneme, Ventura Harbor,
5-182

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

Carpinteria Pier, or Ellwood Pier. It should be noted

that many of these trips, particularly to the platforms

off Carpinteria, are relatively short and that many trips

may service more than one platform.

Vessel traffic has the potential to conflict with

marine recreational fishing operations through rightof-way interactions, and navigational safety. The Joint

Oil/Fisheries Liaison Office (JOFLO) helped draft

guidelines that established voluntary, 1⁄4-mile-wide corridors in which crew and supply boats could remain

when traveling between offshore platforms and supply bases. The Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria

Basin Oil Service Vessel Traffic Corridor Program is

intended to minimize interactions between oil industry operations and commercial fishing operations. It

was developed cooperatively by the two industries

through the Joint Committee. In addition to providing transit corridors in and out of area ports, the program routes support traffic along the Channel seaward of an outer boundary line. East of Gaviota, the

outer boundary is defined by the 30-fathom line; west

of Gaviota, and north of Point Conception as far as

Pedernales Point, it follows the 50-fathom line. In the

area west of Gaviota, the 50-fathom line is 4 km (2

nm) or more offshore. This also helps to minimize

interactions with recreational fishing vessels since

most are found within 2 km (1 nm) of shore along the

kelp beds.

Transit to and from drilling sites occurs within

vessel corridors established for oil and gas service vessels in the SBC. Although vessel traffic increases during exploration and development activities, the oil industry would minimize conflicts with recreational fishermen by traveling within the established corridors.

Conflicts are more likely to occur in the SMB where

traffic corridors have not been established due to minimal oil and gas activity in the area, and recreational

vessels troll in the open ocean more frequently in this

area.

As discussed in section 5.0, the highest levels of

support vessel traffic to a platform may be expected

during the construction phase. During this phase,

crew boat trips may occur as often as three times per

day and supply boat trips twice per day for brief periods (table 4.0.1-7). Low impacts to recreational fishermen have occurred from oil and gas support and

crew vessel traffic.

Offshore Facility Decommissioning. Section 5.2.6

discusses the process of exploratory well abandonment

and the associated potential impacts to marine fish

resources. Section 5.0 describes the processes involved

in decommissioning offshore facilities. For purposes

of analysis, it is assumed that decommissioning would

encompass the complete removal of a platform and associated pipelines, with none of the leg structure left

in place to form an artificial reef, and any shell mounds

removed to make the area trawlable again. To date,

only one OCS facility in the Pacific Region has been

decommissioned—the Offshore Storage and Treatment

(OS&T) vessel that formerly served the Santa Ynez

Unit platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. In addition, six offshore platforms in State waters in the

Channel have been removed—two in 1988 and four in

1996 (table 4.0.1-6). No offshore decommissioning

activities are expected to occur in either Federal or

State waters during the 2002-2006 duration of the proposed exploration activities.

Recreational fishermen would be precluded from

the area during the decommissioning process. Recreational fishermen would suffer a negative impact from

the complete removal of offshore platforms since many

recreational fishermen find them to be desirable fishing habitat. However, very low economic impacts

would be expected since recreational fishermen have

many other areas available, and their profits are not

dependent on the numbers of fish caught.

Past and present offshore oil and gas activities

have had very negligible impacts to the marine recreational fishing industry. Offshore structures have

perhaps removed a small area from sportsfishing trolling grounds. However, many recreational fishermen

would argue that the platforms and pipelines enhance

recreational fishing by serving as artificial reefs that

provide suitable substrate to fish in an area that is

devoid of these essentials. Some minor inconvenience

due to vessel traffic interactions and dock space have

also occurred. In conclusion, marine recreational fishermen have experienced low impacts from past and

present oil and gas activities on the Pacific OCS.

Oil Spills. While no oil spills are expected from

the proposed delineation drilling activities, there is an

oil spill risk in the project area that could effect recreational fishing. As discussed in section 5.0, the cumulative oil spill risk for the project area results from

several sources: ongoing and projected oil and gas production from existing OCS facilities in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin, several proposed

exploration and development projects on the Federal

OCS, ongoing production from one facility in State

waters in the Santa Barbara Channel, two likely oil

and gas projects in State waters, and the tankering of

Alaskan and foreign-import oil through area waters.

Table 5.1-1 presents the estimated mean number of

spills of various sizes and the probability of their occurrence as a result of the described activities.

The most likely scenario is that one or more oil

spills in the 50-1,000-bbl range would occur from offshore oil and gas activities over the period 2002-2006,

and that such a spill would be 200 bbl or less in volume. The probability that one or more spills this size

would occur during this period is 73.9 percent (table

5.1-1). The maximum reasonably foreseeable oil spill

volume from offshore oil and gas activities is 2,000

bbl, assumed for purposes of analysis to be a pipeline
5-183

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

spill. The probability of a spill this size occurring between 2002-2006 is 22.3 percent (table 5.1-1). Based

on data from tanker spills in U.S. waters, the mean

size for a tanker spill is assumed to be 22,800 bbl (probability of occurrence is 38.8 percent). The rationale

for these estimated spill sizes is presented in section

5.0. The potential impacts to the marine recreational

fishing industry in the project area from spills of each

of these three sizes are discussed below.

The level of impacts from such spills will depend

on many factors, including the type, rate, and volume

of oil spilled and the weather and oceanographic conditions at the time of the spill. These parameters would

determine the quantity of oil that is dispersed into the

water column; the degree of weathering, evaporation,

and dispersion of the oil before it contacts a shoreline;

the actual amount, concentration, and composition of

the oil at the time of shoreline or habitat contact; and

a measure of the toxicity of the oil.

The impacts of oil on marine fish resources are

analyzed in section 5.2.6. An oil spill in the range of

200-23,000 bbl offshore California would result in low

adverse impacts to marine fish resources of the region. Any direct mortalities to fish would probably

occur only in the egg and larval stages found in the

surface waters in the immediate vicinity of the spill.

Elevated hydrocarbon levels in nearshore invertebrates

would be likely, leading to increased stress and potential decreases in growth and reproduction in fish feeding upon the invertebrates. These effects are expected

to be short-term under normal conditions; however,

oil may become sequestered in the sediments of lowenergy embayments and persist for years.

The primary impacts to recreational fishermen

would likely be space-use and preclusion conflicts associated with oil spill clean-up. If an oil spill were to

occur near a harbor, the harbor would likely be closed

and fishing vessels would not be able to leave the harbor to work. Fishermen would also be precluded from

fishing in the area of the spill due to fouling of their

boats and equipment. The closing of the area near an

oil spill would likely last from 5 to 15 days depending

on the size of the spill and ocean conditions. Recreational fishermen might avoid the spill area for much

longer times due to the drop in the quality of the fishing experience and public perception.

Closure of a Harbor. If a large spill contacts a

port, oil containment booms could be placed across

the mouth of the port. The Coast Guard might also

close a port temporarily to avoid contamination of the

area from vessels returning from the oil spill site. If

fishing vessels are prevented from leaving port, as occurred during the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, economic losses could be high depending on the time of

year and the length of time the port is closed. A 2,000

to 23,000-bbl oil spill that contacts a port and results

in the closure of the port for 15 or more days would

cause low to moderate impacts to charter boat and

party boat operators.

Tainting of Fish. Fish can accumulate hydrocarbons from contaminated food, although this is a

temporary effect since fish metabolize hydrocarbons,

and can excrete both metabolites and parent hydrocarbons from the gills and the liver (NRC, 1985).

Nevertheless, certain fisheries within an oil spill zone

are usually closed and public perception also impacts

the fishing experience. Recreational fishermen would

likely target alternate fishing grounds until the quality of the fishing experience in the spill area returns

to previous conditions.

Fouling of Fishing Gear and Vessels. Oil spills

can potentially cause economic losses to boat owners

and fishermen by contaminating fishing gear and vessels. Oiled vessels would need to be cleaned, and oiled

gear either cleaned or replaced. Fishermen would be

expected to fish alternate areas to avoid fouling their

gear and vessels. Low impacts would be expected.

It is unlikely that a 200-bbl spill would have more

than a negligible impact on recreational fishing in the

project area.

As stated above, the most likely maximum size

of a major oil spill from future oil and gas development—the maximum reasonably foreseeable oil spill

volume—is 2,000 bbl. The probability that one or more

spills of this size will occur as a result of existing OCS

activities during the period 2002-2006 is 22.3 percent

(table 5.1-1). Based on the Ford model, a 2,000-bbl

spill would be expected to oil a mean stretch of about

12 km (6 nm) of shoreline (Ford, 1985). The model

further predicts a 95-percent probability that a 2,000-

bbl spill reaching shore would contact a length of coastline greater than 3 km (1.5 nm) and a 5-percent probability that it would contact a length of shoreline

greater than about 52 km (28 nm). Overall, impacts

to recreational fishing from a spill of this volume would

be expected to be low.

The probability that one or more major tanker

spills will occur in the project area during the period

2002-2006 is 38.8 percent (table 5.1-1). The effects of

a 22,800-bbl tanker spill on recreational fishing in the

project area potentially could be significant. Based on

the Ford model, a 22,800-bbl spill would be expected

to oil a mean stretch of about 39 km (21 nm) of shoreline (Ford, 1985). The model further predicts a 95-

percent probability that a 22,800-bbl spill reaching

shore would contact a length of coastline greater than

9 km (5 nm) and a 5-percent probability that it would

contact a length of shoreline greater than about 161

km (87 nm). This may be somewhat of an overestimate, since oil tankers are now voluntarily transiting

the coast north of Point Conception at distances of 90

km (50 nm) or more offshore, and a tanker spill in

this area would likely occur relatively far from shore.
5-184

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

The effects of a tanker spill of this size on recreational fishing would be most serious if the spill were

to occur near a harbor. As discussed above, harbors

could be closed during a spill. If the harbor was closed

for 15 or more days, charter and party boat operators

would likely experience low to moderate economic impacts.

Other Activities. As fisheries stocks offshore

California have declined over the past two decades,

Federal and State regulators have imposed quotas and

restricted seasons for sport fishermen. The natural

and man-induced reasons for the stock declines have

been analyzed in section 5.2.6. As more fisheries are

closed, and seasons are shortened, charter and party

boat owners of southern and central California will

experience economic hardship.

The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) is currently involved in a management

plan revision which will likely include “no take areas”, which will be off limits to commercial and recreational fishermen. Four preliminary scenarios are

being discussed that could close from 10 to 50 percent

of the Channel Islands to commercial and recreational

fishing.

To a certain degree, sportfishing success is not

dependent on the number of fish caught, but on the

quality of the experience. However, as fisheries are

closed or seasons shortened, some segments of the industry will be impacted on the economic level. For

instance, the rockfish season was closed from January through February in 2001. Charter and party boat

operators and their crew experienced serious financial impacts during this time, but private boat owners

only suffered the inconvenience of not being able to

fish. They were still able enjoy outings during this

time including whale watching and sight-seeing to the

Channel Islands. Marinas and bait shops likely also

experienced economic hardship during the rockfish

closure. As the quality of the fishing experience decreases, whether it be from fewer landings to closing

of quality fishing grounds, the fewer people will charter or rent boats at the harbors. Thus, fisheries closures and decreased landings due to stock declines

would likely have low to moderate economic impacts

on charter and party boat operators, crews, marinas

and bait shop owners in the project area. Private boat

owners and shore and pier fisherman would experience low impacts.

INCREMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE

PROPOSED ACTION (2002-2006)

As discussed in section 5.2.23.1, activities associated with the proposed delineation activities are expected to result in temporary, localized preclusion to

some recreational fishermen in the project area. These

impacts are considered to be low. No oil spill is expected from the proposed delineation activities.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION (2002-2006):

Some fish resources of the project area have experienced drastic declines over the past two decades.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to apportion the reasons

for a fishery’s demise among overfishing, habitat degradation, pollution, and natural variability of the population.

Management of the commercial and recreational

fishery is handled by the Federal Pacific Fishery Management Council and the state Fish and Game Commission. Declines in the stocks of some fish species

have resulted in gear restrictions, fish size and bag

limits, and fishery closures. Unfortunately, many of

the species take years to rebound once the decline is

noted and the fishery management agencies impose

restrictions on the fishery. Species that grow slowly,

mature late, and have long life spans, such as many of

the rockfish species found in the SCB, are not resilient to heavy fishing pressure. These species depend

on a long reproductive life to sustain the population

during years of depressed recruitment due to environmental and oceanographic conditions. Once the mature, productive population is depressed, it may take

decades for the population to recover.

Fisheries managers need more detailed knowledge about fish life histories, including potential linkages between fish recruitment and long-term changes

in ocean climate to help prevent the overexploitation

and resulting population crashes of one fish species

after another. Many of these fish stocks have been

monitored for less than the span of one of their generations. It may take decades of monitoring to fully

ascertain the long-term feasibility of fishery restrictions, marine protected areas, and other fishery management options.

The effects of past and present oil and gas activities offshore California have not adversely affected the

fish resources of the region and their recruitment.

Vessel interactions between oil and gas vessels and

recreational fishing vessels have represented only a

minor inconvenience to the industries.

The very minor effects in space and time projected to occur as a result of the proposed delineation

activities are not expected to add measurably to cumulative impacts to recreational fishermen in the area.
5-185

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

5.2.24 IMPACTS ON MILITARY OPERATIONS

Significance Criteria and Methodology: The impact analysis for military operations in this document

adopts the impact level criteria described below. For

the purposes of this document, high and moderate

impacts are considered to be significant; low impacts

are considered to be insignificant.

HIGH

The level and location of offshore oil and gas

activity cause frequent and major involuntary modifications of military operations and commercial launch

activities, reductions in the level of activity, or long

term delays. There would be a major, long-term shift

of military operations within the Point Mugu Sea

Range.

 MODERATE

The level and location of offshore oil and gas

activity cause occasional and modest modification of

military operations and commercial launch activities,

a modest reduction in the overall level of activity, and

short-term delays. There would be a modest, shortterm shift of military operations in the Point Mugu

Sea Range.

LOW

The level and location of offshore oil and gas

activity will cause very infrequent and minor modification of military operations and commercial launch

activities. There would be a very minor reduction in

the level of activity, and slight delays in the activity.

There would be no shift of military operations in the

Point Mugu Sea Range.

A multi-step process was followed in analyzing

the potential for conflicts between oil and gas operations and military operations. The first step involved

reviewing the number and scope of military operations

conducted in the project area. The second step involved examining the potential for conflict between oil

and gas and military activities. This was accomplished

by comparing the geographic and temporal scope of

proposed MODU operations with those of military

operations. The existing regulatory setting was then

reviewed to determine whether existing mitigation

measures have been effective in eliminating, reducing,

or minimizing potential conflicts with military operations and hazards to offshore personnel.

Temporal and Geographic Scope of the Projects:

The temporal scope of MODU drilling activities for

analyzing impacts of oil and gas activities on military

operations is restricted to the 2002-2003 period when

the MODU drilling is planned. In contrast to other

affected resources, there will be no residual effects on

military operations beyond the drilling period because

the potential for space-use conflicts will end when drilling is completed and the MODU leaves the area. The

MODU drilling operations are expected to occur during 2002-2003 in the Point Sal, Purisima Point, Bonito, and Gato Canyon Units. With the exception of

the Gato Canyon Unit, which is located in the Santa

Barbara Channel, all of the drilling will occur in Military Warning Area W-532 of the Point Mugu Sea Range

(see Figure 4.14-1). AERA Energy LLC and Nuevo

Energy Company are planning to drill up to four wells

in the Point Sal, Purisima Point, and Bonito Units.

It is estimated that a total of 70-90 days will be required to drill each well. Based on this estimate, the

MODU will be conducting drilling operations for a

period ranging between 280-360 days in Military Warning Area W-532.

Existing Regulatory Setting: As discussed in Section 2.0, MODU drilling activity is proposed to be conducted on leases in the Point Sal, Purisima Point,

Bonito, and Gato Canyon Units. All of the active

undeveloped OCS leases included within these units

were contractually leased to oil companies during the

following OCS lease sales: OCS Sale 48 in 1979, OCS

Sale 53 in 1981, OCS Sale 68 in 1982, and OCS Sale

RS2 in 1982. Military stipulations were attached to

all of the leases. The stipulations: (1) require that all

vessel and aircraft traffic within designated Military

Warning Areas be coordinated with the USAF and the

Navy, (2) authorize the U.S. Government to temporarily suspend offshore oil and gas operations and require evacuation of personnel in the interests of national security, (3) require lessees to control electromagnetic emissions so as not to interfere with military operations, and (4) limit the liability and hold

the U.S. Government harmless from any damage or

injury resulting from the programs and operations of

the military.

The MMS has instructed Pacific OCS Region

operators of leases bearing military stipulations to

prepare Evacuation and Sheltering Plans for oil and

gas personnel. The plans describe procedures for sheltering and evacuation using vessels and aircraft, and

provide a list of equipment and operations that would

be shut down. Operators are also required to submit

“shelter worthiness” information on their drilling vessels, describing the level of protection sheltering areas provide against impact, flammables, and blast overpressure.

5.2.24.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION ON MILITARY OPERATIONS

The activities associated with the proposed

MODU projects having the potential to impact mili-
5-186

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

tary operations were identified by reviewing previous

environmental documents and conducting scoping

meetings with the Navy and USAF. The MMS conducted scoping meetings with NAWCWPNS Point Mugu

on February 1, 2001, and VAFB on January 4, 2001.

The following impact producing agents were identified: (1) space-use conflicts with military operations,

and (2) hazards to project personnel from missile and

target debris. The impact producing activities are

common to all units. Space-use conflicts could cause

military operations to be delayed or interrupted if offshore personnel did not evacuate or shelter on the

MODU in conformance with military lease stipulations. The following sections describe the sources and

types of potential impacts in greater detail and the

mitigation measures that have been adopted to eliminate or minimize these impacts.

Space Use Conflicts and Hazards to Personnel:

The primary impact producing activities associated

with the proposed project are MODU drilling operations and associated vessel and aircraft traffic. These

activities create the potential for space-use conflicts

with military operations and hazards to personnel.

Support vessel associated with MODU drilling

operations will operate out of Port Hueneme, with some

possible crew boat trips originating from Carpinteria

Pier. Due to the rough sea conditions north of Point

Conception and distances involved, crew will be transferred to and from the MODU primarily by helicopter.

Supply boat trips are projected to number 8-12 per

month, which averages about 1 every 3 days. Currently, about 12-13 supply boat trips per month (1 every 2 to 3 days) are made to the four existing OCS

platforms (Irene, Harvest, Hermosa, Hidalgo) in the

Santa Maria Basin.

Additionally, fluid produced during drill-stem tests

for each exploratory well will be barged to Long Beach

or Port Hueneme at the end of each testing period. A

total of 4-10 such trips are estimated to occur over the

drilling period. The crew boats, support vessels, and

barges typically stay within the Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin Oil Service Vessel Traffic Corridor that has been established by the Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison Office. East of Gaviota, the outer boundary of the corridor is defined by the 30-fathom line;

west of Gaviota, and north of Point Conception as far

as Pedernales Point, it follows the 50-fathom line. In

the area of Gaviota, the 50-fathom line is 4 km (2 nm)

or more offshore.

Offshore southern California, helicopters are a

primary means of transporting crew to and from the

platforms. Helicopter traffic on the OCS operates primarily out of Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Santa Barbara airports. Most of the traffic is to and from platforms in the western Santa Barbara Channel and

Santa Maria Basin. In addition, several international

and numerous smaller airports, along with several

military airfields, exist along the southern California

coast, and air traffic is a daily occurrence in the region.

Helicopter trips in support of MODU drilling

activities are expected to average 20-30 month (up to

1 per day). In comparison, about 150 helicopter trips

(5 per day) are made monthly to the four Santa Maria

Basin platforms. This will result in a temporary 13-

20 percent increase in helicopter trips in Military

Warning Area W-532 during the 2002-2003 MODU

drilling period.

Military missiles and space vehicles launched

from VAFB fly over portions of the Sea Range where

MODU drilling activities are planned. During such

over-flights, the area beneath the flight path may be

subject to hazards resulting from falling debris and

jettisoned components. Launch vehicles on polar azimuths customarily jettison booster rockets into or

near the project area, but the probability of any of

these elements hitting offshore facilities is extremely

rare. Such events were considered in the System Safety

and Reliability Analysis of the Environmental Impact

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/EIR)

prepared for the Point Arguello Field and Gaviota Processing Facility Area Study Development Plan (A.D.

Little, 1984). The EIS/EIR reported the results of a

study conducted by J.H Wiggins Company that estimated the probability of a variety of potential launch

vehicles striking a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) import terminal and bulk storage facility at Point Conception (J.H. Wiggins Company, 1977). The probabilities ranged from 1.6 x 10-6 per launch to less than

10-10 per launch that a critical LNG vessel or pipeline

might be breached under essentially worst case permissible launch conditions.

To define risks more precisely, Chevron sponsored a study by Omnitek Engineering Inc. entitled

“Platform and Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Evacuation Risks” (Omnitek, 1985). The study reported the

casualty rates per person for VAFB launch hazard

exposure periods of 1-minute and 20 minutes. The 1-

minute period was the estimated average exposure

period for a single launch. The 20-minute period assumed an average of 20 launches per year. The casualty rates for offshore workers conducting mobile drilling operations ranged from 0.74 x 10- 6 for the 1- minute

exposure period to 15.0 x 10-6 for the 20-minute exposure period. The casualty rates for production workers on platforms ranged from 0.15 x 10-6 to 3.0 x 10-6

respectively for the 1-minute and 20-minute exposure

periods.

The Omnitek study also compared vessel and

helicopter evacuation risks with missile launch overflight risks. The study concluded that it is considerably more risky for offshore personnel to be evacuated

rather than sheltered. It also recommended that sheltering be the primary safety option except in those
5-187

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

cases where special launch conditions necessitate

evacuation. Consequently, sheltering of personnel has

increased over time relative to evacuation of personnel. However, it is still common for the military to

require a combination of sheltering and evacuation

procedures to be followed for many launches.

In recognition of the potential over-flight hazards associated with launch operations, hazard zones

have been established downrange from several VAFB

space launch complexes. A hazard corridor encompassing the flight path and a contiguous caution zone

are also in effect for each launch. By order of the Commander, 30th Space Wing, all hazard corridors must

be cleared of non-essential personnel, and all essential personnel must be sheltered in facilities capable of

providing safety from potential fragment or blast impacts. A launch corridor may be closed for as long as

72 hours for any individual launch; postponements

and rescheduling of launches may result in several

closures a month.

As previously noted, military lease stipulations

are attached to all of the leases where MODU drilling

is planned. The suspensions require that all vessel

and aircraft traffic be coordinated with the USAF and

Navy, authorize the U.S. Government to temporarily

suspend offshore operations, require evacuation and/

or sheltering of personnel, control electromagnetic

emissions, and limit liability of the U.S. Government.

To further reduce potential hazards to offshore personnel, the MMS Pacific OCS Region has required offshore operators conducting operations in Military

Warning Areas to develop Evacuation and Sheltering

Plans for each offshore facility, including platforms,

semi-submersibles, jack-ups, and ships. The plans

describe specific procedures that must be followed to

ensure proper notification, communication, and coordination between VAFB, Navy, MMS, and offshore oil

and gas personnel.

Of the 23 platforms on the OCS, only the four

northernmost platforms in the Santa Maria Basin are

operationally affected by VAFB activities. The platforms are Irene, Harvest, Hermosa, and Hidalgo, all

of which are located north of Point Conception in Military Warning Area W-532. Evacuation and Sheltering

Plans have been prepared for each of these facilities.

The four platforms were installed during the mid-1980’s.

From 1987 through the year 2000, approximately 55

military and commercial launches were made from

VAFB that required evacuation and/or sheltering of

personnel at one or more of the platforms (Clingan,

R., personal communication). All of the evacuation

and sheltering activities were conducted in conformance with the Evacuation and Sheltering Plans and

without incident.

During the 15-year operational history of the

platforms, no military operations have been delayed,

canceled, or relocated due to offshore oil and gas activity. In addition, there have been no accidents (vessel/aircraft collisions, deaths, or serious injuries) involving oil and gas activities and military operations

on the Sea Range since the initiation of OCS exploration and development activities more than 30 years

ago. According to MMS records, the only military

operation that had an indirect adverse effect on a platform was an USAF Titan booster explosion in April of

1986. The explosion occurred over the launch site on

VAFB. Several Platform Harvest personnel were

treated for eye and throat irritations several hours

after the explosion when a toxic cloud from the explosion drifted over the platform.

5.2.24.1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The following conclusion applies to all units

where MODU drilling is proposed. The potential impact of MODU drilling operations on military operations is considered low based upon the significance

criteria used in this analysis. The analysis shows there

will be a modest increase in supply boat traffic and a

small increase in helicopter traffic in Military Warning Area W-532 during the 2002-2003 MODU drilling

period. The analysis also demonstrates that the existing military lease stipulations have been very effective in avoiding conflicts between oil and gas and military operations. The only possible effect the proposed

MODU drilling project could have on military operations in the area would be the inability of operations

personnel to comply with the lease stipulations during a launch countdown. The likelihood of such a

situation over the short duration of the project is considered extraordinary and is therefore classified as

insignificant. This conclusion is consistent with the

military impact analysis conducted in the 1984 Point

Arguello EIS/EIR, which considered the impacts associated with the construction of three platforms, pipelines, and the Gaviota onshore processing facility, as

well as the construction of up to eight platforms in

the area-wide build-out scenario.

5.2.24.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS

5.2.24.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2002-

2006)

Cumulative Impacts Without the Proposed Action (2002-2006): As discussed in Section 5.2.24 (Temporal and Geographic Scope of the Proposed Projects),

the analysis of cumulative impacts of oil and gas activities on military operations is restricted to the 2002-

2003 MODU drilling period. For accidents (e.g. oil

spills), the temporal scope for cumulative impact analy-
5-188

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

sis is the period 2002-2006. Section 5.0 describes the

projects considered in the cumulative analysis for the

proposed MODU drilling activities. Commercial fishing, shipping, and other non-oil and gas related activities occurring within the Point Mugu Sea Range

were addressed in the draft EIS/OEIS for the Point

Mugu Sea Range (U.S. Navy, 2000). The EIS/OEIS

concluded that no cumulative impacts would occur

from military operations and these activities. The

projects discussed in this section therefore include past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas activities that may produce cumulative impacts on military

operations during 2002-2003. In addition, the potential cumulative impacts of oil spills on military operations are discussed for the period 2002-2006.

Offshore oil and gas activities that could have a

cumulative impact on military operations include geological and geophysical surveys, exploration drilling,

platform construction, development and production,

decommissioning, and oil spills. The following text

describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable oil

and gas activities and the potential sources oil spills

and their probabilities.

Geological and Geophysical Surveys: Section 4.0

describes past geological and geophysical surveys conducted in the Pacific OCS Region. Since 1963, more

than 400 geological and geophysical surveys, including both 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys, have been conducted in the Santa Barbara Channel and the Santa

Maria Basin, and many others have occurred in State

waters. Most of the surveys occurred during the 1970’s

and 1980’s; the most recent seismic survey was a 3-D

seismic survey conducted by Exxon Company USA in

the Santa Barbara Channel in 1995. Additional seismic surveys may occur in the future. However, no

Pacific OCS operators have approached MMS with

proposals to conduct such surveys during the proposed

2002-2003 MODU drilling period.

Exploration Drilling: Section 4.0 provides a historical overview of exploration drilling activity in the

Pacific OCS Region. A total of 329 exploration wells

have been drilled in the Pacific OCS Region. The wells

were drilled using MODU’s, drill ships, and jack-up

rigs. Approximately 60 of the wells were drilled in the

Santa Maria Basin. The majority of the wells in the

Santa Maria Basin were drilled between 1982-1986.

No exploratory wells have been drilled on the Pacific

OCS since 1989. The operators of the Cavern Point

Unit, which is located in the Santa Barbara Channel,

are proposing to drill one to two exploration wells from

Platform Gail in 2002. Other than Cavern Point Unit

and the proposed MODU drilling project, no new exploration drilling activities have been proposed or are

expected on the 36 undeveloped leases during the proposed 2002-2003 MODU drilling period.

Platform Construction: As described in Section

4.0, construction activities include the installation of

platform jackets and topsides, the installation of pipelines, platform hook-up, and commissioning. Section

5.1.2 includes information on the installation dates of

the platforms. A total of 23 OCS platforms were installed on the OCS between 1967 and 1989. Of these,

4 are in the Santa Maria Basin, 15 are in the Santa

Barbara Channel, and 4 are in San Pedro Bay. The

four OCS platforms (Harvest, Hermosa, Hidalgo, and

Irene) located in Military Warning Area W-532 were

installed in 1985 and 1986. All of the OCS platforms

are still in place. Seven offshore platforms were installed in State waters in the project area (Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin) between 1958

and 1966, but only one, Platform Holly, remains. No

new offshore construction is expected to occur during

the proposed 2002-2003 MODU drilling period.

Development and Production: Production activities include development drilling, oil and gas production, shipment of oil and gas to shore by pipeline, and

associated vessel, aircraft and helicopter support operations. As of April 2000, 881 development wells had

been drilled from Pacific OCS platforms. Approximately 90 development wells have been drilled from

platforms located in the Santa Maria Basin. From

1996 through 1999, approximately 2 development wells

per month were drilled from OCS platforms. Section

5.0 of this document describes new oil and gas development projects that are considered reasonably foreseeable. The projects that have the potential to impact military operations include: (1) Arguello Inc.’s

proposal to develop OCS leases in the Rocky Point Unit

by extended reach drilling from Platforms Harvest,

Hermosa, and Hidalgo, and (2) Nuevo Energy

Company’s proposal to develop the Tranquillon Ridge

(State Tidelands) by extended reach drilling from Platform Irene. The Rocky Point Unit and Tranquillon

Ridge projects are located in Military Warning Area

W-532. Arguello Inc. is proposing to drill up to 20

wells to develop the Rocky Point Unit. Nuevo Energy

Company is proposing to drill up to 30 wells to fully

develop the Tranquillon Ridge Field. If these projects

are approved, development and production activities

could occur during the 2002-2003 MODU drilling period.

In 1999, OCS platforms produced approximately

40 million barrels of oil (mmbbl) of oil and 80 billion

cubic feet (bcf) of gas. The four OCS platforms located in Military Warning Area W-532 produced about

10 mmbbl of oil and 8 bcf of gas; this constitutes about

25 percent of the oil and 10 percent of the gas produced from the Pacific OCS. All of the oil and gas

produced on the Pacific OCS is shipped by pipeline to

onshore processing facilities. Platforms Harvest,

Hermosa, and Hidalgo are projected to continue producing oil and gas until 2015. Oil and gas production

at Platform Irene is projected to continue to 2020, but

operations could be extended until 2030 if development

of the Tranquillon Ridge Field by extended reach drill-
5-189

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Impacts (2002 - 2006), and Mitigation Measures

ing is successful. Development and production operations and associated vessel, aircraft, and helicopter

operations at the four platforms will therefore overlap the proposed 2002-2003 MODU drilling period.

Decommissioning: Section 4.0 describes how oil

and gas platforms are decommissioned. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the platform

topsides and jacket would be completely removed, and

that the pipelines would be abandoned in place. Section 4.0 also presents information on decommissioning projects that have occurred to date and projects

the estimated decommissioning schedule for oil and

gas facilities located on the OCS and in State waters.

To date, the only facility decommissioned on the OCS

has been Exxon Company USA’s Offshore Storage and

Treatment (OS&T) Vessel. This facility, which was

located near Platform Hondo in the Santa Barbara

Channel, was decommissioned in 1994. In addition, a

total of seven platforms have been removed from State

waters. All of these were located in the Santa Barbara Channel. Two of the platforms were removed in

1988 and four in 1996. No decommissioning activities

are expected to occur in either Federal or State waters

during the proposed 2002-2003 MODU drilling period.

Oil Spills: The MODU drilling activities are not

expected to result in an oil spill. As discussed in Section 5.0, the cumulative oil spill risk for the project

area results from several sources: (1) ongoing and

projected oil and gas production from existing OCS

facilities in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa

Maria Basin; (2) several proposed exploration and development projects on the Federal OCS; (3) ongoing

production from one facility (Holly) in State waters

in the Santa Barbara Channel; (4) two reasonably foreseeable oil and gas projects in State waters, and; (5)

the transport of Alaskan and foreign oil by tanker along

the coast of California. Section 5.1.3 describes the

estimated mean number of spills of various sizes and

the probability of their occurrence as a result of the

described activities.

The most likely oil spill scenario for existing and

proposed offshore oil and gas activities is that one or

more spills in the 50-1,000-bbl range would occur over

the period 2002-2006, and that such a spill would most

likely be 200 bbl or less in volume. The probability

that one or more spills of this size will occur during

this period is 73.9 percent. The maximum reasonably

foreseeable oil spill volume from offshore oil and gas

activities is 2,000 bbl, assumed for purposes of analysis to be a pipeline spill. The probability of a spill of

this size occurring during the period 2002-2006 is 23.3

percent. Based on data from tanker spills in U.S.

waters, the mean size for a tanker spill is assumed to

be 22,800 bbl (with a probability of occurrence of 38.8

percent for this period). The rationale for these estimated spill sizes is presented in Section 5.1. The potential impacts to military operations from spills of

each of these sizes are discussed below.

The activities determined to have a potential

cumulative impact on military activities during the

proposed 2002-2003 MODU drilling period are oil and

gas development and production activities and associated vessel, aircraft, and helicopter traffic at Platforms

Harvest, Hermosa, Hidalgo, and Irene, and oil spills.

These activities create the potential for space-use conflicts with military operations and hazards to personnel. The potential cumulative impacts of oil and gas

activities and oil spills on military operations are discussed below.

Space-Use Conflicts and Hazards to Personnel:

As discussed in section 5.2.24.1, oil and gas operations and associated vessel and aircraft traffic create

the potential for space-use conflicts with military operations and hazards to personnel. To reduce potential conflicts between oil and gas and military operations, military stipulations have been attached to all

of the leases where MODU drilling is planned. The

stipulations control vessel and aircraft traffic in designated areas, include hold harmless conditions and

requirements, and reserve the right of the U.S. Government to suspend offshore operations temporarily

for national security reasons. To further reduce potential hazards to offshore personnel, the MMS Pacific OCS Region has required offshore operators conducting operations in Military Warning Areas to develop Evacuation and Sheltering Plans for each offshore facility, including platforms, semi-submersibles,

jack-ups, and ships.

During the 15-year operational history of the

platforms, no military operations have been delayed,

canceled, or relocated due to offshore oil and gas activity. In addition, there have been no accidents (vessel/aircraft collisions, deaths, or serious injuries) involving oil and gas activities and military operations

on the Sea Range since the initiation of OCS exploration and development activities more than 30 years

ago.

The effect of oil spills on military operations will

depend on many factors, including the type, rate, and

volume of oil spilled, and the weather and oceanographic conditions at the time of the spill. These parameters would determine the quantity of oil that is

dispersed into the water column, the degree of weathering, evaporation, and dispersion of oil before it contacts a shoreline. As discussed above, the most likely

scenario for existing and proposed oil and gas activities is that one or more spills in the 50-1,000-bbl range

would occur over the 2002-2006 period, and that such

a spill would most likely be 200 bbl or less in volume.

The probability that one or more spills of this size will

occur as a result of existing OCS activities during the

period 2002-2030 is 73.9 percent.
5-190

Delineation Drilling Activities Offshore Santa Barbara County

Based upon the significance criteria used in this

analysis, a spill of 200 bbl, if it were to occur in Military Warning Area W-532, would have a low impact

on military operations. In the case of the September

1997 Platform Irene pipeline rupture, 167 bbl of oil

were spilled approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) offshore Surf

Beach. The offshore cleanup operations were completed within one week. About two weeks were required to remove oil residues on the beach and shoreline. The spill did not result in any disruption of

military operations.

The probability that one or more spills in the

2,000-bbl range will occur from existing and proposed

offshore oil and gas activities over the period 2002-

2006 is 22.3 percent. Based upon the significance criteria used in this analysis, a spill of this size, if it were

to occur in Military Warning Area W-532, would have

low to moderate impacts on military operations depending on the timing and location of the spill. If oil

spill cleanup operations did not coincide with previously scheduled military operations in the area the

impacts on military operations would be low. If they

coincided, impacts to military operations would be moderate. The time required to cleanup a 2,000-bbl spill is

estimated to range from 4-6 weeks.

As discussed earlier, all of the oil and gas produced on the Pacific OCS is transported to shore by

pipeline. However, foreign and Alaskan oil is transported by tanker along the west coast of the U.S. The

probability of one or more major tanker spills (22,800

bbl) occurring in the project area over the period 2002-

2006 is 38.8 percent. Based upon the significance criteria used in this analysis, a spill of this size could

have a moderate impact on military operations if it

occurred in the Military Warning Area W-532, or was

driven into the area by wind and current conditions.

The time required to cleanup a spill of this size is estimated to range from 30 to 120 days depending on the

location of the spill, weather and sea conditions, and

whether the spill results in shoreline impacts. As

previously discussed, many tankers are now voluntarily transiting the coast north of Point Conception

at distances of 90 km (50 nm) or more offshore. Spills

occurring at such distances from shore would have

reduced shoreline impacts.

Incremental Impacts of the Proposed Action

(2002-2006): As discussed in Section 5.2.24.1, activities associated with the proposed MODU drilling operations are expected to have a low impact on military

operations. No impacts are expected from oil spills or

other accidents and upsets.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION (2002-2006)

The following conclusion applies to all units

where MODU drilling is proposed. The potential cumulative impact of oil and gas development and production activities on military operations is considered

low based upon the significance criteria used in this

analysis. The analysis shows there will be a modest

but temporary increase in supply boat traffic and a

small increase in helicopter traffic in Military Warning Area W-532 during the 2002-2003 MODU drilling

period. The analysis also demonstrates that the existing military lease stipulations have been very effective in avoiding conflicts between oil and gas and military operations. The only possible effect oil and gas

activities could have on military operations in the area

would be the inability of operations personnel to comply with the lease stipulations during a launch countdown. The likelihood of such a situation is considered extraordinary and is therefore classified as insignificant.

The MODU drilling activities are not expected

to result in an oil spill. However, oil spills do present

an ongoing source of potential impacts to military

operations. The cumulative risk of oil spills arises from

multiple sources, including offshore oil and gas activities in Federal and State waters, and tankers carrying both Alaskan and foreign oil. If an oil spill were

to occur in the project area during the period 2002-

2006, oil spill clean-up activities could disrupt military operations. As described above, small spills of

200 barrels or less are expected to have a low impact

on military operations. Moderate spills (2,000 bbl),

depending on their location and timing, would have a

low to moderate impact on military operations. Large

tanker spills (22,800 bbl), particularly if they were to

occur in Point Mugu Sea Range, would have a moderate impact on military operations. Overall, the cumulative impact on military operations from all of these

sources is expected to be moderate.