Proposed Final Program

Outer Continental Shelf

Oil and Gas Leasing Program

2007-2012

April 2007

U.S. Department of the Interior MMS Minerals Management Service
Proposed Final Program

Outer Continental Shelf

Oil and Gas Leasing Program

2007-2012

April 2007

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service April 2007
iii

Table of Contents 

Abbreviations...................................................................................................................................v 

Preface..............................................................................................................................................1 

I. Summary of Decision – Proposed Final Program for 2007-2012...........................................3 

II. Framework for Formulating the Proposed Final Program for 2007-2012............................10 

A. Procedural Requirements..........................................................................................10 

B. Substantive Requirements.........................................................................................11 

C. Judicial Guidance......................................................................................................13 

D. Analytic Approach....................................................................................................14 

III. Proposed Final Program Options..........................................................................................16

A. Size, Timing, and Location Options .........................................................................16 

 Alaska Region.........................................................................................................21 

 Gulf of Mexico Region ..........................................................................................47 

 Atlantic OCS Region .............................................................................................62 

B. Fair Market Value Options .......................................................................................69 

IV. Proposed Final Program Analyses........................................................................................71 

A. Analysis of Energy Needs.........................................................................................71 

B. Analysis of Environmental Concerns .......................................................................81 

C. Comparative Analysis of OCS Planning Areas ........................................................81 

D. Laws, Goals, and Policies of Affected States .........................................................106 

E. Balancing Considerations under Section 18 ...........................................................106 

F. Assurance of Fair Market Value.............................................................................109 

G. Appropriations and Staffing Estimates ...................................................................110 

Figure 

 1. Components of the Net Benefits Analysis.................................................................85 

Maps 

 Map A: Shows the Alaska Program Areas................................................................8 

 Map B: Shows the U.S. Program Areas....................................................................9 

 Map 1: Shows the Alaska Planning Areas .............................................................17 

 Map 2: Shows the National Planning Areas...........................................................18 

 Map 3: Shows the Beaufort Sea Program Area......................................................23 

 Map 4: Shows the Chukchi Sea Program Area ......................................................30 

 Map 5: Shows the North Aleutian Basin Program Area ........................................40 

 Map 6: Shows the Cook Inlet Program Area .........................................................46 

 Map 7: Shows the Western Gulf of Mexico Program Area ...................................53 

 Map 8: Shows the Central Gulf of Mexico Program Area.....................................61 

 Map 9: Shows the Mid-Atlantic Program Area......................................................68 
iv

Tables 

 Table A: Proposed Final Program for 2007-2012—Lease Sale Schedule.....................3 

 Table 1: U.S. Energy Consumption (quadrillion British thermal unit (Btu)) .............71 

 Table 2: U.S. Crude Oil Production (MMbbl of oil per day).....................................72 

 Table 3: U.S. Natural Gas Production (Tcf/Year) .....................................................73 

 Table 4: Results of the No Action Alternative...........................................................76 

 Table 5: Proportional Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and 

 Consumption by Census Division in 2005..............................................79 

 Table 6: Net Benefits for the Proposed Final Program..............................................84 

 Table 7: Valuation (Net Benefits) of Program Alternatives ......................................88 

 Table 8: ESI Rankings and Respective Description ..................................................91 

 Table 9: OCS Program Areas by Relative Environmental Sensitity .........................91 

 Table 10: Primary Production Estimates for Each Program Area ...............................93 

 Table 11: Relative Annual Water Column Primary Productivity, 

 Variability, and Confidence in Available Data for 

 OCS Program Areas................................................................................94 

 Table 12: Appropriations and Staffing Estimates (by Fiscal Year)...........................110 

Appendix A 

 Summary of Comments ................................................................................................111 
v

Abbreviations 

AEDC Anchorage Economic Development Council 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

Alaska Maritime NWR Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 

bbl barrels 

Bbbl billion barrels 

BBO billion barrels of oil 

BBOE billion barrels of oil equivalent 

Btu British thermal unit 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DPP Draft Proposed Program 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPAct Energy Policy Act 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESI Environmental Sensitivity Index 

ESPIS Environmental Studies Program Information System 

FR Federal Register 

GDP gross domestic product 

GOM Gulf of Mexico 

GOMESAct Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

Mcf thousand cubic feet 

MM million 

MMbbl million barrels 

MMS Minerals Management Service 
vi

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NEV Net economic value 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NTL Notice to Lessees 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

PFP Proposed Final Program 

PP Proposed Program 

Tcf trillion cubic feet 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 
1

Preface 

Management of the oil and gas resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is governed by 

the OCS Lands Act (OCSLA), as amended (Act), which sets forth procedures for leasing, 

exploration, and development and production of those resources. The Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) is the bureau within the Department of the Interior (DOI) that is responsible for 

implementing the requirements of the Act. Section 18 of the Act calls for the preparation of an 

oil and gas leasing program indicating a 5-year schedule of lease sales designed to best meet the 

Nation’s energy needs. 

The MMS is in the process of preparing a 5-year program for 2007-2012. This document 

constitutes the Proposed Final Program (PFP), which is the third and last in a series of leasing 

proposals developed for public review, before the Secretary of the Interior may take final action 

to approve the new 5-year program for 2007-2012. The document consists of the parts described 

below. 

y Part I presents a summary of the PFP as determined by the Secretary. It briefly relates 

the location and timing of OCS oil and gas lease sales proposed for 2007-2012 and 

discusses procedures for assuring the receipt of fair market value for leases as required 

 by section 18. 

y Part II describes the framework for developing the new program. It discusses the 

substantive and procedural requirements that are in place for preparing a program 

under section 18 and describes the MMS approach to meeting those requirements. 

This includes a discussion of the criteria relating to OCS oil and gas resources and 

environmental and social considerations that section 18 requires when in deciding 

where and when to propose lease sales. 

y Part III presents the options that the MMS prepared as a result of its analysis of the 

section 18 criteria. The options form the basis from which the Secretary chooses the 

PFP for 2007-2012. Each set of options is prefaced with a brief summary of the relevant 

results of the section 18 analysis and the comments that the MMS received from 

interested and affected parties. 

y Part IV presents the detailed section 18 analysis executed by the MMS to develop the 

options presented to the Secretary. 

y The appendix provides a summary of all correspondences received by the MMS in 

response to its public request for comments on the Proposed Program (PP) that was 

issued in August 2006. 
3

I. SUMMARY OF DECISION—PROPOSED FINAL PROGRAM FOR 2007-2012

Introduction 

Section 18 of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain a schedule 

of proposed OCS oil and gas lease sales determined to “best meet national energy needs for the 

five-year period following its approval or reapproval.” Preparation and approval of a 5-year 

program must be based on a consideration of principles and factors specified by section 18. 

Those criteria and the manner in which they have been considered in the preparation of the PP 

for 2007-2012 are summarized in part II. 

This is the last of three proposals to be issued for public review before a new 5-year program 

may be approved to succeed the current one ending on June 30, 2007. It takes into account the 

comments received concerning the August 2006 PP, the second proposal. The PP was preceded 

by the Draft Proposed Program (DPP) issued in February 2006. The 5-year process is described 

in part II. Part III lays out the program options that were presented to the Secretary. The PFP 

constitutes the options chosen as indicated in part III.

The PFP includes 21 sales in 8 areas (4 areas off Alaska, 1 area off the Atlantic coast, and 3 areas 

in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM)). Maps A and B show the areas proposed for leasing (PFP areas). 

Table A lists the location and timing of the proposed lease sales in areas that are offered for 

leasing consideration, including Sale 224 in the Eastern GOM Planning Area. This sale is 

mandated by the GOM Energy Security Act (GOMESAct) of 2006 (P.L. 109-432, December 20, 

2006) and is not subject to section 18 analysis in this document. 

Table A: Proposed Final Program for 2007-2012—Lease Sale Schedule 

Sale No. Area Year 

204 Western Gulf of Mexico 2007 

205 Central Gulf of Mexico 2007 

193 Chukchi Sea 2008 

206 Central Gulf of Mexico 2008 

224 Eastern Gulf of Mexico* 2008 

207 Western Gulf of Mexico 2008 

208 Central Gulf of Mexico 2009 

209 Beaufort Sea 2009 

210 Western Gulf of Mexico 2009 

211 Cook Inlet 2009 

212 Chukchi Sea 2010 

213 Central Gulf of Mexico 2010 

215 Western Gulf of Mexico 2010 
4

Table A: Proposed Final Program for 2007-2012—Lease Sale Schedule 

Continued 

Sale No. Area Year 

216 Central Gulf of Mexico 2011 

217 Beaufort Sea 2011 

214 North Aleutian Basin 2011 

218 Western Gulf of Mexico 2011 

219 Cook Inlet 2011 

220 Mid-Atlantic** 2011 

221 Chukchi Sea 2012 

222 Central Gulf of Mexico 2012 

*Sale 224 is not a section 18 sale, but mandated by GOMESAct of 2006. 

**Lease sale would only be held if the President chooses to modify the 

withdrawal and Congress discontinues the annual appropriations 

moratorium in the Mid-Atlantic. 

Alaska Region 

In the Alaska Region, the PFP schedules multiple lease sales in the Beaufort Sea and 

Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Multiple sales are consistent with the then-Governor of Alaska’s 

recommendations and the state’s administration of its offshore oil and gas program. 

The first sale in the Chukchi Sea is a carryover from the current program, due to the time needed 

to complete the necessary pre-lease steps and environmental documentation. In the Chukchi Sea, 

the PFP area includes a 25-mile buffer as in the PP. This reflects the Secretary’s intention that 

there not be leasing within 25 miles of the coastline where there is no existing oil and gas 

activity, unless the adjacent state(s) makes a different request. In the Beaufort Sea, the PFP 

includes two deferrals to mitigate impacts on subsistence whaling. 

On January 9, 2007, the President modified the 1998 withdrawal under section 12 of the Act to 

allow the Secretary to consider leasing in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area. While the 

entire planning area is no longer under withdrawal, in response to comments from the thenGovernor of Alaska and a large majority of the local governments and tribal organizations, the 

final program proposes to consider leasing only in the area offered in Sale 92 in 1985. As a 

change to the PP, the PFP schedules only one sale in the North Aleutian Basin in 2011. 

The Cook Inlet Planning Area is included on the schedule as a special interest sale. If industry 

interest reflected in comments on a call for information does not support consideration of a sale, 

the sale will be postponed. A request for nominations and comments will be issued again the 

following year, and so on through the 5-year schedule, until a sale is held or the schedule expires. 

Maps 3-6, in part III, depict the specific Alaska OCS areas proposed for lease sales. 
5

Gulf of Mexico Region 

In the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, which remain the two areas of highest 

resource potential and interest, the PFP follows the PP with annual areawide lease sales, as has 

been the customary practice, and includes an expanded Central Gulf sale in 2007. In order to 

meet the requirement to do additional environmental review and analysis as part of the settlement 

of litigation with the State of Louisiana over Western Gulf Sale 200 (August 2006), the MMS 

cancelled Sale 201 scheduled for March 2007 and proposed the expansion of proposed Sale 205 

to offer the entire planning area that is available at the time of sale. As a result of the 

reconfiguration of some planning areas to follow new administrative lines, some of the areas 

formerly included in the Eastern and Western Gulf Planning Area are now part of the Central 

Gulf Planning Area. The MMS will implement the planning area boundary realignments as 

described initially in the DPP. However, in order to be able to address mapping and 

programming requirements of the MMS's Technical Information Management System and to 

offer the areas that have blocks divided by administrative lines, substantive programming 

changes are required. A methodology offering whole blocks will be used for sales in this 

program until programming changes can be made. The blocks to be offered will be depicted 

on leasing maps that will accompany the Proposed and Final Notices of Sales. 

On December 20, 2006, the President signed into law the GOM Energy Security Act 

(GOMESAct) of 2006. The GOMESAct mandated lease offerings in two areas of the Gulf 

notwithstanding the omission from any OCS leasing program under section 18 of the Act; lifted 

the Congressional moratorium in two areas of the GOM; and established a moratorium through 

2022 in the vast majority of the Eastern Planning Area and a small portion of the Central 

Planning Area. The majority of the acreage covered by GOMESAct was already included in the 

PP. A small portion of the area is in the reconfigured Eastern Planning Area. In order to 

accurately reflect lease sale activity during the 2007-2012 timeframe, this area is included in the 

table of sales as Sale 224. The sale is scheduled for 2008, following completion of additional 

environmental review and analysis. However, GOMESAct mandated that the area be offered 

without the need to undergo section 18 analysis and inclusion in the 5-year program preparation 

process. Therefore, this area is not subject to any of the section 18 analysis in this document. 

As a result of the lifting of the Congressional moratorium in GOMESAct and the modification of 

the 1998 Presidential withdrawal on January 9, 2007, the 181 South Area is no longer under 

restriction. Following completion of additional environmental review and analysis, it is 

anticipated that leasing in this area will be considered in the 2009 Central Gulf sale. 

The State of Louisiana commented on using alternative leasing schemes in several letters to 

MMS in 2006. The State sent MMS comments addressing concerns regarding alternative leasing 

schemes in response to the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for GOM sales proposed 

for the 2007-2012 OCS Program; the Central GOM Sale 198 Environmental Assessment (EA); 

the Call for Information and Nominations for Central and Western GOM sales proposed for the 

2007-2012 OCS Program; and the Central GOM Sale 201 EA. 

The MMS has considered the State of Louisiana’s comments on alternative leasing schemes. It 

has made a decision to conduct a detailed analysis of alternative approaches to leasing that may 

serve to further the many goals of the Act. It is anticipated that the design and conduct of this 
6

analysis could take several years to complete. If it is determined that some alternative approach 

to leasing is preferable, and depending on how long it takes to conduct the analysis, the 5-year 

program for 2007-2012 could be adjusted accordingly or the alternative approach can be 

incorporated into the subsequent 5-year program for 2012-2017. 

While considering ways to address the State’s concerns, the MMS must be cognizant of the 

effects any policy changes might have on the achievement of other statutory and implicit goals of 

the Federal OCS program. Among these are expeditious and orderly development and 

maintaining a diverse and competitive industry. Areawide leasing allows smaller independent 

companies to rapidly produce low-resource, low-risk fields, while larger companies push the 

edge of the technology envelope at a slower pace in deep water. It also encourages strong and 

innovative seismic exploration and geophysical contracting and processing industries. In 

addition, a sudden change in policy that restricts access to oil and gas resources, or that alters the 

timetables the offshore industry has come to depend on, may lead to undesirable socioeconomic 

disruptions in local coastal economies. The MMS expects detailed analysis of alternatives to 

areawide leasing to address such possible consequences. Therefore, pending completion of that 

analysis, the MMS will continue the areawide approach in the GOM for the near future. 

In the Central GOM Planning Area, the PFP includes the commitment to a no-surface occupancy 

stipulation in a 15-mile area offshore Baldwin County, Alabama. This stipulation has been 

consistently included at the lease sale stage for all sales in this area since 1999. 

Maps 7 and 8, in part III, depict the specific GOM OCS areas proposed for lease sales. Map B 

includes GOMESAct sale area in the Eastern Gulf. 

Atlantic OCS 

There are four planning areas in the Atlantic OCS—North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South 

Atlantic, and Straits of Florida. As in the DPP and PPs, the PFP includes a special interest sale 

in the Mid-Atlantic in late 2011. This area is under presidential withdrawal under section 12 of 

the Act, and has been subject to congressional moratoria. 

If the Presidential withdrawal is lifted and the Congressional moratorium is discontinued, a 

call for information will be issued. If industry interest reflected in comments on a call for 

information does not support consideration of a sale, the sale will be postponed. A request for 

nominations and comments will be issued again the following year, which is the last year of the 

program. 

The area proposed for consideration is in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area off the coastline of 

Virginia. In response to comments by the State, instead of the 25-mile buffer in the PP, the PFP 

area includes a 50-mile buffer from leasing as called for in Virginia’s legislated energy policy. 

In addition, no leasing is proposed in a wedge-shaped no-obstruction zone, intended to protect 

navigation activities in and out of the Chesapeake Bay. Furthermore, as for all lease sales, 

pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, no sale will be proposed until all affected states have the 

opportunity to comment. 

Map 9, in part III, depicts the specific Atlantic OCS area proposed for leasing consideration. 
7

Assurance of Fair Market Value 

Section 18 requires receipt of fair market value for OCS oil and gas leases and the rights they 

convey. The PFP provides for setting minimum bid levels by individual lease sale based on 

market conditions and for continuing to use a two-phase postsale bid evaluation process that has 

been in effect since 1983 to meet this requirement. 
8

Map A: Shows the Alaska Program Areas 
9

Map B: Shows the U.S. Program Areas 
10

II. FRAMEWORK FOR FORMULATING THE PROPOSED FINAL PROGRAM FOR 

2007-2012 

A. Procedural Requirements 

The PFP is one of several steps in the process of preparing the new 5-year program. This 

document is the third of three draft proposals of OCS lease sales for the 2007-2012 timeframe. 

Before the new 5-year program may be approved and implemented, the MMS must accept and 

consider comments on the DPP, and issue for public review a PP and draft EIS, and then a PFP 

and final EIS. The key steps in preparing a new 5-year program under section 18 of the Act and 

section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are described below. 

Request for Comments and Information 

On August 24, 2005, the MMS published in the Federal Register a request for comments and 

information regarding the preparation of a new 5-year program for 2007-2012 and announced the 

start of scoping for the associated EIS. The MMS also sent letters to the governors of affected 

states and the heads of interested Federal agencies requesting their input by October 11, 2005. 

Comments received were summarized in appendix A of the DPP. 

Draft Proposed Program 

After considering all the information and analyses relating to section 18 factors and principles 

(see parts III and IV of the DPP) and comments, the Secretary selected a DPP as the initial 

proposal for the 5-year program for 2007-2012. The MMS announced the DPP and Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on February 10, 2006, and distributed it 

to governors of affected states and interested and affected parties for a 60-day comment period. 

Comments received were summarized in appendix A of the PP. 

Proposed Program

Preparation of a PP was based on further section 18 analysis and consideration of the comments 

received by MMS concerning the DPP. The PP was the second draft of the Secretary’s proposal. 

The MMS published the announcement of the PP in the Federal Register on August 24, 2006, 

and distributed it along with the draft 5-year EIS for 2007-2012 (July 2006) to the governors of 

affected states, and other interested and affected parties for a 90-day comment period. 

Comments received were summarized in appendix A of the PFP. 

Proposed Final Program

Preparation of a PFP is based on additional section 18 analyses and consideration of the 

comments received by MMS concerning the PP. The PFP is the third and final draft of the 

Secretary’s proposal. The MMS announces the PFP in the Federal Register and submits it to the 

President and the Congress along with summaries of any comments received and an explanation 

of the responses on any recommendations received from affected state and local governments 

and the Attorney General. The MMS issues the final EIS along with the PFP. The Secretary’s 

proposal is explained in part I of this document. 
11

Program Approval

Sixty days after the PFP is submitted to the President and the Congress, the Secretary may 

approve the new 5-year program. 

B. Substantive Requirements 

Section 18 of the Act sets forth specific principles and factors to guide 5-year program 

formulation. Analysis of information relating to those principles and factors produces results 

that MMS uses to develop reasonable options for a schedule of proposed lease sales. The 

Secretary may select from these options indicating, as precisely as possible, the size, timing, and 

location of leasing activity determined to best meet national energy needs. A brief overview of 

those section 18 requirements is presented below. 

Energy Needs

Section 18(a) states that the purpose of the 5-year OCS oil and gas leasing program is to help 

meet the Nation’s future energy needs. Part IV.A presents an analysis of anticipated energy 

needs. The analysis includes discussions of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) projections 

of national energy needs in the Annual Energy Outlook 2006, the potential contribution of OCS 

oil and gas production in meeting those needs, alternatives to OCS production, and 

considerations relating to regional energy needs. 

Environmental Considerations

Section 18(a)(1) provides that in addition to examining oil and gas resources, the Secretary is 

required to consider the values of other OCS resources and the potential impacts that OCS oil 

and gas activities could have on those resources and on the marine, coastal, and human 

environments. Part IV.B presents the environmental issues and concerns that have been raised 

by commenters and presents information relating to safe and sound operations, as well as 

pertinent findings of the final EIS for the 5-year program for 2007-2012 and other relevant 

NEPA documents and environmental information. 

Factors for Determining Timing and Location of Leasing 

Section 18(a)(2) lists eight factors that are to be considered in deciding the timing and location of 

oil and gas activities among the different areas of the OCS. While some of these factors lend 

themselves to quantification to facilitate comparison among planning areas, others do not and 

need to be considered qualitatively. Each of the eight factors provided in 18(a)(2)(A) through 

(H) is listed below along with references to the parts of the PFP analysis and the final EIS that 

address them. 

(A) Geographic, Geological, and Ecological Characteristics

The main source of information on geographic, geological, and ecological characteristics of the 

OCS planning areas considered in preparing the PFP is the final EIS for the 5-year program for 

2007-2012. 
12

Other sources include recent NEPA documents prepared for leasing and operations activities; the 

MMS 2006 resource assessment and associated reports; the MMS cumulative effects report (97-

0027); the 1994 National Research Council report concerning information for Alaska OCS 

decisions; scientific study results, which are reported in the environmental studies program 

information system (ESPIS) database; and information submitted or cited by commenters. 

(B) Equitable Sharing of Developmental Benefits and Environmental Risks 

Part IV.C briefly analyzes the equitable sharing factor. It discusses the analyses and findings of 

previous 5-year programs and briefly cites new developments and their potential influence on the 

nature and distribution of benefits and risks associated with the size, timing, and location options 

available for consideration. 

The analysis also describes the significant effect that the existing long-term withdrawal of and/or 

moratoria on areas from leasing has on equitable sharing by effectively precluding expansion 

of the lease sale schedule to include areas that were not proposed for leasing in the approved 

5-year programs for 1997-2002 and 2002-2007. The withdrawal and moratoria are described 

in part III.A. 

(C) Location with Respect to Regional and National Energy Markets and Needs

Part IV.A analyzes regional and national energy needs. Chapter III of the EIS describes the 

socioeconomic environment for each OCS region, including the existing oil and gas 

infrastructure and its relationship to new leasing. The recent lease sale EISs and other NEPA 

documents cited at the end of part II also provide useful information relating to regional 

distribution and processing of OCS oil and gas. 

(D) Location with Respect to Other Uses of the Sea and Seabed 

Part IV.C discusses competing uses of the OCS. This summary is based on information provided 

in the EIS for the 5-year program for 2007-2012. 

Other sources include the 1997 MMS cumulative effects report, the recent lease sale EISs and 

other NEPA documents cited above, the ESPIS results, and information submitted or cited by 

commenters. 

(E)Interest of Potential Oil and Gas Producers

Part IV.C describes industry interest as indicated in response to the August 2006 PP that was 

issued by MMS. The discussions of size, timing, and location options in part III also include 

summaries of industry interest, and appendix A summarizes all comments received from the oil 

and gas companies and associations. 

(F) Laws, Goals, and Policies of Affected States

The discussions of size, timing, and location options in part III.D include summaries of the 

relevant laws, goals, and policies—and federally approved coastal zone management programs 

and policies—that state governments identified in responding to MMS requests for comments. 

Appendix A summarizes all comments received from state governors and government agencies. 
13

(G) Environmental Sensitivity and Marine Productivity

Part IV.C analyzes environmental sensitivity and marine productivity based on the latest 

available information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

(H) Environmental and Predictive Information 

Part IV.B presents an analysis of environmental concerns that references relevant information 

and findings from the EIS for the 5-year program for 2007-2012, recent lease sale EISs and other 

NEPA documents, and other MMS reports and studies. 

Balancing Potential Environmental Damage, Discovery of Oil and Gas, and Adverse 

Impact on the Coastal Zone 

Section 18(a)(3) requires the Secretary to render decisions on the timing and location of OCS 

leasing that strike a balance between environmental and developmental principles based on a 

consideration of the factors comprising section 18(a)(2) listed above. Part IV.C of the DPP 

addressed the balancing requirement by presenting a comparative analysis of all 26 planning 

areas. The PP and the PFP documents address this issue as it impacts the proposal of 7 program 

areas. 

The centerpiece of the comparative analysis is an estimation of net benefits for each planning 

area that is derived by first calculating the value of oil and gas resources minus the cost to 

industry and the environmental and social costs of developing those resources. The MMS calls 

this net social value. Consumer surplus benefits are added to net social value to produce an 

estimate of net benefits for each program alternative. The comparative analysis also ranks the 

planning areas according to quantified information relating to environmental sensitivity and 

marine productivity and according to the interest of potential oil and gas producers. The other 

section 18(a)(2) factors do not lend themselves as readily to quantification and are treated 

qualitatively. The comparative analysis also examines additional qualitative information 

pertaining to industry interest, the findings and purposes of the Act, the comments and 

recommendations of interested and affected parties, and other information relevant to striking a 

proper balance under section 18(a)(3). 

The Act does not specify what the balance should be or how the factors should be weighed to 

achieve that balance, leaving to the Secretary the discretion to reach a reasonable determination 

under existing circumstances. 

C. Judicial Guidance 

The new 5-year program will be the seventh prepared by the DOI. The first three programs 

prepared and approved under section 18 were challenged in court—in 1980, 1982, and 1987. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided all of those lawsuits. 

The new 5-year program is being prepared in accordance with guidance provided in those 

decisions, which are cited as follows. 

y California I [California v. Watt, 668 F.2d 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1981)]; 
14

y California II [California v. Watt, 712 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir. 1983)]; and 

y NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288 (D.C. Cir. 

1988)].

No lawsuits were filed challenging the 5-year programs approved for 1992-1997, 1997-2002, and 

2002-2007. 

D. Analytic Approach 

The analysis for formulating the Secretary’s proposal for 2007-2012 focuses on the size, timing, 

and location of leasing and the provisions for assuring fair market value that were adopted in the 

February 2006 DPP and August 2006 PP. The DPP and PP identified for further leasing 

consideration seven program areas consisting of all or parts of seven of the OCS planning areas 

(see maps A and B). The PP and the PFP analyses examine and compare those selected areas in 

light of the criteria of section 18 of the Act. The same areas are analyzed in the EIS prepared to 

assess the effects of the Secretary’s proposal pursuant to the NEPA. 

The following guiding principles were applied, consistent with the Act requirements in section 

18, in developing and selecting options for the size, timing, and location of areas proposed for 

consideration of leasing: 

y Give priority leasing consideration to areas where the combination of previous 

experience; expressions of local, state, and national laws and policies; and industry 

interest indicate that potential leasing and development activities could be expected to 

proceed in an orderly manner. 

y For areas with estimated hydrocarbon resources, consider leasing if, from a national 

perspective, anticipated benefits from development substantially outweigh estimated 

environmental risks. 

y Consider offering areas not recently offered in which further exploration is needed to 

determine the full extent of natural gas and oil resources. 

y Seek to accommodate the recommendations of governors of coastal states and of state 

and local agencies. 

y Consider measures such as buffer zones and deferral areas to mitigate potential impacts 

in environmentally sensitive areas. 

The options selected in the PFP have been formulated and selected in light of these principles 

and the factors and elements to be considered and balanced under section 18(a) of the Act. 

Development of a new 5-year program for 2007-2012 is based on analysis of information 

relating to the criteria of section 18 of the Act, which governs preparation and maintenance of 

the Federal offshore oil and gas leasing program. Parts III and IV of this document discuss in 
15

detail the sources of information and the methodologies applied for the PFP analysis. Also, as 

stated in the DPP and the PP, much information is incorporated by reference. This information is 

listed below. 

y Decision Document for the Proposed Program for 2007-2012 (August 2006) 

y Final EIS for the 5-year program for 2007-2012 (April 2007) 

y EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html 

y Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources, Alaska Federal Offshore As of 2006 

http://www.mms.gov/alaska/re/reports 

y Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources on the 

Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf, 2006 

http://www.mms.gov/2005EnergyPolicyAct.htm#ImplemintingInMMS 

y Accounting for Socioeconomic Change from Offshore Oil and Gas: Cumulative Effects 

on Louisiana’s Coastal Parishes, 1969-2000, MMS 2006-030, 2006

y The GOM OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012; Western Planning Area Sales 204, 

207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222; 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, MMS 2007-018, 2007 

y Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Survey Activities 

in the Chukchi Sea, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, MMS 2006-060, 2006 

y Arctic OCS Seismic Surveys- 2006, Programmatic Environmental Assessment, OCS 

EIS/EA, MMS 2006-038, 2006 

y Structure-Removal Operations on the GOM OCS, Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2005-013, 2005 

y Environmental Assessment—Proposed Oil & Gas Lease Sale 195 Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area, MMS 2004-028, 2004 

y Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the GOM OCS: Final 

Programmatic Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2004-054, 2004 

y Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sales 191 and 199, Final EIS, OCS EIS/EA, 

MMS 2003-055, Volumes 1-3, 2003 

y Alaska OCS Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sales 186, 195, and 202, 

Final EIS, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2003-001, 2003 

y GOM OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales 189 and 197, Eastern Planning Area, OCS EIS/EA, 

MMS 2002-056, 2002 
16

III. PROPOSED FINAL PROGRAM OPTIONS 

A. Size, Timing, and Location Options 

Introduction

This part presents the options from which the Secretary chooses the size, timing, and location 

of leasing for 2007-2012. The MMS has formulated these options based on its consideration 

of information relating to the section 18 criteria and based on the results of comments and 

consultation with interested and affected parties. These are the program options that were 

presented to the Secretary. The PFP constitutes the options chosen as indicated in this part.

As noted in the DPP and PP, the OCS is divided into 26 planning areas. Seven whole planning 

areas located off the east and west coasts are withdrawn from disposition by leasing until after 

June 30, 2012. Most of the Eastern GOM Planning Area located off Florida and a portion of the 

Central Gulf Planning Area within 100 miles of Florida are withdrawn until June 30, 2022, under 

section 104 of GOMESAct of 2006. Two small areas in the Eastern and one in the Central 

Planning Areas are subject to Presidential withdrawal until June 30, 2012. 

The GOMESAct discontinued the Congressional moratorium for the 181 South Area, and on 

January 9, 2007, the President modified the withdrawal to allow the Secretary to offer the 181 

South Area and North Aleutian Basin, Alaska, for leasing consideration. Both areas are included 

in the PFP, as they had been in the PP, with the exception of proposing only one sale instead of 

two in the North Aleutian Basin. Based on interest expressed by the Governor of the 

Commowealth of Virginia, some withdrawn area off its coast is included in the PFP but with a 

50-mile buffer, in place of the 25-mile buffer, and with the no-obstruction zone as in the PP. No 

sales can be held unless the Presidential withdrawal is modified and the Congressional 

moratorium discontinued off the coast of Virginia. In a February 22, 2007 letter, the Governor 

of Virginia specifically requested that the Secretary keep the area off the coast of Virginia in the 

plan. The other withdrawn areas have not been analyzed in light of the section 18 criteria and no 

program options were considered for them in the DPP or PP. Eleven other planning areas 

located off Alaska and the Straits of Florida also were not included for leasing consideration in 

the DPP or PP. None of these areas are analyzed in this document. This approach is consistent 

with California II, which found that “[i]f the Secretary has already determined that no leasing 

activity will occur in a particular area there is no need to fully evaluate that area.” Maps 1 and 2 

show all 26 planning areas and indicate those currently unavailable for leasing. 

The section 18 objectives of formulating a program to “best meet national energy needs” and 

assuring the receipt of fair market value for leases and the rights they convey are significant 

determinants of the size, timing, and location options. The analyses of net social benefits and the 

factors specified by section 18(a)(2) provide a solid basis for developing options. Those 

analyses, which are presented in part IV, examine economic, social, and environmental values; 

oil and gas resource potential and industry interest; distribution of benefits and risks; competing 

uses of the OCS; regional energy needs; and the laws, goals, and policies of affected States. By 

considering that information for each area of the OCS available to be proposed for leasing in the 

next 5-year program, the MMS is able to weigh different resources, values, and policies in 

formulating reasonable options that can be selected by the Secretary to achieve the balance 

required by section 18(a)(3). 
17

Map 1: Shows the Alaska Planning Areas 
18

Map 2: Shows the National Planning Areas 
19

Additional Considerations 

The location and size of lease sales in a 5-year program are largely determined by the 

configuration of planning areas and program areas for leasing consideration. The OCS planning 

areas initially were established following the enactment of the Act Amendments of 1978 and 

have been reconfigured several times over the past 20 years, including the changes put forth in 

the DPP and continued in the PP and PFP, that correspond to the administrative lines announced 

in the Federal Register in January 2006. In general, the entire Central and Western GOM 

Planning Areas (with the exception of blocks in and around the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary and those subject to congressional or presidential restriction) have been 

included in OCS lease sales. Other planning areas have been subdivided to identify smaller areas 

of leasing consideration within them (i.e., program areas). 

The PFP options provide for scheduling lease sales in the Central and Western GOM Planning 

Areas, in defined program areas off Alaska, and in the Atlantic off the coast of Virginia. Each 

lease sale that is scheduled in the approved 5-year program for 2007-2012 will be subjected to an 

established prelease evaluation and decision process in which interested and affected parties may 

participate. That process examines the proposed lease sale, starting with the area identified as 

available for leasing consideration in the 5-year program, and considers reasonable alternative 

lease sale configurations within that area; therefore, no sale area may be larger than the original 

proposal. The prelease process leads to the final decision on the size, timing, and location of 

each OCS lease sale. 

Size, timing, and location options are designed also to mitigate drainage of Federal oil and gas 

resources on unleased lands and associated revenue losses that could occur as a result of existing 

or anticipated development activity on adjacent state leases. Acquisition of new geological and 

geophysical data is a relevant consideration in that it is necessary for such data to become 

available sooner, more frequently, and more predictably for the areas scheduled for lease sales in 

a 5-year program. Finally, the scheduling of lease sales must allow time for orderly and 

deliberate preparation for each sale, including the acquisition and analysis of relevant scientific 

information, and the completion of the prelease evaluation and decision process. 

Proposed Final Program Options for Scheduling Lease Sales 

This decision document offers options for scheduling lease sales for the seven areas proposed for 

lease sales in the PP (not including the Eastern Planning Area Sale 224). Summaries of the key 

results of the comparative analysis and the comments of interested and affected parties precede 

each set of lease sale options for each planning area. The comparative analysis summaries are 

condensed from part IV.C, and the comment summaries are adapted from the appendix. 

A discussion of the individual options follows each set of options. Each leasing option is 

discussed as to the anticipated benefits of the proposed leasing and ensuing production, as well 

as the potential environmental impacts that could be expected. Some of the potential impacts 

could result from an oil spill. The MMS has an extensive oil spill prevention program. 

Although a major oil spill is unlikely, for environmental analysis, the MMS assumes a spill in 

order to identify potential effects. Some of the effects are mentioned under the various leasing 

options that follow and are discussed more extensively in the final EIS. 
20

As explained in part IV.C, the valuation of anticipated production differs from the total net 

benefits analysis. The former compares the value of all the resources available in each area 

while the latter compares the value of only those resources that would reasonably be expected to 

be discovered and produced given the size and timing of the lease sale(s) specified in each 

option. 

Relationship of Proposed Final Program Options to the Final EIS Alternatives 

The final EIS analyzes ten alternatives that correspond to individual lease sale options as 

follows: 

y Alternative 1—The Proposed Action—corresponds to the PFP Options 1 for the Western 

and Central GOM (5 and 6 areawide sales) and Mid-Atlantic and Cook Inlet (1 and 2 

special interest sales) and Option 2 for Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea (2 and 3 sales in 

entire program areas). This mirrors the Proposed Action in the draft EIS. This document 

does not include a sale option for offering the entire North Aleutian Basin Planning Area 

that corresponds to the Proposed Action in the final EIS, as the Secretary had already 

chosen to decrease the program area in the PP. 

y Alternative 2—Exclude Leasing in the North Aleutian Basin—would modify the 

proposal by excluding entirely the North Aleutian Basin (No Sale Option 2 for North 

Aleutian Basin). 

y Alternative 3—Exclude Leasing in Cook Inlet—would modify the proposal by excluding 

entirely the Cook Inlet (No Sale Option 2 for Cook Inlet). 

y Alternative 4—Exclude Leasing Offshore Virginia—would modify the proposal by 

excluding entirely the program area offshore Virginia (No Sale Option 3 for Offshore 

Virginia). 

y Alternative 5—Exclude Leasing in 25-Mile Buffer in Some Planning Areas—would 

exclude from leasing consideration a 25-mile area off the coastlines of the Chukchi Sea 

and Virginia (Option 1 for both areas). 

y Alternative 6— Exclude Leasing in No-Obstruction Zone Offshore Virginia—would 

exclude from leasing consideration a no-obstruction zone from the mouth of the 

Chesapeake Bay off the coastline of Virginia (Options 1 (with 25-mile buffer) and 2 

(with 50-mile buffer)) 

y Alternative 7—Offer Only that Area Offered in Sale 92 in North Aleutian Basin (Option 

1). 

y Alternative 8—Exclude Leasing in Two Areas in the Beaufort Sea to avoid conflicts with 

subsistence whaling (Option 1). 

y Alternative 9—Exclude Leasing in 50-mile Buffer in the Mid-Atlantic off the coastline of 

Virginia (Option 2). 
21

y Alternative 10—No Action—would schedule no sales (Option 2 for Western and Central 

GOM, North Aleutian Basin, and Cook Inlet; Option 3 for Mid-Atlantic off Virginia, 

Beaufort Sea, and Chukchi Sea). 

ALASKA REGION 

Proposed Program Decision 

The PP scheduled the following lease sales in the Alaska OCS Region: 

y Beaufort Sea—sales in 2009 and 2011 in the program area depicted in map 3 without the 

subsistence whaling deferrals; 

y Chukchi Sea—sales in 2007, 2010, and 2012 in the program area depicted in map 4; 

y North Aleutian Basin—sales in 2010 and 2012 in the program area depicted in map 5, if 

the Presidential withdrawal is modified; and 

y Cook Inlet—special interest sales in 2009 and 2011 in the planning area depicted in map 

6. See the discussion under the Option 1 for a description of the proposed special interest 

sale process. 

Proposed Final Program Options 

BEAUFORT SEA 

Key Comparative Results. The net benefits of anticipated production in this PFP area are 

estimated at $6.58 billion. The area ranks 6th out of 7 in environmental sensitivity and 7th of 7 in 

primary productivity. 

Selected Comments. The then-Governor of Alaska supported the proposed leasing programs in 

the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas contained in the PP and encouraged MMS and industry to work 

with the North Slope Borough, whaling representatives, and other Native communities to 

minimize conflict with subsistence whaling. The current Governor expressed her support in 

comments on Beaufort Sea Sale 202 (April 2007). The DOE continued its support of the 

proposed 5-year plan, including the proposals related to the OCS in Alaska. The North Slope 

Borough, the City of Kaktovik, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) opposed 

activities in this area. If there were sales, these groups wanted whaling areas deferred in the 5-

year program, instead of having to reconsider with every sale. Several national and Alaskabased public interest groups stated that MMS should not hold any more lease sales in the 

Beaufort Sea unless and until the industry demonstrates that it can clean up spilled oil and should 

exclude sensitive areas offshore of the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. Alaska Watch 

wanted the area reduced because of the potential for oil spills. The Anchorage Economic 

Development Council (AEDC) reiterated its support for offshore expansion and concluded that 

impacts on whales and other sea animals can be fully mitigated. Numerous non-energy industry 

entities, from the agricultural sector to local Chambers of Commerce, again endorsed the 

proposal and asked for opening of more acreage. Nineteen companies expressed interest in this 

area. Of the almost 2,500 Alaskans who commented on the PP, 93 percent were in favor of 

access to the Alaska OCS. 
22

Options

 X (1) Proposal as in the PP with the inclusion of two subsistence whaling deferral areas: two 

sales (in 2009 and 2011) in the program area depicted in map 3; 

 (2) Proposal as in the PP without the two subsistence whaling deferral areas: two sales (in 

2009 and 2011) in the program area depicted in map 3 (without deferrals); and 

 (3) No sale. 

Discussion 

Option 1 (Proposed Program Area with Two Subsistence Whaling Deferrals) 

Valuation. The net benefits of anticipated production in the PFP area are estimated at $6.58 

billion. 

Environmental Impacts. This area is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 8, which 

would defer blocks to avoid conflicts with whaling. A summary of the EIS findings follows. 

The PFP area includes two subsistence whaling deferrals as addressed in the final EIS under 

Alternative 8. The primary effect of choosing this option would be a lessening of impacts on 

subsistence hunting. The lease blocks included in the deferral areas were selected based on 

information from the AEWC and from the subsistence whaling community. These deferrals 

would largely eliminate impacts from routine operations in areas known to be important for 

subsistence hunting. Subsistence hunting and the hunted animals would remain susceptible to 

effects from an oil spill or other discharges that affect water and/or air quality occurring in 

blocks outside the deferral areas. 

Other Information. The MMS received several comments, particularly during the scoping 

process for the draft EIS, concerning the deferral of areas in the Beaufort Sea program area. Of 

particular interest were the Barrow and Kaktovik deferral areas, as depicted on map 3. These 

two deferrals have been included at the lease sale stage in the three sales in the 2002-2007 

program, because it is appropriate to consider deferrals at the lease sale stage. However, as these 

deferrals have been consistently agreed to and applied, the MMS is including them in the PFP. 
23

Map 3: Shows the Beaufort Sea Program Area 
24

Option 2 (Proposed Program Area Without Subsistence Whaling Deferrals) 

Valuation. The net benefits of production are estimated at $ 6.58 billion. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 1, the 

Proposed Action. A summary of the EIS findings follows. 

Air Quality — The concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 from any routine activities would be 

well within the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Air quality impacts from 

accidental oil spills or in situ burning would be localized and short term. 

Archaeological Resources — Assuming compliance with existing Federal, state, and local 

archaeological regulations and policies, most impacts to archaeological resources resulting from 

routine activities under the proposal will be avoided. Some impact may occur to coastal historic 

and prehistoric archaeological resources from accidental oil spills. Although it is not possible to 

predict the precise numbers or types of sites that would be affected, contact with archaeological 

sites would probably be unavoidable, and the resulting loss of information would be 

irretrievable, if spills should occur. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the 

significance and uniqueness of the information lost. 

Areas of Special Concern — Development occurring on national park lands is considered 

unlikely during the time frame of the proposed action. Development may be possible in the 

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) under the proposed action, but it is 

anticipated that reviews of individual lease sales would minimize the potential for impacts from 

routine operations. Impacts from oil spills that occur adjacent to national park or national 

wildlife refuge boundaries would depend on spill location, spill size, type of product spilled, 

weather conditions, environmental conditions at the time of the spill, and effectiveness of 

cleanup operations. Large oil spills in areas adjacent to the Arctic NWR may negatively impact 

coastal habitats and fauna and also affect subsistence use. 

Coastal Habitats — Construction of infrastructure, such as onshore support bases and pipeline 

landfalls could result in small areas of habitat being lost. Potential impacts from oil spills could 

occur to coastal habitats. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on a variety of factors, 

including the location and size of the spill, remediation efforts, existing environmental conditions 

(such as plant species or substrate type), and natural localized erosion and deposition patterns. 

Cleanup operations might also impact coastal habitats if the removal of contaminated substrates 

affected beach stability and resulted in accelerated shoreline erosion or if coastal wetlands were 

damaged (e.g., by trampling or removal of vegetation). 

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat —Assuming compliance with existing Federal, 

state, and local fisheries regulations, policies and consultations, most impacts to fish resources 

will be minimized. Effects of accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume 

of spills; distribution and ecology of affected fish species; and other environmental factors. 

Under most circumstances, any single large spill would affect only a small proportion of a given 

fish population; therefore, overall population levels would not be affected. 

Fisheries — Because commercial fisheries in the Arctic subregion are relatively small and 

localized, potential impacts due to routine operations under the proposed action are less likely 

unless they occur in the direct vicinity of these localized fisheries. Based on the oil-spill 
25

scenarios, most accidents assumed under the proposed action would potentially impact 

commercial fisheries, with larger spills resulting in greater and potentially more persistent 

impacts. All spills have the potential to result in reduced or no harvest that may impact local 

economies. 

Land Use and Existing Infrastructure — The greatest anticipated impact of the proposed action 

is to expose new areas to the potential effects from routine operations and accidents. Routine 

operations would impact land use in the vicinity of new facilities and their associated 

infrastructure. Impacts associated with platform and pipeline construction would be temporary. 

An oil spill could alter land use temporarily but would not likely result in long-term changes. 

The magnitude of the impacts would depend on the size and location of the spill. 

Marine and Coastal Birds — Marine and coastal birds may be affected by the construction of 

onshore and offshore facilities; by boats, aircraft, and on-land vehicle traffic; and by noise and 

human activities during normal operations and maintenance activities. In most cases, affected 

birds would temporarily leave the area; while in other cases, the displacement could be longterm. Construction of onshore facilities and pipelines, offshore pipeline landfalls, and offshore 

gravel islands to support drilling platforms would result in the permanent disturbance of potential 

habitat within the immediate footprint of the new facilities and gravel excavation areas. 

Depending on the species present at and in the vicinity of the construction areas, the numbers of 

birds affected, and the activity (whether nesting, molting, feeding or staging) that the affected 

birds were undergoing at the time of disturbance, the displacement could reduce reproductive, 

foraging, and survival successes, and might result in population-level impacts. 

Accidental spills represent the greatest potential for adversely impacting marine and coastal 

birds. Spills in offshore locations have the greatest potential for affecting the greatest number 

of birds, especially if a spill occurs in an area where birds have congregated and are carrying 

out important activities such as nesting, molting, and staging. Spills in terrestrial habitats would 

affect relatively few birds unless the spill was to reach a surface water body such as a stream, 

pond, or lake that provides an important brood-rearing, foraging, or staging habitat. Oil-spill 

cleanup activities may result in either short-term or long-term displacement of birds from 

habitats, depending on the size of the spill and the habitats affected. 

Marine Mammals — Some routine operations could affect marine mammals in the Arctic 

subregion. Noise generated during exploration and operation activities and by OCS-related 

vessels and helicopters may temporarily disturb some individuals, causing them to leave or avoid 

the area. Such effects would likely be short-term and not result in population-level effects. If 

the disturbance results in the temporary abandonment of young by adults, survival of young may 

be reduced. Collisions with OCS-related vessels may injure or kill some individuals. Existing 

permit requirements, regulatory stipulations, and MMS guidelines targeting many of the routine 

operations would generally limit the likelihood of marine mammals being affected by these 

operations. Oil spills may expose marine mammals to oil or its weathering products. Adverse 

impacts to individuals of a listed species from a large spill could potentially have a populationlevel effect. Spill cleanup operations could result in short-term disturbance of marine mammals 

in the vicinity of the cleanup activity, while a collision with a cleanup vessel could injure or kill 

the affected individual. Disturbance of adults with young during cleanup operations could 

reduce survival of the young animals. 
26

Population, Employment, and Income — In Alaska, the proposed action is expected to add 

12,600 jobs (the largest share on the North Slope) and $192 million in personal income in an 

average year and the Alaska population is projected to grow by 14,000 residents. Most North 

Slope workers are expected to stay in enclave housing and commute from south-central Alaska 

or the Fairbanks area. Potential effects on local population, employment, and regional income 

from routine operations and oil spills are expected to be limited except for local effects from a 

large oil spill. 

Seafloor Habitats — Some impacts on benthic communities could occur due to routine 

operations and accidental spills under the proposed action. The magnitude of impacts from an 

oil spill would depend upon the location of the spill, spill size, the type of product spilled, 

effectiveness of cleanup operations, and other environmental conditions at the time of the spill. 

Impacts to the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch community could occur as a result of routine 

operations and accidental spills under the proposed action. However, planning procedures and 

permitting requirements would avoid or minimize the potential for impacts to the Stefansson 

Sound Boulder Patch community. 

Sociocultural Systems and Environmental Justice — Noise disturbance from routine offshore 

operations could significantly affect marine mammal harvests and is a particular concern with 

bowhead whaling, but this is expected to be mitigated through consultation and conflict 

avoidance measures. The Exxon Valdez oil spill has shown that substantial impacts occur from 

direct effects of an oil spill upon resources and from disruptive cleanup efforts. Potential 

impacts on sociocultural systems from spills under the proposal would be determined by the 

location and timing of the spill. 

Alaska Native populations are present in many coastal areas and could be near any new onshore 

infrastructure resulting from the proposal, raising potential environmental and health concerns. 

The importance of marine mammals (such as the bowhead whale) to subsistence raises particular 

concerns. Should an oil spill occur, its potential environmental and health impacts on Alaska 

Native populations could be disproportionately high or adverse depending on the geographical 

location of the spill and its effects on subsistence resources and harvests. Because of these 

concerns, the MMS continues to emphasize consultation and interactions with Native 

organizations to evaluate potential actions and mitigations. 

Terrestrial Mammals — The construction and normal operations of new onshore facilities 

associated with the proposed action could result in a variety of short-term and long-term impacts 

to terrestrial mammals. Short-term impacts may be incurred by a variety of species during 

facility and infrastructure construction. These impacts would largely be behavioral in nature, 

with affected animals avoiding or vacating the construction areas. Similarly, vehicle and aircraft 

traffic associated with the proposed action could temporarily disturb mammals near roadways or 

under flight paths. The presence of a new onshore pipeline may result in the displacement from 

preferred habitats to less suitable habitats for overwintering muskoxen, calving female caribou, 

and female caribou and their calves. While population-level effects may not be likely for 

caribou, local population-level effects may occur for muskoxen, if they are in the immediate 

area, because of the small population size in Alaska. In the event of an accidental spill, 

terrestrial mammals may be exposed via ingestion of contaminated food, inhalation of airborne 

oil droplets, and direct ingestion of oil during grooming. A variety of lethal and sublethal effects 

may be likely. However, because most spills would be relatively small (<50 barrels (bbl)), 
27

relatively few individuals would likely be exposed. While some individuals may incur lethal 

effects, population-level impacts would not be expected for most species. Cleanup activities 

could temporarily disturb terrestrial mammals in the vicinity of the cleanup operation, causing 

those animals to vacate the area. 

Water Quality — Construction and installation of exploratory and development wells, platforms, 

pipelines, docks and causeways, and/or artificial islands could impact water quality by disturbing 

sediments and increasing turbidity in the area of construction. Minor water quality 

contamination could also occur from fluids entrained in ice roads when they breakup in the 

spring. Overall coastal and marine water quality impacts due to routine operations and 

operational discharges under the proposed action would be unavoidable. Exploration discharges 

would persist for a few hours within the mixing zone around each rig. However, the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limitation on discharge rates would 

minimize water quality impacts. Production facilities would re-inject all muds, cuttings, and 

production waters, thereby eliminating degradation of water quality by these effluents. Impacts 

of accidental releases to water quality would depend on the size of the spill, type of material or 

product spilled, and environmental factors at the time of the spill. A large spill in isolated 

coastal waters, in shallow water under thick or rapidly freezing ice, or in the open sea when or 

where access to the spill site is limited could cause sustained degradation of water quality 

because the decomposition and weathering processes for oil are slowed in cold water. 

Option 3 (No Sale) 

Valuation. The net benefits of production would be zero since no activity would occur. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 10, the No 

Sale alternative. A summary of the EIS findings follows. 

The choice of this option would result in a lack of activities associated with other options 

proposing sales in the planning area. Environmental impacts from presale seismic activity, 

exploration drilling, placement of platforms and pipelines, and accidental oil spills would not 

occur. However, environmental impacts would occur elsewhere from importing energy to 

replace potential OCS production foregone if this option was selected. Activity and impacts 

from seismic, exploration, and development activity on leases purchased during past sales could 

continue. Potential effects on the Pacific Coast as a result of spills of oil produced from new 

Beaufort Sea leases and shipped by tanker to West Coast ports would be eliminated, but potential 

effects might occur from spills associated with tankered imports. 

CHUKCHI SEA 

Key Comparative Results. The net benefits of anticipated production in the Chukchi Sea PFP 

area are estimated at $6.37 billion. The area ranks 7th in environmental sensitivity and 6th in 

primary productivity. 

Selected Comments. The then-Governor of Alaska supported the proposed leasing programs in 

the Chukchi Sea contained in the PP, including the 25-mile buffer, and encouraged MMS and 

industry to work with the North Slope Borough, whaling representatives, and other Native 

communities to minimize conflict with subsistence whaling. The DOE continued its support of 
28

the proposed 5-year plan, including the proposals related to the OCS in Alaska. The North Slope 

Borough opposed activities in this area. Several national and Alaska-based public interest 

groups stated that MMS has arbitrarily expanded access to the Chukchi Sea planning area and 

underestimated the sensitivity of the Chukchi Sea shoreline. The AEWC continued its 

opposition to offshore oil and gas leasing because it threatens the habitat and migratory patterns 

of the bowhead whale. The AEWC stated that the Secretary must exclude the Chukchi Sea from 

the program for the sole reason that too little is known about that sea and its capacity to rebound 

from environmental pressures of leasing activity. The AEDC reiterated its support for offshore 

expansion and concluded that impacts on whales and other sea animals can be fully mitigated. 

Numerous non-energy industry entities, from the agricultural sector to local Chambers of 

Commerce, endorsed the proposals and asked for opening of more acreage. Seventeen 

companies expressed interest in this area. Of the almost 2,500 Alaskans who commented on the 

PP, 93 percent were in favor of access to the Alaska OCS. 

Options 

 X (1) Proposal as in the PP, with a 25-mile buffer from leasing consideration off the coastline: 

three sales (in 20081

, 2010, and 2012) in the program area depicted in Map 4; 

 

 (2) Proposal as in the PP without a 25-mile buffer: three sales (in 2008, 2010, and 2012); and 

 (3) No sale. 

Discussion 

Option 1 (Proposed Program Area Including a 25-Mile Buffer) 

Valuation. The net benefits of anticipated production in the PFP area are estimated at $ 6.37 

billion. 

Environmental Impacts. This area is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 5, which 

defers blocks within 25 miles of the coast from leasing consideration. A summary of the EIS 

findings follows. 

This option would eliminate most potential environmental impacts to resources within the 

25-mile buffer zone in the Chukchi Sea from routine operations, such as water and gaseous 

discharges, bottom disturbances, and seismic activities. The potential for impacts to coastal 

water quality, coastal air quality, marine mammals, marine and coastal birds, benthic 

communities, subsistence, and fish resources would be reduced. However, the potential for 

impacts from vessel traffic, aircraft, offshore and onshore pipeline construction, and onshore 

support facilities would still exist. There would be no gravel island or ice roads constructed in 

the Chukchi Sea under this option, thus eliminating potential impacts arising from these 

facilities. The potential for offshore impacts to polar bears would be reduced by virtue of 

reducing the likelihood of their interactions with OCS structures and activities, including 

 

1

 The DPP and PP had the first sale scheduled in 2007. In order to complete all the presale steps and environmental 

analysis and review, the first sale has been moved to 2008. 
29

seismic. Potential impacts to polar bears onshore would be unchanged from alternative 1 which 

does not include the 25-mile buffer. The 25-mile buffer provides additional protection from 

potential impacts to the bowhead whales during their spring migration because there would be no 

OCS infrastructure or activity in the migration area, which is limited to within 25 miles of the 

coast. 

The potential for adverse coastal and nearshore impacts from oil spills that occur at offshore 

facilities would be reduced compared with not having the 25-mile buffer. Oil spills could still 

occur during transportation in or near the coast. This option would also reduce potential effects 

of a large oil spill on portions of the Chukchi Sea Unit of the Alaska Maritime NWR. The 

establishment of a 25-mile buffer would reduce potential impacts on Native subsistence because 

subsistence hunting activities occur within the deferral area. Environmental justice effects, i.e., 

possible adverse health or environmental impacts from changes in subsistence resources and 

harvest patterns, would be reduced. A reduction in the likelihood of a nearshore oil spill at an 

OCS facility slightly reduces the chances of potential oil-spill impacts on Native subsistence 

resources and harvests. 

The impacts to terrestrial animals, coastal habitats, land use and existing infrastructure, population, employment, regional income, tourism, and recreation would be essentially the same as 

those for including acreage within the 25-mile buffer since the need for onshore support facilities 

and pipelines would not change. 
30

Map 4: Shows the Chukchi Sea Program Area 
31

Option 2 (Proposed Program Area Including Acreage Within the 25-Mile Buffer Area for 

Leasing Consideration) 

Valuation. The net benefits of anticipated production in this area are estimated at $6.69 billion, 

representing a 5 percent increase in economic resource potential over the PFP area. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS as Alternative 1. A summary 

of the EIS findings follows. 

This option would increase potential environmental impacts on resources within the 25-mile 

buffer zone in the Chukchi Sea. Overall impacts on water quality, air quality, marine mammals, 

marine and coastal birds, benthic communities, and fish resources would be increased. Impacts 

from vessel traffic, aircraft, offshore and onshore pipeline construction, and onshore support 

facilities would still exist. There might be gravel islands or ice roads constructed in the Chukchi 

Sea under this option, thus creating potential impacts arising from these facilities. Possible 

impacts to polar bears would be increased. The non-existence of a 25-mile buffer might increase 

the risk to the bowhead whales during their spring migration. 

The potential for adverse impacts from oil spills would be increased compared with that for the 

PFP that defers the 25-mile zone. This option could also increase potential effects of a large oil 

spill on portions of Chukchi Sea Unit of the Alaska Maritime NWR. Not establishing a 25-mile 

buffer would substantially increase potential impacts on Native subsistence. Possible adverse 

health or environmental impacts from changes in subsistence resources and harvest patterns 

would be increased. An increase in the likelihood of an oil spill would make adverse effects on 

Native subsistence resources and harvests more likely. 

The impacts to terrestrial animals, coastal habitats, land use and existing infrastructure, 

population, employment, regional income, tourism, and recreation would be essentially the same 

as those for the proposed final action, since the need for onshore support facilities and pipelines 

would not change. 

Air Quality — The concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 from any routine activities would be 

well within the NAAQS. Air quality impacts from accidental oil spills or in situ burning would 

be localized and short term. 

Archaeological Resources — Assuming compliance with existing Federal, state, and local 

archaeological regulations and policies, most impacts to archaeological resources resulting from 

routine activities under the proposal will be avoided. Some impact may occur to coastal historic 

and prehistoric archaeological resources from accidental oil spills. Although it is not possible to 

predict the precise numbers or types of sites that would be affected, contact with archaeological 

sites would probably be unavoidable, and the resulting loss of information would be 

irretrievable, if spills should occur. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the 

significance and uniqueness of the information lost. 

Areas of Special Concern — Development occurring on national park lands is considered 

unlikely during the timeframe of the proposed action. Impacts from oil spills that occur adjacent 

to national park or national wildlife refuge boundaries would depend on spill location, spill size, 

type of product spilled, weather conditions, environmental conditions at the time of the spill, and 

effectiveness of cleanup operations. Large oil spills in areas adjacent to the Chukchi Sea Unit of 
32

the Alaska Maritime NWR may negatively impact coastal habitats and fauna and also affect 

subsistence use. 

Coastal Habitats — Construction of infrastructure such as onshore support bases and pipeline 

landfalls could result in small areas being lost. Potential impacts from oil spills could occur to 

coastal habitats. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on a variety of factors, including 

the location and size of the spill, remediation efforts, existing environmental conditions (such as 

plant species or substrate type), and natural localized erosion and deposition patterns. Cleanup 

operations might also impact coastal habitats if the removal of contaminated substrates affected 

beach stability and resulted in accelerated shoreline erosion or if coastal wetlands were damaged 

(e.g., by trampling or removal of vegetation). 

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat — Assuming compliance with existing Federal, 

state, and local fisheries regulations, policies, and consultations; most impacts to fish resources 

will be minimized. Effects of accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume 

of spills, distribution and ecology of affected fish species, and other environmental factors. 

Under most circumstances, any single large spill would affect only a small proportion of a given 

fish population; therefore, overall population levels would not be affected. 

Fisheries — Because commercial fisheries in the Arctic subregion are relatively small and 

localized, potential impacts due to routine operations under the proposed action are less likely 

unless they occur in the direct vicinity of these localized fisheries. Based on the oil-spill 

scenarios, most accidents assumed under the proposed action would potentially impact 

commercial fisheries, with larger spills resulting in greater and potentially more persistent 

impacts. All spills have the potential to result in reduced or no harvest that may impact local 

economies. 

Land Use and Existing Infrastructure — The greatest anticipated impact of the proposed action 

is to expose new areas to the potential effects from routine operations and accidents. Routine 

operations would impact land use in the vicinity of new facilities and their associated 

infrastructure. Impacts associated with platform and pipeline construction would be temporary. 

An oil spill could alter land use temporarily but would not likely result in long-term changes. 

The magnitude of the impacts would depend on the size and location of the spill. 

Marine and Coastal Birds — Marine and coastal birds may be affected by the construction of 

onshore and offshore facilities; by boats, aircraft, and on-land vehicle traffic; and by noise and 

human activities during normal operations and maintenance activities. In most cases, affected 

birds would temporarily leave the area; while in other cases, the displacement could be longterm. Construction of onshore facilities and pipelines, offshore pipeline landfalls, and offshore 

gravel islands to support drilling platforms would result in the permanent disturbance of potential 

habitat within the immediate footprint of the new facilities and gravel excavation areas. 

Depending on the species present at and in the vicinity of the construction areas, the numbers of 

birds affected, and the activity (whether nesting, molting, feeding or staging) that the affected 

birds were undergoing at the time of disturbance, the displacement could reduce reproductive, 

foraging, and survival successes, and might result in population-level impacts. 

Accidental spills represent the greatest potential for adversely impacting marine and coastal 

birds. Spills in offshore locations have the greatest potential for affecting the greatest number of 

birds, especially if a spill occurs in an area where birds have congregated and are carrying out 
33

important activities such as nesting, molting, and staging. Spills in terrestrial habitats would 

affect relatively few birds unless the spill was to reach a surface water body such as a stream, 

pond, or lake that provides an important brood-rearing, foraging, or staging habitat. Oil-spill 

cleanup activities may result in either short-term or long-term displacement of birds from 

habitats, depending on the size of the spill and the habitats affected. 

Marine Mammals — Some routine operations could affect marine mammals in the Arctic 

subregion. Noise generated during exploration and operation activities and by OCS-related 

vessels and helicopters may temporarily disturb some individuals, causing them to leave or avoid 

the area. Such effects would likely be short-term and not result in population-level effects. If 

the disturbance results in the temporary abandonment of young by adults, survival of young may 

be reduced. Collisions with OCS-related vessels may injure or kill some individuals. Existing 

permit requirements, regulatory stipulations, and MMS guidelines targeting many of the routine 

operations would generally limit the likelihood of marine mammals being affected by these 

operations. Oil spills may expose marine mammals to oil or its weathering products. Adverse 

impacts to individuals of a listed species from a large spill could potentially have a populationlevel effect. Spill cleanup operations could result in short-term disturbance of marine mammals 

in the vicinity of the cleanup activity, while a collision with a cleanup vessel could injure or kill 

the affected individual. Disturbance of adults with young during cleanup operations could 

reduce survival of the young animals. 

Population, Employment, and Income — In Alaska, the proposed action is expected to add 

12,600 jobs (the largest share on the North Slope) and $192 million in personal income in an 

average year and the Alaska population is projected to grow by 14,000 residents. Most North 

Slope workers are expected to stay in enclave housing and commute from south-central Alaska 

or the Fairbanks area. Potential effects on local population, employment, and regional income 

from routine operations and oil spills are expected to be limited except for local effects from a 

large oil spill. 

Seafloor Habitats — Some impacts on benthic communities could occur due to routine 

operations and accidents under the proposed action. The magnitude of impacts from an oil spill 

would depend upon the location of the spill, spill size, type of product spilled, effectiveness of 

cleanup operations, and other environmental conditions at the time of the spill. 

Sociocultural Systems and Environmental Justice — Noise disturbance from routine offshore 

operations could significantly affect marine mammal harvests and is a particular concern with 

bowhead whaling, but this is expected to be mitigated through consultation and conflict 

avoidance measures. The Exxon Valdez oil spill has shown that substantial impacts occur from 

direct effects of an oil spill upon resources and from disruptive cleanup efforts. Potential 

impacts on sociocultural systems from spills under the proposal would be determined by the 

location and timing of the spill. 

Alaska Native populations are present in many coastal areas and could be near any new onshore 

infrastructure resulting from the proposal, raising potential environmental and health concerns. 

The importance of marine mammals (such as the bowhead whale) to subsistence raises particular 

concerns. Should an oil spill occur, its potential environmental and health impacts on Alaska 

Native populations could be disproportionately high or adverse depending on the geographical 

location of the spill and its effects on subsistence resources and harvests. Because of these 
34

concerns, the MMS continues to emphasize consultation and interactions with Native 

organizations to evaluate potential actions and mitigations. 

Terrestrial Mammals — The construction and normal operations of new onshore facilities 

associated with the proposed action could result in a variety of short-term and long-term impacts 

to terrestrial mammals. Short-term impacts may be incurred by a variety of species during 

facility and infrastructure construction. These impacts would largely be behavioral in nature, 

with affected animals avoiding or vacating the construction areas. Similarly, vehicle and aircraft 

traffic associated with the proposed action could temporarily disturb mammals near roadways or 

under flight paths. The presence of a new onshore pipeline may result in the displacement from 

preferred habitats to less suitable habitats for overwintering muskoxen, calving female caribou, 

and female caribou and their calves. While population-level effects may not be likely for 

caribou, local population-level effects may occur for muskoxen because of the small population 

size in Alaska. In the event of an accidental spill, terrestrial mammals may be exposed via 

ingestion of contaminated food, inhalation of airborne oil droplets, and direct ingestion of oil 

during grooming. A variety of lethal and sublethal effects may be likely. However, because 

most spills would be relatively small (<50 bbl), relatively few individuals would likely be 

exposed. While some individuals may incur lethal effects, population-level impacts would not 

be expected for most species. Cleanup activities could temporarily disturb terrestrial mammals 

in the vicinity of the cleanup operation, causing those animals to vacate the area. 

Water Quality — Construction and installation of exploratory and development wells, platforms, 

pipelines, docks and causeways, and/or artificial islands could impact water quality by disturbing 

sediments and increasing turbidity in the area of construction. Minor water quality 

contamination could also occur from fluids entrained in ice roads when they breakup in the 

spring. Overall coastal and marine water quality impacts due to routine operations and 

operational discharges under the proposed action would be unavoidable. Exploration discharges 

would persist for a few hours within the mixing zone around each rig. However, the NPDES 

permit limitation on discharge rates would minimize water quality impacts. Production facilities 

would reinject all muds, cuttings, and production waters, thereby eliminating degradation of 

water quality by these effluents. Impacts of accidental releases to water quality would depend on 

the size of the spill, type of material or product spilled, and environmental factors at the time of 

the spill. A large spill in isolated coastal waters, in shallow water under thick or rapidly freezing 

ice, or in the open sea when or where access to the spill site is limited could cause sustained 

degradation of water quality because the decomposition and weathering processes for oil are 

slowed in cold water. 

Option 3 (No Sale) 

Valuation. The net benefits of production would be zero since no activity would occur. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 10, the No 

Sale alternative. A summary of the EIS findings follows. 

If no sales are scheduled in the Chukchi Sea program area, activities associated with other 

options proposing a sale in this area would not take place. Environmental impacts from presale 

seismic activity, exploration drilling, and placement of platforms and transportation of hydrocarbons would not occur. However, environmental impacts would occur elsewhere from 

importing energy to replace potential OCS production foregone if this option was selected. 
35

There are no existing OCS leases in the Chukchi Sea, so no other OCS activity except for the 

transit of tankers, service vessels, and possibly drilling rigs associated with leases in other 

planning areas would take place in the area. 

NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN 

Key Comparative Results. The net benefits of anticipated production in this PFP area are 

estimated at $7.7 billion. The area is ranked 2nd in environmental sensitivity and 3rd in primary 

productivity. 

Selected Comments. The then-Governor of Alaska renewed his request that the President “lift 

the withdrawal of the North Aleutian Basin planning area from the leasing program and allow 

the scheduling of lease sales in the Sale 92 area in the 2007 – 2012 program.” He also reiterated 

the need to minimize conflicts with fisheries and that MMS must continue with “significant 

stakeholder consultation.” The current Governor issued a press release in support of the 

President’s modification of the 1998 withdrawal to allow the Secretary to consider leasing in the 

area. Seventeen local or tribal government organizations, generally in the area near the proposed 

sale area, submitted resolutions in support of environmentally-sound oil and gas activities in this 

area. Eleven were opposed, primarily located in the northern end of the planning area, away 

from the proposed sale area. The DOE continued its support of the proposed 5-year plan, 

including the proposals related to the OCS in Alaska. The Alaska Marine Conservation Council 

reiterated its concern about the potential ecological, cultural, and economic impacts of offshore 

oil and gas development in the Bristol Bay and eastern Bering Sea. Several national and Alaskabased public interest groups were very concerned about impacts on animal species, especially 

marine mammals. 

The Bering Sea Fisherman’s Association and several other organizations that represent the 

fishing industry opposed MMS planning in the Alaska regions and were particularly concerned 

about Bristol Bay fisheries. The AEDC reiterated its support for offshore expansion and 

concluded that impacts on whales and other sea animals can be fully mitigated. Numerous nonenergy industry entities, from the agricultural sector to local Chambers of Commerce in Alaska 

and other states, endorsed the proposals and asked for opening of more acreage. Seventeen 

companies expressed interest in this area. Of the almost 2,500 Alaskans who commented on the 

PP, 93 percent were in favor of access to the Alaska OCS. 

Options

 X (1) Proposal as in the PP except with one sale2

: one sale (in 2011), in the program area 

depicted in Map 5, which is limited to the area offered in Lease Sale 92 held in 1985; and 

 (2) No sale.

 

2

 The DPP and PP scheduled two sales in this area in 2010 and 2012. In order to have time to complete the 

necessary studies and environmental analyses and reviews, development of appropriate lease stipulations and 

mitigation, and to continue the extensive public consultation activity begun during the 5-year process, as requested 

by the State and local governments, the PFP proposes one sale in 2011. 
36

Discussion

Option 1 (Proposed Program Option with 1 Sale in Sale 92 Area) 

Valuation. The net benefits of anticipated production in the PFP area are estimated at $7.7 

billion. 

Environmental Impacts. This area is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 7. A 

summary of the EIS findings follows. 

The PFP area mirrors the PP option that reduced the area that would be offered in a North 

Aleutian Basin lease sale to 990 blocks. However, that is the entire geographic area in which 

program-related offshore oil and primarily gas activities were projected to occur under the 

Alternative 1 development scenario in the draft and final EISs, which analyzed the entire 

planning area. The EIS findings for Alternative 1 are listed below because they are substantially 

the same as the findings for Alternative 7. The one exception is that, by limiting oil-and gasrelated activities to the southern portion of the planning area, this option would reduce slightly 

the already slim risk of adverse impacts to the Steller’s sea lion and Steller’s eider. The option to 

offer the entire planning area was considered and not chosen in the PP. 

Air Quality — Concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 from any routine activities associated with 

the proposed activities in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area would be within the applicable 

maximum allowable increases. The concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO would remain 

well within the NAAQS. Any air quality impacts from oil spills would be localized and of short 

duration. Expected emissions do not appear to be hazardous to human health. The impacts from 

in situ burning are also temporary. 

Archaeological Resources — Assuming compliance with existing Federal, state, and local 

archaeological regulations and policies, most impacts to archaeological resources in the Alaska 

Region resulting from routine activities under the proposal will be avoided. Some impact may 

occur to coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological resources from accidental oil spills. 

Although it is not possible to predict the precise numbers or types of sites that would be affected, 

contact with archaeological sites would probably be unavoidable, and the resulting loss of 

information would be irretrievable, if spills should occur. The magnitude of the impact would 

depend on the significance and uniqueness of the information lost. 

Coastal Habitats — Routine operations could have impacts on coastal areas primarily as a result 

of pipeline construction, shore base construction, and vessel traffic. The magnitude of these 

impacts would depend on the location of new construction, the level of shipping activity in a 

specific area, and existing environmental conditions, such as ongoing shoreline degradation. 

Although the area is considered gas-prone, potential impacts from spills could occur to both 

surface and subsurface sands. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on a variety of 

factors, including the location and size of the spill, remediation efforts, beach conditions such as 

grain size, and natural localized erosional and depositional patterns. Cleanup operations 

themselves might also impact beaches. Routine operations could have direct impacts on wetlands 

as a result of construction activities and indirect impacts as a result of poorer water and air 

quality and altered hydrology. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on the location 

and extent of new construction, construction practices, and existing environmental conditions. 

These also would have to be evaluated during site-specific analyses conducted for particular 
37

lease sales. Oil spills could also directly impact wetlands. The magnitude of these impacts 

would depend on a variety of factors, including the location and size of the spill, weather 

conditions, remediation efforts, and existing environmental conditions such as plant species or 

substrate type. Cleanup operations themselves could also impact wetlands. 

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) — Displacement of demersal fishes by 

discharges would be limited to the short time periods that discharges are being released. 

Offshore construction also could temporarily disturb and/or displace fishes near the construction 

activity. Any disturbance or displacement is expected to be short-term, hours to a few days, and 

limited to only the time of the construction activity and shortly thereafter. Although seismic 

surveys may kill or injure eggs and fry of some fishes, this injury is limited to within 1 or 2 

meters of the airgun-discharge ports. Oiled intertidal areas could lead to considerable mortality 

of eggs and juvenile stages of some pelagic species in the affected areas, and studies indicate that 

impacted eggs and juvenile stages could lead to reduced adult survival. Although this area is 

considered gas-prone, several small spills or a single large oil spill could cause localized declines 

in the abundance of some fishes or shellfishes inhabiting the area, but it is unlikely that there 

would be long-term effects on overall populations in the area. Accidental oil spills could impact 

essential fish habitats and the species that depend upon them. Although it is not possible to 

predict the precise degree of potential effects, contact with some EFH resources by an oil spill 

would probably be unavoidable. The nature of the impact would be largely dependent on the 

size and location of the spill, the time of year, environmental factors, and uniqueness of the 

affected EFH. 

Fisheries — Although there could be some localized, temporary effects on fishery resources, 

overall populations of biological resources that serve as the basis for important commercial, 

subsistence and recreational fisheries in the area are not expected to be affected by activities 

associated with routine operations. The area is considered gas-prone, but if a spill occurred, the 

magnitude of effects would depend on the location, timing, and volume of the spill, in addition to 

other environmental factors. Small spills that could occur under this option are unlikely to affect 

a large number of fish or have a substantial effect on fishing before dilution and weathering 

reduced concentrations of oil in the water. Consequently, it is anticipated that small spills would 

not have long-term effects on fishing in Bristol Bay. A large spill within the planning area 

would likely affect only a small proportion of a given fish population, and it is unlikely that 

overall fish populations in the area would be measurably affected. It is possible, however, if a 

large spill were to occur at a location and time of year when many individuals of a specific 

species were concentrated, population effects might occur. Spills could have localized effects on 

fishing activities as a consequence of contamination of fish tissues, damage to fishing gear, 

degradation of aesthetic values that attract anglers, or temporary closure of fishing areas. 

Land Use and Existing Infrastructure — Routine operations would impact land use in the 

vicinity of new processing and transport facilities and their associated infrastructures. Impacts 

associated with platform and pipeline construction would be temporary. Impacts could result 

from an influx of workers to the region, as housing and expanded community infrastructure 

could be needed. Although the area is considered gas-prone, an oil spill could alter land use 

temporarily but would not likely result in long-term changes. The magnitude of the impacts 

would depend on the size and location of the spill. 
38

Marine and Coastal Birds — During exploration, seismic surveys could impact seabirds. 

Noise from airguns and disturbance from survey vessel traffic could displace foraging seabirds. 

Offshore exploration activities would not be expected to affect coastal, nearshore birds. Marine 

and coastal birds may be affected by the construction of onshore and offshore facilities, by boat 

and aircraft traffic servicing offshore platforms, and by noise and human activities during normal 

operations and maintenance activities. Potential impacts for many species would be short-term 

and not expected to result in population-level effects. However, depending on the time of year, 

construction activities near coastal habitats could disrupt nesting, foraging, and overwintering 

activities of some species, potentially impacting local populations. Although this area is 

considered gas-prone, in the event of an accidental oil spill, exposed marine and coastal birds 

may experience a variety of lethal or sublethal effects, and the magnitude and ecological 

importance of any such effects would depend upon the size and location of the spill, the species 

and life stage of the exposed birds, and the size of the local bird population. The threatened 

Steller’s eider migrates along the coast of Bristol Bay in large numbers, and some individuals 

overwinter within the bay. Thus, a moderate-to-large spill could potentially affect a relatively 

large number of birds in the area and result in population-level impacts for this species. 

Marine Mammals — Marine mammals in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area could be 

affected by noise, contaminants, human activity, and ship and helicopter traffic associated with 

routine OCS operations. Noise generated during exploration, construction, and some normal 

operations may temporarily disturb some individuals, causing them to leave or avoid the area. 

Such effects would likely be short-term and would not be expected to result in population-level 

effects. While collisions with OCS-related vessels may injure or kill some individuals, collisions 

would be relatively unlikely because of the low level of traffic that could occur under the 

analyzed action. Although the area is considered gas-prone, there could be accidental oil spills 

that may result in the direct and indirect exposures of marine mammals and their habitats to the 

oil and subsequent weathering products. Animals could be exposed by the inhalation or 

ingestion of oil or contaminated foods, which may result in a variety of lethal and sublethal 

effects. The fouling of fur of some species, such as sea otter and fur seal, could affect 

thermoregulation and reduce survival. The magnitude of effects from accidental spills would 

depend on the location, timing, and volume of the spills; the habitats affected by the spills, such 

as coastal habitats; and the species exposed. The greatest risk to marine mammals would be 

associated with large spills reaching rookeries and haulouts. Spill cleanup operations could 

result in short-term disturbance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the cleanup activity, while 

a collision with a cleanup vessel could injure or kill the affected individual. 

Population, Employment, and Income — Potential effects on population, employment, and 

regional income from routine operations and oil spills are expected to be limited except for local 

effects from a large oil spill. This is unlikely as the area is considered gas-prone. 

Seafloor Habitats — Routine activities during exploration, development, and production 

probably would not measurably affect local populations of lower trophic-level organisms. 

Should a large oil spill occur, the spill and associated cleanup activities would be unlikely to 

greatly affect populations of lower trophic-level organisms in pelagic waters. However, a large 

spill could contact some shoreline areas, and lower trophic-level organisms in sensitive intertidal 

and shallow subtidal habitats could experience lethal and sublethal effects. 
39

Sociocultural Systems and Environmental Justice — Impacts may come from interference 

with subsistence, an important dietary resource and fundamental expression of Native social 

organization and culture, and from interference with commercial fishing, an economic mainstay 

of rural South Alaska and Bering Sea subregions. Routine operations will not affect fishing, and 

the effects of new onshore infrastructure are expected to have only minor, local effects on 

terrestrial harvests (by affecting access). The Exxon Valdez oil spill has shown that substantial 

impacts occur from direct effects of an oil spill upon resources and from disruptive cleanup 

efforts. Potential impacts on sociocultural systems from spills under the proposal would be 

determined by the location and timing of the spill. 

Although the area is considered gas-prone, in the case of an oil spill, it is also possible that the 

potential environmental and health impacts on Alaska Native populations could be 

disproportionately high or adverse depending on the geographical location of the spill and 

the effects this may have on subsistence resources and harvests. 

Terrestrial Mammals — The construction and normal operations of new onshore pipelines and 

facilities could result in a variety of short-term and long-term impacts to terrestrial mammals. 

Construction activities and vehicle and aircraft traffic associated with such activities could 

temporarily disturb terrestrial mammals at construction sites and along pipelines, roadways, and 

flight paths. The disturbance of animals by these activities would be short-term in nature and not 

expected to result in population-level effects. Facility construction could result in the long-term 

loss of a relatively small amount of habitat and in the death of a few individuals, primarily small 

mammals such as mice and voles, which are unable to flee the construction areas. The amount 

of permanent habitat loss would be very small compared to habitat available throughout the 

planning area. Neither the loss of this small amount of habitat nor the loss of a few individuals 

within the construction areas are expected to adversely affect populations of the affected species. 

In the event of an accidental spill, terrestrial mammals may be exposed via ingestion of 

contaminated food, inhalation of airborne oil droplets, and direct ingestion of oil during 

grooming, which may result in a variety of lethal and sublethal effects. However, because of 

the small number and volume of potential spills, relatively few individuals would likely be 

exposed. Cleanup activities could temporarily disturb terrestrial mammals in the vicinity of 

the cleanup operation, causing those animals to move from preferred to less optimal habitats, 

which in turn could affect their overall condition. 

Water Quality — Construction and installation of exploratory and development wells, platforms, 

pipelines, docks, and causeways could impact water quality by disturbing sediments and 

increasing turbidity in the area of construction. Overall coastal and marine water quality 

impacts due to routine operations and operational discharges under the proposed action would 

be unavoidable. Exploration discharges would persist for a few hours within the mixing zone 

around each rig. However, the NPDES permit limitation on discharge rates would minimize 

water quality impacts. Production facilities would re-inject all muds, cuttings, and production 

waters, thereby eliminating degradation of water quality by these effluents. Impacts of 

accidental releases to water quality would depend on the size of the spill, type of material or 

product spilled, and environmental factors at the time of the spill. A large spill in isolated 

coastal waters, in shallow water under thick or rapidly freezing ice, or in the open sea when or 

where access to the spill site is limited could cause sustained degradation of water quality 

because the decomposition and weathering processes for oil are slowed in cold water. 
40

Map 5: Shows the North Aleutian Basin Program Area 
41

Option 2 (No Sale) 

Valuation. The net benefits of production would be zero since no activity would occur. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 2, which 

excludes this planning area only, and Alternative 10, the No Sale alternative for all areas. A 

summary of the EIS findings follows. 

As a result of excluding the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, there would be one less sale in 

the Alaska Region. The OCS oil and primarily gas activities associated with this sale would not 

occur. The small amount of liquid hydrocarbons assumed to be developed by including the 

North Aleutian Basin would be replaced with increased domestic production elsewhere or by 

increased imports. This amount of liquid hydrocarbons would not significantly affect the 

frequency of import tanker spills versus OCS spills. 

Excluding North Aleutian Basin will forego the employment and income gains expected from 

including either the entire planning area or the Sale 92 area only as the development scenarios 

are the same for each. Up to 11,500 jobs and $340 million of income were estimated to result 

from the potential activity in the area during the life of the leases offered through the 2007-2012 

program. Also, this option will mean foregoing the up to five trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural 

gas estimated to be developed in North Aleutian Basin and brought to shore via pipeline during 

the life of the leases offered through the 2007-2012 program. These local gas resources were 

identified during scoping as being important for the economic development of the area. 

COOK INLET 

Key Comparative Results. The net benefits for this PFP area are estimated at $1.38 billion. 

The area is ranked 5th in environmental sensitivity and primary productivity. 

 

Selected Comments. The then-Governor of Alaska supported inclusion of this area with special 

interest sales. The Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak Island Boroughs and the City of Kenai supported 

inclusion of this area. The DOE continued its support of the proposed 5-year plan, including the 

proposals related to the OCS in Alaska. The AEDC reiterated its support for offshore expansion 

and concluded that impacts on whales and other sea animals can be fully mitigated. Several 

national and Alaska-based public interest groups stated that Cook Inlet supports vital fishing and 

that industry lacks interest in purchasing leases in this area. Thus, the MMS should not offer it 

for lease. Numerous non-energy industry entities, from the agricultural sector to local Chambers 

of Commerce in Alaska and other states, endorsed the proposals and asked for opening of more 

acreage. Twelve companies expressed interest in this area. Of the almost 2,500 Alaskans who 

commented on the PP, 93 percent were in favor of access to the Alaska OCS. 
42

Options 

 X (1) Proposal as in the PP: two special interest sales3 (in 2009 and 2011) in the program area 

depicted in Map 6; and 

 (2) No sale. 

Discussion 

Option 1 (2 Special Interest Sales) 

Valuation. The net benefits of anticipated production for this PFP area are estimated at $1.38 

billion. 

Environmental Impacts. This area is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 1, which 

analyzed sales in the entire planning area. A summary of the EIS findings follows. 

Air Quality — Routine operations associated with the proposed action would result in levels of 

NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO that are well within national air quality standards. Air quality impacts 

from accidental oil spills or in situ burning would be localized and short term. 

Archaeological Resources — Assuming compliance with existing Federal, state, and local 

archaeological regulations and policies, most impacts to archaeological resources in the Alaska 

region resulting from routine activities under the proposal will be avoided. Some impact may 

occur to coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological resources from accidental oil spills. 

Although it is not possible to predict the precise numbers or types of sites that would be affected, 

contact with archaeological sites would probably be unavoidable, and the resulting loss of 

information would be irretrievable, if spills should occur. The magnitude of the impact would 

depend on the significance and uniqueness of the information lost. 

Areas of Special Concern — Development of onshore facilities within national park lands is 

considered unlikely. However, offshore construction of pipelines and platforms could have 

temporary effects on wildlife due to noise and activity levels and on scenic values for park 

visitors. Development may be allowed in the Gulf of Alaska Unit of the Alaska Maritime NWR. 

No OCS-related development would occur in the Alaska Peninsula Unit of the Alaska Maritime 

NWR. Effects from oil spills that occur adjacent to national park or national wildlife refuge 

boundaries would depend on spill location, spill size, weather conditions at the time of the spill, 

and the effectiveness of cleanup operations. Large oil spills in areas adjacent to the Gulf of 

Alaska or Alaska Peninsula Units of the Alaska Maritime NWR could negatively impact coastal 

habitats and fauna and could also affect subsistence use, commercial or recreational fisheries, 

and tourism. 

 

3

 The Cook Inlet Planning Area is included on the schedule as a special interest sale area. The sales are proposed for 

2009 and 2011; but before MMS proceeds it will issue a request for nominations and comments and will move 

forward only after consideration of the comments received in response to annual calls for information. If industry 

interest reflected in comments on a call for information does not support consideration of a sale, the sale will be 

postponed. A request for nominations and comments will be issued again the following year, and so on through the 

5-year schedule, until a sale is held or the schedule expires. 
43

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat — Fish could be disturbed and displaced from the 

immediate vicinity of drilling discharges for short time periods. Offshore construction also could 

temporarily disturb and/or displace fishes proximate to the construction activity. Although 

seismic surveys may kill or injure eggs and fry of some fishes, this injury is limited to within 1 or 

2 m of the airgun-discharge ports. Thus, seismic surveys probably would have no appreciable 

adverse effects on fish subpopulations. Oiled intertidal areas could lead to considerable 

mortality of eggs and juvenile stages of some pelagic species in the affected areas. Studies 

indicate that impacted eggs and juvenile stages could lead to reduced adult survival. Eggs and 

fry of some bentho-pelagic and demersal fishes could experience lethal and sublethal effects 

from oil contact. Accidental oil spills could impact EFH and the species that depend upon them. 

The nature of the impact would be largely dependent on the size of spill, location, environmental 

factors, and uniqueness of the affected EFH. Large spills that reach coastal streams and 

intertidal areas used for spawning by anadromous salmon could have more persistent impacts 

and require remediation. 

Fisheries — Overall populations of biological resources that serve as the basis for commercial 

fisheries are not expected to be altered by routine exploration, development, or production 

activities. The level of effects from accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and 

volume of spills, spill response activities, and other environmental factors. A single large spill 

could affect a small proportion of a given fish population within Cook Inlet, although substantial 

temporary effects on populations could occur if important habitat areas were contaminated. 

There could be effects on commercial fishing as a consequence of reduced catch, loss of gear, or 

loss of fishing opportunities during cleanup and recovery periods. The populations of biological 

resources that serve as the basis for recreational fisheries in the Cook Inlet are not expected to 

experience population-level impacts as a result of activities associated with routine operations. 

The magnitude of effects from accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and 

volume of spills, in addition to other environmental factors. Spills could have localized effects 

on recreational fishing as a consequence of contamination of fish tissues, damage to fishing gear, 

degradation of aesthetic values that attract fishers, or temporary closure of fishing areas. 

Land Use and Existing Infrastructure — Routine operations from the proposed action would 

have a low impact on the land use and infrastructure of the affected areas. Accidental spills from 

the anticipated low level of activity also are expected to have minimal impact on land use and 

infrastructure. 

Marine and Coastal Birds — Marine and coastal birds may be affected by the construction of 

onshore and offshore facilities, by boat and aircraft traffic servicing offshore platforms, and by 

noise and human activities during normal operations and maintenance activities. For most 

routine operations, the primary effect would be the disturbance of birds in the vicinity of the 

operation, causing them to temporarily leave the area. Depending on the time of year, 

construction activities near coastal habitats could disrupt nesting, foraging, and overwintering 

activities of some species, potentially impacting local populations. Compliance with Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) regulations would ensure that operations would be conducted in a manner 

that avoids or greatly minimizes the potential impacts. Accidental oil spills pose the greatest 

threat to marine and coastal birds, affecting both birds and their habitats. Exposed birds may 

experience a variety of lethal or sublethal effects, and the magnitude and ecological importance 

of any effects would depend upon the size and location of the spill, the species and life stage of 

the exposed birds, and the size of the local bird population. 
44

Marine Mammals — Noise, contaminants, human activity, and ship and helicopter traffic 

associated with routine OCS operations in the Cook Inlet Planning Area could affect marine 

mammals. Noise generated during exploration, construction, and operations may temporarily 

disturb some individuals, causing them to leave or avoid the area. Such effects would likely be 

short-term and would not be expected to result in population-level effects. While collisions with 

OCS-related vessels may injure or kill some individuals, collisions would be relatively unlikely 

because of the low level of traffic expected from the proposed action. Compliance with the ESA 

would further limit the likelihood of routine operations impacting listed marine mammals. 

Accidental oil spills may result in the direct and indirect exposure of marine mammals and their 

habitats to the oil and subsequent weathering products. Animals could be exposed by the 

inhalation or ingestion of oil or contaminated foods, which may result in a variety of lethal and 

sublethal effects. Fouling of fur of some species such as sea otters could affect thermoregulation 

and reduce survival. The magnitude of effects from accidental spills would depend on the 

location, timing, and volume of the spills; the habitats affected by the spills, e.g., coastal habitats; 

and the species exposed. The greatest risk to marine mammals would be associated with large 

spills in coastal habitats. Spill cleanup operations could result in short-term disturbance of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the cleanup activity, while a collision with a cleanup vessel 

could injure or kill the affected individual. Disturbance of adults with young during cleanup 

could reduce survival of the young animals. 

Population, Employment, and Income — Potential effects on population, employment, and 

regional income from routine operations and oil spills are expected to be limited except for local 

effects from a large oil spill. 

Seafloor Habitats — Routine operations during exploration, development, and production 

activities under the proposed action probably would not measurably affect local populations of 

lower trophic-level organisms. In the event of a large oil spill, populations of lower trophic-level 

organisms in pelagic waters would not be greatly affected by the spill and associated cleanup 

activities. However, a large spill could contact some shoreline areas in Cook Inlet, and lower 

trophic-level organisms in sensitive intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats could experience 

lethal and sublethal effects. 

Sociocultural Systems and Environmental Justice — Potential direct and indirect impacts on 

sociocultural systems due to noise, visual effects, traffic disturbances, and routine operation of 

pipelines are expected to be limited. Potential impacts on sociocultural systems from accidental 

spills under the proposed action could range greatly, depending on the location and timing of a 

spill. A significant portion of the Alaska Native population is present in many coastal areas of 

Alaska. It is possible that new onshore and offshore infrastructure could be located near these 

populations and produce adverse health or environmental impacts if there are impacts on 

subsistence resources and harvest patterns. In the case of an oil spill, it is also possible that the 

potential environmental and health impacts on Alaska Native populations could be 

disproportionately high or adverse depending on the geographical location of the spill and the 

effects this could have on subsistence resources and harvests. 

Terrestrial Mammals — The construction and normal operations of new onshore pipelines and 

facilities could result in a variety of short-term and long-term impacts to terrestrial mammals. 

Short-term impacts would be largely behavioral in nature, with affected animals avoiding or 

vacating the construction areas. Similarly, vehicle and aircraft traffic could temporarily disturb 

mammals along pipelines or roadways or along flight paths. The disturbance of animals by these 
45

activities would be short-term in nature and not expected to result in population-level effects. 

Construction of new pipelines and facilities would also result in the long-term loss of some 

wildlife habitats, as well as the death of a few individuals, primarily small mammals, unable to 

flee the construction areas. The amount of permanent habitat loss would be relatively small 

compared to habitat available throughout the planning area, and not expected to result in 

population-level impacts. Similarly, the loss of a few individuals within the construction areas 

would not be expected to adversely affect populations of the affected species. In the event of an 

accidental spill, terrestrial mammals may be exposed via ingestion of contaminated food, 

inhalation of airborne oil droplets, and direct ingestion of oil during grooming, which may result 

in a variety of lethal and sublethal effects. However, because most spills would be relatively 

small (<50 bbl), relatively few individuals would likely be exposed. While some individuals, 

especially oil-sensitive species, such as the river otter, may incur lethal effects, population-level 

impacts would not be expected for most species. Cleanup activities could temporarily disturb 

terrestrial mammals in the vicinity of the cleanup operation, causing those animals to move from 

preferred to less optimal habitats, which, in turn, could affect their overall condition. Such 

displacement would be limited to only those relatively few animals in the vicinity of the cleanup 

activity and, thus, would not be expected to result in population-level effects. 

Tourism and Recreation — Routine operations would have limited effects on recreation and 

tourism, with potential adverse impacts to sightseeing, boating, fishing, and hiking activities. 

Temporary impacts would occur if a spill reached a recreational-use area. The magnitude of 

these impacts would depend on factors such as the size and location of the spill, and it would 

likely be greatest if the spill occurred during the peak recreational season. 

Water Quality — Construction and installation of exploratory and development wells, platforms, 

pipelines, docks, and causeways could impact water quality by disturbing sediments and 

increasing turbidity in the area of construction. Overall coastal and marine water quality impacts 

due to routine operations and operational discharges under the proposed action would be 

unavoidable. Exploration discharges would persist for a few hours within the mixing zone 

around each rig. However, the NPDES permit limitation on discharge rates would minimize 

water quality impacts. Impacts of accidental releases to water quality would depend on the size 

of the spill, type of material or product spilled, and environmental factors at the time of the spill. 
46

Map 6: Shows the Cook Inlet Program Area 
47

Option 2 (No Sale) 

Valuation. The net benefits of production would be zero since no activity would occur. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 3, which 

excludes this planning area only, and Alternative 10, the No-Sale alternative for all areas. A 

summary of the EIS findings follows. 

The choice of this option would eliminate activities associated with other options proposing a 

sale or sales in the planning area. Impacts from presale seismic activity, exploration drilling, the 

placement of platforms and pipelines, and accidental oil spills would not take place. However, 

environmental impacts would occur elsewhere from importing energy to replace potential OCS 

production foregone if this option was selected. Activities and impacts from development on 

previously acquired OCS leases in the Cook Inlet could take place. Choice of this option would 

result in somewhat reduced impacts locally compared to Option 1. Impacts to birds, such as the 

Steller’s eider, endangered short-tailed albatross, and Kittlitz murrelets, would be less likely with 

less activity. 

GULF OF MEXICO REGION 

Proposed Program Decision 

The PP scheduled five areawide lease sales in the reconfigured Western Planning Area and six 

sales in the reconfigured Central Planning Area. 

Proposed Final Program Options 

WESTERN GULF OF MEXICO 

Key Comparative Results. The net benefits of anticipated production in this PFP area are 

estimated at $44.44 billion. The area is ranked 3rd in environmental sensitivity and 4th in 

primary productivity. 

Selected Comments. The Governor of Texas strongly supported expanded leasing of the OCS, 

but was concerned about the shift in the planning area boundary between the Western and 

Central Gulf. One State representative expressed support for the PP as did a Commissioner for 

the Texas General Land Office. 

Louisiana supported the development of domestic natural resources and “looks forward to 

continuing to play a critical part in helping meet our nations’ energy needs”. However, the State 

expressed its concern with the impacts of OCS development on coastal resources and 

infrastructure, particularly following the devastating hurricanes in 2005. Two State legislators 

and three local entities expressed concern over the impacts to onshore infrastructure, in 

particular. 

The State of Louisiana commented on using alternative leasing schemes in several letters to the 

MMS in 2006. The State sent MMS comments addressing concerns regarding alternative leasing 

schemes in response to the draft EIS for GOM sales proposed for the 2007-2012 OCS Program; 
48

the Central GOM Sale 198 EA; the Call for Information and Nominations for Central and 

Western GOM sales proposed for the 2007-2012 OCS Program; and the Central GOM Sale 201 

EA. 

The MMS has considered the State of Louisiana’s comments on alternative leasing schemes. 

The MMS has made a decision to conduct a detailed analysis of alternative approaches to leasing 

that may serve to further the many goals of the Act. It is anticipated that the design and conduct 

of this analysis could take several years to complete. If it is determined that some alternative 

approach to leasing is preferable, and depending on how long it takes to conduct the analysis, the 

5-year program for 2007-2012 could be adjusted accordingly or it can be incorporated into the 

subsequent 5-year program for 2012-2017. 

While considering ways to address the State’s concerns, the MMS must be cognizant of the 

effects any policy changes might have on the achievement of other statutory and implicit goals of 

the Federal OCS program. Among these are expeditious and orderly development and 

maintaining a diverse and competitive industry. Areawide leasing allows smaller independent 

companies to rapidly produce low-resource, low-risk fields, while larger companies push the 

edge of the technology envelope at a slower pace in deep water. It also encourages strong and 

innovative seismic exploration and geophysical contracting and processing industries. In 

addition, a sudden change in policy that restricts access to oil and gas resources or that alters the 

timetables the offshore industry has come to depend on, may lead to undesirable socioeconomic 

disruptions in local coastal economies. The MMS forthcoming, detailed analysis of alternatives 

to areawide leasing is expected to address such possible consequences. Therefore, pending 

completion of that analysis, the MMS determined it is appropriate to continue the areawide 

approach in the GOM for the near future. 

The DOE continued its support of the proposed 5-year plan, particularly the proposal to continue 

the annual offering of all the acreage in the Central and Western GOM Areas. Numerous nonenergy industry entities, from the agricultural sector to local Chambers of Commerce, endorsed 

the PP and asked for opening of more acreage. Nineteen companies expressed interest in this 

area. Of the over 23,000 comments received from the public in Louisiana and Texas, over 96 

percent were in favor of some level of OCS access. 

Options 

 X (1) Proposal as in the PP: five areawide sales (in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011) in the 

area depicted in Map 7; and 

 (2) No sale. 

Discussion 

Option 1 (5 Sales) 

Valuation. The net benefits of anticipated production in this PFP area are estimated at $44.44 

billion. 

Environmental Impacts. The option for leasing in the Western GOM is analyzed under 

Alternative 1 in the final EIS. A summary of the EIS findings follows. 
49

Air Quality — Routine operations associated with the proposed action would result in levels of 

NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO that are well within national air quality standards. The contributions to 

O3 levels, when the standards are exceeded, would be less than 1 percent of the total 

concentrations. Air quality impacts from accidental oil spills or in situ burning would be 

localized and short term. 

Archaeological Resources — Assuming compliance with existing Federal, state, and local 

archaeological regulations and policies, most impacts to archaeological resources resulting from 

routine activities under the proposal will be avoided. Based on the scenario for the proposal, 

some impact could occur to coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological resources from 

accidental oil spills. Although it is not possible to predict the precise numbers or types of sites 

that would be affected, contact with archaeological sites would probably be unavoidable, and the 

resulting loss of information would be irretrievable. 

Areas of Special Concern — Overall, impacts on national parks, national wildlife refuges, 

national estuarine research reserves, and national estuary program sites due to routine operations 

are expected to be limited under the proposed action because these areas are restricted from 

development. Impacts from oil spills are unlikely because it is anticipated that 75 percent of the 

hydrocarbons developed, as a result of the 2007-2012 leasing program in the GOM, area will 

occur in deep water (> 330 m) usually located far from the shoreline. Should oil spills reach any 

of these sites, the impacts would depend on the location and size of the spill, the type of product 

spilled, weather conditions, effectiveness of cleanup operations, and other environmental 

conditions at the time of the spill. 

Coastal Habitats — Routine operations could have direct impacts on wetlands as a result of 

construction activities, and indirect impacts as a result of poorer water and air quality and altered 

hydrology. The magnitude of these impacts would depend upon the location and extent of new 

construction, construction practices, and existing environmental conditions. Oil spills could have 

direct impacts on wetlands. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on a variety of 

factors, including the location and size of the spill, weather conditions, remediation efforts, and 

existing environmental conditions, such as plant species or substrate type. 

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat — Routine operations associated with the proposed 

action will not affect the overall fish population numbers or viability in the GOM. Effects of 

individual spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of the spill, in addition to 

other environmental factors. Considering the small proportion of EFH area that could be 

affected, potential impacts on EFH due to routine operations under the proposed action would be 

limited. While most accidental spills assumed under the proposed action would be small and 

would have relatively small impacts on EFH, large spills that reach coastal wetlands could have 

more persistent impacts and could require remediation. 

Fisheries — Biological resources that serve as the basis for recreational fisheries in the GOM are 

expected to be affected by activities associated with routine operations. The magnitude of 

effects from accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of spills, in 

addition to other environmental factors. Any single large spill would likely affect only a small 

proportion of a given fish population within the GOM, and it is unlikely that fish resources 

would be permanently affected. However, spills could have localized effects on recreational 

fishing as a consequence of contamination of fish tissues, degradation of esthetic values that 

attract fishers, or temporary closure of fishing areas. 
50

Hurricanes — In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, both geographically large storms, passed 

over much of the offshore oil and gas infrastructure in the GOM. The MMS estimates that, of 

the approximately 4,000 structures in the Gulf, 3,050 (76 percent), in addition to 22,000 of the 

33,000 miles of Gulf pipelines, were in the direct path of either Hurricane Katrina or Rita. The 

latest damage report released by MMS states that 113 platforms were destroyed by Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. Based on additional industry assessments, investigations, and reports, the 

number of pipelines reported damaged is 457. Of those, 101 were larger diameter pipelines (10 

inches or greater). As of May 1, 2006, there have been 32 pipelines returned to service. Because 

of the large amount of infrastructure in the path of hurricane-force winds and waves, the amount 

of damage was substantial. In comparison with Hurricane Ivan in 2004, Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita accounted for considerably more damage because of the paths taken by these two 

devastating storms. 

Chapter 3 of the Multisale EIS (MMS 2007-018) describes impacts from these hurricanes to the 

physical and biological environments, socioeconomic activities, and OCS-related infrastructure. 

Effects of these hurricanes were considered in the assessment of impacts, presented in Chapter 4 

of the Multisale EIS. While the recent hurricanes impacted all coastal environmental and 

socioeconomic resources, the most notable was 217 square miles of Louisiana’s coastal lands 

that were transformed to water after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Hurricanes Ivan, 

Katrina, and Rita were especially detrimental to oil and gas operations on the OCS, and their 

effects included structural damage to fixed production facilities, semi-submersibles, jack-ups, 

and pipelines. However, damage to structures and pipelines was minimal considering that threequarters of the structures and two-thirds of the pipelines were in the direct path of either 

Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita, both Category 5 hurricanes less than one month apart. 

Although this demonstrates the effectiveness of existing regulations, MMS is working to further 

minimize potential damage to offshore infrastructure in future hurricane seasons. 

When a hurricane threatens offshore activities, Notice to Lessees (NTL) 2004-G14, Hurricane 

and Tropical Storm Evacuation and Production Curtailment Statistics, requires operators to 

notify MMS of employee evacuations, production curtailment, and resumption. This information 

is shared with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) that would respond to any rescue calls or oil spills. 

In advance of Hurricane Ivan on September 16, 2004, operators reported to MMS that 

575 platforms (75 percent of the manned platforms in the GOM) and 69 operating rigs (59 

percent of operating rigs in the GOM) had been evacuated prior to the arrival of the hurricane. 

The storm track of Hurricane Ivan passed through many MMS leases before making landfall at 

Gulf Shores, Alabama. There have been NTLs issued in response to Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, 

and Rita to ensure that structures and pipelines remained safe and retained integrity and that 

pollution was minimized following the hurricane. 

Land Use and Existing Infrastructure — Impacts to land use and infrastructure from routine 

operations under the proposed action would occur in all the Central and Western GOM. Oil 

spills that reach the coast or are in close proximity to the shoreline could also impact land use 

and existing infrastructure. The nature and magnitude of these impacts would depend upon the 

level of new construction, the degree to which the area is already developed, and, in the case of 

accidental spills, the size and location of the spill. 

Marine and Coastal Birds — Routine operations could impact some birds. For most routine 

operations, the primary effect would be disturbance of birds in the immediate vicinity of the 

operation. Because birds tend to habituate to human activities and noise, potential impacts for 
51

many species associated with such disturbance would be short-term and would not be expected 

to result in population-level effects. Some collision mortality may be expected for birds 

colliding with offshore platforms and, to a lesser extent, OCS-related helicopters. Collisions at 

offshore platforms may affect several thousand birds each year as they migrate across the Gulf in 

spring and fall. While routine operations could affect listed bird species in the same manner as 

nonlisted species, primarily behavioral disturbance, compliance with ESA regulations would 

ensure that operations would be conducted in a manner that avoids or greatly minimizes impacts. 

Accidental oil spills pose the greatest threat to marine, coastal, and migratory birds, and could 

affect both birds and their habitats. The magnitude and ecological importance of any effects 

would depend upon the size of the spill, the species and life stages that are exposed, and the size 

of the local bird population. 

Marine Mammals — Some routine operations could affect marine mammals in the northern 

GOM. Among the listed species reported in the Gulf, only the endangered sperm whale and 

West Indian manatee are present in sufficient numbers to potentially be affected by normal 

operations or spills. Effects to these species would be the same as those that could be incurred 

by any of the marine mammals that are present in the GOM planning areas. Noise generated 

during exploration and production activities, during platform removal, and by OCS-related 

vessels and helicopters may temporarily disturb some individuals. Collisions with OCS-related 

vessels may injure or kill some individuals. Many of the effects associated with noise and the 

presence of OCS-related vessels or structures would likely be short-term and not result in 

population-level effects. Existing permit requirements, regulatory stipulations, and MMS 

guidelines targeting many of the routine operations would greatly limit the impact of any 

potential effects on marine mammals. 

An oil-spill could expose marine mammals to oil or its weathering products. The magnitude of 

effects from accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of the spills; the 

environmental settings of the spills (e.g., restricted coastal waterway, deepwater pelagic 

location); and the species and its ecology exposed to the spills. Spill cleanup operations could 

result in short-term disturbance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the cleanup activity, while 

a collision with a cleanup vessel could injure or kill the affected individual. 

Population, Employment and Income — Based on proposed action scenario assumptions, the 

employment and regional income impact of routine operations would likely be greatest in Texas 

and Louisiana. Even for the areas most affected, however, added employment demands would 

not likely tax the local labor market. In many cases, the added employment would maintain jobs 

that otherwise would be lost as a result of declining activity levels. In areas with a large 

proportion of impact-sensitive industry, such as tourism, the potential incremental impacts of oil 

spills would likely result in a one-time seasonal decline in business activity. 

Seafloor Habitats — Impacts on soft-bottom benthic communities could occur due to routine 

operations and accidental spills under the proposed action. The magnitude of impacts from an 

oil spill would depend upon the location of the spill, spill size, type of product spilled, 

effectiveness of cleanup operations, and other environmental conditions at the time of the spill. 

Sea Turtles — Some routine operations could affect individual sea turtles, but population-level 

impacts are not expected. Existing permit requirements, regulatory stipulations, and MMS 

guidelines and required mitigation measures targeting many of the routine operations could limit 
52

the seriousness of any potential effects on sea turtles. An oil-spill could result in the exposure of 

one or more sea turtle life stages to oil or its weathered products. The magnitude of effects from 

accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of the spills; the 

environmental settings of the spills; and the species and life stages of sea turtle exposed to the 

spills. 

Sociocultural Systems and Environmental Justice — The greatest impacts to sociocultural 

systems are expected to result from the ongoing expansion of deepwater activities, which will 

create jobs that require longer, unbroken periods of work offshore, specialized skills, and inmigration of part of the workforce. No Environmental Justice impacts from accidental oil spills 

are expected because of the movement of oil and gas activities further away from coastal areas 

and, also, the demographic pattern of more affluent groups living in coastal areas. 

Terrestrial Mammals — In the Western GOM, there are no endangered terrestrial mammals that 

would be impacted by the proposed action. 

Tourism and Recreation — Routine operations would have limited effects on recreation and 

tourism, with potential adverse aesthetic impacts to beach recreation and sightseeing and 

potential positive impacts to diving and recreational fishing. Temporary impacts would occur if 

an oil spill reached a beach or other recreational-use area. The magnitude of these impacts 

would depend on factors such as the size and location of the spill, and would likely be greatest if 

the spill occurred during the peak recreational season. 

Water Quality — The overall impacts associated with development and production activities on 

marine water quality would be localized, short to medium term, and would most likely not result 

in long-term degradation to local water-quality conditions. These impacts would be unavoidable 

and primarily generated from drilling activities, platform installation and operation, and the 

routine discharges from support vessels and helicopters. Compliance with the NPDES permits 

and USCG requirements would minimize or prevent most impacts to receiving waters caused by 

discharges from normal operations. Water quality would recover when discharges ceased 

because of dilution, settling, and mixing. Impacts of accidental releases to water quality would 

depend on the size of the spill, type of material or product spilled, and environmental factors at 

the time of the spill. However, there would be no long-term, widespread impairment of marine 

water quality. 
53

Map 7: Shows the Western Gulf of Mexico Program Area 
54

Option 2 (No Sales) 

Valuation. The net benefits of production would be zero since no activity would occur. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 10, the NoSale alternative. A summary of the EIS findings follows. 

The no sale option would result in five lease sales not occurring in the Western GOM. While 

this would result in no new impacts to the environment from the PFP, for ease of comparison, the 

cost-benefit analysis is designed to be a net analysis, and many effects of not holding sales in this 

area are hidden.4

 For example, impacts would still occur from the existing infrastructure and 

from activities necessary to replace the foregone production. The loss of domestically produced 

oil and gas would result in an increase in domestic production elsewhere and in increased oil 

imports, with much of the imported oil being shipped into the GOM, posing the risk of oil spills 

from supertankers. Some of the foregone natural gas production would be replaced by imports 

of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which would not significantly reduce risks to the environment. 

The estimates as to how we would replace foregone production are show in table 4 in part IV.A, 

and are discussed in the surrounding text. However, there would be additional effects that are 

not discussed elsewhere. Not holding lease sales for the next 5 years would affect the 

sustainability of the current industry in this area, as companies went out of business, moved to 

other parts of the world, and/or moved or got rid of equipment and employees. Skilled labor 

would be irrevocably lost to other areas or occupations. As the natural cycles of activity 

corresponding to higher and lower oil and gas prices have shown, it is not easy, even in a 

developed area like the GOM, to adjust quickly to a higher level of OCS activity. Furthermore, 

both the peaks and valleys are costly to the communities that provide goods and services to the 

industry. The downturns create fiscal and social strains on local communities. Sudden upturns 

create unanticipated needs for local infrastructure and cause upheaval in the workforce and 

higher prices in the local economy. A 5-year period of no lease sales would have unprecedented 

effects on the local communities and their economies, which are highly integrated into the OCS 

industry. 

CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO 

Key Comparative Results. The net benefits of anticipated production in this PFP area are 

estimated at $99.52 billion. The area is ranked 1st in environmental sensitivity and 2nd in 

primary productivity. 

Selected Comments. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management, speaking for 

the State, reiterated the Governor’s support for “a balanced, reasonable, and environmentally 

sound federal leasing program.” The support remained contingent on all OCS activities in 

waters adjacent to Alabama's coast being carried out in full compliance with Alabama laws and 

in a manner consistent with Alabama's coastal program. The State of Alabama restated the 

Governor’s opposition to leasing south and within 15 miles of the Baldwin County coastline. 

The concern is about the visible impacts, mitigation of which has been agreed to by the State as 

 

4

 The cost-benefit analysis is designed so that not holding sales would show no effects and each of the other 

alternatives/options shows the net difference. This allows the decision maker to focus more easily on the net 

differences among the various options and among the EIS alternatives. 
55

addressed in previous sales through a stipulation.5

 One local government in Alabama supported 

the program. The Governor of Texas strongly supported expanded leasing of the U.S. OCS, but 

was concerned about the shift in the planning area boundaries between the Western and Central 

Gulf and the Central and Eastern Gulf as this does not “accurately reflect the impacts of OCS 

development on the states bordering the GOM.” The then-Governor of Florida restated his 

support for a permanent moratorium within 100 miles of Florida's coast, east of the military 

mission line (86o 41’ W), and within the “stovepipe” of the original Sale 181 area. The State 

continued to oppose the use of the new administrative boundary line for consistency review 

pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 

The State of Louisiana supported the development of domestic natural resources and “looks 

forward to continuing to play a critical part in helping meet our nations’ energy needs.” 

However, the State expressed its concern with the impacts of OCS development on coastal 

resources and infrastructure, particularly following the devastating hurricanes in 2005. Two state 

legislators and three local entities expressed concern over the impacts to onshore infrastructure, 

in particular. 

The State of Louisiana commented on using alternative leasing schemes in several letters to the 

MMS in 2006. The State sent MMS comments addressing concerns regarding alternative leasing 

schemes in response to the draft EIS for GOM sales proposed for the 2007-2012 OCS Program; 

the Central GOM Sale 198 EA; the Call for Information and Nominations for Central and 

Western GOM sales proposed for the 2007-2012 OCS Program; and the Central GOM 

Sale 201 EA. 

The MMS has considered the State of Louisiana’s comments on alternative leasing schemes. 

The MMS has made a decision to conduct a detailed analysis of alternative approaches to leasing 

that may serve to further the many goals of the Act. It is anticipated that the design and conduct 

of this analysis could take several years to complete. If it is determined that some alternative 

approach to leasing is preferable, and depending on how long it takes to conduct the analysis, the 

5-year program for 2007-2012 could be adjusted accordingly or an alternative approach can be 

incorporated into the subsequent 5-year program for 2012-2017. 

While considering ways to address the State’s concerns, the MMS must be cognizant of the 

effects any policy changes might have on the achievement of other statutory and implicit goals 

of the Federal OCS program. Among these are expeditious and orderly development and 

maintaining a diverse and competitive industry. Areawide leasing allows smaller independent 

companies to rapidly produce low-resource, low-risk fields, while larger companies push the 

edge of the technology envelope at a slower pace in deep water. It also encourages strong and 

innovative seismic exploration and geophysical contracting and processing industries. In 

addition, a sudden change in policy that restricts access to oil and gas resources or that alters the 

timetables the offshore industry has come to depend on, may lead to undesirable socioeconomic 

disruptions in local coastal economies. The MMS expects a detailed analysis of alternatives to 

areawide leasing to address such possible consequences. Therefore, pending completion of that 

analysis, the MMS determined it is appropriate to continue the areawide approach in the GOM 

for the near future. 

 

5

The stipulation requires consideration be given to sharing of already existing or planned facilities. If new 

construction is necessary, it must be the minimum necessary for the proper development of the block and be 

constructed and placed, using orientation, camouflage, or other design measures, to limit its visibility from shore. 
56

The DOE continued its support of the proposed 5-year plan, particularly the proposal to continue 

the annual offering of all the acreage in the Central and Western GOM Areas. The Sierra Club, 

representing 26 groups, restated its opposition to “retroactively” applying a pre-existing EIS for a 

prior Lease Sale 181 proposal, in that it would fail to address many important concerns, namely 

the well-known “Loop Currents” in the GOM. Florida-based public interest groups remained 

concerned over environmental impacts and requested permanent moratoria. Numerous nonenergy industry entities, from the agricultural sector to local Chambers of Commerce, endorsed 

the PP and asked for opening of more acreage, particularly in the Lease Sale 181 area in the 

former Eastern GOM Planning Area. Several Louisiana-based business organizations were 

concerned over impacts on infrastructure and cited the need for revenue sharing. Nineteen 

companies expressed interest in this area. Of the almost 25,000 comments received from the 

public in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, over 98 percent were in favor of some 

level of OCS access. 

Options 

 X (1) Proposal as in PP as revised in the November 14, 2006, Federal Register Notice (71 FR 

66343), with a no-surface occupancy stipulation for the area within 15 miles of the coast of 

Baldwin County, Alabama: six areawide sales (in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012) 

in the area depicted in Map 8; and 

 (2) No sale. 

Discussion 

Valuation. The net benefits of anticipated production from the PFP area are estimated at $99.52 

billion. 

Other Information. It is not currently anticipated that leases will be offered or available in the 

area beyond 200 nautical miles in the Central GOM Planning Area, commonly referred to as the 

“Eastern Gap,” prior to the conclusion of an appropriate boundary agreement or agreements. 

Environmental Impacts. The option for leasing in the Central GOM is analyzed under 

Alternative 1 in the final EIS. The analysis assumes the continued use of stipulations and 

mitigation measures prescribed for past sales. This no-surface occupancy stipulation in a 15-

mile area offshore Baldwin County, Alabama has been consistently included at the lease sale 

stage and the Secretary has chosen to commit to the stipulation at the 5-year program stage. 

Air Quality — Routine operations associated with the proposed action would result in levels of 

NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO that are well within national air quality standards. The contributions to 

O3 levels, when the standards are exceeded, would be less than 1 percent of the total 

concentrations. Air quality impacts from accidental oil spills or in situ burning would be 

localized and short term. 

Archaeological Resources — Assuming compliance with existing Federal, state, and local 

archaeological regulations and policies, most impacts to archaeological resources resulting from 

routine activities under the proposal will be avoided. Based on the scenario for the proposal, 

some impact could occur to coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological resources from 
57

accidental oil spills. Although it is not possible to predict the precise numbers or types of sites 

that would be affected, contact with archaeological sites would probably be unavoidable, and the 

resulting loss of information would be irretrievable. 

Areas of Special Concern — Overall, impacts on national parks, national wildlife refuges, 

national estuarine research reserves, and national estuary program sites due to routine operations 

are expected to be limited under the proposed action because these areas are restricted from 

development. Impacts from oil spills are unlikely because it is anticipated that 75 percent of the 

hydrocarbons developed, as a result of the 2007-2012 leasing program in the GOM area are 

expected to occur in deep water (>330 m) usually located far from the shoreline. Should oil 

spills reach any of these sites, the impacts would depend on the location and size of the spill, the 

type of product spilled, weather conditions, effectiveness of cleanup operations, and other 

environmental conditions at the time of the spill. 

Coastal Habitats — Routine operations could have direct impacts on wetlands as a result of 

construction activities and indirect impacts as a result of poorer water and air quality and altered 

hydrology. The magnitude of these impacts would depend upon the location and extent of new 

construction, construction practices, and existing environmental conditions. Oil spills could have 

direct impacts on wetlands. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on a variety of 

factors, including the location and size of the spill, weather conditions, remediation efforts, and 

existing environmental conditions, such as plant species or substrate type. 

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat — Routine operations associated with the proposed 

action will not affect the overall fish population numbers or viability in the GOM. Effects of 

individual spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of the spill, in addition to 

other environmental factors. Considering the small proportion of EFH area that could be 

affected, potential impacts on EFH due to routine operations under the proposed action would be 

limited. While most accidental spills assumed under the proposed action would be small and 

would have relatively small impacts on EFH, large spills that reach coastal wetlands could have 

more persistent impacts and could require remediation. Impacts on Gulf sturgeon associated 

with routine operations and accidental spills under the proposed action are expected to be 

minimal, because there is relatively little overlap between the locations that could be affected by 

activities and the distribution of Gulf sturgeon. 

Fisheries —Biological resources that serve as the basis for recreational fisheries in the GOM 

are expected to be affected by activities associated with routine operations. The magnitude of 

effects from accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of spills, in 

addition to other environmental factors. Any single large spill would likely affect only a small 

proportion of a given fish population within the GOM, and it is unlikely that fish resources 

would be permanently affected. However, spills could have localized effects on recreational 

fishing as a consequence of contamination of fish tissues, degradation of esthetic values that 

attract fishers, or temporary closure of fishing areas. 

Hurricanes — In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, both geographically large storms, passed 

over much of the offshore oil and gas infrastructure in the GOM. The MMS estimates that, of 

the approximately 4,000 structures in the Gulf, 3,050 (76 percent), in addition to and that 22,000 

of the 33,000 miles of Gulf pipelines, were in the direct path of either Hurricane Katrina or Rita. 

The latest damage report released by MMS states that 113 platforms were destroyed by 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Based on additional industry assessments, investigations, and 
58

reports, the number of pipelines reported damaged is 457. Of those, 101 were larger diameter 

pipelines (10 inches or greater). As of May 1, 2006, there have been 32 pipelines returned to 

service. Because of the large amount of infrastructure in the path of hurricane-force winds and 

waves, the amount of damage was substantial. In comparison with Hurricane Ivan in 2004, 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita accounted for considerably more damage because of the paths taken 

by these two devastating storms. 

Chapter 3 of the Multisale EIS (MMS 2007-018) describes impacts from these hurricanes to the 

physical and biological environments, socioeconomic activities, and OCS-related infrastructure. 

Effects of these hurricanes were considered in the assessment of impacts, presented in Chapter 4 

of the Multisale EIS. While the recent hurricanes impacted all coastal environmental and 

socioeconomic resources, the most notable was 217 square miles of Louisiana’s coastal lands 

that were transformed to water after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Hurricanes Ivan, 

Katrina, and Rita were especially detrimental to oil and gas operations on the OCS, and their 

effects included structural damage to fixed production facilities, semi-submersibles, jack-ups, 

and pipelines. However, damage to structures and pipelines was minimal considering that threequarters of the structures and two-thirds of the pipelines were in the direct path of either 

Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita, both Category 5 hurricanes less than one month apart. 

Although this demonstrates the effectiveness of existing regulations, the MMS is working to 

further minimize potential damage to offshore infrastructure in future hurricane seasons. 

When a hurricane threatens offshore activities, NTL 2004-G14, Hurricane and Tropical Storm 

Evacuation and Production Curtailment Statistics, and its earlier versions requires operators to 

notify MMS of employee evacuations, production curtailment, and resumption. This information 

is shared with the USCG that would respond to any rescue calls or oil spills. In advance of 

Hurricane Ivan on September 16, 2004, operators reported to MMS that 575 platforms (75 

percent of the manned platforms in the GOM) and 69 operating rigs (59 percent of operating rigs 

in the GOM) had been evacuated prior to the arrival of the hurricane. The storm track of 

Hurricane Ivan passed through many MMS leases before making landfall at Gulf Shores, 

Alabama. There have been NTLs issued in response to Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita van to 

ensure that structures and pipelines remained safe and retained integrity and that pollution was 

minimized following the hurricane. 

Land Use and Existing Infrastructure — Impacts to land use and infrastructure from routine 

operations under the proposed action would occur in all the Central and Western GOM. Oil 

spills that reach the coast or are in close proximity to the shoreline could also impact land use 

and existing infrastructure. The nature and magnitude of these impacts would depend upon the 

level of new construction, the degree to which the area is already developed, and, in the case of 

accidental spills, the size and location of the spill. 

Marine and Coastal Birds — Routine operations could impact some birds. For most routine 

operations, the primary effect would be disturbance of birds in the immediate vicinity of the 

operation. Because birds tend to habituate to human activities and noise, potential impacts for 

many species associated with such disturbance would be short-term and would not be expected 

to result in population-level effects. Some collision mortality may be expected for birds 

colliding with offshore platforms and, to a lesser extent, OCS-related helicopters. Collisions at 

offshore platforms may affect several thousand birds each year, as they migrate across the Gulf 

in spring and fall. While routine operations could affect listed bird species in the same manner 
59

as nonlisted species, primarily behavioral disturbance, compliance with ESA regulations would 

ensure that operations would be conducted in a manner that avoids or greatly minimizes impacts. 

Accidental oil spills pose the greatest threat to marine, coastal, and migratory birds, and could 

affect both birds and their habitats. The magnitude and ecological importance of any effects 

would depend upon the size of the spill, the species and life stages that are exposed, and the size 

of the local bird population. 

Marine Mammals — Some routine operations could affect marine mammals in the northern 

GOM. Among the listed species reported in the Gulf, only the endangered sperm whale and 

West Indian manatee are present in sufficient numbers to potentially be affected by normal 

operations or spills. Effects to these species would be the same as those that could be incurred 

by any of the marine mammals that are present in the GOM. Noise generated during exploration 

and production activities, during platform removal, and by OCS-related vessels and helicopters 

may temporarily disturb some individuals. Collisions with OCS-related vessels may injure or 

kill some individuals. Many of the effects associated with noise and the presence of OCS-related 

vessels or structures would likely be short-term and not result in population-level effects. 

Existing permit requirements, regulatory stipulations, and the MMS guidelines targeting many of 

the routine operations would greatly limit the impact of any potential effects on marine 

mammals. 

An oil-spill could expose marine mammals to oil or its weathering products. The magnitude of 

effects from accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of the spills; the 

environmental settings of the spills (e.g., restricted coastal waterway, deepwater pelagic 

location); and the species and its ecology exposed to the spills. Spill cleanup operations could 

result in short-term disturbance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the cleanup activity, while 

a collision with a cleanup vessel could injure or kill the affected individual. 

Population, Employment and Income — It is anticipated that the employment and regional 

income impact of routine operations would likely be greatest in Texas and Louisiana. Even for 

the areas most affected, however, added employment demands would not likely tax the local 

labor market. In many cases, the added employment would maintain jobs that otherwise would 

be lost as a result of declining activity levels. In areas with a large proportion of impact-sensitive 

industry, such as tourism, the potential incremental impacts of oil spills would likely result in a 

one-time seasonal decline in business activity. 

Seafloor Habitats — Impacts on soft-bottom benthic communities could occur due to routine 

operations and accidental spills under the proposed action. The magnitude of impacts from an 

oil spill would depend upon the location of the spill, spill size, type of product spilled, 

effectiveness of cleanup operations, and other environmental conditions at the time of the spill. 

Sea Turtles — Some routine operations could affect individual sea turtles, but population-level 

impacts are not expected. Existing permit requirements, regulatory stipulations, and MMS 

guidelines and required mitigation measures targeting many of the routine operations could limit 

the seriousness of any potential effects on sea turtles. An oil-spill could result in the exposure of 

one or more sea turtle life stages to oil or its weathered products. The magnitude of effects from 

accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of the spills; the 

environmental settings of the spills; and the species and life stages of sea turtle exposed to the 

spills. 
60

Sociocultural Systems and Environmental Justice — The greatest impacts to sociocultural 

systems are expected to result from the ongoing expansion of deepwater activities, which will 

create jobs that require longer, unbroken periods of work offshore, specialized skills, and inmigration of part of the workforce. No Environmental Justice impacts from accidental oil spills 

are expected because of the movement of oil and gas activities further away from coastal areas 

and, also, the demographic pattern of more affluent groups living in coastal areas. 

Terrestrial Mammals — The four federally endangered Gulf Coast beach mice species and the 

federally endangered Florida salt marsh vole and their habitats would not be significantly 

affected by normal operations under the proposed action. Impacts are expected to be minimized 

through appropriate mitigation and the existence of these species’ habitats in protected areas. 

Because of their locations on inner dunes, the habitats of the beach mice are unlikely to be 

affected by an accidental offshore oil spill. While the habitat of the Florida salt marsh vole could 

be affected by an oil spill, oil leasing and development will occur far from this area. 

Tourism and Recreation — Routine operations would have limited effects on recreation and 

tourism, with potential adverse aesthetic impacts to beach recreation and sightseeing and 

potential positive impacts to diving and recreational fishing. Temporary impacts would occur if 

an oil spill reached a beach or other recreational-use area. The magnitude of these impacts 

would depend on factors such as the size and location of the spill, and would likely be greatest if 

the spill occurred during the peak recreational season. 

Water Quality — The overall impacts associated with development and production activities on 

marine water quality would be localized, short to medium term, and would most likely not result 

in long-term degradation to local water-quality conditions. These impacts would be unavoidable 

and primarily generated from drilling activities, platform installation and operation, and the 

routine discharges from support vessels and helicopters. Compliance with the NPDES permits 

and USCG requirements would minimize or prevent most impacts to receiving waters caused by 

discharges from normal operations. Water quality would recover when discharges ceased 

because of dilution, settling, and mixing. Impacts of accidental releases to water quality would 

depend on the size of the spill, type of material or product spilled, and environmental factors at 

the time of the spill. However, there would be no long-term, widespread impairment of marine 

water quality.
61

Map 8: Shows the Central Gulf of Mexico Program Area 
62

Option 2 (No Sale)

Valuation. The net benefits of production would be zero since no activity would occur. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 10, the No 

Sale alternative. A summary of the EIS findings follows. 

The no sale option would result in six lease sales not occurring in the Central GOM. While this 

would result in no new impacts to the environment from the PFP, for ease of comparison, the 

cost-benefit analysis is designed to be a net analysis, and many effects of not holding sales in this 

area are hidden.6

 For example, impacts would still occur from the existing infrastructure and 

from activities necessary to replace the foregone production. The loss of domestically produced 

oil and gas would result in an increase in domestic production elsewhere and in increased oil 

imports, with much of the imported oil being shipped into the GOM, posing the risk of oil spills 

from supertankers. Some of the foregone natural gas production would be replaced by imports 

of LNG, which would not significantly reduce risks to the environment. The estimates as to how 

we would replace foregone production are show in table 4 in part IV.A, and are discussed in the 

surrounding text. However, there would be additional effects that are not discussed elsewhere. 

Not holding lease sales for the next 5 years would affect the sustainability of the current industry 

in this area, as companies went out of business, moved to other parts of the world, and/or moved 

or got rid of equipment and employees. Skilled labor would be irrevocably lost to other areas or 

occupations. As the natural cycles of activity corresponding to higher and lower oil and gas 

prices have shown, it is not easy, even in a developed area like the GOM, to adjust quickly to a 

higher level of OCS activity. Furthermore, both the peaks and valleys are costly to the 

communities that provide goods and services to the industry. The downturns create fiscal and 

social strains on local communities. Sudden upturns create unanticipated needs for local 

infrastructure and cause upheaval in the workforce and higher prices in the local economy. A 

5-year period of no lease sales would have unprecedented effects on the local communities and 

their economies, which are highly integrated into the OCS industry. 

ATLANTIC OCS REGION 

Proposed Program Decision 

The PP scheduled a special interest sale in 2011 in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area offshore the 

coast of Virginia, including a 25-mile buffer and no-obstruction zone off the mouth of the 

Chesapeake Bay, where there would be no leasing consideration. See the discussion on special 

interest sales under the PFP options for this area that follows. 

 

6

 The cost-benefit analysis is designed so that not holding sales would show no effects and each of the other 

alternatives/options shows the net difference. This allows the decision maker to focus more easily on the net 

differences among the various options and among the EIS alternatives. 
63

Proposed Final Program Options 

MID-ATLANTIC 

Key Comparative Results. The net benefits of anticipated production in this PFP area are 

estimated at $340 million. The area is ranked 4th in environmental sensitivity and 1st in 

primary productivity. 

Selected Comments. The Governor of Virginia restated the Commonwealth’s legislative policy 

to support OCS leasing in the Atlantic with four conditions: (1) the entire Atlantic should be 

offered; (2) leasing should be for natural gas only; (3) leasing should be for exploration only; and 

(4) there should be a 50-mile setback. The Governor disagreed with the use of the administrative 

boundaries to define the area off Virginia. The Governor sent another letter dated February 22, 

2007, after the close of the comment period, requesting “Interior’s consideration in keeping 

Virginia in the 5-year plan in a way that comports with Virginia’s offshore energy policies as 

enacted in state law.” The Governors of New Jersey and North Carolina reiterated their strong 

opposition to a possible special interest lease sale off the Virginia coast in 2011. They both cited 

the potential for adverse impacts on their coastal resources. One local government in New Jersey 

opposed activity off the Mid-Atlantic coast. The State of Delaware and five members of the 

New Jersey congressional delegation continued their support for the Congressional moratoria 

and the Presidential withdrawal. A state legislator from North Carolina supported access to 

domestic energy resources. 

The Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), continued to have concerns about possible operational conflicts 

with energy activities in this area. However, the Navy supported the 25-mile buffer and noobstruction zone and expressed its willingness to discuss possible alternatives to minimize 

conflicts between energy development and military operations. The DOE continued its support 

of the proposed 5-year plan, particularly to pursue resource characterization and estimation in 

areas currently under moratoria. 

Several national and New Jersey-based public interest groups, including Clean Ocean Action, 

strongly opposed inclusion of this area. They stated that the environmental risks were high for 

New Jersey and New York and that the potential dangers due to exploring and drilling for oil and 

gas outweighed the supposed benefits. The Sierra Club, representing 28 groups, restated its 

position that the 5-year plan should not include any areas protected by moratoria or executive 

withdrawal. Numerous non-energy industry entities, from the agricultural sector to local 

Chambers of Commerce, endorsed the PP and asked for opening of more acreage. Seventeen 

companies expressed interest in this area. Of the over 2,100 comments from the public in 

Virginia, over 79 percent were in favor of some level of OCS access. Of the over 3,300 

comments from the public in Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina, the other States adjacent 

to the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area, over 76 percent were in favor of some level of OCS access. 
64

Options 

 _ _(1) Proposal as in the PP: one special interest sale7 (in 2011), including a 25-mile buffer and 

a no-obstruction zone from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay off the coastline of Virginia, as 

depicted in Map 9; 

 X (2) Proposal as in the PP: one special interest sale (in 2011), but with a 50-mile buffer and a 

no-obstruction zone from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay off the coastline of Virginia, as 

depicted in Map 9; and 

 (3) No sale. 

Discussion 

Option 1 (Proposed Program with 25-Mile Buffer and No-Obstruction Zone (1 Special 

Interest Sale)) 

Valuation. The net benefits of anticipated production in this PFP area are estimated at $340 

million. 

Environmental Impacts. This area is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 1, which 

analyzes the DPP area off Virginia without any deferral areas; and Alternatives 5 and 6, which 

defer the areas within 25 miles of the coast and within a no-obstruction zone off the mouth of the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

The EIS findings for the area in the DPP without any deferral areas are itemized below as 

articulated in Alternative 1 of the final EIS. The differences in impacts in the PP area, which 

deferred a 25-mile buffer and no-obstruction zone from leasing consideration, are set out in these 

opening paragraphs. 

Choosing the two deferral zones in this option would reduce potential environmental impacts on 

resources within the 25-mile buffer zone off the Virginia coast. Overall impacts on water 

quality, air quality, marine mammals, marine and coastal birds, benthic communities, and fish 

resources would be reduced when compared to offering the entire area. However, impacts from 

vessel traffic, aircraft, offshore and onshore pipeline construction, and onshore support facilities 

would still exist. There still would be a risk of collisions between vessels and marine mammals, 

including the right whale. A reduction in the chance of a nearshore oil spill would reduce 

possible longer term adverse effects on tourism. However, a risk of a large spill from tanker 

transport of oil would still exist. The 25-mile buffer would eliminate the potential visual impacts 

from beaches and other recreation sites. The impacts to terrestrial animals, coastal habitats, land 

use and existing infrastructure, population, employment, and regional income, would be 

 

7 The area off the coast of Virginia in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area is included on the schedule as a special 

interest sale in 2011; but before MMS proceeds, it will issue a request for nominations and comments and will move 

forward only after consideration of the comments received in response to annual calls for information. If industry 

interest reflected in comments on a call for information does not support consideration of a sale, the sale will be 

postponed. A request for nominations and comments will be issued again the following year, which is the last year 

of the program. 
65

essentially the same as those for offering the entire area off Virginia, since the need for onshore 

support facilities and pipelines would not change. 

Excluding the area near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, the so-called no-obstruction zone, 

additionally would reduce the potential for direct impacts to archeological resources from 

exploration and development activities as compared to the option to offer the entire area off 

Virginia. 

Findings from the final EIS under Alternative 1 that analyzed offering the entire area off Virginia 

follow. 

Air Quality — Concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 from any routine activities associated with 

the proposed action in the mid-Atlantic would be within the applicable maximum allowable 

increases. The concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO would remain well within the 

NAAQS. Impacts from oil spills would be localized and short-term. 

Archaeological Resources — As a result of compliance with existing Federal, state, and local 

archaeological regulations and policies, most impacts to archaeological resources resulting from 

routine activities under the proposed action would be avoided. Based on the proposed scenario, 

some impact could occur to coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological resources from an 

accidental oil spill. Although it is not possible to predict the precise numbers or types of sites 

that would be affected, contact with archaeological sites would probably be unavoidable and the 

resulting loss of information would be irretrievable. The magnitude of the impact would depend 

on the significance and uniqueness of the information lost. 

Areas of Special Concern — It is unlikely that oil and gas development and production activities 

will significantly impact areas of special concern within the proposed lease area, although large 

spills have the potential to threaten protection efforts. Mitigation efforts and thorough 

contingency planning by multiple parties will minimize the risk to these areas. 

Coastal Habitats — Development and production activities could have impacts on coastal barrier 

beaches and dunes primarily as a result of pipeline construction and vessel traffic. The 

magnitude of these impacts would depend on the location of new construction, the level of 

shipping activity in a specific area, and existing environmental conditions, such as ongoing 

shoreline degradation. The magnitude of impacts from a large spill would depend on a variety of 

factors, including the location and size of the spill, weather conditions, remediation efforts, and 

beach conditions. Cleanup operations themselves might also impact wetlands, estuaries, 

beaches, and dunes. Adverse impacts on coastal habitats from a large spill can range from 

insignificant to high degrees of damage, including extensive mortality and loss of habitat. 

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat — Impacts on fish resources may result from the 

discharge of operational effluents, muds, and cuttings; platform and pipeline emplacement; 

structure removal; lights on offshore rigs; noise associated with routine drilling operations or 

geophysical surveys; and discharge of formation or produced waters. Individual finfish or 

shellfish may experience sublethal impacts such as reduced biogenic activity, reduced metabolic 

functions, or disease. Deaths of a few individuals may occur. However, no measurable decline 

in whole populations is expected. 
66

Fisheries — Impacts on fish resources may result from the discharge of operational effluents, 

muds, and cuttings; platform and pipeline emplacement; structure removal; lights on offshore 

rigs; noise associated with routine drilling operations or geophysical surveys; and discharge of 

formation or produced waters. It is anticipated that individual finfish or shellfish are expected to 

experience sublethal impacts, such as reduced biogenic activity, reduced metabolic functions, or 

disease. Deaths of a few individuals are also expected. However, no measurable decline in 

whole populations is expected. 

Land Use and Existing Infrastructure — Given the current level of activity in Hampton Roads, 

there will be minimum impact on land use or infrastructure, as a result of exploration, 

development, and production activity. The existing industrial/maritime infrastructure in the 

Hampton Roads area can fulfill the requirements of a support base, as well as boat and helicopter 

traffic. 

Marine and Coastal Birds — Marine and coastal bird populations are not expected to be 

measurably affected by the routine activities assumed for the proposal. Because of the relatively 

low, estimated number of oil spills, there is a low risk of impact resulting in some losses of 

marine birds, particularly for pelagic birds and sea birds. The long-term effect could be a small 

reduction in population sizes for a few species. However, local impacts could, under certain 

circumstances, be high depending on the location and time of year in which the spill occurred. 

Marine Mammals —Underwater noise is expected to be the most prevalent potential impact 

associated with exploration, development, and production. However, all acoustic impacts are 

expected to be sublethal and non-debilitating. Vessel and aircraft traffic are expected to result in 

occasional startle reactions and avoidance responses. A limited number of probable lethal 

collisions between vessels and endangered whales could occur. However, no collisions would be 

anticipated between vessels and the smaller cetaceans occurring on the Atlantic OCS. Potential 

impacts related to oil spills could include skin, respiratory, and digestive problems but are 

expected to be sublethal and nondebilitating, and a relatively low number of spills are estimated. 

Other than measurable impacts to the extremely endangered right whale population if any 

individual is killed, such as in the event of a lethal vessel collision, no changes in population 

size, distribution, or behavior are expected from the proposed action. 

Population, Employment and Income — The necessary expertise in development and 

production of oil and gas does not exist in the Hampton Roads area. Workers with these skills 

will have to be imported from other areas where offshore drilling is already being done. 

However, there is a large labor pool in the Hampton Roads area, including workers skilled in 

construction and maritime trades. These workers could provide support services in the drilling 

and pipe-laying phases, as well as in the construction of needed onshore facilities such as the 

service base, gas processing facility, and pipe coating yard. Any increase in population as a 

result of development and production is not expected to have a significant impact on the housing 

market or on the economy. Depending on the location, a large spill could affect the recreation, 

tourism, commercial fishing, and cruise ship economies, and it could also have a possible 

negative effect on the real estate market, resulting in temporary losses of jobs and income. 

Seafloor Habitats — During the development and production stages, there would be some 

unavoidable localized, benthic population reductions due to changes in sediment characteristics 

from the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings and from the ingestion of spilled oil in sediment 

by benthic organisms. These effects would be most pronounced in areas of high biological 
67

productivity and increased ecological sensitivity, such as nearshore areas; hard bottoms, 

including reef structures and artificial obstructions; and the heads of submarine canyons. 

However, the large area and the extensive timeframe during which activities would likely occur 

should result in small, if any, adverse impacts to the environment. 

Sea Turtles —Exploration, development, and production activities are not expected to 

measurably affect the populations of marine turtles. The generally inshore distribution of these 

animals, as well as their seasonal geographical distribution on the Atlantic OCS, substantially 

reduces the potential for impacts stemming from routine oil and gas activities offshore. Other 

than collisions with vessels and accidental oil spills, potential impacts are expected to be 

sublethal. A large oil spill could result in more measurable impacts and possibly affect sea turtle 

populations in the area. 

Sociocultural Systems and Environmental Justice — A wider range of activities would occur 

during development than during exploration. While most would occur in industrial-port areas 

and have limited sociocultural effects, some, such as pipeline landfalls, might occur outside of 

these areas. Because of the level of population diversity in the Hampton Roads area, 

opportunities for work would not be constrained by race or ethnic background and would 

probably not have a disparate impact on minorities or low-income families. Likewise, if a large 

oil spill occurred in the area, it probably would not have a disparate impact on minorities or lowincome families. 

Tourism and Recreation — Routine activities associated with oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production may result in visual, natural, and branding impacts on tourism and 

recreation. Except in extreme circumstances, impacts are expected to be small or temporary. An 

oil spill could result in temporary beach closures. 

Water Quality — The overall impacts associated with development and production activities on 

marine water quality would be localized, short to medium term, and would most likely not result 

in long-term degradation to local water-quality conditions. These impacts would be unavoidable 

and primarily generated from drilling activities, platform installation and operation, and the 

routine discharges from support vessels and helicopters. Compliance with NPDES permit 

requirements would minimize or prevent most impacts to receiving waters caused by discharges 

from routine activities. Water quality would recover when discharges ceased because of 

dilution, settling, and mixing. Impacts of accidental releases to water quality would depend on 

the size of the spill, type of material or product spilled, and environmental factors at the time of 

the spill. However, there would be no long-term, widespread impairment of marine water 

quality.
68

Map 9: Shows the Mid-Atlantic Program Area 
69

Option 2 (Proposed Program with 50-Mile Buffer and No-Obstruction Zone (1 Special 

Interest Sale)) 

Valuation. The net benefits of anticipated production from this PFP area would be $340 

million, the same as Option 1, as the vast majority of the economic resource potential is located 

beyond 50 miles from shore and outside the no-obstruction zone. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 1, which 

would offer the entire area off Virginia; Alternative 6, which analyzes the impacts of the noobstruction zone off the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay; and Alternative 9, which defers a 50-mile 

buffer area from leasing consideration. The impacts of the 50-mile buffer area are discussed 

below. See the discussion of EIS findings for Alternatives 1 and 6 under Option 1 above. 

By choosing to defer the blocks within 50 miles of the coast, the risk of collisions between 

vessels and marine mammals, including the right whale, would still exist, although possibly be 

reduced because of increased helicopter usage for the longer distances offshore. The potential for 

adverse impacts to coastal areas from oil spills would be reduced. While the risk of an oil spill 

from a gas platform is slight, a large oil spill could occur. However, impacts to the coast would 

be unlikely due to the distance from shore. 

Option 3 (No Sale) 

Valuation. The net benefits of production would be zero as no activity would take place. 

Environmental Impacts. This option is analyzed in the final EIS under Alternative 4, which 

excludes this planning area only, and Alternative 10, the No Sale alternative for all areas. A 

summary of EIS findings follows. 

There would be no activity in the Mid-Atlantic area. The small amount of hydrocarbons 

estimated to be produced would have to be replaced by increased domestic production or 

increased imports; therefore, environmental impacts would occur elsewhere. Only a small level 

of activity and production was estimated to occur as a result of including the area off Virginia; 

therefore, the level of impacts that would not occur without a sale and resulting activity would be 

small as well. No activity would eliminate the unlikely possibility of a collision with an 

endangered right whale by a vessel used in support, but could increase the likelihood of spills 

associated with tanker imports. 

B. Fair Market Value Options 

Introduction 

Relevant considerations for formulating and selecting options to assure receipt of fair market 

value for OCS leases and the rights they convey are discussed below. The full range of options 

available for the Secretary’s consideration in deciding on a PFP for 2007-2012 is presented. A 

brief analysis of fair market value provisions is presented in part IV. 
70

Proposed Program Decision 

The PP decision was to set minimum bid levels by individual lease sale based on market 

conditions and for continuing use of a two-phase postsale bid evaluation process that has been in 

effect, with modifications, since 1983 to meet this requirement. 

A detailed description of the existing procedures for assuring the receipt of fair market value is 

presented in a Federal Register notice (64 FR 37560) that was published on July 12, 1999. 

Another source for information about fair market value procedures is Summary of Procedures for 

Determining Bid Adequacy at Offshore Oil and Gas Lease Sales: Effective July 1999, with Sale 

174 (available on the internet at www.gomr.mms.gov.homepg/lsesale/fmv). 

Proposed Final Program Options 

The MMS analysis of fair market value issues is an ongoing process, and no new options are 

included for consideration in this PFP. Changes in the approach for determining the minimum 

bid level in combination with other policy changes might be considered in subsequent salespecific documents. Also, as in previous 5-year programs, modifications may be made to the bid 

adequacy procedures to incorporate knowledge gained from their use in lease sales or in the 

event the basic underlying lease sale process changes. 

Options 

 X (1) Proposal as in the PP: Set minimum bid levels by individual lease sale based on market 

conditions and continue use of a two-phase postsale bid evaluation process; and 

 (2) Minimum bid levels could be specified that would apply to all sales held during the 

2007-2012 program. However, this option would remove the flexibility to set minimum bid 

levels based on changing market conditions or to adjust those levels to conditions unique to 

specific program areas. 
71

IV. PROPOSED FINAL PROGRAM ANALYSES 

A. Analysis of Energy Needs 

Introduction 

Section 18 of the Act requires the Secretary to formulate an OCS leasing program to “best meet 

national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval or reapproval” [§ 18(a)]. In 

formulating the Program, the Secretary must consider “the location of such [OCS oil- and gasbearing] regions with respect to, and the relative needs of, regional and national energy markets” 

[§ 18(a)(2)(C)]. The long lead times that are involved in OCS oil and gas leasing and permitting 

of exploration, development, and production activities, along with the extended life of oil and 

gas projects, dictate that the analysis of energy needs look at projections for a period that extends 

far beyond the end of the 5-year schedule of sales in the PFP. The U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) carries its forecasts to 2030, using 2005 as a base year, so that is the period 

that is used in this analysis. 

Forecast of National Energy Needs 

Petroleum and natural gas currently supply almost 65 percent of the Nation’s energy needs. 

Furthermore, the EIA forecasts that the Nation is poised to become even more dependent on oil 

and natural gas in the next two decades. The EIA projections, shown in table 1 below, indicate 

that while the share of energy obtained from other sources is likely to increase slightly, the 

actual amount of oil and gas needed to meet the Nation’s energy needs is expected to grow 25 

percent by 2030. 

Table 1: U.S. Energy Consumption (quadrillion British thermal unit (Btu)) 

 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

Liquid Fuels 

and Other 

Petroleum 

 40.61 

(40.5%) 

 41.76 

(39.2%) 

 44.26 

(39.4%) 

 46.52 

(39.4%) 

 49.05 

(39.4%) 

 52.17 

(39.8%) 

Natural Gas 22.63 

(22.6%) 

 24.73 

(23.2%) 

 26.07 

(23.2%) 

 27.04 

(22.9%) 

 27.08 

(21.8%) 

 26.89 

(20.5%) 

Other 36.95 

(36.9%) 

 40.00 

(37.6%) 

 41.94 

(37.4%) 

 44.61 

(37.7%) 

 48.26 

(38.8%) 

 52.10 

(39.7%) 

Total 100.19 106.50 112.28 118.17 124.39 131.16 

Sources: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030, Table 1, February 2007, 

DOE/EIA- 0383(2007). 

Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages of total. Numbers may not sum properly due to 

rounding. 

As the Nation continues to move towards even greater reliance on oil and natural gas to meet its 

energy needs, Federal lands can play a central and increasing role in contributing to the domestic 

oil and natural gas supply. For remaining U.S. technically recoverable oil and gas resources, 

U.S. Geologic Survey estimates for Federal onshore and state offshore lands and MMS estimates 

for Federal offshore lands indicate that most of the Nation’s remaining resources lie on Federal 
72

lands. As discussed below, there is a clear need for a continued high level of leasing activity for 

oil and gas in the GOM, the primary OCS region currently available for energy production and 

development activities, to meet the Nation’s oil and natural gas needs and to reduce dependence 

on imported energy. Increased exploration and new production from frontier areas, such as those 

off Alaska and the Atlantic coast also could reduce our dependence on imported energy. 

Table 2 summarizes EIA’s forecast of U.S. crude oil production from 2005 to 2030.8

 It shows 

projected GOM crude production in Federal waters increasing from 1.19 million barrels 

(MMbbl) per day in 2005 to 2.22 MMbbl per day by 2015, and then declining by 4-7 percent 

from that peak through 2030. Just as important is a predicted decline of other domestic 

production after 2005. As a result, the share of domestic oil production coming from GOM 

Federal waters is expected to increase by almost 15 percentage points within 10 years. From a 

national energy and economic security standpoint, the Gulf’s production takes on even greater 

importance as the United States tries to maintain domestic oil supplies as a hedge against rising 

imports of both crude oil and refined products—which are projected to increase considerably 

over the period studied. 9

Table 2: U.S. Crude Oil Production (MMbbl of oil per day) 

 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

Gulf of 

Mexico OCS 

1.19 

(23.0%) 

1.90 

(33.5%) 

2.22 

(37.5%) 

2.11 

(35.7%) 

2.07 

(37.1%) 

2.12 

(39.3%) 

Other U.S. 

Production 

3.99 

(77.0%) 

3.77 

(66.5%) 

3.69 

(62.5%) 

3.79 

(64.3%) 

3.51 

(62.9%) 

3.27 

(60.7%) 

Total 5.18 5.67 5.91 5.90 5.58 5.39 

Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Table A11, February 2007, and Annual Energy 

Outlook 2007 National Energy Modeling System run AEO2007.D112106A (performed 

specifically for MMS). 

Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages of total. 

Table 3 summarizes EIA’s forecast of U.S. natural gas production from 2005 to 2030. It shows 

projected GOM gas production increasing to 4.3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2015, then decreasing 

through 2030. While production from other supply regions is expected to grow over the next 

two decades, Gulf production will continue to be an important and stable source of natural gas 

for the Nation. Offshore natural gas production is projected to spike in the mid-2010s due to the 

expected development of several deepwater fields, including Mad Dog, Entrada, and Thunder 

Horse. 

 

8

 Despite the production disruptions caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the MMS is using 2005 as the 

base year because it represents the last full year of reported production data, and it is the base year for the forecasts 

in Annual Energy Outlook 2007. Using this artificially low base year does not change the expected trends for OCS 

oil and gas production, but it does exaggerate the increase in overall domestic production over the 25-year forecast 

period. 

9

 While oil prices are set on the world market, making it difficult to insulate the Nation’s economy from long-term 

price changes, maintaining secure supplies of petroleum can help avoid temporary price and supply disruptions (or 

threats thereof), and consuming domestic supplies limits the amount of dollars sent overseas, reducing the balance of 

payments deficit. 
73

Table 3: U.S. Natural Gas Production (Tcf/Year) 

 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

Gulf of 

Mexico 

 2.97 

(16.3%) 

 3.60 

(18.6%) 

 4.29 

(21.9%) 

 3.83 

(18.4%) 

 3.29 

(16.0%) 

 3.00 

(14.6%) 

Other 15.25 

(81.6%) 

15.75 

(80.0%) 

15.31 

(76.8%) 

16.97 

(80.4%) 

17.30 

(82.9%) 

17.53 

(84.3%) 

Total 18.22 19.35 19.60 20.80 20.59 20.53 

Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Table A13, February 2007, and Annual Energy 

Outlook 2007 National Energy Modeling System run AEO2007.D112106A (performed 

specifically for MMS). 

Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages of total. Numbers may not sum to Total due to 

rounding. 

The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2007 forecasts increases in domestic energy production, 

energy imports, and energy consumption over the next 25 years. While there are many factors 

that simultaneously affect such forecasts, the primary engine behind the projected increase in this 

production-consumption gap are assumptions about economic growth. The average annual 

growth rate for the U.S. economy projected in AEO 2007 is 2.9 percent of real (inflationadjusted) gross domestic product (GDP). Although the AEO 2007 forecast of the ratio of final 

energy expenditures to GDP represents an average annual decline of 1.8 percent, this forecast 

does not indicate the expectation that domestic energy consumption will decrease but rather that 

growth in consumption is expected to be less than economic growth over the long term. World 

oil demand is projected to increase as a result of strong demand in developing economies; 

therefore, the average price of imported crude oil is projected to increase from $49.19 in 2005 to 

about $51.63 (in 2005 dollars per bbl) in 2030. The price of imported oil in 2006 was, 

unexpectedly, much higher than the EIA projection for 2030. And if price levels remain at, or 

exceed, current high levels, they may depress economic growth, which could also slow the 

growth of energy consumption. 

Petroleum demand is projected to grow from 20.75 MMbbl per day in 2005 to about 27 MMbbl 

per day in 2030—an average rate of about 1.1 percent per year—led by growth in the 

transportation sector, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. petroleum consumption 

and is more than 97 percent reliant on liquid fuels. However, domestic crude oil production is 

projected eventually to decline below current normal levels over the next 25 years10. Projected 

production is higher in the earlier years of the forecast when projected prices are higher, 

contributing to lower production later. 

The U.S. natural gas production is projected to increase from 18.23 Tcf in 2005 to about 21 Tcf 

in 2020 before beginning a slow decline. The estimate of 20.59 Tcf of domestic natural gas 

production in 2025 reflects a progressively less optimistic forecast in each recent edition of the 

 

10 Table 2 shows growth from 5.18 to 5.39 MMbbl per day over the next 25 years (an average annual rate of 0.16 

percent). However, this is due primarily to the artificially low base production number resulting from disruption 

caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Production in 2004 was 5.47 MMbbl a day. 
74

AEO. For example in AEO 2003, the first to forecast to 2025, the estimate for 2025 was 26.75 

Tcf. The AEO 2007 estimates include Alaska natural gas, assumed to begin flowing through a 

new pipeline to be completed by 2015.11 Net pipeline imports of natural gas, primarily from 

Canada, are projected to decline from 3.0 Tcf in 2005 to about 0.9 Tcf in 2030, due to reserve 

depletion effects and growing domestic demand in Canada. Net imports of LNG are expected to 

increase to 4.5 Tcf by 2030. 

Meeting Energy Needs 

Contribution of OCS Oil and Gas 

The OCS leasing and development program continues to play a very important role in meeting 

the Nation’s energy needs. Natural gas from the OCS supplies 15-20 percent of the Nation’s gas 

production. Offshore oil also accounts for more than 25 percent of its domestic oil production 

and that share is expected to increase to almost 40 percent in the next decade. According to AE0 

2007, net petroleum imports met 60 percent of demand in 2005 and are expected to continue to 

meet 54-61 percent of demand through 2030, assuming that OCS oil production rises, and 

remains, above 2 MMbbl per day. Production of oil and gas from the OCS directly reduces the 

amount of oil that must be imported from abroad, much of it from politically unstable regions, 

thereby lessening the threat to the U.S. economy posed by supply disruptions and higher prices.12 

Natural gas production is roughly equal to oil production on the OCS and is a clean burning, 

environmentally preferred source of energy for electricity generation13. In addition to supplying 

energy, natural gas is used as a chemical feedstock and is converted into final products like 

fertilizer, detergents, and glues. Natural gas consumption for electricity generation has increased 

significantly over the last decade as new generating capacity has been supplied by gas-fired 

plants. This increase in demand, as well as growing residential demand, raised concerns that the 

volumes of natural gas available from traditional sources, involving both domestic production 

and imports from Canada and Mexico, will have to increase dramatically to maintain adequate 

supplies in the future. The MMS report entitled, Future Natural Gas Supply From the OCS: An 

Assessment of the Role of the OCS as Supplier of the Nation’s Future Energy Needs (April 

2000), concluded that in 2020, Mexico will not be more than a minor supplier and that Canada’s 

ability to export at the rate projected by EIA will depend heavily on future gas discovery and 

development on its eastern seaboard. Demand did not grow as sharply as expected in the first 

half of 2006, but it may grow considerably in the long term, and any especially hot summer or 

unusually cold winter could put pressure on the traditional sources of supply. 

 

11 Note that MMS estimates of anticipated production from Alaska OCS areas in section IV.C assume that a pipeline 

will not be built that soon. However, to assure that non-comparable estimates are not introduced into this energy 

needs analysis, the MMS has retained EIA assumptions underlying the data in this section. 

12 Because oil prices are set on the world market, domestic production cannot prevent most large swings in price. 

However, as demonstrated in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, domestic production does influence 

prices faced by U.S. consumers, especially during times of crisis. 13 If barrels of oil and cubic feet of natural gas produced on the OCS are converted to British Thermal Units (Btu), a 

standard measure of heat content used to allow comparisons of energy sources that are measured in incomparable 

units, natural gas accounts for about 55 percent of OCS production. 
75

The GOM OCS is commonly cited as a major source for the additional gas production needed to 

meet expected demand, and its role could be relatively greater if other sources do not meet 

expectations. At EIA’s Energy Outlook, Modeling, and Data Conference held in March 2007, a 

prominent energy economist warned that the United States was running out of places where 

natural gas resources were both abundant and allowed to be produced. As natural gas prices (an 

indicator of supply relative to demand) have remained fairly consistently above $5 per thousand 

cubic feet (Mcf) and peaked at three times that level since the end of 2004, several companies 

have applied for permits to build new terminals to gather and regasify imported LNG for the U.S. 

market. However, at the EIA conference, speakers who addressed the topic seemed to agree that 

the capacity for importing (regasification facilities) was likely to outstrip capacity for liquifying 

and exporting natural gas. In part because LNG can be shipped to the global markets that 

command the highest prices, it remains to be seen whether LNG will become a reliable, longterm source of natural gas sufficient to replace traditional sources during periods of high global 

demand. 

Since 1995, oil production in the GOM has increased by about 35 percent. However, during the 

same period, deepwater Gulf production of oil has increased almost 500 percent, and gas 

production has increased more than 550 percent. Without this increase, declining overall 

domestic production in recent years would have been almost twice as severe. The trend of 

increasing deepwater production from the Gulf is attributable to the recent contribution of very 

large fields with high flow rates located in over 1,000 feet of water that have been discovered 

and developed using new technology. This trend is expected to continue. 

Alternatives to the Contribution of OCS Oil and Gas 

If no OCS oil and gas lease sales were held during the period to be covered by the new 5-year 

program, there would not be a reduction in the Nation’s demand for energy equal to what would 

have been provided by the oil and gas resources anticipated to be discovered and produced as a 

result of those lease sales. Given increasing world demand for oil and gas, prices would be 

expected to rise over time should the Nation’s supply be cut by an amount equal to production 

anticipated to result from the new 5-year program. The lack of a new program to succeed the 

current one would lead to some reduction in oil and gas consumed in the United States, but most 

of the forgone production would be replaced by other sources. 

The MMS uses its Market Simulation (MarketSim) Model to estimate the amount and percentage 

of alternative sources of energy the economy would adopt in the unlikely case a particular 5-year 

program were not approved and implemented. The Model is based on estimates of price 

elasticities of demand and supply and substitution effects. In this case, elasticity of demand is 

the extent to which consumers purchase less of a product when the price increases by a certain 

amount. 

Alternative Sources of Oil and Gas. According to the research supporting the model, as shown 

in table 4, oil lost from OCS production (should there be no 5-year OCS oil and gas program for 

2007-2012) would be predominantly replaced by a substitution of supply sources and a small 

decrease in demand: 88 percent of OCS production would be replaced by increased imports, 

3 percent by increased onshore production, 4 percent by increased switching to natural gas, and 

5 percent by reduced consumption. Natural gas production lost from the OCS would be replaced 

as follows: 28 percent by increased onshore production, 39-40 percent by increased switching to 

oil, 16 percent by increased imports, and 16 percent by reduced consumption. 
76

Table 4 shows the most important results of runs comparing the PFP to no action. In absolute 

terms, expectations would be for: 

y onshore production to make up 300 million (MM) of the 12.1 billion barrels (Bbbl) of 

OCS production lost; 

y imports to account for 10.7 billion of the forgone bbls; 

y consumption to decline by the equivalent of 600 MMbbl; and 

y switching to gas to account for the equivalent of 500 MMbbl. 

MarketSim deals with the oil and gas markets in isolation. In reality, if OCS production were 

curtailed, less OCS gas would lead to higher prices and more oil imports, more domestic onshore 

oil and gas production, and less overall consumption than the Model shows. 

Table 4: Results of the No Action Alternative 

Sector % of OCS Production Quantity Involved 

Oil

OCS Production (BBO) -100% -12.1 

Onshore Production (BBO) 3% 0.3 

Imports (BBO) 88% 10.7 

Lower Consumption (BBOE) 5% 0.6 

Switch to Gas (BBOE) 4% 0.5 

Gas

OCS Production (TCFG) -100% -36.4 

Onshore Production (TCFG) 28% 10.3 

Imports (TCFG) 16% 5.9 

Lower Consumption (TCFGE) 16% 5.8 

Switch to Oil (TCFGE/BBOE) 39% 14.3/2.5 

Induced Oil Imports (BBO) NA 2.2 

 BBO = billion barrels of oil, BBOE = the Btu equivalent of billion barrels of oil, TCFG = 

trillion cubic feet of natural gas, TCFGE = the Btu equivalent of trillion cubic feet of natural 

gas. 

 Note: Numbers may not sum properly due to rounding. 

All these amounts would substitute for the 12.1 Bbbl of oil lost through no action. The 

distribution of conservation and switching to gas by sector depends on the amount of 

consumption in each sector and the price elasticities of demand in each sector. Transportation 

accounted for 67 percent and industrial consumption 24 percent of United States oil use in 2005. 

Residential and commercial consumption accounted for about 6 percent (AEO 2007). 
77

Other forms of energy cannot readily substitute for most of this oil in the near term. In the U.S. 

transportation sector, a consumption decline would probably involve a reduction in miles 

traveled, the purchase of more fuel-efficient cars, or both. Most energy projections indicate 

relatively little alternative fuel, such as ethanol, entering the transportation sector for many years. 

However, ethanol consumption in the transportation sector increased 350 percent from 1996 to 

2005, and automobile companies have unveiled and/or announced plans for new gasoline-electric 

hybrid vehicles as they have gained popularity with customers. Significant additional fuel 

substitution in response to the relatively small price increase implied by the model would be 

unlikely. In addition to the modest price increase associated with these scenarios, the costs of 

replacing the present transportation fuel infrastructure further hinders efforts to extend the use of 

alternative transportation fuels. On the other hand, if the current forces affecting supply and 

demand for oil and gas turn out to be indicative of the future, the loss of supply equivalent to 

anticipated production from the PFP is likely to have a greater effect on prices than previously 

thought. 

In the industrial sector, most uses for which there exists a ready substitute for oil have already 

converted to the substitute. Many industrial uses such as for products like asphalt and lube oils 

have few comparable substitutes. Oil use in the residential and commercial sectors is forecast to 

occur principally at locations without access to natural gas, so little fuel substitution can be 

expected. 

The only applications where significant substitution is likely within a few years are industrial 

heat and steam and electricity generation. The degree of substitution in these sectors depends on 

whether oil is competing directly with gas for market share. In the recent past, natural gas and 

oil did not compete in the boiler market because gas was significantly cheaper on a price per 

thermal unit basis. Recently, when gas prices rose past the level of oil prices in these sectors, 

only a modest amount of fuel switching took place. Because of gas’ greater efficiency, 

environmental superiority, and limitations to fuel switching in contemporaneous high efficiency 

plants, only moderate switching will likely occur unless gas prices rise significantly higher than 

oil prices on a thermal basis. 

Table 4 also reveals that for OCS gas not produced because of no action, the MMS anticipates 

the following results in absolute terms that would substitute for the 36.4 Tcf of OCS natural gas 

lost through lack of OCS production that would be anticipated as the result of a new 5-year 

program: 

y 10.3 Tcf of additional onshore gas production; 

y 5.9 Tcf of additional gas imports (mostly from Canada); 

y reduced consumption equivalent to 5.8 Tcf of gas; and 

y switching to oil equivalent to 14.3 Tcf of gas. 

As a result of no action, an additional 12.9 BBO would have to be imported by the United States, 

10.7 BBO to replace forgone oil production and 2.2 BBO to replace forgone natural gas 

production. 

A detailed discussion of the model and alternative sources of energy is given in the draft 

document Energy Alternatives and the Environment, 2007-2012 (OCS Study MMS 2007-016). 

The final version should be available in June 2007. (This updates the previous analysis written 

for the 5-year program for 2002-2007, published under the same name, MMS 2001-096.) 
78

Many alternative sources will contribute to the U.S. energy future. This prediction is buoyed 

by the fact that the President signed the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 into law. That 

Act grants the DOI new responsibilities for renewable energy projects and other alternative 

uses of the OCS. Section 388 of that Act gives the Secretary, through MMS, the authority to: 

(1) grant leases, easements, or right-of-ways for renewable energy-related uses on Federal OCS 

lands, (2) act as a lead agency for coordinating the permitting process with other Federal 

agencies, and (3) monitor and regulate those facilities used for renewable energy production 

and energy support services. 

On December 30, 2005, the MMS published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 77345) as the first step to promulgating rules and implementing the type 

of program authorized by the EPAct. However, alternative energy technologies deployed in the 

OCS are not expected to make a significant contribution over the next 10 to 15 years. 

The Federal or state governments might use taxes, subsidies, or specific measures, like requiring 

non-gasoline powered vehicles, to encourage or mandate a different mix of energy alternatives 

than the market would choose. Such government actions would most likely be directed at 

vehicle or electric generating plant fuels and fuel consumption. Any of these measures favoring 

a particular energy alternative probably would have important environmental consequences, 

some of which might be negative. 

Regional Energy Considerations 

Table 5 shows proportional petroleum and natural gas production and consumption by Census 

Division in the United States. It also shows total energy consumption as a percentage of total 

U.S. energy consumption for each Census Division. 
79

Table 5: Proportional Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and Consumption 

by Census Division* in 2005 

Census 

Division** 

Production 

(MBBLS; MMCF) 

Consumption 

(MBBLS; MMCF) 

Total Energy 

Consumption 

(BTU basis) 

Crude Oil 

% of U.S. total 

Natural Gas 

% of U.S. total 

Petroleum*** 

% of U.S. total 

Natural Gas 

% of U.S. total % of U.S. total

New England 0.00 0.00 5.72 3.43 5 

Middle 

Atlantic 0.22 1.18 9.35 11.03 10 

East North 

Central 1.22 1.84 12.37 16.41 14 

West North 

Central 3.89 2.28 8.89 6.06 8 

South Atlantic 0.22 1.63 20.35 10.29 16 

East South 

Central 1.50 2.35 7.98 5.03 7 

West South 

Central 28.13 44.39 10.87 25.68 17 

Federal GOM 24.75 16.62 0 0.35 0 

Mountain 9.79 25.47 7.08 7.43 7 

Pacific 28.87 4.25 17.40 14.28 16 

Federal CA 1.40 0 0 0 0 

*Federal Offshore Production (GOM and CA) is included separately below the corresponding 

divisions. 

** The nine census divisions are as follows: 

New England – Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont 

Middle Atlantic – New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania 

East North Central – Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin 

West North Central – Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South 

Dakota 

South Atlantic – Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia 

East South Central – Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee 

West South Central – Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas 

Mountain – Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming 

Pacific – Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington 

*** This includes all petroleum-related products except natural gas. 
80

Table 5 Sources: 

y “Crude Oil Production” – http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm, 

October 2, 2006 

y “Petroleum Overview, Selected Years, 1949-2005” – 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/saer/pdf/pages/sec5_5.pdf 

y “Energy Consumption Estimates for Major Energy Sources in Physical units, 2003” - 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/sum_use_tot.pdf 

y EIA Monthly Energy Review (MER) – Thermal Conversion Factors, Tables A3 and A4, 

y http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/append_a.html 

y Natural Gas Annual 2004, Table 3 and Table 15 - 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_annual/nga.html, 

November 16, 2006 

Table 5 compares regions of the country regarding oil and gas production and consumption. One 

general theme is that the western part of the United States produces more hydrocarbons than it 

consumes while the opposite is true for the eastern United States. However, much of the oil 

production in the Pacific comes from Alaska, skewing the results there. The West South Central 

Census Division (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) produces more oil and gas than 

any other Census Division in the country. It also consumes as much energy as each of the other 

top two consuming districts. 

Conclusions

The Nation’s current energy situation is similar to the situations faced during the preparation of 

previous 5-year programs. Domestic petroleum production is continuing to decline and imports 

are continuing to increase. The AEO 2007 and forecasts by the National Petroleum Council and 

others project that domestic consumption over the next 5 years and beyond will increase 

substantially. While alternative sources are expected to contribute a growing portion of the 

Nation’s domestic energy production, no new technology is forecast to make a paradigm-shifting 

contribution to domestic energy production in the next 15 years. Crude oil and natural gas are 

expected to provide the lion’s share of the Nation’s energy for the foreseeable future. The OCS 

is one of the largest suppliers of crude oil for the United States, and is the third largest supplier of 

natural gas, after Texas and Alaska. Without the huge increase in deepwater oil and gas 

production from the GOM OCS since 1995, the recent decline in domestic production would 

have been twice as severe. The Nation’s current and projected energy situation will require 

continued leasing, exploration, and development of OCS lands in an environmentally sound 

manner. 

The size, timing, and location of lease sales in the PFP have been selected to help meet the needs 

described above in an efficient and practical manner in light of existing legal constraints, local 

conditions, and other uses of particular parts of the OCS. In the short term, the PFP is designed 

to maximize the potential of the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, which have both the 

highest economically recoverable resource potential of available areas as well as by far the most 

developed infrastructure. In the longer term, the PFP sets in motion further delineation of 

resources offshore of Alaska and continues expansion into the deepwater GOM. In other areas, 

the PFP would, contingent on changes in existing legal restrictions, undertake modest steps to 

determine the extent of resources. 
81

B. Analysis of Environmental Concerns 

Introduction

The Act, as amended, includes provisions for considering environmental protection in managing 

the Nation’s offshore oil and gas resources. The law’s amendments contain policies pointing to 

the importance of applying safeguards to help limit the risks of environmental damage and of 

protecting the human, marine, and coastal environments. Section 18 of the Act mandates that 

decisions on managing the mineral resources of the OCS strike a proper balance between the 

potential for discovery and development of oil and gas resources and the potential for adverse 

environmental impacts. It is therefore important in developing a 5-year program to solicit 

comments relating to environmental concerns, to consider and analyze carefully the comments 

received, and to make use of that information in the development of the EIS prepared for the 

program. 

Environmental Analyses 

A final EIS for the 5-year program for 2007-2012 was prepared to accompany this decision 

document for the Secretary’s consideration. Preparation of the EIS began with publication of a 

NOI to Prepare an EIS in the Federal Register (70 FR 163). That notice started the formal 

scoping process by calling for comments and information to be used to determine the scope of 

the planned EIS, and scoping continued through the close of the comment period on the DPP. 

The draft EIS was prepared and issued with the PP. The final EIS accompanying this PFP 

analyzes the leasing schedule that was proposed in the DPP and PP and was analyzed in the draft 

EIS along with ten alternatives (see part III of this decision document and chapter 2 of the EIS 

for descriptions of the proposed action and alternatives). The potential environmental impacts 

that correspond to proposed and alternative lease sale options are summarized following each set 

of options presented in part III. 

There is additional information relating to environmental concerns in the analyses of social costs, 

environmental sensitivity and marine productivity, and other uses of the OCS presented in part 

IV.C below. Also, much pertinent information is available in other documents cited and 

incorporated by reference.

C. Comparative Analysis of OCS Planning Areas 

This section presents the required comparative analysis of section 18 factors and considerations 

for the PFP decision. The analyses address the section 18 criteria that lend themselves to 

quantification as well as those that do not. Factors that are quantified to facilitate comparison 

among OCS program areas include social benefits and costs, and environmental sensitivity and 

marine productivity. The other factors are addressed more qualitatively. The comparative 

analysis also takes into account comments received, other considerations pursuant to the Act and 

NEPA, and applicable judicial opinions. 
82

1. Social Value

Introduction

Prior to each 5-year program decision, the MMS conducts a cost-benefit, or “net benefits,” 

analysis of the social value of producing unleased, undiscovered OCS oil and gas resources in 

the areas being considered. This analysis examines the benefits to society associated with OCS 

oil and natural gas production commensurate with the accompanying costs. Because society 

would receive benefits from producing previously leased resources regardless of decisions made 

for the new program, only the net benefits from proposed new leasing are considered. 

For the DPP decision documents, the MMS provided a comparative analysis of all unleased, 

undiscovered oil and gas resources in all 26 “planning areas” comprising the OCS to obtain the 

required “relative ranking” of those planning areas. Consideration of this analysis and the 

various other factors outlined in section II, above, led to the “DPP for 2007-2012,” reflecting a 

decision that set the location and timing of a discrete number of specific lease sales in the most 

promising planning areas. 

For the PP, the MMS went beyond the relative ranking of planning areas and performed a 

“valuation of program alternatives” analysis, which provided estimates of net benefits from 

anticipated production for each of the EIS alternatives14 under which lease sales were proposed.15 

For this PFP net benefits analysis, the MMS estimates and compares the net benefits attributable 

to each program area as well as (see table 6) the net benefits anticipated from each alternative. 

Estimates of Hydrocarbon Resources and Anticipated Production. Resource estimates from 

the 2006 National Assessment provide the basis for MMS’s evaluation of planning areas. The 

National Assessment projects the undiscovered, technically and economically recoverable oil 

and natural gas resources on the OCS. The assessment considers recent geophysical, geological, 

technological, and economic information and uses a geologic play analysis approach to resource 

appraisal. A complete description of the methodology and results of resource estimation is 

available in the MMS report Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Assessment 2006, which may be 

accessed on the internet at www.mms.gov/revaldiv/RedNatAssessment.htm. 

The MMS Exploration, Development, and Production Model combines National Assessment 

data with historical production, drilling, platform installation, and field discovery rate 

information to derive estimates of oil and gas activity levels and anticipated production from 

future discoveries for each program area. Anticipated production estimates provide the basis for 

valuation of the PFP and EIS analyses. Table 6 shows the latest anticipated production estimate, 

along with the resulting estimate of net economic value (NEV), Environmental Costs, Net Social 

Value, Consumer Surplus Benefits, and Net Benefits, for each program area. 

 

14 The decision documents for each stage of the 5-year program development process include decision options for 

each planning/program area. For the comparative analysis and the analysis leading to the EIS, these options are 

grouped into several program-wide “EIS alternatives,” allowing the decision maker to better understand the overall 

effects of selecting similar options for individual planning/program areas. 

15 For the PP and the PFP, the MMS usually considers “program areas,” rather than “planning areas.” Program areas 

are those portions of planning areas considered for leasing, as shown in the maps near the beginning of this 

document. 
83

It should be noted that anticipated production differs from undiscovered technically and 

economically recoverable resource estimates in that anticipated production only includes oil and 

gas resources that are expected to be leased, developed, and produced, as a result of a series of 

lease offerings in a new 5-year program or (for the cumulative case in the EIS) from the 

cumulative effect of all past, present, and future 5-year programs. Technically recoverable 

estimates are determined without consideration of economic conditions, such as resource prices 

relative to the costs of exploration, development, production, transportation, or technological 

constraints. Economically recoverable resource estimates will be lower, because they are limited 

by such economic conditions. Anticipated production excludes development activities that are 

unlikely to occur as a direct result of the proposal under consideration. In mature areas like the 

GOM, this means that anticipated production estimates amount to a larger proportion of the total 

economically recoverable resources in the program area. However, in frontier areas, 

infrastructure constraints may substantially reduce anticipated production in a foreseeable time 

frame. For example, the 2006 National Assessment reports mean undiscovered, technically 

recoverable natural gas resources of 76.77 Tcf for the Chukchi Sea province and potentially 

economically recoverable resources of 7.91 Tcf at $6.69 per Mcf (assuming a gas transportation 

system is available). Despite this large natural gas resource potential, table 6 does not indicate 

any natural gas production in the Chukchi Sea program area due to the lack of a transportation 

system to carry the gas production to outside markets. The MMS finds it is unlikely that a 

pipeline system will be operational and have capacity to transport large volumes of Chukchi Sea 

gas until at least 2025. Therefore, the gas resources in Arctic OCS areas are considered 

“stranded” for the foreseeable future and are not anticipated to be produced as a result of this 

PFP. 
84

Table 6: Net Benefits for the Proposed Final Program

Oil estimates are expressed in BBO; natural gas estimates are expressed in Tcf; and estimates of 

resource totals are expressed in billions of barrels of oil equivalent (BBOE). 

All dollar values represent net present value in billions of 2007 dollars. 

The decrease in NEV and other monetized estimates for the Central GOM reflect a technical 

correction to the resource allocation among sales made after release of the PP. 

Some Net Benefits estimates may differ slightly if calculated with the rounded numbers shown in 

this table. 

Economic Analysis 

Economic Assumptions. The PFP is assumed to have a lifespan (leasing and subsequent 

exploration, development, and production) of approximately 40 years starting in July 2007. 

Given the uncertainty of future price levels, or the “price path,” and other variables, the MMS 

uses a price scenario approach in which the inflation-adjusted, or “real,” prices for oil and gas are 

assumed to remain constant throughout the time period considered for the analysis. This reduces 

the possible effects of incorrect price path forecasts on the value estimates and allows the 

decision maker to focus more clearly on comparative benefits.16 The MMS has chosen to base 

its estimates of anticipated production, exploration and development scenarios, and economic 

analysis on an oil price of $46 per bbl and a natural gas wellhead price of $6.96 per Mcf. While 

the oil price is below recent open market prices, the MMS believes it to represent a realistic 

 

16 Because MMS uses the common practice of discounting estimates of future costs and benefits to net present value, 

the timing of price increases or decreases, as well as the relative rates of price changes, could affect the Net Benefits 

values in ways that make it difficult for the decision maker to estimate the effects of alternate price assumptions. 

Program Area Resources Monetized Estimates 

Oil 

(BBO) 

Gas 

(Tcf) BBOE 

Net 

Economic 

Value 

Envl. 

Cost 

Net 

Social 

Value 

Consumer 

Surplus 

Benefits 

Net 

Benefits 

Central Gulf of 

Mexico 5.604 23.707 9.822 87.66 0.3375 87.32 12.20 99.52 

Western Gulf 

of Mexico 2.021 16.200 4.903 39.36 0.2733 39.09 5.35 44.44 

Cook Inlet 0.200 0.200 0.236 1.11 0.0156 1.09 0.29 1.38 

Beaufort Sea 1.000 0.000 1.000 5.33 0.0465 5.28 1.30 6.58 

Chukchi Sea 1.000 0.000 1.000 3.79 0.0463 3.74 2.63 6.37 

North Aleutian 

Basin 0.200 5.000 1.090 5.48 0.0129 5.47 2.23 7.70 

Mid-Atlantic 0.056 0.327 0.114 0.20 0.0018 0.20 0.15 0.34 
85

Available Undiscovered, Economically Recoverable Resources* 

x Assumed Price 

= Gross 

Gross Revenue 

- Private Costs 

= Net Economic Value (NEV) 

NEV 

- Environmental and Social Costs 

= Net Social Value (Net Supply-Side Benefits) 

Net Social Value 

+ Consumer Surplus Benefits (Net Demand-Side Benefits) 

= Net Benefits 

estimate of the kind of long-term price assumptions the oil and gas industry will be using for 

making its development decisions. In addition, an examination of previous OCS lease sales and 

activity levels (including the effects of infrastructure and capital equipment constraints) indicates 

that current prices have reached a point at which higher price levels are unlikely to have a major 

effect on activities that result from sales under this PFP. While lower prices could have an 

important effect on the results in table 6, it is fairly easy to adjust an approved 5-year schedule to 

consequent reductions in industry interest. A real discount rate of 7 percent was chosen for the 

PFP analysis. 

For the Alaska OCS and the Atlantic OCS, where there is little or no development, the actual 

future benefits depend far more on the decisions of a handful of companies to be pioneers or to 

abandon plans for exploration and development. Absent major changes in price expectations, 

even rather large price variations may have little effect, because a company that has decided to 

take the huge risk of operating in the area is not likely either to initiate a minor project with little 

chance of ever paying for the necessary up-front investments in infrastructure or to abandon that 

large early investment once it represents “sunk costs.” Therefore, the Alaska estimates tend to 

be for levels that would result from fully dedicated efforts in frontier areas as opposed to those 

that might result from more conservative ventures. 

Figure 1 summarizes the components of the MMS net benefit analysis. The methodology for the 

economic analysis and the additional assumptions required for the valuation of the PFP are 

described more fully in Economic Analysis for the OCS 5-Year Program 2007-2012: Theory 

and Methodology (OCS Study MMS 2007-017). 

Figure 1: Components of the Net Benefits Analysis 

*

The PFP estimates are based on resources anticipated to be discovered, developed, and 

produced as a result of each EIS alternative. 

Estimates of Net Economic Value. The NEV of anticipated oil and gas production represents 

the net expected present (discounted) worth of oil and gas market values less the discounted real 

cost of exploring, developing, producing, and transporting the resources to market. The NEV 

estimates for each program area in the PFP are based on production and infrastructure 

projections appropriate for the schedule of sales for that specific program area. In addition, the 

number of wells, platforms, etc., (the exploration and development scenario) used in developing 

the NEVs are consistent with those used in the environmental cost analysis and in the EIS. 
86

Estimates of Environmental Costs. The development and production of OCS oil and gas 

resources and the transportation of those resources to onshore facilities entail risk of damage to 

the environment. A serious risk of damage to the Nation's coastal environments is also posed 

when imported oil is used as an alternative to production of OCS oil and gas resources. The 

estimation of these risks and the costs associated with resulting environmental damages or the 

prevention of those damages is the focus of the environmental cost analysis. 

Environmental costs are the costs to society not directly considered in the calculation of NEV. 

More specifically, they are costs not reflected in the (private) exploration, development, 

production, and transportation costs associated with getting OCS oil and gas to market. Such 

costs are referred to as external costs because they are not factored into normal market 

transactions and are instead imposed, at least in part, on people other than those who produce 

or purchase the goods and services from which the costs arise. The environmental cost analysis 

includes estimates of only such costs that are judged to be readily and accurately quantifiable in 

monetary terms. The MMS uses the Offshore Environmental Cost Model to estimate 

environmental costs. This is a nine-sector model that uses data from the latest research to 

estimate the impact of typical activities associated with OCS production and typical OCS oil 

spills. Other social and environmental costs that do not lend themselves to monetary 

quantification, while no less important, are examined in the 5-year program EIS. 

Net Social Value. Net social value is a more or less complete estimate of net benefits on the 

supply side. In economic terms, net social value is a measure of net economic rent or net 

producer surplus from society's point of view. 

Consumer Surplus Benefits. Economists refer to net demand-side benefits associated with a 

product, project, or program as consumer surplus. Consumer surplus is the difference between 

what consumers would be willing to pay for a service or product if they had to and the (lower) 

price actually charged. The availability of OCS oil and gas increases supply of those 

commodities on the market and thus lowers the price consumers must pay. Even if the per-unit 

price reduction is slight, the magnitude of OCS production leads to a large societal benefit. The 

MMS estimates of consumer surplus are calculated using the recently updated MarketSim model, 

which includes simultaneous equation system models for the international oil market and the 

domestic natural gas market. 

Total Net Benefits. The sum of supply- and demand-side net benefits constitutes the total net 

benefits associated with available program area resources and the program alternatives. The 

estimated total net benefits of resources in currently available program areas form one of the 

bases for developing program options. 

Valuation of the Proposed Final Program. There are two major changes reflected in the PFP 

that affect program areas and anticipated production. The first is that, due to an out-of-court 

settlement of litigation with the State of Louisiana, MMS agreed to cancel Central Gulf Sale 201 

under the current 5-year program, conduct additional study of the potential environmental effects 

of leasing in that area, and not offer Central Gulf acreage for lease until the new 5-year program 

is in place. Therefore, MMS has expanded the program area for Sale 205 to also include the 

acreage that would have been offered in Sale 201. A sizable amount of just-relinquished 

deepwater acreage that would have been leased under the current program in Sale 201 will now 

be available for Sale 205 and should result in higher bid totals and more leased acreage under the 
87

new program than anticipated in the PP analysis17. However, the MMS does not expect eventual 

exploration and production to increase in proportion to available acreage, so anticipated 

production estimates were not increased appreciably. Companies are expected to continue to 

face severe capacity constraints (e.g., finding sufficient skilled labor and appropriate drilling 

rigs), especially for deepwater activities, limiting the potential benefits of accumulating large 

new chunks of leased acreage. The MMS expects the results of the change in Sale 205 primarily 

to be higher bids for prime acreage, rather than more leased acreage. Accordingly, any increases 

in production are likely to result largely from the availability of better prospects, not from the 

opportunity to lease more acreage. The second change is the passage of the GOMESAct of 

2006, which requires a sale in the Eastern GOM, and will make available some deepwater 

acreage in later Central Gulf sales. Congress did not leave the size, timing, or location of the 

Eastern Gulf sale to the Secretary’s discretion. Therefore, the sale is not undergoing Section 18 

analysis, and it is not included in these tables. 

Table 6 shows the estimates of the components of the net benefit analysis for the available 

program areas in the PFP. Table 7 compares the total estimated net benefits for each of the EIS 

alternatives in the PFP. 

 

17 Sales 157 and 166 were the first two Central Gulf lease sales featuring royalty-free production volumes mandated 

by the Deep-Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995, and each sale set a new record for bidding activity. In part due to 

capacity constraints, much of the acreage leased in these sales was not developed. Undeveloped deepwater (10-

year) leases from Sale 157 will be relinquished and re-offered in Sale 205, while–reflecting no change from the 

previous analysis–relinquished deepwater acreage from Sale 166 will be re-offered in Sale 206. (See 

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/lsesale/205/cgom205.html.) 
88

Table 7: Valuation (Net Benefits) of Program Alternatives

(All figures in the table are in discounted billions of 2007 dollars) 

Program Areas 

Net 

Economic 

Value 

Environmental 

Costs 

Net Social 

Value* 

Consumer 

Surplus 

Net 

Benefits* 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) $142.93 $0.73 $142.19 $24.15 $166.34 

Alternative 2 

(Exclude North Aleutian 

Basin) 

$137.45 $0.72 $136.72 $21.94 $158.66 

Alternative 3 

(Exclude Cook Inlet) $141.82 $0.71 $141.10 $23.86 $164.96 

Alternative 4 

(Exclude Mid-Atlantic) $142.73 $0.73 $141.99 $24.00 $165.99 

Alternative 5 

(Defer Blocks within 25 

Miles of Virginia and 

Chukchi Sea Coasts) 

$142.93 $0.73 $142.19 $24.15 $166.34 

Alternative 6 

(Exclude Blocks at Mouth 

of the Chesapeake Bay) 

$142.93 $0.73 $142.19 $24.15 $166.34 

Alternative 7 

(Limit Leasing in the North 

Aleutian Basin to Blocks 

Offered in Sale 92)** 

$142.93 $0.73 $142.19 $24.15 $166.34 

Alternative 8 

(Defer Blocks in the 

Beaufort Sea to Avoid 

Conflicts with Whaling)*** 

$142.93 $0.73 $142.19 $24.15 $166.34 

Alternative 9 

(Defer Blocks within 50 

Miles of Virginia with 

Possible other 

Restrictions)*** 

$142.93 $0.73 $142.19 $24.15 $166.34 

All benefits and environmental costs are relative to Alternative 10 (the No Action alternative), 

the costs of which are primarily due to increased onshore production and oil imports, most of 

which would be transported to the United States by supertankers. 

Although the changes inherent in Alternatives 5-9 could reduce available resources, given the 

location of likely exploration, development, and production activities, the MMS believes that 

they probably would not reduce anticipated production and the resulting net benefits. 

* Net Social Value and Net Benefits estimates in table 7 were calculated using the numbers in 

table 6. Due to slight rounding errors, a recalculation of these estimates using the aggregated 

numbers in table 7 may not produce the exact NSV and Net Benefits numbers shown in the table. 
89

Table 7 notes continued. 

** The PP decision differs from the Proposed Action in the EIS slightly in that the Secretary 

selected the program option reflected in Alternative 7. Although the approach throughout this 

document is to treat the PP decision as the base to which possible changes are offered as options 

or alternatives, the MMS believes that the size of the North Aleutian Basin Program Area 

(beyond the Sale 92 area) would not affect eventual production and, therefore, Alternative 7 is 

retained “as is” to be consistent with the alternatives analyzed in the EIS. For an explanation of 

the difference between program options and EIS alternatives, see footnote to Introduction in this 

Social Value section, above. 

*** Alternatives 8 and 9 are new and were not included in the PP analysis. 

Conclusions 

Under each and all of the options considered, the expected net economic and social value far 

exceed the potential environmental costs. Excluding the North Aleutian Basin would 

significantly diminish the anticipated net benefits of the PFP. (Excluding the Cook Inlet would 

have a similar effect, but to a lesser extent.) Even after exclusions and deferrals to avoid 

conflicts with whaling and subsistence activities in Alaska, the proposed lease sales in areas 

offshore of Alaska are expected to yield substantial net economic and social benefits. 

While the Mid-Atlantic potential net benefits are less than those of the North Aleutian Basin, and 

are contingent on a change in the existing legal framework, there are potential net benefits that 

could be derived from the portion of the Mid-Atlantic area included in the PFP. 

2. Environmental Sensitivity and Marine Productivity

Introduction 

Section 18(a)(2)(G) of the Act requires the Secretary to consider the relative environmental 

sensitivity and marine productivity of the different areas of the OCS as one factor in determining 

the timing and location of potential natural gas and oil lease sales. To satisfy this requirement, 

we have ranked the program areas in terms of their relative environmental sensitivity and marine 

productivity. 

The marine productivity and environmental sensitivity analysis is not intended to reflect potential 

risks from offshore oil and gas activities, but is used by the Secretary as one of many 

considerations when developing the program. Analyses presented within this section are 

approximations using the best available information and will be further refined throughout the 

development of the 5-year program. Specific assessments of the potential risk from oil and gas 

development have been addressed in the final EIS for the 5-year program for 2007-2012, which 

was prepared to accompany this decision document for the Secretary’s consideration. 

a. Relative Environmental Sensitivity 

Spilled oil is a major environmental risk from offshore oil and gas activities. The natural 

resources of coastal ecosystems face the most significant environmental consequences from 

contact with spilled oil. The Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI), developed by the NOAA 

of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), provides a systematic method for compiling data 
90

in standardized formats to map shoreline sensitivity to spilled oil. Coastal states and other 

Federal agencies, including MMS, assist in ESI development efforts and use ESI products. The 

ESI ranking approach has a strong scientific basis, and it has proven to be effective as a planning 

and response tool for over two decades in the United States. 

In developing the ESI, NOAA has accumulated a large database identifying the location of 

sensitive resources for most coastal areas in the United States. This data is critical to 

establishing protection priorities and identifying clean up strategies in the event of a spill. 

Comparison of the standardized data over large areas can assist in identifying relative 

environmental sensitivity. 

While a wide variety of factors contribute to the environmental sensitivity, the predominant 

factor is the physical characteristics of a coastal area. The ESI provides standardized definitions 

of shoreline characteristics and uses them to assign shoreline sensitivity rankings. These 

standards are uniform across all areas of the United States. This uniformity enables comparisons 

with the OCS planning areas and assessments of their relative environmental sensitivity in 

accordance with the Act. 

Shorelines are ranked according to their sensitivity to oiling, the natural persistence of oil, and 

the ease of clean up. The ESI assigns each shoreline segment of the coastal United States a 

ranking between 1 and 10, where 1 represents shorelines least susceptible to damage by oiling, 

and 10 represents the locations most likely to be damaged. Examples of shorelines ranked as “1” 

include steep, exposed rocky cliffs and banks, where oil cannot penetrate into the rock and will 

quickly be washed off by the action of waves and tides. Shorelines ranked as “10” include 

protected, vegetated wetlands, such as mangrove swamps and saltwater marshes. See table 8 for 

a complete description of each ranking. Oil in these areas will remain for a long period of time, 

penetrate deeply into the substrate, and inflict damage to many kinds of plants and animals. 

More detailed information on the ESI ranking system can be obtained at 

www.response.restoration.noaa.gov/esi/esiintro.html. 
91

Table 8: ESI Rankings and Respective Description

ESI No. Description 

Low Sensitivity

 1 Exposed rocky shores, Exposed, solid man-made structures 

 2 Exposed wave-cut platforms in bedrock, mud, or clay; Exposed scarps and steep slopes in clay 

 3 Fine to medium-grained sand beaches; Scarps and steep slopes in sand 

 4 Coarse-grained sand beaches 

 5 Mixed sand and gravel beaches 

High Sensitivity

 6 Gravel beaches; Riprap 

 7 Exposed tidal flats 

 8 Sheltered rocky shores and sheltered scarps in bedrock, mud, or clay; Sheltered, solid man-made 

structures; Sheltered riprap; Vegetated, steeply-sloping bluffs 

 9 Sheltered tidal flats; Vegetate low banks 

10 Salt- and brackish-water marshes; Freshwater marshes, swamps; Scrub-shrub wetlands.

The ESI data was obtained either directly from NOAA or through MMS's Coastal and Offshore 

Resource Information System. These ESI line data sets were aggregated or disaggregated as 

appropriate to represent respective planning areas. Each ESI value was weighted by the length 

of its line segment. An average rating for the planning area was calculated. For some planning 

areas, incomplete data sets were used as the best available data to represent that planning area. 

The average index values for all the planning areas analyzed in the DPP ranged from a high of 

9.6 for the Central GOM with its extensive wetlands to a low of 3.0 for the rocky coastline of the 

Aleutian Arc. Table 9 reflects the ordinal ranking of the program areas analyzed in the Final EIS. 

An average index value for a planning area does not necessarily imply a high level of adverse 

effects from the OCS development. Even those areas ranked with lower index values have 

sensitive resources, which will require consideration of specific environmental impacts at the 

sale stage. 

Table 9: OCS Program Areas by Relative Environmental Sensitivity 

Planning Area 

Central Gulf of Mexico 

North Aleutian Basin 

Western Gulf of Mexico 

Mid-Atlantic 

Cook Inlet 

Beaufort Sea 

Chukchi Sea 
92

The analysis above shows that with regard to potential oil spill impacts, areas that contain 

wetlands and marshes such as the Central GOM are particularly sensitive. However, lessees 

have been producing oil and gas from the Central Gulf and other areas for over 50 years with a 

remarkable record of environmental safety. For more than 30 years, there have been no 

significant oil spills from platforms anywhere on the OCS. 

Further, activities in close-inshore state waters present an equal or greater challenge to Gulf coast 

marsh lands, and activities in those waters have been conducted with steady improvement in 

environmental practices. 

While the harsh environment offshore of Alaska presents unique operating, safety, and 

environmental challenges, technology and operating practices tailored to the particular 

conditions are meeting these challenges successfully. 

Given the excellent environmental record of offshore exploration and production, the 

environmental sensitivity of each of the various areas considered is not inconsistent with the 

proposed timing and location of lease sales in the PFP. 

b. Relative Marine Productivity 

Productivity means the primary productivity of marine plants. Primary productivity is the 

amount of plant tissue produced through photosynthetic fixation of carbon during a standard 

period of time. The most common example is simply a plant using energy from the sun to make 

organic matter. It is the basis for growth in most ecosystems. Phytoplankton, microscopic 

marine plants, and fixed or rooted plants contribute to the primary productivity of most OCS 

planning areas. Phytoplankton can occupy all surface waters of a planning area and fix carbon as 

long as sufficient light and nutrients are available. Inshore waters typically have a much higher 

primary productivity than most open-ocean waters because of the presence of increased nutrients 

and light penetration possible to the sediment-water interface allowing for the establishment of 

fixed vascular plants on the ocean floor. Farther from shore, fewer nutrients, primarily of 

terrestrial origin, are available for use by phytoplankton, and surface mixing due to wave action, 

down-dwelling, fronts, and convergence may push some phytoplankton down into the water 

column where insufficient light allows for photosynthesis to occur. 

The methods of measuring phytoplankton productivity are relatively standard and results are 

normally expressed in terms of chlorophyll-a or the amount of carbon fixed during 

photosynthesis per square meter of ocean surface per unit time. It is important to note that 

measurements of phytoplankton can vary greatly both spatially and temporally resulting in 

significant differences in measurements within and between planning areas. As a result the 

reader must be aware of the highly variable mosaic pattern of productivity estimates. 

There are two methods to provide an analysis for primary production–total estimated primary 

production and normalized or average per unit area production. In the first method, the size of 

the planning area is incorporated into the analysis and can greatly contribute to the overall 

relative rankings. Therefore, it is possible to have a highly productive on average, but small, 

planning area that would be lower ranked than a larger planning area with average productivity. 

In the second method, the sizes of the planning areas are not incorporated into the analysis and 

the planning areas with the highest average per square meter productivity would be higher 
93

ranked. To ensure a complete analysis of the primary productivity of each planning areas, as 

required under the Act, both methods have been used. 

Table 10 shows the estimates for the total primary productivity of each planning area in metric 

tons per year. Estimates range from the highest in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area, yielding a 

total primary productivity of over 140 MM metric tons of carbon per year to the lowest, 4.5 MM 

metric tons of carbon per year in the Beaufort Sea. For the purposes of this analysis, the 

planning areas have been broken down into 4 different classes of estimated total primary 

production, with the first and highest being the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area. 

Table 10: Primary Production Estimates for Each Program Area 

Rank Program Area Metric Tons/yr 

1 Mid-Atlantic 139,781,399 

2 Central Gulf of Mexico 110,234,566 

3 North Aleutian Basin 84,251,465 

4 Western Gulf of Mexico 31,331,220 

5 Cook Inlet 24,152,550 

6 Chukchi Sea 8,237,533 

7 Beaufort Sea 4,591,039 

Source: CSA (1990, 1991) 

The second group consists of planning areas with total primary productivity values ranging from 

85 MM to 110 MM metric tons of carbon per year. This group includes the Central GOM and 

the North Aleutian Basin. 

Two planning areas fall within the third category of estimated primary productivity which ranges 

between values of 24 to 31 MM metric tons of carbon per year. This group includes the Western 

GOM and Cook Inlet Planning Areas. 

The fourth and lowest category of estimated primary productivity includes those planning areas 

with less than 9 MM metric tons of carbon per year, the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea Planning 

Areas. 
94

Table 11: Relative Annual Water Column Primary Productivity, Variability, 

 and Confidence in Available Data for OCS Program Areas 

Planning Area Productivity Level * Variability Confidence 

High Medium Low 

Mid-Atlantic X High Moderate - High 

Central Gulf of Mexico 

 Coastal X High Poor 

 Offshore X High Poor 

North Aleutian Basin X 

 Coastal Domain X High High 

 Central X High High 

 Sea Ice X High Poor - Moderate 

Western Gulf of Mexico 

 Embayments X Unknown Moderate 

 Coastal X High Moderate 

 Offshore X Low Poor 

Cook Inlet X High Poor-Moderate 

Chukchi Sea 

 Coastal (Lisburne) X Unknown Poor-Moderate 

 Coastal (Barrow) X Unknown Poor-Moderate 

 Ice Algae X Unknown Poor-Moderate 

Beaufort Sea X High Poor-Moderate 

Source: CSA, 1990 

* Relative Phytoplankton productivity categories: High (200-500 g C/m2/year), Moderate (50 - 

200 g C/m2

/yr), and Low (<50 g C/m2/yr). 

Table 11 shows the estimates for the primary productivity per square meter in each program area, 

broken down where possible in grams of carbon per meter square per year. The high 

productivity program areas are those with 200-500 g C/m2

/year. Two areas are included in this 

category the Mid-Atlantic and Cook Inlet. The confidence level associated with these estimates 

are poor to moderate with the exception of the Mid-Atlantic Program Area where the confidence 

level is moderate to high. The variability of productivity levels within these areas is high. 

The moderate productivity program areas are those ranging from 50-200 g C/m2

/yr. The 

Western GOM, Central GOM and North Aleutian Basin are in this category. The variability of 

productivity levels within these areas is overall high. Similarly, the confidence level associated 

with these estimates is fairly poor with the exception of the North Aleutian Basin. 

Two program areas, Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea fall in the least productive category where 

primary productivity is less than 50 g C/m2/yr. 

Over 50 years of activity in the GOM has not indicated any incompatibility between maintaining 

high marine primary productivity and production from the OCS. 
95

The Central Gulf coastal area ranks second in marine primary productivity only to the MidAtlantic. The marine primary productivity of the Central Gulf does not appear to have been 

appreciably diminished by offshore exploration and production activities. The same is true of 

other areas of the OCS with existing operations and production. Thus, the size, location, and 

timing of lease sales in the PFP are consistent with the marine primary productivity of the areas 

in which lease sales will be held. 

References 

Continental Shelf and Associates. 1990. Comparison of Marine Productivity Among OCS 

Planning Areas. U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service. Contract 

Number 14-35-0001-30487. Herndon, Virginia 20170. 

Continental Shelf and Associates. 1991. Comparison of Marine Productivity Among OCS 

Planning Areas: Supplement – An Evaluation of Benthic Habitat Primary Productivity. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service. Contract Number 14-35-0001-

30487. Herndon, Virginia 20170. 

3. Industry Interest 

Section 18(a)(2)(E) of the Act requires the Secretary to consider “the interest of potential oil 

and gas producers in the development of oil and gas resources.” Throughout preparation of this 

5-year program for 2007-2012, industry commenters have expressed highest interest in the GOM 

region: the Eastern GOM, the Central and the Western Planning Areas. Next in interest are the 

North Aleutian Basin, Beaufort Sea, and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas off Alaska. The Cook 

Inlet Planning Area, off Alaska, also received moderate interest. The Mid-Atlantic Planning 

Area received light interest, followed by the North and South Atlantic Planning Areas. The 

discussions of options in part III include pertinent summaries of industry comments, and all 

comments that the MMS received on the PP are summarized in the appendix. Overwhelmingly, 

industry commenters urged expansion of the program to include all OCS areas. Many took 

exception to deferrals and buffers within which no leasing should occur, and they recommended 

that where legislative restrictions are in place, the areas should be offered as available once 

restrictions are lifted. 

The PFP corresponds to areas of highest industry interest, with two exceptions. One is the 

Eastern GOM Planning Area, in which the industry expressed very high interest. However, the 

vast majority of that area is not available under existing legal constraints. Recent congressional 

actions have reaffirmed that unavailability. Second, under the PFP, the MMS will offer up to 

two special interest sales in the Cook Inlet if industry interest over the 5-year span of the 

program proves to be sufficient. The greatest industry interest in the Atlantic was in the MidAtlantic region, a portion of which is included in the program, contingent on a change in the 

existing legal restrictions. 
96

4. Equitable Sharing of Developmental Benefits and Environmental Risks

Introduction 

Section 18(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires that the Secretary base the timing and location of OCS 

exploration, production, and development on a consideration of, among other things, “an 

equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks among the various regions.” 

Because developmental benefits and many environmental risks often accrue outside the OCS 

regions, which are portions of land lying under the ocean, analysis of this factor usually goes 

beyond the strict requirements of the Act and considers the sharing of benefits and risks to the 

onshore U.S. population, particularly in the coastal areas near producing regions of the OCS. 

Section 18 does not require that the leasing program achieve an equitable sharing of 

developmental benefits and environmental risks, nor have the courts set a specific standard of 

equitable sharing that the Secretary is to achieve. As the court recognized in California I and 

California II, the degree to which a proposed 5-year schedule of lease sales might achieve an 

equitable sharing of benefits and risks must be considered in light of a number of other factors, 

many of which are not under the control of the DOI and some of which greatly affect the options 

available. 

Benefits and Risks 

Some benefits and risks of OCS leasing are shared widely while others are concentrated in 

regions adjacent to areas of OCS oil and gas activity. The benefits that accrue primarily to 

producing regions and nearby onshore areas are derived primarily from employment, increased 

revenues, reduced risk of accidents involving tankers carrying imported oil and from 

expenditures on the factors of production, i.e., labor, land, materials, and equipment. Benefits 

flowing from Federal government revenues (e.g., royalties) obtained through OCS-related 

activities tend to be widely distributed among the geographic onshore regions of the United 

States, including those near OCS oil and gas exploration and production. Financial rewards for 

profitable operations in the form of stock dividends and increased stock values also tend to be 

widely distributed, as owners live throughout the country. The benefits of an improved balance 

of trade are shared nationally as well. The immediate environmental risks of OCS oil and gas 

activities are borne primarily by producing regions and nearby onshore areas, while some of the 

financial consequences of those risks (e.g., financial losses due to unprofitable endeavors, 

compensation by responsible parties for natural resource damage and payments into funds 

established to provide compensation for losses not attributable to specific parties) are shared by 

companies and individuals throughout the Nation. 

The nature of developmental benefits and environmental risks associated with the OCS oil and 

gas program, as summarized above, has been well documented in previous 5-year program 

analyses. Those analyses concluded that the 5-year program has a certain innate equity in that 

the geographic areas bearing the greatest risks also receive a higher share of the benefits while 

certain financial aspects of both benefits and risks are shared somewhat widely. However, the 

Secretary can consider those factors mentioned in the previous paragraph that do lead to greater 

benefits and/or risks for local areas when oil and gas activities occur nearby. Once the Secretary 

decided on the specifics of the PP—size, timing, and location—a specific equitable sharing 

analysis of the decision and each alternative was begun for the PFP. 
97

The previous equitable sharing analyses have noted that there are actions that may be taken 

independent of the 5-year program to influence the equitable sharing of developmental benefits, 

environmental risks, or both. Two such influential developments have occurred since the 

approval of the 5-year program for 2002-2007 are the enactment of the EPAct of 2005 and the 

GOMESAct of 2006, each providing for distribution of additional Federal revenues as impact 

assistance to certain coastal states and localities near OCS activity. The coastal impact 

assistance provisions of EPAct are to be funded at $1 billion over 4 years, differing from a 

previous version of coastal impact assistance legislation in that the funding is no longer subject 

to annual appropriations legislation. These funds are available to Alabama, Alaska, California, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Through fiscal year 2016, the GOMESAct applies only to 

revenues from the areas covered by Eastern Gulf Sale 224 and the “181 South Area.” In fiscal 

year 2017 and thereafter, GOMESAct shares revenues from all GOM leases issued after 2006, 

subject to an annual cap through 2055; but it is otherwise a more unconditional commitment to 

distribute additional revenues to the four “Gulf producing States.” Subject to the limits above, 

the GOMESAct designates 50 percent of rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other Gulf OCS 

revenues for direct distribution through complex formulaic calculations and for financial 

assistance through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Twenty percent of each state’s share 

is to go directly to that state’s coastal political subdivisions. 

The long-term executive withdrawal of huge sections of the OCS, including two entire OCS 

regions (the Atlantic and the Pacific), from disposition by leasing severely restricts the 

Secretary’s ability to make decisions that retain or enhance equitable sharing. However, in the 

PP issued in August 2006, the Secretary proposed three sales that could be held in two restricted 

planning areas, and the President has since chosen to modify the withdrawal affecting one of 

those areas—the North Aleutian Basin in the Alaska OCS Region (two sales in the PP). The 

provisions of the withdrawal remain in effect for Atlantic OCS Region, which encompasses the 

Mid-Atlantic Program Area (Sale 220). Sales in either planning area could lead to oil and gas 

activities that would result in a broader sharing of both developmental benefits and 

environmental risks. While some OCS oil and gas activities on leases issued in previous sales 

will continue in the Pacific OCS Region, the level of activity there would not be affected by the 

PFP. 

Possible Effects of Different 5-Year Program Decisions 

Decisions determining the size, timing, and location of OCS leasing in the 5-year program for 

2007-2012 can affect the distribution of associated developmental benefits and environmental 

risks among the coastal regions of the United States. Environmental risks are discussed in great 

detail in the 5-year program EIS, and environmental impacts associated with specific decision 

options are summarized in part III.A, which also describes the relationship of EIS alternatives 

and program decision options. Decision options usually are offered for individual program 

areas, and the EIS alternatives are program-wide aggregations of these options. Developmental 

benefits—as measured by effects of the program on employment and personal income—are 

discussed below. 

As in previous 5-year programs, this analysis examines the distribution of developmental 

benefits among coastal regions near planning areas proposed for OCS lease sales. Due to the 

long-term withdrawal of the east and west coasts from leasing, Regions III (Florida), IV 

(Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) and VII (Alaska) are the only coastal regions 

examined in the main analysis. In addition, there will be some discussion of Region I (Maine, 
98

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) in case the Presidential withdrawal on lease 

sales in the Mid-Atlantic Program Area is modified and the Congressional moratorium 

discontinued such that the proposed Mid-Atlantic lease sale can be held. All other states, coastal 

and inland, are part of a grouping characterized as the “Rest of the United States,” which is 

included for comparative purposes. The MMS used its recently updated regional economic 

impact models to estimate the relative economic effects on each of these regions that might result 

under the alternatives analyzed in the EIS. These models are the same as those used to estimate 

employment and income effects for EISs prepared by the MMS, and the updated models have a 

more integrated approach to such modeling across the OCS regions. 

The analysis has determined that the PFP would have its greatest economic effect in Region IV, 

which comprises the states adjacent to, and near, the Central and Western GOM OCS Planning 

Areas. Region IV would receive roughly 65 percent of the employment and personal income 

generated by the PFP. Region VII (Alaska) would receive about 6 percent, Region III (Florida) 

could receive as much as 3 percent, and the Rest of the United States would receive the 

remainder, a little more than a quarter of the total. Should the proposed Mid-Atlantic sale be 

held and exploration, development, and production activities ensue, the MMS estimates that 

Region I would receive less than 1 percent of the employment, income, and total economic 

output generated by the PFP. These results depend upon the existence and discovery of oil 

and/or natural gas resources in economic quantities. As described in the EIS, the employment 

and related effects in the coastal Mid-Atlantic States would be minor, given the lack of 

established oil and gas infrastructure in the area. If production in the Mid-Atlantic does occur, 

there would be a gradual buildup of such infrastructure, and more developmental benefits would 

flow to communities along the East Coast. 

These results are consistent with the existence of current infrastructure and the expected location 

of most of the offshore activity likely to result from the PFP. Not coincidentally, it is the vicinity 

of Region IV that is expected to face the most environmental risks as well. It should be noted 

that the per capita share of these developmental benefits is greater for Alaska than for the states 

in Region IV. Also, to the extent that Alaska continues to develop the means to supply the goods 

and services needed for offshore oil and gas activities, Region VII would be expected to increase 

its share of the developmental benefits flowing from the 5-year program for 2007-2012. Because 

no near-shore areas directly off the coast of Florida are proposed for leasing, it is not expected 

that much economic activity would result in Region III, and the associated environmental risks 

would be minimal, if any. However, there are opportunities for Florida industries to benefit from 

supplying goods and services to the OCS industry operating in the eastern portion of the Central 

Gulf. Many such opportunities would require investments in related infrastructure. 

An analysis of the groups of program options labeled Alternatives 2-9 in the EIS shows similar 

patterns of sharing of economic activities. Only the first 2 alternatives would be likely to affect 

the distribution of developmental benefits to an appreciable extent, and even their effects should 

be minor in the context of the entire PFP. Alternative 2, which would exclude the North 

Aleutian Basin Program Area sale(s), could cut the Alaska proportion of expected economic 

activity by 1 or 2 percentage points. The shares of benefits accruing to Region IV (the 4-state 

GOM region) and to the Rest of the United States would therefore increase slightly. Likewise, 

Alternative 3, which would exclude the Cook Inlet Program Area sales, would reduce Region 

VII’s share of developmental benefits but by a smaller amount, probably by less than 1 

percentage point. Alternative 4, which would exclude the Mid-Atlantic Program Area sale, 
99

should not have much effect on the distribution of developmental benefits, because of the small 

amount of expected activity and because of the fact that most of the activities in the Mid-Atlantic 

are likely to be staged out of Region IV unless and until the level of OCS activity increases to the 

point that it justifies infrastructure development. The Alternatives 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would not 

likely change resulting OCS activity levels and, thus, should not affect the distribution of 

development benefits. 

Conclusions

The general findings and conclusions of previous equitable sharing analyses are still valid. Since 

the distribution of benefits associated with factors of production is linked significantly to the 

location of OCS oil and gas support industries—which exist primarily along the GOM, Southern 

California, and Alaska coasts—the Secretary’s decision on an OCS leasing schedule for the 

period 2007-2012 would not be expected to alter substantially the distribution of benefits and 

risks achieved under previous 5-year programs. The exception among the three coastal areas 

mentioned above has been Southern California, whose exclusion from the three previous 

programs (1992-1997, 1997-2002, and 2002-2007) has precluded it from sharing in direct 

benefits and risks resulting from those programs. Despite that fact that the New England, 

Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic States account for well over 25 percent of the Nation’s oil and 

natural gas consumption and for only a small percentage of its production, the Atlantic remains 

the only one of the four OCS regions without any oil and gas activities. Because the Secretary is 

considering a sale in the Mid-Atlantic Program Area for the PFP, it would be possible to further 

equitable sharing by retaining that sale in the proposed schedule, assuming that the current 

restrictions are lifted. 

The Federal revenues that traditionally have accrued to adjacent onshore areas as a result of 

OCS oil and gas activities will be augmented by the newly enacted impact assistance program 

mandated by section 384 of the EPAct and the new revenue distribution provisions in the 

GOMESAct. Finally, measures such as the implementation of new lease stipulations and 

operating regulations remain available to reduce the risks borne by the affected areas. 

Given the long-term executive withdrawal of the Pacific and Atlantic OCS regions from leasing 

consideration, the availability of OCS planning areas for leasing consideration in the new 5-year 

program has been severely limited. Under these circumstances, the best attempt at achieving an 

equitable sharing of benefits and risks would be to continue to focus on the Central and Western 

GOM, while also including sales in promising areas of the Alaska OCS. Should restrictions be 

rescinded for OCS oil and gas activities in the Atlantic, holding proposed Sale 220 could further 

the long-term equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks. 

5. Other Uses of the OCS 

Section 18(a)(2)(D) requires the Secretary to examine the location of areas considered for leasing 

with respect to other uses of the resources and space within those areas. Other uses of the OCS 

that could affect or be affected by oil and gas leasing and ensuing activities are described below. 

The following types of uses are addressed: 

y Subsistence (hunting and fishing activities by Alaska Natives); 

y Commercial Fishing; 
100

y EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, and 

implementing regulations); 

y Other Areas of Special Concern (onshore and offshore areas designated for special uses 

and protections, such as parks and sanctuaries); 

y Tourism and Recreation; 

y Military and NASA (operating areas in the GOM and Atlantic Regions); 

y Commercial Space Flight (Mid-Atlantic Region); 

y Liquefied Natural Gas (GOM Region); 

y Nonenergy Marine Mineral Activities; and 

y Alternative Energy. 

y The information presented below summarizes detailed regional descriptions of the 

environment that are included in the 5-year program final EIS. The discussion of options 

in part III includes pertinent summaries including “other uses” comments, and all 

comments that MMS received are summarized in the appendix. 

Alaska Region 

Subsistence. Subsistence activities have value in the context of culture, lifestyle, society, and 

community. Subsistence activities in the Beaufort Sea marine and coastal area focus on the 

bowhead whale as well as caribou, freshwater and ocean fish, ducks and geese, and bearded 

seals. Species subject to subsistence activities in the Chukchi Sea area include bowhead whale, 

beluga whale, caribou, seal, walrus, polar bear, fish, duck, and goose. Bowhead whaling is the 

single most valued activity in the North Slope subsistence economy today. In the North Aleutian 

Basin area, subsistence activities focus on fish (salmon and herring), marine mammals (seals and 

walrus), waterfowl, and shellfish offshore, and caribou and moose onshore. Widely varying 

subsistence patterns in the vicinity of Cook Inlet reflect the area's diverse population. Generally, 

the inhabitants of small traditional villages harvest saltwater and freshwater fish and small sea 

mammals in the summer and fall, moose in the fall, and invertebrates and some sea mammals 

year round. In the larger industrial communities, the people generally fish in the summer and 

hunt in the fall, and more households do not partake in subsistence activities. Due to recent 

declines in the population of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, their harvest is now subject to comanagement by NMFS and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, which represents Native 

subsistence hunters. The current co-management agreement allows for the harvest of one beluga 

by the Tyonek Native community located on the upper northwest shore of Cook Inlet. 
101

Commercial Fishing. In the Beaufort Sea area there is one family operating a commercial 

fishery focused primarily on cisco and whitefish in the Colville River Delta during summer and 

fall. The port of Barrow also documented a small amount of commercially landed salmon in 

1999. There are currently no commercial fisheries in the Chukchi Sea. Commercial fisheries for 

salmon, ground fish, and shellfish are the major economic base in the North Aleutian Basin area. 

Commercial fishing is an important segment of the local economy of the Cook Inlet region, 

focusing mainly on salmon and to a lesser degree on crab, shrimp, and halibut. 

Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. EFH has been designated 

in all of the areas off Alaska that are proposed for leasing. In the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea 

areas, essential habitat has been established for all five salmon species. Several habitats of 

particular concern are located in the North Aleutian Basin. In Cook Inlet the habitat designations 

cover 42 species. The Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area is a 

designated Habitat Area of Particular Concern. Several Habitats of Particular Concern are 

located in the North Aleutian Basin. 

Other Areas of Special Concern. All of the areas proposed for leasing off Alaska are adjacent 

to coastal portions of national parks or wildlife refuges. The Beaufort Sea program area is 

adjacent to the Arctic NWR. The Chukchi Sea program area is located off the Alaska Maritime 

NWR, Chukchi Sea Unit. The North Aleutian Basin area is adjacent to or near the Alaska 

Maritime NWR, the Alaska Peninsula NWR, the Izenbek Lagoon NWR, the Aniakchak Crater 

National Monument and Preserve, the Becharof NWR, the Katmai National Park and Preserve, 

and the Togiak NWR. The Cook Inlet program area is near Lake Clark National Park and 

Preserve, and the Katmai National Park and Preserve is located on the eastern shore of the 

Shelikof Strait, which is south of the program area. 

The NOAA-Fisheries issued a final rule (50 CFR Part 226) to revise the critical habitat for the 

northern right whale by designating additional areas in the Northern Pacific Ocean, which 

include the Bering Sea. 

Tourism and Recreation. In the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea areas, recreation activities take 

place mainly in the summer and include fishing, boating, hunting, hiking, sightseeing, camping, 

and picnicking. Most nonresident activity is by tour groups that visit Barrow and Deadhorse, 

both of which have lodging available. Hikers and river rafters also visit the Arctic NWR. In the 

North Aleutian Basin area there is very little developed tourism or recreation, but the area has 

significant potential due to its scenic coastline and the historic sites. The Cook Inlet area offers 

abundant high quality tourist and recreation resources that attract numerous state, national, and 

international visitors. Additional information relating to tourism and recreation in Alaska is 

available in the EIS description of areas of special concern. 

Military. Although there are military use areas within the Alaska Region, OCS oil and gas 

leasing and related activities are not expected to interfere with military operations. 

Nonenergy Marine Mineral Activities. There is no current development of offshore nonenergy 

minerals in any of the Alaska OCS program areas under consideration for oil and gas leasing. 

There are sand and gravel deposits in the Beaufort Sea, but their value as a construction material 

is not known.
102

Gulf of Mexico Region

Commercial Fishing. The GOM fisheries are very important to the economies of the adjacent 

coastal states. The GOM commercial fisheries include nearly 100 species from 33 families. 

Menhaden is the most important finfish harvested, followed by nine other species of significant 

value. Shrimp is the most important shellfish, along with various oyster, lobster, and crab 

species. Louisiana ranked first among Gulf states in total commercial fisheries landed in 2005, 

followed in descending order by Mississippi, Texas, Florida (west coast), and Alabama. 

Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. Approximately 33 percent 

of the species managed by the GOM Fisheries Management Council have been selected for EFH 

designation. They include invertebrate and reeffish species, red drum and other coastal pelagic 

species, and highly migratory species such as swordfish, tunas, and sharks. The Management 

Council has designated nine Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in the Gulf. Only the Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, which is located in the Western Gulf Planning Area, 

is located in an area proposed for leasing. 

Other Areas of Special Concern. Special areas in the GOM include a national marine 

sanctuary, national park system units, national wildlife refuges, a national estuarine research 

reserve, and national estuary program areas. The Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary covers a 146-square kilometer area located 177 kilometers (110 miles) offshore within 

the Western GOM Planning Area (including the addition of Stetson Bank in 1996). National 

park system units along the Gulf coast that are adjacent to areas considered for leasing include 

Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve in Louisiana, Padre Island National Seashore off 

Texas, and Gulf Islands National Seashore off Mississippi and Alabama. There are 28 national 

wildlife refuges located along the coast from Texas to Alabama. The Weeks Bay National 

Estuarine Research Reserve encompasses a small estuary in the vicinity of Mobile Bay adjacent 

to the Central GOM Planning Area. The Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is 

located in Mississippi and Mission-Aransas Reserve (designated on May 3, 2006) is located in 

Texas. National estuary program areas include the Galveston Bay and Corpus Christi Bay 

systems in Texas, the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex and Lake Pontchartrain Basin 

Program in Louisiana, and Mobile Bay in Alabama. 

Tourism and Recreation. The northern GOM coastal zone is one of the major recreational 

regions of the United States, particularly in connection with marine fishing and beach-related 

activities. The shorefronts along the Gulf states offer a diversity of natural and developed 

landscapes and seascapes. The coastal beaches, barrier islands, estuarine bays and sounds, river 

deltas, and tidal marshes are extensively and intensively used for recreational activity by 

residents of the Gulf states and tourists from throughout the Nation, as well as from foreign 

countries. Publicly owned and administered areas, such as national seashores, parks, beaches, 

and wildlife lands, as well as specially designated preservation areas, such as historic and natural 

sites and landmarks, wilderness areas, wildlife sanctuaries, and scenic rivers, attract residents and 

visitors throughout the year. Commercial and private recreational facilities and establishments, 

such as resorts, marinas, amusement parks, and ornamental gardens, also serve as primary 

interest areas and support services for people who seek enjoyment from the recreational 

resources associated with the GOM. Although there are a variety of beach activities along the 

Gulf Coast, the growth of casinos in Mississippi and southwest Louisiana has attracted many 

visitors since the 1990’s. Before the 2005 hurricane season, Mississippi was the third largest 

casino market in the U.S., behind Las Vegas, Nevada, and Atlantic City, New Jersey. 
103

Military. The GOM is the most important over-water testing and training area in the United 

States, with areas designated for air to surface and air to missile testing, surface vessel testing, 

and training for air, surface, mine, and submarine operations. Areas used by the military include 

the Corpus Christi Operating Area off Texas (mine warfare and aircraft carrier landing training), 

the New Orleans Operating Area off Louisiana (naval live firing maneuvers), and the Pensacola 

Operating Area off Alabama and Florida (aircraft carrier landing training, naval vessel 

shakedown testing, and live firing exercises). The DOI and the DOD coordinate activities and 

reduce use conflicts according to procedures established in a longstanding Memorandum of 

Agreement. 

Liquefied Natural Gas. Natural gas is liquefied to concentrate a much greater volume of 

product in a given space to facilitate storage and transportation. In the GOM, LNG terminals 

have been planned, approved, and built on the OCS. These facilities will offload LNG from 

tankers into the existing offshore natural gas pipeline system. Currently in the GOM, there are 5 

of these facilities that are at the planning or permitting stages. One, the Gulf Gateway facility, 

began operation 214 kilometers (116 miles) off the coast of Louisiana in 2005. 

Nonenergy Marine Mineral Activities. Several minerals in the north-central GOM have the 

potential to be developed. Two salt and sulphur operations exist on the OCS offshore Louisiana, 

and other deposits of salt and sulphur are known to occur in the north-central GOM. Federal 

sand was dredged in 2002 to restore Holly Beach on the western coast of Louisiana. Sand 

deposits located in Federal waters in the Ship Shoal area off Louisiana are being considered for 

use in restoring barrier islands to protect the State's coastal wetlands. Sands in Federal and state 

waters off Mississippi and Alabama have the potential to be developed for glass production and 

for coastal restoration uses including beach replenishment. 

Alternative Energy. The EPAct gave the Secretary of the Interior responsibility for regulating 

federal offshore alternative energy projects. The MMS will accept for review new applications 

for OCS alternative energy projects only once the programmatic regulations are in place. Wind 

Energy Systems Technology’s GOM wind farm has started the process of deploying a tower in 

state waters to monitor wind and migratory bird flight and to determine proper locations for 50 

wind turbines. 

Mid-Atlantic Region

Commercial Fishing. Commercial fisheries are managed via the Mid-Atlantic Council. 

Commercial fishery landings are substantial along the Atlantic coast. The entire Atlantic 

seaboard represents 16.6 percent of the volume and 36.1 percent of the total value of all 

commercial U.S. landings in 2004 (USDOC, NMFS, 2006). The most productive states were 

represented by Maine with a total landing value of over $367 million followed by Massachusetts 

with $327 million and Virginia with $160 million in landings. Virginia had the highest 

commercial landings weight of all Atlantic states with the total of over 481 MM pounds in 2004 

valued at over $24 million dollars. The dominant species making up this total was Atlantic 

menhaden with a weight of approximately 400 MM pounds landed in 2004. The next largest 

landing totals were blue crabs with 26 MM pounds and sea scallops with 19.6 MM pounds. The 

most valuable species throughout the Atlantic states is the American lobster valued at nearly 
104

$366 million in 2004 (only for north Atlantic states and especially for Maine) followed closely 

by sea scallops valued at over $321 million. Other species landed in 2004 valued at over $25 

million for all Atlantic states included Atlantic surf clams, quahoq clams, blue crabs, summer 

flounder, goosefish, Atlantic menhaden, squids, and white shrimp. 

Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. There are numerous EFHs 

designated by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Managed species vary between 

different fisheries management councils. For the Mid-Atlantic states including New York, 

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina, managed species 

include Atlantic mackerel, long finned squid, short-finned squid, butterfish, bluefish, spiny 

dogfish, surf clam, ocean quahoq clam, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, tilefish, and 

monkfish. The Highly Migratory Species division of the NMFS manages Atlantic highly 

migratory species including tunas, sharks, swordfish, and billfish. For the New England and 

Mid-Atlantic regions, EFH has been identified for a total of 59 species covered by 14 fishery 

management plans, under the auspices of the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic 

Fisheries Management Councils or the NMFS. 

One federally threatened and endangered species, the Shortnose Sturgeon; and a Species of 

Concern, the Atlantic Sturgeon, are found in this area. 

Other Areas of Special Concern. There are national marine sanctuaries, national seashores, 

parks, wildlife refuges, estuarine research reserves, and estuaries within the Mid-Atlantic area. 

The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary has been established. Three National Park Service sites 

include Assateague Island, Maryland; Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; and Cape Lookout, North 

Carolina. There are 27 national wildlife refuges located along the coastline or within coastal 

areas of the Mid-Atlantic area. National estuarine research reserves located adjacent to the 

program area are Chesapeake Research Reserves in Maryland and Virginia. Adjacent national 

estuary program sites include Back Bay, Chincoteague Island, the Eastern Shore of Virginia, 

Wallops Island, and Fisherman Island. The Delaware Inland Bays, Maryland Coastal Bays, and 

the Chesapeake Bay are proximate to the PFP area. 

Tourism and Recreation. The Mid-Atlantic coastal region is a popular recreational destination. 

Beach-related activities, recreational fisheries, resorts and seasonal homes are a major attraction. 

Public lands are intermingled with developed areas. Ocean-front counties accounted for 17 

percent of the travel and tourism expenditures in North Carolina. The coast of North Carolina is 

almost exclusively a barrier island system stretching over 300 miles and a mixture of private 

holding, wildlife refuges, and parks. South of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay is Virginia 

Beach, one of the most popular tourist destinations in the Mid-Atlantic. 

Military. Important DOD facilities are located in the vicinity, including U.S. naval and air force 

facilities. The Virginia Capes Operations Area is used for training, testing and evaluations by 

the Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps. The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 

Wallops Flight Facility operates a Research Range off of Virginia’s Eastern Shore. It is utilized 

by several Federal Government and DOD tenants. The range is also used by the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Spaceport, an economic development through aerospace projects and commercial space 

launch operations. 
105

Warning and operating areas of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet are offshore Norfolk, Virginia and extend 

northward to the Narragansett Bay Operating Area. Six submarine lanes and portions of two 

Fleet operating areas (Virginia Capes and Cherry Point Operating Areas) are offshore North 

Carolina. Operating areas are normally established in areas with superadjacent airspace 

designated as a warning area. A warning area includes airspace of defined dimensions outside of 

U.S. territorial waters in which a hazard to aircraft exists. 

Operations off the Virginia Capes Operating Area include gunnery exercises, airborne mine 

countermeasures, general subsurface operations, surface-to-air weapon delivery including 

strafing, rockets and bombs, and antisubmarine rocket and torpedo firing. Activities in the 

Cherry Point Operating Area are primarily air oriented. Air Force activities include readiness 

training for tactical fighters and interceptor aircrafts, refueling operations, basic fighter 

maneuvering, air combat training, and air-to-air intercepts. The NASA uses the Wallops Island 

Flight Test Center in Virginia. 

Commercial Space Flight. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, Virginia’s commercial space 

flight facility, is located at the Wallops Flight Facility. 

Nonenergy Marine Mineral Activities. Sand has been dredged from a number of offshore 

areas in both state and Federal waters for beach nourishment. All of these areas are less than 10 

miles from shore. In addition, large deposits of gravel, salt, phosphate, calcium carbonate, 

manganese, titanium, and other industrial minerals have been identified in the Atlantic OCS. 

Between 1995 and 2006, several states in the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS have benefited from 

OCS resources. The states of South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Florida used over 23 MM 

cubic yards of OCS sand for coastal restoration and protection efforts. The MMS funded a large 

number of studies that identified sand resources in the OCS and studies that investigated the 

impacts associated with sand removal and placement. Maintenance of beaches is a high priority 

with Maryland and since 1988, over ten MM cubic yards of sand has been placed on the beaches 

from Ocean City northward to the Delaware line. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps Engineers 

and the National Park Service recently completed restoration work on Assateague Island 

beaches. In 1996, OCS sand was used to nourish the beach and construct a berm to protect the 

U.S. Navy’s Combat Training Facility at Dam Neck against severe impacts caused by hurricanes. 

A total of 4 MM cubic yards of OCS sands have been used to restore Virginia beaches. Other 

Mid-Atlantic states have investigated suitable sources of OCS sand in lieu of diminishing 

onshore sources and will likely request leases for this material in the future. 

Alternative Energy. The EPAct gave the Secretary of the Interior responsibility for regulating 

federal offshore alternative energy projects. The MMS will accept for review new applications 

for OCS alternative energy projects only once the programmatic regulations are in place. The 

EPAct also gave the Secretary of the Interior responsibility for two proposed offshore alternative 

energy projects, the Cape Wind project offshore Massachusetts and the Long Island Offshore 

Wind Park offshore New York. Each project’s application and supporting information are being 

reviewed and environmental evaluations are being prepared. 
106

Conclusions 

The size, timing, and location of lease sales in the PFP are generally consistent with the variety 

of other uses of the OCS described above. The principal potential areas of conflict involve 

Alaska native whaling and subsistence activities and military needs in parts of the GOM and in 

the Mid-Atlantic. The PFP restricts or defers identified areas as appropriate to resolve these 

conflicts. Other uses of the OCS that may affect particular tracts considered for leasing, such as 

alternative energy uses, are more appropriately addressed and managed at the lease sale stage 

rather than in the PFP. 

References 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Information and databases 

on fisheries landings. Internet website, latest data for 2004: 

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html 

D. Laws, Goals, and Policies of Affected States

The MMS asked the governors of affected states to identify laws, goals, and policies of their 

states as relevant matters for consideration in the PFP. The Governor of Virginia was the only 

governor to respond. Virginia’s comments led to the selection of the 50-mile buffer option for 

the part of the Mid-Atlantic area addressed in the PFP. 

E. Balancing Considerations under Section 18 

Introduction 

Section 18(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary to “select the timing and location of leasing, to 

the maximum extent practicable, so as to obtain a proper balance between the potential for 

environmental damage, the potential for the discovery of oil and gas, and the potential for 

adverse impact on the coastal zone.” Striking this balance based on a consideration of the 

principles and factors enumerated in section 18(a) is essentially a matter of judgment for which 

no ready formula exists. Section 18 requires the consideration of a broad range of principles and 

factors rather than imposing an inflexible formula for making decisions. Thus, previous 5-year 

programs have scheduled as many as 37 lease sales in 22 planning areas and as few as 16 sales in 

8 planning areas. 

Some of the factors that section 18 specifies for consideration are embodied in the benefit-cost 

analysis, i.e., resource potential and certain environmental values. Others are not as readily 

quantifiable and are therefore described qualitatively. For example, environmental 

considerations such as aesthetics or concerns for certain species are extremely difficult to 

translate into accurate economic estimates. In order to provide the Secretary full and appropriate 

information for the PFP decision, this document is supplemented by relevant NEPA documents 

and other analyses that present information relating to such environmental factors and other 

qualitative considerations. This information, which is identified in part II, is incorporated by 

reference. 
107

Judicial Guidance 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has elaborated in great detail on the statutory 

criteria for the balancing decision required by section 18(a)(3). Pertinent excerpts from the 

Court’s opinions on litigation concerning previous 5-year programs are presented below. 

The Court has stated the following concerning the weight to be accorded the three elements of 

section 18(a)(3). 

That the Act has an objective—the expeditious development of OCS resources—

persuades us to reject petitioners’ view that the three elements in section 18(a)(3) 

are “equally important” and that no factor is “inherently more important than 

another.” The environmental and coastal zone considerations are undoubtedly 

important, but the Act does not require they receive a weight equal to that of 

potential oil and gas discovery. A balancing of factors is not the same as treating 

all factors equally. The obligation instead is to look at all factors and then 

balance the results. The Act does not mandate any particular balance, but vests 

the Secretary with discretion to weigh the elements so as to “best meet national 

energy needs.” The weight of these elements may well shift with changes in 

technology, in environment, and in the Nation’s energy needs, meaning that the 

proper balance for 1980-1985 may differ from the proper balance for some 

subsequent five-year period. (California I, 668 F.2d at 1317) 

The following three statements of the Court pertain to the analysis of the section 18 factors and 

the Secretary’s discretion in weighing the results of that analysis: 

(1) The Act recognized the difficult burden the Secretary must shoulder by 

stating that the selection of timing and location of leasing must strike the proper 

balance “to the maximum extent practicable.” The Secretary must evaluate oil 

and gas potential, which can be quantified in monetary terms, in conjunction 

with environmental and social costs, which do not always lend themselves to 

direct measurement. Because of this, they must be considered in qualitative as 

well as quantitative terms. 

Although the secretarial discretion we have described is broad, as a result of both 

the general wording of the statute and the nature of the task the Secretary is asked 

to perform, the Secretary’s discretion is not unreviewable. The policies and 

purposes of the Act provide standards by which we may determine whether the 

Secretary’s decision was arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to the requirements of 

the Act. To do so, we consider “whether the decision was based on a 

consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of 

judgment.” (California I, 668 F.2d at 1317) 

(2) In deciding whether to include an area, the Secretary weighed qualitative 

factors as well as quantitative factors. The Secretary listed among qualitative 

factors “national security, industry interest, and equitable sharing of 

development costs and benefits.” The OCSLA specifically directs the Secretary 

to weigh such qualitative factors in his balance. 
108

Taking qualitative factors into account implies that the inclusion of areas with a 

calculated NSV of zero may nonetheless be compatible with section 18(a)(3). 

(NRDC, 865 F.2d at 307) 

(3) The Secretary must make a good-faith effort to balance environmental and 

economic interests. So long as he proceeds reasonably, however, his decisions 

warrant our respect. (NRDC, 865 F.2d at 308-309) 

Other Considerations 

Other relevant considerations that have implications for balancing environmental and 

socioeconomic issues and concerns with potential benefits of OCS activity are discussed in this 

document, the Final EIS prepared for the 5-year program for 2007-2012, and in other referenced 

documents. Such considerations are summarized below. 

Findings and Purposes of the OCS Lands Act. Title I of the Act Amendments of 1978 sets 

forth a number of findings and purposes with respect to managing OCS resources. Those 

principles generally pertain to recognizing national energy needs and related circumstances and 

addressing them by developing OCS oil and gas resources in a safe and efficient manner that 

provides for environmental protection; fair and equitable returns to the public; state and local 

participation in policy and planning decisions; and resolution of conflicts related to other ocean 

and coastal resources and uses. 

Industry Interest. Interest, as indicated in the comments responding to both the DPP and PP, is 

summarized above. Industry interest is a key criterion for deciding whether to propose an area 

for a lease sale. However, it is not the sole and absolute indicator of the potential of an area to 

contribute oil and gas resources for regional and national use. Therefore, as with all of the 

balancing information discussed in this part, industry interest should be weighed with other 

considerations in deciding where and when to propose OCS leasing. The presentation of size, 

timing, and location options in part III includes discussions of industry interest along with other 

significant considerations. Summaries of all industry comments are provided in the appendix. 

Information Incorporated by Reference. Documents pertaining to geographical, geological, 

and ecological characteristics, to local and national energy markets and needs, and to 

environmental and predictive information, as cited in part II, are incorporated by reference. 

Issues Raised in Comments. All comments received in response to the PP are summarized in 

the appendix. Those that correspond more specifically to program options are described in 

part III. 

Conclusions

The OCS holds vast potential for discovery and production of oil and gas, as outlined in previous 

sections above. In new areas to be offered (the Chukchi Sea and the North Aleutian Basin), 

further exploration is needed to determine the full extent of natural gas and oil resources. In 

designing the PFP, the DOI has relied on the best available environmental and hydrocarbon 

resource assessment information. The potential for environmental damage and the potential 

effects on the coastal zone of the respective areas considered for leasing have been explored 

exhaustively in the final EIS for the 5-year program for 2007-2012 (April 2007), which has 
109

been incorporated by reference. The potential for safe and environmentally sound resource 

development and the extent of the Nation’s energy needs far outweigh the risk and likelihood of 

significant environmental damage, and warrant continuation of a regular and dependable leasing 

program on the OCS. At the same time, the PFP seeks to accommodate the recommendations of 

state and local governments and the policies of affected jurisdictions. All of these factors are 

reflected in the size, timing, and location of lease sales in the PFP. 

F. Assurance of Fair Market Value 

Introduction

The 5-year program includes general provisions for assuring the receipt of fair market value in 

accordance with section 18(a)(4). Those provisions pertain to setting a minimum bid level and to 

maintaining a process for reviewing the adequacy of bids received for OCS oil and gas leases. In 

addition to the minimum bid requirement and bid adequacy process, the MMS establishes lease 

terms and conditions to assure receipt of fair market value. Those more specific measures are 

designed and implemented based on regular reviews and evaluations that are independent of the 

5-year program preparation process. 

Minimum Bid Requirement 

The minimum bid levels that currently apply to GOM OCS lease sales are $25 per acre in water 

depths of less than 400 meters and $37.50 per acre in water depths of 400 meters or greater. 

(Leases in water depths of 400 meters or greater have a 10-year primary term.) On the Alaska 

OCS, recent minimum bid levels differ by planning area and are $25 per hectare (around $10 per 

acre) in the Cook Inlet and $25 per hectare in Zone B or $37.50 per hectare (around $15 per acre) 

in Zone A in the Beaufort Sea. 

Bid Adequacy Process

The 5-year program for 2007-2012 continues the two-phase post-sale process for determining bid 

adequacy that essentially has been in effect since 1983. The process was instituted with the 

implementation of the areawide leasing policy and has undergone several refinements to address 

specific concerns pertaining to fair market value. The most recent revision was published in the 

Federal Register on July 12, 1999 (64 FR 37560). 

The bid adequacy process now in effect consists of two phases for distinguishing those bids that 

reflect competitive market forces assuring receipt of fair market value and those that require 

further detailed analysis. A more detailed description of the existing bid adequacy process—

Summary of Procedures for Determining Bid Adequacy at Offshore Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 

Effective July 1999, with Sale 174—is available on the internet at 

www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/lsesale/fmv/74-3.pdf. 

The bid evaluation methodology now in use has proven over many years to be a reliable and 

accurate instrument for assuring that the United States receives fair market value in the lease 

issuance process. Bonus bids and payments necessarily will vary depending on geologic 

evaluations and the anticipated likelihood of commercial discoveries, royalty rates, royalty relief, 
110

and other factors that are particular to a specific lease sale and to specific tracts, all of which are 

taken into account in the evaluation of bonus bids. Should circumstances change in ways that 

make reconsideration of the bid evaluation methodology appropriate, that methodology can be 

revised without an amendment to this program. 

G. Appropriations and Staffing Estimates 

Section 18(b) of the Act requires that the leasing program include estimates of the appropriations 

and staff needed to obtain information for preparing the program, to analyze and interpret data 

and information, to conduct environmental studies and prepare EISs, and to supervise operations 

pursuant to the leases that will be issued. 

Table 12 presents the appropriations and staffing estimates associated with the proposed final 

5-year program for 2007-2012. 

TABLE 12: Appropriations and Staffing Estimates (by Fiscal Year) 

(Funding estimates are in thousands of dollars; staffing estimates are in 

full-time equivalent positions.) 

 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Activities Funds Staff Funds Staff Funds Staff Funds Staff Funds Staff Funds Staff 

1 15,807.6 127.1 15,049.6 121.1 15,057.6 121.1 15,100.6 123.1 15,100.6 123.1 15,100.6 123.1 

2 6,377.9 35 6,445.3 35.7 6,892.2 39.4 7,066.8 40.9 7,010.6 40.4 7,066.8 40.9 

3 14,898 117.7 15,996 126.2 17,431 137.2 16,181 127.2 14,931 117.2 16,681 131.2 

4 506.8 4 759 6 1,009 8 1,386.3 11 1,763.6 14 2,013.6 16 

(1.) Resource Information [section 18(b)(1)]; 

(2.) Exploration Data and Other Information [section 18(b)(2)]; 

(3.) Environmental Studies and EIS Preparation [section 18(b)(3)]; and 

(4.) Supervise Operations [section 18(b)(4)]. 
111

Appendix A 

Summary of Comments in Response to the August 25 and November 14, 2006, 

Federal Register Notices Concerning the Proposed 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program for 2007-2012 

Introduction 

Section 18 of the Act (43 U.S.C. 1344) requires the Department of the Interior to prepare a 

5-year OCS oil and natural gas leasing program. As an intermediate step in the preparation of 

the 5-year program for 2007-2012, the MMS issued two Federal Register Notice soliciting 

comments. This appendix is a summary of all comments received in response to those Notices. 

Due to the high number of responses, submittals have been condensed to express summaries of 

all of the ideas received by the MMS by responder category. Responder Categories are listed 

below along with the number of comments received in that Category. A Summary of Comments 

compiled by Category follows. 

Number of Comments by Category 

Governors, State Elected Officials, and State Agencies..................................19 

Local Governments, Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations .........................48 

Members of Congress and Federal Agencies...................................................13 

Environmental and Other Public Interest Organizations .................................34 

Oil and Gas Companies and Associations .......................................................44 

Non-Energy Industry Interests and Business Groups ......................................90 

General Public...........................................................................................73,417 

Total ..........................................................................................................73,665 

Summary of Comments by Category 

Governors, State Elected Officials, and State Agencies 

The State of Alaska provided a 3-page submission containing strong support for the program and 

advising MMS that the Alaska OCS could play a significant role in meeting future U.S. energy 

supply needs. In the comments, the Governor thanks MMS for following State of Alaska 

recommendations submitted in response to the PP, to the extent MMS did so. The Governor 

supports the proposed leasing programs in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas contained in the PP. 

The Governor supports special interest sales Options for the Cook Inlet planning area. The 

Governor is disappointed that the PP does not include special interest sales for the Hope Basin 

and Norton Basin. The Governor states that oil and gas activities must minimize conflicts with 

fishing interests and there must be significant stakeholder consultation. The Governor discusses 

the Bristol Bay fisheries and the North Aleutian Basin planning area, and reiterates that lease 

sales should be limited to the Sale 92 portion of the North Aleutian Basin. Draft EIS comments 

are sent under separate cover and addressed in the Final EIS. 
112

Alabama Department of Environmental Management supports the Governor’s comments in 

response to the draft EIS that the MMS Federal leasing program be contingent on all OCS 

activities in waters adjacent to Alabama's coast being carried out in full compliance with 

Alabama laws and in a manner consistent with Alabama's coastal program. Specifically, it 

emphasizes the Governor's opposition to offering of blocks south and within 15 miles of the 

Baldwin County, Alabama coast. Sensitive environments in the OCS off of Alabama's coast 

are also of major concern, specifically with respect to the live bottom areas, pinnacle reefs, 

chemosynthetic communities, and other sensitive environments in the OCS off Alabama's coast. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control supports the current 

Congressional moratoria and Presidential withdrawal on oil and gas lease sales on the Atlantic 

OCS. A sale proposed in 2011 is contradictory given the prohibitions against such activities. 

The State of Florida’s Governor writes that the MMS proposal contains some short-term 

protection for Florida. However, the State seeks a long-term strategy, specifically, a permanent 

ban on leasing in the State and Federal waters within 100 miles of the coast, including the 

“stovepipe” previously in the Eastern GOM and east of the military line to ensure that armed 

services can achieve missions. This comment continues to oppose the new administrative 

boundary line to define the area for federal consistency review pursuant to the CZMA. 

Louisiana House of Representative Lolan Pitre discusses the Port Fourchon area as a support 

base and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port operations as adding to the stress points for onshore 

infrastructure. 

The State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources comments primarily on the draft EIS, 

and includes a number of suggestions on the proposed 5-year leasing program. The State urges 

MMS to expand the areas offered for sale and/or assessment and to provide for adequate sharing 

of federal mineral revenues with the States. The focus of the draft EIS comments is on the 

information needed for Consistency Determinations under the program. The State views the 

process as deflecting informed analysis until very late in the process and deferring until a 

subsequent stage, any meaningful analysis. This is a programmatic trend that the State feels can 

no longer be justified. The State objects to the trend of developing theoretical environmental 

documents with respect to OCS oil and gas activities and favors actual analysis in connection 

with proposed activities, as essential to an accurate assessment of the impacts associated with 

future OCS leasing. Absent a complete vetting of the issues and positions expressed by the 

State, documentations supporting MMS activities may be insufficient for the State to move 

forward under the CZMA. As a consequence of the draft EIS deferring actual discussion of 

impacts to the lease sale stage, the State is constrained in its ability to comment under section 18 

of the Act, until it has had an opportunity to review the multi-sale EIS for the GOM. This 

procedural gap leads the State to propose a short hiatus in leasing in the GOM until adequate 

information has been developed. The State's policy to ensure that any future leasing activity is 

fully mitigated is limited by insufficient federal assessments. The MMS must address how its PP 

will affect the State's coastal zone management program, and the State suggests that MMS do 

this by undertaking a revised draft EIS. 

State of Louisiana Senator Reggie Dupre provides a discussion of the onshore impacts of oil and 

gas activities and the importance of mitigation funding and revenue sharing. 
113

Maryland Department of the Environment comments on behalf of the Governor. The Secretary 

notes that the proposed plan includes the mid-Atlantic sale off the coast of Virginia. 

Michigan House Representative Gaffney strongly supports production in the OCS and urges the 

MMS to present a more extensive program. 

The Governor of New Jersey supports the existing moratoria and Presidential withdrawal. The 

Governor further comments that the proposed special interest sale in the Mid-Atlantic violates 

the letter and the spirit of the moratoria and even proposed activities along the Atlantic coast are 

not to be federally funded. Lastly, the Governor comments that the program option that New 

Jersey supports is “no sale” for a possible offshore Virginia lease offering. New Jersey does not 

agree with the 25-mile buffer and no-obstruction zone as they are insufficient to protect the State 

New Jersey will continue to have a direct interest in any proposed resource evaluation in the 

Mid-Atlantic region. 

North Carolina Department of Administration took a position in opposition to MMS planning in 

the Mid-Atlantic. Specifically, North Carolina continues to support a moratorium on offshore oil 

and gas activity and points out that its citizens are directed toward reducing their energy needs. 

North Carolina's Governor reiterates his objection to the proposed OCS oil and gas leasing 

program for 2007-2012 stating that it includes a possible special interest lease sale off the 

Virginia coast in 2011. This comment concludes that the coasts of North Carolina and Virginia 

are highly environmentally sensitive areas. The addition of a 25-mile buffer is not sufficient to 

mitigate the possible impacts. The Governor restates North Carolina's longstanding support for 

the Congressional moratorium and the Presidential withdrawal and respectfully requests that any 

sale off the Virginia coast be removed from consideration. 

North Carolina State Representative Pryor Gibson strongly supports the most expansive and 

acceptable plan possible. This letter notes the hurricanes of 2005 are a “wake-up” call, and cites 

Energy Information Agency estimates of the U.S. reserves. 

The Governor of Texas and the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office strongly 

support expanded leasing of the OCS. They do not support the reconfiguration of the planning 

area boundaries announced in January 2006. The change in boundaries does not reflect the total 

costs to state infrastructure and state natural resources. Adverse financial impacts to Texas are 

not acceptable. 

The Chairman of the Texas House Committee on Energy Resources Buddy West supports 

leasing in all available areas and urges MMS to expand the plan to include any areas with oil and 

gas potential. This comment supports revenue sharing, and environmentally sound development. 

Virginia's Secretaries of Commerce and Trade and of Natural Resources, on behalf of the 

Governor, respond to the plan's option to hold a special interest sale in OCS waters offshore 

Virginia, by restating portions of the state policy as set forth in state legislation. Specifically, 

Virginia supports Federal efforts to determine the extent of natural gas resources 50 miles or 

more offshore. The Commonwealth finds the PP inconsistent with its policy in four respects. 
114

First, MMS should include areas in the whole of the Atlantic Planning area, not just off the shore 

of one state. Second, Virginia policy only addresses natural gas, not oil. Third, Virginia policy 

only addresses exploration, not production as set forth in the PP. Lastly, the PP excludes a 25-

mile buffer zone, whereas the Virginia policy calls for a 50-mile minimum setback. Virginia 

urges MMS to modify its planning to be fully consistent with the Virginia policy or remove the 

Virginia planning areas from the plan entirely. Virginia also objects to the use of equidistance to 

determine the state administrative boundary. 

By letter dated February 22, 2007, the Governor of Virginia reiterated the Commonwealth’s 

energy policy, but asked that the DOI consider keeping Virginia in the program in a way that 

comports with the Commonwealth’s policy. 

Local Governments, Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations 

Akiak Native Community, Alaska, opposes MMS planning in the North Aleutian Basin based on 

spiritual, subsistence, historical and economic facts submitted in Resolution 06-11-21. 

Akutan Traditional Council, Alaska, provided Resolution No. 2007-02 supporting oil and gas 

leasing in the North Aleutian Basin and recommending that the 1998 Presidential withdrawal 

prohibiting leasing for a small portion of the North Aleutian Basin be withdrawn. Resolution 

2007-02 requests federal funding and adequate lease stipulations to address social and 

environmental affects. 

The Aleut Corporation, Alaska, submits Resolution No. 06-13 to support oil and gas leasing in 

the North Aleutian Basin. 

Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association, Alaska, seeks employment 

opportunities for the region, and supports MMS proposed planning, including the North Aleutian 

Basin for oil and gas exploration. Requests to mitigate and consult are extremely detailed. 

Support is contingent on adherence to each element of Res. 07-001. 

Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association, Alaska, seeks employment 

opportunities for the region, and supports MMS including the North Aleutian Basin for oil and 

gas exploration. Draft EIS comments are extensive. 

Aleutians East Borough (AEB), Alaska, attached Resolution No. 07-09 and submitted comments 

that support oil and gas leasing in the OCS of the North Aleutian Basin, provided maximum 

protection is given to fishery resources and lease stipulations are included to safeguard local 

interests. The AEB finds serious problems with the draft EIS, and seeks collaboration for 

mitigation. The MMS is charged with taking a national perspective, not a perspective focused on 

only local needs and MMS must take in to account the recent economic declines in the 

commercial fishing industry and balance current needs with alternative economic opportunities 

and environmental protection. Federal funding should be allocated for studies addressing local 

features, concerns and risks. Mutually agreeable state and federal approaches to assuring fair 

market value is a priority and MMS should eliminate all barriers to competition by providing as 

much data as possible when advertising lease availability. 
115

Aleutians West Borough, Alaska, supports expanded offshore leasing during 2007-2012. This 

coastline is described as adjacent to the North Aleutian Basin and the comment describes the 

landings, harvesting and other local uses. The comment urges MMS to increase revenue sharing 

and work with communities. 

Belkofski Tribal Council, Alaska, supports MMS planning for the North Aleutian Basin provided 

maximum protection for the fisheries resources and other natural resource assets. This group 

would like an additional lease sale in 2009 to expedite development of baseline studies and 

environmental assessments. 

City of Cold Bay, Alaska, provided Resolution No. 07-08 specifically addressing its support for 

oil and gas leasing in the North Aleutian Basin provided certain protections and stipulations are 

included requiring companies to employ residents of the Aleutians East Borough. Additional 

recommendations include a request for federal funding. 

City of False Pass, Alaska, provided Resolution No. 07-03 that supports oil and gas leasing in the 

North Aleutian Basin and recommends that the 1998 Presidential withdrawal prohibiting leasing 

for a small portion of the North Aleutian Basin be withdrawn. Resolution 07-03 requests federal 

funding and adequate lease stipulations to address social and environmental affects. 

The City of Kaktovik, Alaska, opposes the MMS program and has concerns that the EIS is 

inadequate. 

City of Kenai, Alaska, unanimously passed Resolution 2006-57 supporting sensible and 

responsible access to oil and gas resources. 

City of King Cove, Alaska, provided Resolution No. 06-17 that supports oil and gas leasing in 

the North Aleutian Basin and recommends that the 1998 Presidential withdrawal prohibiting 

leasing for a small portion of the North Aleutian Basin be withdrawn. Resolution 06-17 requests 

federal funding and adequate lease stipulations to address social and environmental affects. 

City of Sand Point, Alaska, supports the MMS proposed 5-year plan and sent Resolution 06-10 

confirming its support for oil and gas leasing in the North Aleutian Basin, provided conditions 

such as federal funding, environmental protection, adequate stipulations, and consultation be in 

place. 

City of Wasilla, Alaska, submitted Resolution Serial No. 06-49 supports MMS Planning 

Proposals. 

Curyung Tribal Council, Alaska, submitted Resolution 2003-16 in opposition to OCS 92 Lease 

sale and in opposition to the current OCS planning proposals published by the MMS. 

Eastern Aleutian Tribes, Inc, Alaska supports MMS planning with Resolution No. 2006-13. 

Egegik Tribal Council, Alaska is opposed to MMS planning related to Bristol Bay. The reasons 

are stated in Resolution # 06-06, that the estimated reserves are too low to justify the resulting 

damage to the local habitats of marine life and the changes to the local residential communities. 
116

Isanotski Corporation, Alaska, supports MMS planning for the North Aleutian Basin provided 

maximum protection for the fisheries resources and other natural resource assets. 

Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, supports the inclusion of the two Cook Inlet Lease Sales in 

the 2007-2012 program in Resolution 2001-127 that adopted these 5 principles: No offshore 

loading of tankers; specific plans to minimize and avoid commercial fishing gear conflicts; oil 

exploration companies must have adequate spill prevention and response capability; 

identification of critical habitat areas; provisions for local government revenue sharing. 

Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska, submitted Resolution No FY2007-13 providing that the Kodiak 

Island Borough confirms its support for MMS planning for 2007-2012. 

Kongiganak Traditional Council, Alaska, submitted Resolution 06-10-01 to show opposition to 

opening Bristol Bay to offshore oil and gas leasing because of the high risk for harm to the 

marine resources and way of life. The resolution urges the MMS to maintain the current status 

of Bristol Bay as withdrawn from the Federal OCS programs and to remove it from the proposal 

for 2007-2012. 

Kotlik Tribal Council, Alaska, requests the leasing program for Bristol Bay OCS oil and gas 

leasing to be excluded from the Plan. They submitted a resolution opposing the MMS planning 

and urging more dialogue to protect the OCS and specifically Bristol Bay, which is a critical 

habitat, from oil and gas exploration. 

Manokotak Village Council, Alaska, submits Resolution 06-05 to show opposition to opening 

Bristol Bay to offshore oil and gas leasing because of the high risk for harm to the marine 

resources and way of life. The resolution urges the MMS to maintain the current status of Bristol 

Bay as withdrawn from the Federal OCS programs and to remove it from the proposal for 2007-

2012. 

Native Village of Ekuk, Alaska, submits Resolution 06-17 to show opposition to opening Bristol 

Bay to offshore oil and gas leasing because of the high risk for harm to the marine resources and 

way of life. The resolution urges the MMS to maintain the current status of Bristol Bay as 

withdrawn from the Federal OCS programs and to remove it from the proposal for 2007-2012. 

Native Village of Goodnews Bay, Alaska, submits Resolution 06-10-01 to show opposition to 

opening Bristol Bay to offshore oil and gas leasing because of the high risk for harm to the 

marine resources and way of life. The resolution urges the MMS to maintain the current status 

of Bristol Bay as withdrawn from the Federal OCS programs and to remove it from the proposal 

for 2007-2012. 

Native Village of Nunam, Alaska, requests the leasing program for Bristol Bay OCS oil and gas 

leasing not is included in the program. Resolution #06-24 is enclosed along with letters and 

policy documents opposing OCS oil and gas exploration. 

Native Village of Nunapitchu, Alaska submits Resolution 06-11-01 to show opposition to 

opening Bristol Bay to offshore oil and gas leasing because of the high risk for harm to the 

marine resources and way of life. The resolution urges the MMS to maintain the current status 

of Bristol Bay as withdrawn from the Federal OCS programs and to remove it from the proposal 

for 2007-2012. 
117

Nelson Lagoon Tribal Council, Alaska provided Resolution No. 20-06 supporting oil and gas 

leasing in the North Aleutian Basin and recommends that the 1998 Presidential withdrawal 

prohibiting leasing for a small portion of the North Aleutian Basin be withdrawn. Resolution 

20-06 urges that an additional lease sale be held in year 2009 to expedite development of this 

important national gas supply, requests federal funding, adequate lease stipulations to address 

social and environmental affects. 

North Slope Borough, Alaska, submitted comments containing specific information about the 

history of comments from the Borough and the testimony provided on a number of relevant 

topics. Long-standing strenuous objections are referenced for the 5 sales scheduled in the area. 

Comments on the 2002-2007 program are referenced, namely the deferral of entire Alaska Arctic 

planning areas and area deferrals within planning areas. While not advocating that withdrawn 

areas be placed in consideration, the comment questions why they are off-limits while the 

Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea planning areas are not. The Borough notes that oil and 

gas developed in Alaska is not prohibited from export and that Alaskan oil has been exported 

to Asian markets. This comment contains environmental concerns, including concerns for the 

human environment, concerns that subsistence harvests will suffer from proximity to seismic 

programs, and concerns about a full range of environmental impacts. Deferral areas were 

understood not to be considered during development of the 5-year program, but the Borough 

argues that discussion over deferral areas for each lease sale is a waste of time and that these 

areas could be permanently removed from leasing. Furthermore, the EIS is flawed and 

inadequate and should not be used. Additional comments include the failure to identify 

meaningful alternatives to the full planning area leasing proposal, failures in “development 

scenarios,” failed oil spill risk estimates, and a general overstatement of technological 

capabilities. 

North Slope Borough, Alaska, Department of Wildlife Management’s comments provide new 

data and find that MMS materials are lacking in current information. By including new 

references, this comment hopes to show that the rankings provided by MMS in the draft EIS 

tables are flawed and the MMS discussion of the relevant issues must be updated to take into 

account the more current information. 

Ohogamiut Traditional Council, Alaska, submits Resolution 06-24 to show opposition to 

opening Bristol Bay to offshore oil and gas leasing because of the high risk for harm to the 

marine resources and way of life. The resolution urges the MMS to maintain the current status 

of Bristol Bay as withdrawn from the Federal OCS programs and to remove it from the proposal 

for 2007-2012. 

Pauloff Harbor Tribe, Alaska, Environmental Advisory Committee, supports inclusion of a small 

portion of the North Aleutian Planning area, limited to the area previously described and leased 

by the MMS during the 1985 as Sale 92. Citing job opportunities, expanded local infrastructure 

and improved air transportation systems and marine harbors, Pauloff Harbor makes the case for 

positive impacts on the community. This comment urges the MMS to provide support for people 

after oil and gas are depleted and to provide federal funds for studies. Pauloff Harbor supports 

lifting the moratorium for the offshore leasing in the North Aleutian Basin. 
118

Platinum Traditional Village, Alaska, Resolution 06-21 is submitted to show opposition to 

opening Bristol Bay to offshore oil and gas leasing because of the high risk for harm to the 

marine resources and way of life. The resolution urges the MMS to maintain the current status 

of Bristol Bay as withdrawn from the Federal OCS programs and to remove it from the proposal 

for 2007-2012. 

Shumagin Corporation, Alaska, submits Resolution No. 2006-05 confirming its support for oil 

and gas leasing in the North Aleutian Basin and recommends that the Governor of Alaska 

request the President of the United States eliminate the 1998 withdrawal prohibiting oil and gas 

leasing for a small portion of the North Aleutian Basin (Sale 92). Federal funding is requested 

and lease stipulations should be in place as needed. 

Twin Hills Village Council, Alaska, submits Resolution 04-01 to show opposition to opening 

Bristol Bay to offshore oil and gas leasing because of the high risk for harm to the marine 

resources and way of life. The resolution urges the MMS to maintain the current status of 

Bristol Bay as withdrawn from the Federal OCS programs and to remove it from the proposal 

for 2007-2012. 

Town of Glen Allen, Alabama, supports the MMS planning and urges it to develop new supplies 

of oil and clean-burning natural gas. 

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Florida, found that the MMS planning proposal was 

“not in conflict or inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan.” 

Unga Tribal Council, Alaska, confirms its support for the MMS proposed 5-year plan with 

Resolution 06-10. This comment calls for localities and states adjacent to offshore leasing zones 

to be provided with a fair share of the revenues and all development activities to be conducted 

within safe environmental standards. The tribe should be included in all EIS discussions. 

West Florida Regional Planning Council finds the program generally consistent with the Council 

Strategic Regional Policy Plan. However, a finding of consistency with this Policy Plan does not 

denote approval. 

Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, submits the view that lease sales lead to activities that require 

mitigation. It is necessary to readjust the economies of OCS revenue sharing. Support for OCS 

activities is contingent on revenue sharing. 

St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, supports greater access to the Nation's offshore oil and natural gas 

resources during the 2007-2012 time frame, while also urging the MMS to ensure that landbased impacts from this activity be adequately identified and mitigated. Revenue sharing is 

important to this commenter. 
119

Terrebonne Levee & Conservation District, Louisiana, supports MMS on the proposed 5-year 

leasing plan, but is extremely concerned with the use of revenues generated by oil and gas 

activities. Local communities do not receive adequate compensation to mitigate the heavy 

impacts of supporting the oil and gas industry. This commenter's support is contingent on the 

State of Louisiana and Terrebonne Parish receiving significant additional revenue sharing off the 

coast in federal waters. 

County of Ocean, New Jersey, provided information that the Ocean County Board of Chosen 

Freeholders adopted a resolution opposing the development or production of oil or natural gas 

off the Mid-Atlantic Coast and supporting a permanent ban on exploration and drilling off the 

New Jersey coastline. 

Members of Congress and Federal Agencies 

California Representative Lois Capps is strongly opposed to the MMS 5-year proposal. 

Congresswoman Capps urges the MMS to support bipartisan policies and to reject any proposal 

to allow oil and gas leasing in areas now off limits to development. Appropriations committee 

bills have reaffirmed the longstanding Congressional ban on new offshore drilling and these 

actions have met with public acclaim. There are abundant alternative resources for energy and 

we are moving ahead with a range of new options and conservation methods. Appreciating that 

drilling technologies are advancing is not enough to justify new drilling. 

U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey, provided a statement at the public meeting in 

Atlantic City, NJ. The Senator's spokesperson emphasized the need to protect the marine areas 

off the coast of New Jersey. He opposed the plan to include Virginia areas in the Plan. 

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, New Jersey, provided a statement at the public meeting in 

Atlantic City. The Senator's spokesperson emphasized strong opposition to the Plan and the 

need to protect the marine areas off the coast of New Jersey. He opposes the plan to include 

Virginia areas in the PP. 

Members of the New Jersey Congressional delegation sent views opposing the provisions in the 

MMS proposal that would open the OCS off the coast of Virginia for oil and gas drilling. 

Similarly, commenters requested more hearings in New Jersey. 

Comments were provided on behalf of New Jersey Congressmen LoBiondo and Saxton at the 

public meeting in Atlantic City. The spokespersons emphasized the need to protect the marine 

areas off the coast of New Jersey, and opposition to the plan to include Virginia areas in the PP. 

Congressman Smith, New Jersey, thanked the MMS for conducting a public meeting in Atlantic 

City. Mr. Smith opposes the development of OCS leases off the Virginia coast and supports the 

moratorium. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy supports MMS’s development of the 

proposed 5-year plan, particularly the proposal to continue the annual offering of all the acreage

in the Central and Western GOM, proposals related to the OCS in Alaska, and efforts to pursue 

resource characterization and estimations in all OCS areas, including those currently under 

moratoria, as directed by the EPAct of 2005. The DOE supports more flexibility in the new plan 

and urges MMS to consider advances in technology in assessing resource potential in the OCS 
120

and in assessing environmental impacts of future development. Cooperation between the states 

and the Federal government was stated as a goal in the development of ocean resources. The 

DOE does not recommend that MMS consider issuing gas-only leases. 

Department of Interior (DOI), Office of Policy Analysis, describes the policies in the PP as to 

energy needs, environmental issues, lease timing and location, balancing. Specific reference is 

made to departmental Trust issues and methodologies found in the analysis. Policy issues are 

discussed at length and MMS is urged to reconcile varied statements in specific footnotes 

contained in the proposed plan. 

Environmental Protection Agency comments focus entirely on the draft EIS with special 

attention to the analysis of potential impacts. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) provided technical data on restricted 

airspace and a map in opposition to the MMS plan off Virginia, including conflicts with range 

hazard areas, adjacent DOD designated warning areas, and target missions related to the Wallops 

Flight Facility off the coast of Virginia. The NASA outlines risk factors including safety risks, 

risk to high value equipment, increased ship and air traffic, presence of undersea equipment, 

risks to surface skimming missiles. General operational concerns were enumerated and NASA 

support for U.S. Navy missions was described. 

The Department of the Navy supports the Mid-Atlantic/Virginia areas of the proposal that reflect 

changes such as the 25-mile buffer. However, the Navy must oppose the special interest sale in 

the Mid-Atlantic because it is inconsistent with the military needs in the area. The Navy foresees 

no OCS-use conflicts within the lease sale areas proposed for the Alaska Planning Areas and 

only minimal conflicts with the proposed lease sale areas in the GOM. The Virginia Capes 

(VACAPES) Operations Areas are located within the MMS proposed area, where the Navy's 

training and test and evaluation community operates. Navy comments elaborate on DOD 

activities in this area and sets forth concerns related to oil and gas development activity. Lease 

stipulations for the Eastern GOM Sale 197 are provided. 

Environmental and Other Public Interest Organizations 

The Alaska Beluga Whale Committee comments focused entirely on the draft EIS. 

Alaska Center for the Environment commented on behalf of 16 groups (NRDC, Alaska 

Wilderness League, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Alaska Marine Conservation 

Council, The Wilderness Society, Pacific Environment, Alaska Coalition, Alaska Center for the 

Environment, Cook Inlet Keeper, Alaska Watch, Oceana, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, 

The Ocean Conservancy, Sierra Club, WWF). Consistent with comments from EarthJustice, 

Alaska Center for the Environment opposes MMS planning for the Alaska OCS, specifically 

North Aleutian Basin due to the fact that Bristol Bay is home to large populations of marine 

mammals. Closure decisions remain as strong today as at their inception just 10 years ago. 

EarthJustice and Alaska Center for the Environment oppose MMS planning in the Chukchi Sea 

due to concerns about the migratory patterns of whales, oil spill concerns, and important habitat 

considerations for polar bears and other animals. Noise disturbances are an issue of particular 

concern. The MMS has arbitrarily expanded access to the Chukchi Sea planning area and 

underestimated the sensitivity of the Chukchi shoreline. With respect to the Beaufort Sea, the 

MMS should not hold any more lease sales unless and until the industry demonstrates that it can 
121

clean up spilled oil. The MMS should exclude sensitive areas offshore of the National Petroleum 

Reserve Alaska. Cook Inlet supports vital fishing and therefore should be excluded. Also, the 

industry lacks interest in purchasing leases in this area thus, the MMS should not offer it for 

lease. No “special interest” sales should be offered. Seismic surveys are not impact-free and 

MMS should complete a comprehensive NEPA process in connection with seismic activities. 

Recent oil spills once again demonstrate that safety precautions are needed, as well as criminal 

investigation and reporting rules. Global warming must be considered by MMS, and the MMS 

should evaluate energy alternatives to new offshore oil and gas leasing. The groups elaborate on 

the draft EIS as deficient, lacking in scientific baseline data. This group supports the 25-mile 

boundary line. 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) is opposed to offshore oil and gas leasing 

because it appears that the program is not about the development of an environmentally sound 

leasing program, but about avoiding information that might be considered contrary to the 

Agency's leasing objectives. The MMS plan threatens the habitat and migratory patterns of the 

bowhead whale. If the whales become unavailable for native subsistence lifestyle, communities 

will be unable to provide for themselves. The Secretary must exclude the Chukchi Sea from the 

program for the sole reason that too little is known about that sea and its capacity to rebound 

from environmental pressures of leasing activity. With respect to MMS cumulative impacts 

analysis, the MMS must focus on vessel traffic noise effects and multiple simultaneous seismic 

operations. The Bureau of Land Management and the State of Alaska must be consulted. The 

MMS must work with AEWC to revise the “significance thresholds” it uses to decide whether 

impacts to subsistence communities are significant. The MMS is misapplying standards 

prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for determining the “significance” of 

the potential impacts of a proposed federal action. Selective compliance with CEQ regulations is 

unwarranted. Furthermore, the Secretary's obligations to balance exploitation of the resources of 

the Federal OCS with the welfare of the human environment mandate that he or she consider 

exclusion areas as well as areas to include in the program. The comments contain an attachment 

of the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management. The AEWC submitted 

additional statements at the November 16, 2006, hearing. The oral comment focused on the 

DEIS and primarily addressed whaling populations. The MMS plan threatens the habitat and 

migratory patterns of the bowhead whale. If the whales become unavailable for native 

subsistence lifestyle, communities will be unable to provide for themselves. 

Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC) participates in the third set of comments on the 

5-year leasing program. The AMCC is concerned about the potential ecological, cultural and 

economic impacts of offshore oil and gas development in the Bristol Bay and eastern Bering Sea. 

The concerns raised go well beyond concerns with the effects on the fisheries industry, to include 

the combined threats of oil and gas development on the unparalleled resources of marine and 

coastal Alaska and the communities that depend on them. The AMCC urges the MMS to 

maintain the Presidential withdrawal. Raising the concern of increasingly destructive storms in 

the eastern Bering Sea, and citing ecologically sensitive and economically important waters of 

Bristol Bay, AMCC urges the MMS to pursue policies that focus on conservation and 

renewables. Extensive remarks are directed to the draft EIS materials. 
122

Alaska Watch opposes MMS planning in the Alaska OCS and asks that MMS remove references 

to Bristol Bay and Chukchi Sea and reduce areas to be leased in Beaufort Sea. This comment 

cites spills to demonstrate the inability to control or minimize oil spills in Alaska due to weather 

and water conditions. 

Alaska Wilderness League opposes the MMS planning process and documents. The MMS is out 

of step with the rising tide of public concern for the Nation's coastal and ocean resources and the 

PP and draft EIS exhibit this attitude. The PP and the draft EIS threaten critically-important 

protected areas along the Alaska coast. The 5-year plan and the draft EIS are the wrong 

approach to an issue of growing international importance – global warming. The League 

recommends that MMS should join mainstream American values and cancel a number of 

specific lease sales. 

American Conservative Union, a conservative public interest group, supports MMS planning 

in all OCS regions. The Union urges the MMS to achieve an accelerated leasing program with 

additional acreage; appropriate OCS revenue-sharing with impacted states and local 

communities; and ensure environmental protection. 

Cascadia Wildlands Project Alaska Field Office strongly opposes the program and cites specific 

problems with the DEIS. Particular concerns center on the cumulative impacts, the alternatives 

and the risks to subsistence from allowing OCS drilling. Chronic sublethal doses of oil are 

harmful to salmon and other wildlife and this comment sees the role of Federal and state action 

to protect rather than exploit these resources. 

Center for Biological Diversity discusses at length the draft EIS and opposes MMS planning 

and sees oil and gas development as having site specific regional and global environmental 

impacts and risks. Greenhouse gas pollution is chief among the risks outlined in this comment. 

Requirements of the Endangered Species Act and NEPA are outlined. Furthermore the 

requirements of the Global Change Research Act are discussed with specific reference to 

scientific assessment. The Center hopes the MMS will produce an EIS that will fully and 

accurately analyze each of the project's environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas 

emissions and global warming. 

Center for Policy Research of New Jersey provided statements from the public meeting in 

Atlantic City. The Center's spokesperson supports the program and emphasized the need to 

craft a responsible national energy strategy, to protect the marine areas off the coast of New 

Jersey, and to take a multi-faceted approach. He supported the plan to include Virginia areas. 

Clean Ocean Action (New Jersey) submitted a statement at the Atlantic City public meeting that 

firmly objects to the Virginia areas of the proposal and states that MMS planning puts at risk 

unique marine areas. As for energy resources in the Mid-Atlantic area, the MMS is looking for a 

needle in a haystack. Clean Ocean Action submitted another comment strongly opposing 

inclusion of the Mid-Atlantic Region in the PP area and the EIS process. Violation of the current 

moratoria is the primary objection to the MMS program. The Mid-Atlantic waters have been 

protected since 1990 by an Executive Order by former President George H.W. Bush and 

subsequently by President Clinton to the year 2012. Additionally, Congressional moratoria in 

place for the Mid-Atlantic prohibit the use of appropriated funds for “leasing, pre-leasing, and 

related activities.” Clean Ocean Action states that the environmental risks are high for New 

Jersey and New York and that the potential dangers due to exploring and drilling for oil and gas 
123

outweigh the supposed benefits. Specific risks to commercial fishing, recreational fishing, 

surfing, and tourism are outlined. Studies showing limited reserves in this area are noted. The 

Administrative Boundaries are “arbitrary, and are not supported by many coastal states.” Thus, 

Clean Ocean Action believes that the boundaries cannot be used by the DOI to delineate the 

proposed boundaries for any MMS lease sales, or schemes related to revenue sharing, CZMA 

authority or any other purpose. Further, the MMS's Virginia proposal conflicts with DOD 

operations. 

International Fund for Animal Welfare comments on the array of marine mammals that are 

adversely affected by the MMS planning on the OCS as the reason that this group opposes the 

plan. Each classification of mammal is described and the disturbances and the contaminants are 

detailed. Cumulative impacts are reviewed and the conclusion is that the plan requires more 

study, is detrimental to the environment, and is insupportable by the scientific community. 

James Madison Institute provided a series of journal articles that generally describe the 

controversy that surrounds energy development and urges the national strategy to “use what 

we have,” thus supporting domestic production options. 

KAHEA, the Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, is opposed to the MMS planning and cites 

numerous marine mammals worthy of more protection. The comment is focused on the draft 

EIS as well as programmatic opposition. The MMS is urged to abandon all planning to exploit 

the oil and gas resources in already abused oceans. 

Last Stand (Florida) submitted a Resolution to support new Congressional moratoria and to 

permanently cancel the existing and active leases and to oppose any new offshore leasing activity 

is enclosed. 

Louisiana Technical College writes in support of allowing greater access to the OCS during the 

2007-2012 timeframe. 

Manasota – 88, a Project for Environmental Quality 1968-2088 (Florida), finds the MMS 

proposal objectionable citing environmental impacts, limited spill response ability by the 

industry and the Federal government, and risks of drilling in sensitive areas. 

Morganza Action Coalition (Louisiana) provides a discussion on the importance of mitigation 

funding and revenue sharing. Discussion of the final EIS is emphasized. 

New Jersey Environmental Lobby opposes the MMS planning, particularly as the planning 

relates to New Jersey's coastline. This comment notes its common interests and view points 

contained in the Clean Ocean Action’s comments. 

New Jersey Society of Environmental, Economic Development submitted a statement at the 

public meeting in Atlantic City. The spokesperson supports the program but emphasized the 

view that this approach may be inadequate. He supported the plan to include Virginia areas in 

the PP. 
124

Northern Alaska Environmental Center opposes MMS planning for the North Aleutian Basin due 

to the fact that Bristol Bay is home to large populations of marine mammals. Noting that Public 

Connect was “down” and that the public hearing in Wainwright, Alaska was cancelled and the 

need to comment on the Chukchi lease sale 193, Northern Alaska Environmental Center 

requests more time to provide material in opposition to MMS planning in the Chukchi Sea. The 

MMS has arbitrarily expanded access to the Chukchi Sea planning area and underestimated the 

sensitivity of the Chukchi shoreline. With respect to the Beaufort Sea, the MMS should not hold 

any more lease sales unless and until the industry demonstrates that it can clean up spilled oil. 

The MMS should exclude sensitive areas offshore of the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. 

Cook Inlet supports vital fishing and therefore should be excluded. Also, the industry lacks 

interest in purchasing leases in this area, thus, the MMS should not offer it for lease. No “special 

interest” sales should be offered. Seismic surveys are not impact-free and MMS should 

complete a comprehensive NEPA process in connection with seismic activities. Recent oil spills 

once again demonstrate that safety precautions are needed, as well as criminal investigation and 

reporting rules. Global warming must be considered by MMS, and the MMS should evaluate 

energy alternatives to new offshore oil and gas leasing. Much of this comment focuses directly to 

the draft EIS. 

Oceana opposes MMS planning for the North Aleutian Basin due to the fact that Bristol Bay is 

home to large populations of marine mammals. The MMS has arbitrarily expanded access to the 

Chukchi Sea planning area and underestimated the sensitivity of the Chukchi shoreline. With 

respect to the Beaufort Sea, the MMS should not hold any more lease sales unless and until the 

industry demonstrates that it can clean up spilled oil. The MMS should exclude sensitive areas 

offshore of Florida and Virginia. Recent oil spills once again demonstrate that safety precautions 

are needed, as well as criminal investigation and reporting rules. The MMS should evaluate 

energy alternatives to new offshore oil and gas leasing. Much of this material goes directly to 

the draft EIS. 

Pacific Environment is opposed to MMS planning in the Alaska regions. With the belief that our 

“addiction” to oil sacrifices rich ecological areas such as Bristol Bay and the entire Arctic in 

order to supplement a small percentage of oil and gas production, they urge the MMS not to go 

forward with the program. 

Pacific Seabird Group comments relate to the draft EIS and focus entirely on the seabird topic. 

This comment opposes the methods and conclusions of the draft EIS. 

Restore or Retreat (Louisiana) comments that without adequate mitigation and a significant, 

steady funding mechanism in place to address development that is on the brink of economic and 

environmental disaster, this non-profit coastal advocacy group is opposed to the MMS plan. The 

hurricanes were evidence of inadequate planning and mitigation techniques. 

Sierra Club et al comments on behalf of millions of members, and raises eight points of concern, 

in opposing the MMS program. (1.) New Administrative Boundaries are inequitable, illegal, not 

subject to proper notice and comment and unacceptable. (2.) The 5-year plan should not include 

any areas protected by moratoria or executive withdrawal. (3.) Such areas should be granted 

permanent protection. (4.) No permits for “air gun” inventories should be issued for protected 

areas. (5.) “Gas-Only-Leasing” proposals are inappropriate and deceptive because they open the 

door for oil drilling. (6.) Retroactive application of a pre-existing EIS for a prior Lease Sale 

#181 proposal would fail to address many important concerns, namely the well-known “Loop 
125

Currents” in the GOM. (7.) Alaska OCS Leasing proposals would endanger a wide range of 

resources of national significance. (8.) Lack of Attention to Protecting Living Resources and 

the “Royalty relief” provisions enacted in the EPAct of 2005 fail to meet the test of ensuring 

fair return for the U.S. taxpayer. (9.) No acknowledgement of the Carbon-Constrained Future. 

(10.) Growing scandals over MMS giveaway of taxpayer-owned U.S. resources to the oil 

industry. This comment opposes most aspects of the MMS proposal. 

Surfrider Foundation submitted a statement at the public meeting in Atlantic City. The 

spokesperson was against the proposal and looked back to history to find compelling 

reasons. The speaker emphasized the need to protect the marine areas off the coast of the United 

States, specifically New Jersey. He opposed the plan to include Virginia areas in the PP. 

T Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, et al., oppose 

development on the OCS under current methods for multiple-use management, particularly due 

to the increased demand for permitting and development. On behalf of the hunting, fishing, and 

conservation organizations, this group urges the MMS to consider changes in funding and 

management practices. Adequate management and protections for fish and wildlife resources 

are described in the FACTS sheet provided with this comment. 

The 60 Plus Association provided at the public meeting in Atlantic City. The Association 

supports the MMS plan from the perspective of older Americans on fixed incomes. The 

spokesperson supports the program and emphasized the need to craft a responsible national 

energy strategy, and to take a national security approach. He supported the plan to include 

Virginia areas in the program. 

The Energy Council submitted a policy statement that was unanimously passed to support access 

to the OCS in concert with the affected States and to evaluate the prospects of environmentally 

sound development. 

The Garden Club of Long Beach Island (New Jersey) is an environmental activist organization 

formed after medical wastes washed up on shore in 1987. The possibility of Virginia's coastline 

being developed is alarming and this group is opposed to an exploration and drilling anywhere 

off the Atlantic coast. 

Water Watch International provided a statement at the public meeting in Atlantic City. The 

comment opposes the plan specifically with respect to oil and gas leasing off the coast of 

Virginia. Coastal habitats, residential benefits, and the uncertain reserves are the reason for this 

group's opposition. 

World Wildlife Fund/Audubon Alaska oppose the MMS planning due to oversights in data and 

inadequate analysis throughout the 5-year process. As for the North Aleutian Basin, due to the 

fact that Bristol Bay is home to large populations of marine mammals, they specifically oppose 

the plan. WWF/Audubon oppose MMS planning in the Chukchi Sea due to concerns about the 

migratory patterns of whales, oil spill concerns, and important habitat considerations for polar 

bears and other animals. Noise disturbances are an issue of particular concern. The MMS has 

arbitrarily expanded access to the Chukchi Sea planning area and underestimated the sensitivity 

of the Chukchi shoreline. With respect to the Beaufort Sea, the MMS should not hold any more 

lease sales unless and until the industry demonstrates that it can clean up spilled oil. The MMS 

should exclude sensitive areas offshore of the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. Cook Inlet 
126

supports vital fishing and therefore should be excluded. Also, the industry lacks interest in 

purchasing leases in this area, thus, the MMS should not offer it for lease. No “special interest” 

sales should be offered. Seismic surveys are not impact-free and MMS should complete a 

comprehensive NEPA process in connection with seismic activities. Recent oil spills once again 

demonstrate that safety precautions are needed, as well as criminal investigation and reporting 

rules. Global warming must be considered by MMS, and the MMS should evaluate energy 

alternatives to new offshore oil and gas leasing. Much of the statement submitted goes to the 

draft EIS. 

Oil and Gas Companies and Related Associations 

Alamo Resources, LLC supports the program but would like to see further planning to develop 

America's energy resources. The comment focuses on competitiveness, infrastructure 

development and economic growth. 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) submitted a statement at Anchorage meeting in 

September, 2006. Similar to previous statements, AOGA agrees with American Petroleum 

Institute comments and repeats its position in these individual comments. The AOGA supports 

expanded leasing on the OCS. Offshore development must be conducted in an environmentally 

safe manner. The MMS is encouraged to utilize “special sales” to allow leasing in all Alaska 

OCS planning areas based on industry interest. The AOGA also strongly supports revenue 

sharing and comments on the draft EIS. 

Alaska Support Industry Alliance supports the MMS proposed 5-year plan and urges the MMS to 

expand lease acreage to ensure adequate domestic oil and gas supplies. Fishing and oil and gas 

industries coexist better today due to technology advances, and the MMS is encouraged to 

consider seasonal operating restrictions in order to further reduce risks to the region's fishing 

industry. Environmental risks, revenue sharing, and the Bristol Bay communities were 

discussed. 

American Electric Power supports domestic production efforts and calls for an expansion of 

energy resource development. 

American Gas Association (AGA) supports increased domestic oil and gas production in the 

OCS and urges MMS to open the “Sale 181” including the northern segment known as the 

“stovepipe”, Eastern GOM, and Alaskan areas. The MMS should expand the program to include 

further assessment of as many of the remaining OCS planning areas as possible and should 

include the dialogue begun with Virginia as a model for dialogues with Georgia and the 

Carolinas. 

American Petroleum Institute (API) strongly supports the MMS DPP and urges the MMS to 

appreciate that the Plan will not adequately meet America's energy needs now or going forward. 

The MMS is urged to expand the program to include all OCS areas, in particular, the Sale 181 

Area and the “stovepipe”. Energy needs are growing and without access, the OCS role in 

providing energy will decline. The API recommends that where restrictions are in place, the 

areas should be offered as available once restrictions are lifted. The plan should be as flexible as 

possible so that the Federal Government can be responsive to changing circumstances and needs 

of the country. Discussion of the Act supports that notion that the Plan should be broader, that 
127

the Secretary is intended to support energy development and that the Secretary should not 

prejudge the plan in the Notice. Options are discussed and supported individually by area. 

American Public Gas Association (APGA) strongly supports the MMS proposed 5-year plan and 

urges the MMS to expand leasing. The APGA notes that administrative boundary issues in 

Florida should not restrict significant potential in terms of natural gas development. The major 

concern of APGA is the price of natural gas. 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation comments that domestic production trends will be marked by 

the development of new deepwater fields and that any increase in domestic production will be 

the result of 15-20 years of investment. Anadarko urges the MMS to make available more and 

greater OCS areas, specifically the North Aleutian area and the Eastern GOM. Anadarko 

believes that MMS has failed to provide sufficient access to offshore resources and that all areas 

of the Eastern Gulf should be opened. 

Apache Corporation strongly supports expanded oil and gas leasing and encourages the Agency 

to include additional areas in the 2007-2012 planning. 

Austin Exploration Inc. supports MMS plans to provide access to areas of the U.S. OCS and 

would like MMS to include all OCS areas in the future. 

Blessey Marine Services, Inc. supports the 5-year program and urges the MMS to work hard to 

develop national energy resources. 

BP America Production Company supports the activities provided in the PP for 2007-2012 but 

believes MMS should encourage more domestic oil and natural gas production. Specifically, BP 

supports continued areawide leasing in the Western and Central GOM, minimum bid as in the 

previous 5-year plan, and bid adequacy review as in the previous 5-year plan. BP supports 

discussions about revenue sharing between the Federal Government and states and localities. 

Chemistry Council of New Jersey submitted a statement at the public meeting in Atlantic City. 

The Council supports the plan and emphasized the need to protect the economy of the nation, 

and of New Jersey. He supported the plan to include Virginia areas in the program. 

Chevron North America supports the MMS plan and offers extensive comments on the proposed 

5-year leasing program, in particular detail about the planning process. This comment offers 

suggestions in favor of the new planning areas boundaries but is opposed to the splitting of 

existing blocks and details materials related to the bid adequacy process, and coordination with 

affected States. With respect to the bid adequacy process, the concern is that, with few 

exceptions, the foundation for MMS's bid adequacy evaluation process is based on subjective 

data interpretation. Chevron supports this process when two or fewer bids are submitted. 

However, when 3 or more bids are submitted, market forces should be used to establish market 

value. The MMS should not avoid market determination of value by placing qualifiers on what 

is considered an acceptable competitive bid. Market determination of value by 3 or more nonaffiliated bidders irrefutably establishes the value of the block. 
128

ConocoPhillips supports the MMS program and wishes it were expanded. ConocoPhillips 

summarizes the Act to support the view that the program should be expanded and gives details 

on the need to increase the size, timing, and location of leasing and objects to the limited options 

provided for some areas. These areas should be fully analyzed in the program and EIS. This 

comment supports changes in the withdrawal and moratoria areas before 2012. Under separate 

cover are comments on proposed lease sale schedules and proposed valuation methodology. 

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc supports the MMS proposal and attached prior comments 

submitted to MMS. In addition to previous comments, ConocoPhillips elaborates on the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas within the Alaska program. In general, the comment strongly 

supports Alternative 1. Also, Alternative 5 is addressed with respect to excluding a 25-mile 

buffer zone. The company seeks a basis for the 25-mile coastline buffer zone. Assuming the 

zone is to provide additional protection for marine mammals, the company does not share that 

finding and finds that the zone unnecessarily restricts exploration opportunities. As for the 

Beaufort Sea, the company opposes adoption of the Barrow and Kaktovik deferral areas and asks 

the agency to provide justification for these exclusions. Extensive comments are provided for 

the draft EIS. 

Devon Energy Corporation comments that energy prices are the reason it supports MMS 

planning on the OCS. This comment urges legislation to enhance revenue sharing and makes 

the point that development has improved in environmental protection and efficiency. 

Diamond Offshore strongly supports expanded oil and gas leasing from the OCS during 2007-

2012. 

Domestic Petroleum Council (DPC) urges the MMS to produce a more robust leasing program 

and supports expanded leasing on the OCS. The program does not include adequate study and 

preparation for potential sales in areas that may be brought out of moratoria status in the 2007-

2012 time period. The DEIS should also include additional Eastern GOM and Mid-and South 

Atlantic areas. The DPC takes exception to the concept of arbitrary “buffers” or zones off any 

state's coast within which no leasing should occur. With today's needs and technologies, 

arbitrary no-leasing buffers are not compatible with the national interest. 

DTE Energy Gas reiterates its views to urge the MMS to expand the plan further; however, it 

supports the current plan. The DTE encourages MMS to expand its proposal in order to advance 

assessment goals covering as many of the remaining OCS planning areas as possible. 

Eni Petroleum Co., Inc. supports the MMS proposal and urges expanded leasing opportunities in 

all OCS areas. This comment focuses on deepwater operations and supports reliable, consistent 

sales. Eni supports the concept of reversing the moratoria, eliminating the “Restricted Bidders 

List” in certain areas, and enforcing environmentally safe practices. 

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPP) supports the MMS planning and aligns with responses 

from the National Ocean Industry Association (NOIA). The EPP reviews the Act and concludes 

that the plan is not strong enough. The EPP supports alternative #1 as coming closest to meeting 

the goals of the Act. As for the area changes from the DPP, the 25-mile buffer zone is not 

supported as it is shortsighted to take this acreage off the table. The EPP supports the 2 sales 

in the Beaufort Sea; and 2007, 2010, and 2012 sales for the Chukchi Sea. As for the North 

Aleutian, EPP supports 2 sales and in the Cook Inlet, EPP supports 2 special interest sales in 
129

2009 and 2011. The EPP supports the plan to set minimum bid levels by individual lease sale 

based on market conditions and to continue to use the 2-phase post-sale bid evaluation process. 

Exxon Mobil Exploration supports the MMS program proposal; however, the program should 

not continue to exclude so much of the OCS. Specifically, Congressional and Administrative 

moratoria and withdrawals that limit energy development should be reversed. Such exclusion 

will lead to an accelerated decrease of domestic oil and gas production and inadequate 

geographic and diversity of domestic offshore oil and gas resources to serve as a buffer from 

the kind of painful supply disruptions experienced from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Fairfield Industries supports the MMS plan for 2007-2012, except the configuration of the 

Central GOM planning area. Acreage in the original Sale 181 area is now in the Central Gulf 

and should have been included in Central Gulf lease sales. Fairfield urges the MMS to include 

areas withdrawn or covered by the moratoria because these offshore areas, at a minimum, could 

be analyzed should their status or circumstances change between now and 2012. Excluding 

almost 90 percent of the OCS until 2012, even from environmental or geological analysis, is a 

flawed plan and is in contradiction with the intent of the Section 18 of the Act. Lastly, Fairfield 

asks MMS to reconsider the program to place more acreage in the plan. 

Hydril Company LP urges MMS to expand the proposal beyond the plan presented for comment. 

The comment refers to MMS actions as a failed policy of limited access that does not consider 

the full potential of the Nation's offshore resources. 

Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) supports the MMS proposals for 

offshore oil and gas leasing. Specifically, IPAA comments on the need to expand leasing areas 

and the need to open the remaining Sale 181 area, including the stovepipe. The IPAA urges that 

areas in the moratoria and withdrawn areas be opened. 

International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC) supports NOIA's comments and 

supports the PP. The IAGC strongly urges the MMS to expand the program in numerous areas, 

and supports the configuration of the Central GOM planning areas. The IAGC supports the 

initiation of revenue sharing and urges MMS to adopt provisions to facilitate new seismic data 

acquisition and subsequent analysis of the OCS, including areas that are “off-limits.” The IAGC 

discusses the technology of seismic data acquisition and its processing and urges the MMS to 

access modern seismic data noting that this is a long-term process over many, many years. 

Concerns about cost, coverage, timing, capacity are provided. The IAGC advises MMS not to 

prejudge the planning process by stating “no intention” of offering for lease some areas of the 

Eastern Gulf. The IAGC states that the Act and other federal policies call for MMS to 

expeditiously open the OCS to activity. The IAGC offers support for Option 1 for the Beaufort 

Sea Planning Area. While, IAGC prefers regular sales for Cook Inlet, they support MMS being 

flexible and including the areas in the 2007-2012 program. The IAGC offers support for 

areawide leasing in the GOM Planning Areas. With respect to the area included in the MidAtlantic Planning Area, IAGC objects to limiting the area for analysis, and urges MMS to gather 

data from the entire Mid-Atlantic Region. 

Louisiana Oil & Gas Association strongly supports the proposed MMS 5-year OCS leasing 

program and specifically supports Alternative 1 which includes access to specific areas of the 

Eastern GOM as well as continued development of the Central and Western areas of the Gulf. 

Increases in revenue sharing are strongly encouraged. 
130

Lynden urges MMS to consider more acreage and an expanded program. Focusing on Alaska, 

this company sees the most prospective resources in the Chukchi Sea and urges the MMS to 

open all Alaska regions for energy development. Jobs, local revenue, and supporting the 

national economy are the reasons given in this comment. 

Marathon Oil Company reiterates its support for the MMS proposed 5-year plan and urges the 

MMS to expand leasing in numerous specified areas. 

McMoran Oil and Gas calls the OCS a key part of the nation's energy infrastructure. This 

comment supports the MMS planning and would like to see an expanded program. 

National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) represents 6 groups (National Ocean Industries 

Association, Domestic Petroleum Council, International Association of Drilling Contractors, 

Independent Petroleum Association of America, Natural Gas Supply Assoc, and U.S. Oil & Gas 

Association). This comment strongly supports the inclusion of the areas of the MMS interest in 

the PP. The MMS is urged to expand the program to include all OCS areas. Where areawide 

leasing is not possible, “focused leasing” is recommended. Where restrictions are in place, the 

areas should be offered as available once restrictions are lifted. The plan should be as flexible as 

possible so that the Federal Government can be responsive to changing circumstances and needs 

of the country. Discussion of the Act supports that notion that the Plan should be broader, and 

the Secretary should not prejudge the plan in the Notice. 

Nippon Oil Exploration U.S.A. Limited supports expanded OCS development and urges the 

MMS to reject a failed policy of limited access. It describes the planning as a national effort, 

national in interest and scope. 

North Carolina Petroleum Marketers Association supports MMS program planning; views 

expanded access to offshore resources as vitally important to American energy independence; 

and urges the MMS to expand leasing opportunities, particularly for Sale 181 area and other 

areas in Alaska and in the GOM, and the South Atlantic region that are considered “off-limits.” 

Offshore Marine Service Association supports expanded leasing on the OCS. Offshore 

development provides many benefits and revenues and a stable source of income for local 

merchants. 

Parallel supports expanded development and planning on the OCS. 

Reed Hycalog strongly supports the plan and expresses the view that the plan should go further. 

Seacor Holdings, Inc. broadly supports expansion in all areas. 

Seacor Marine, LLC comments in broad support of expansion in all areas. 

Shell Exploration & Production reiterates its support of an expanded MMS program. 

Specifically, Shell comments on expanding areas offered for lease. The plan should be as 

flexible as possible so that the Federal Government can be responsive to changing circumstances 

and needs of the country. With respect to revenue sharing, Shell strongly advocates OCS 

revenue sharing of royalties, bonus bids, and fees with coastal states. Shell is pleased that MMS 
131

did not propose gas-only leasing. Shell is supportive of legislative efforts to provide an 

exception to the prohibition on joint bidding on OCS Alaska lease sales. 

TGS NOPEC Geophysical Company L.P. strongly supports the MMS DPP, specifically for 

including the areas in the Central and Western Gulf, Alaska, and Virginia. The MMS is urged to 

expand the program, with proposed areas only going forward if restrictions are lifted. The TGS 

requests as flexible a plan as possible in order that the Federal Government will be able to 

respond to changing circumstances. The TGS reviews theAct\A mandates to MMS and is 

concerned that the planning process is prejudged; and by declaring the Secretary's intention not 

to offer certain areas, undermines the NEPA process. The TGS strongly objects to the limited 

options provided in the Atlantic and Straits of Florida. 

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation supports the plan and encourages MMS to expand access to all 

other OCS areas including Eastern GOM, Atlantic and Pacific areas, including withdrawn areas. 

Non-Energy Industry Interests and Business Groups 

AG Processing Inc. supports MMS proposal but views the plan as not sufficiently bold enough. 

The MMS is urged to expand its plan to include all planning areas. 

Agriculture Energy Alliance (AEA) represents over 100 companies who support expanded 

access to the OCS for the development of energy resources. The major concern of this comment 

is the price and short supply of natural gas and the harm this poses to the farming communities. 

The AEA specifies areas where an expanded MMS program is needed in almost all 26 areas of 

the Federal OCS. 

Alaska Independent Fisherman's Marketing Association is the largest salmon fisherman's 

association in Bristol Bay, Alaska, and opposes the MMS efforts to open offshore oil and gas 

drilling in the North Aleutian Basin. Due to the sensitivity of the area, weather conditions, and 

volcanic activity, this group is strongly opposed. 

Alaska Miners Association, Inc. strongly supports increased domestic oil and gas production on 

the OCS. This comment provides specific locations for MMS program expansion in Alaska, 

generally recognizing that all areas need to be expanded in a manner that attracts companies to 

risk the time and cost to explore the areas. The draft EIS comments are extensive and addressed 

in the final EIS. 

Alaska State Chamber of Commerce supports and urges the MMS to include additional acreage 

for lease to insure that adequate supplies of oil and natural gas are available to U.S. consumers. 

Specifically the Chamber asks MMS to consider Bristol Bay for development. This comment 

approves of greater attention to revenue sharing in the U.S. Congress. 

Alaska Trucking Association (ATA) supports expanded leasing in the U.S. OCS during the 

5-year period, 2007-2012. The ATA's position is that the Alaska OCS should move forward 

only after proper local stakeholder consultation, planning, and environmental analysis. A strong 

regulatory system should be in place. The ATA urges the MMS to adopt new revenue sharing 

plans. 
132

American Highway Users Alliance strongly supports expanded leasing on the OCS and supports 

consideration of additional acreage in all available Federal offshore waters, specifically in the 

Eastern GOM and throughout the Atlantic. On behalf of the transportation sector, alleviating 

energy price increases and supply shortages is the primary reason to access domestic energy 

resources. 

American Iron and Steel Institute strongly supports increased domestic oil and gas production on 

the OCS and provides specific locations for expansion, generally recognizing all areas that need 

to be expanded in the program. The Institute notes today's sophisticated and safe technologies. 

Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) specifically supports offshore 

expansion in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, in Bristol Bay and in the North Aleutian Basin. 

Noting that 11 companies have an interest in lease activity in the North Aleutian Basin, currently 

under moratoria, the AEDC supports expanded leasing on the OCS. This group states that the 

proposal is controversial and that impact to whales and other sea mammals is a concern. 

However, economic diversification is needed in the area. Protection of the natural resources is 

important in the process of lifting the moratoria to allow exploration and production activities. 

Congressional proposals regarding revenue sharing are supported. 

Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and the Associated Industries of Arkansas, Inc. support 

the MMS program, but feel it is not bold enough for our future energy needs. The MMS should 

expand oil and natural gas production as a high priority in all areas, including the Sale 181 area 

and the “stovepipe.” Expansion in Alaska, GOM, and the South Atlantic region is important. 

Loss of manufacturing jobs and energy costs to farmers is of concern. 

Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) supports enhanced exploration and drilling for oil and 

natural gas in the eastern GOM beyond 125 miles. The AIF renews its views that Florida's 

economy is built on growth and that while supporting nuclear power, the economy of Florida 

needs continued oil and natural gas resources. 

Assumption Area Chamber of Commerce supports the 5-year plan and urges the MMS to address 

increased revenue sharing and to design a development program that is environmentally sound. 

Atlas Tubular, L.P. supports the program and urges the MMS to expand the program further to 

secure the energy resources the nation needs. 

Barriere Construction Co., L.L.C., a family-owned construction business, supports the program 

and requests a more aggressive plan for energy independence. 

Bayou Industrial Group, Inc., an organization of business groups in south Louisiana, supports 

MMS planning and urges allowing greater access to the Nation's offshore oil and natural gas 

resources during the 2007-2012 time frame, while also urging MMS to ensure that land-based 

impacts from this activity be adequately identified and mitigated. 

Bering Sea Fisherman's Association opposes MMS planning in the Alaskan region and finds the 

plan to be entirely premature given the lack of baseline scientific data. The comment sets forth 

the goals of the organization: to help take the opinions and ideas of the Bering Sea Fishermen to 

the State, Nation, and World; to work with agencies on issues related to Bering Sea Fishermen; 

and to inform fishermen of new political, economic and technological developments which may 

affect their livelihoods. The Association comments on the draft EIS and the impacts of seismic 
133

activity. The harm to populations of marine mammals is the primary focus of the comments. 

The commenters will not support federal programs which unnecessarily endanger renewable 

resources. 

Bob's Farm Center, Inc., a member of the Agriculture Energy Alliance, resubmits the Alliance's 

views. The major concern noted in this comment is the price and short supply of natural gas and 

the harm this poses to the farming communities. 

Broadway Services, Inc. represents the views of one of the largest private non-profit retirement 

communities in support of expanded development on the OCS. 

Canal Barge Company, Inc. supports MMS planning in all areas and makes this decision based 

on fuel costs and national security concerns. 

CB Richard Ellis provides specific support for the Virginia proposal. 

CF Industries is a fertilizer company and sees high prices as harming U.S. agriculture. They 

urge MMS to open more areas to OCS development, commenting that MMS should expand the 

availability of resources in all OCS areas, and include new areas in Alaska and the Atlantic 

region. CF Industries explains that nitrogen fertilizer, the main ingredient of which is natural 

gas, is their dominant concern. 

Chickasaw Distributors, Inc. strongly supports the MMS proposed 5-year plan and urges the 

MMS to expand leasing in all available lease sale areas. 

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) supports the development of more domestic oil and 

natural gas resources off our coasts. The CIBO raises the supply/demand imbalance as a 

problem in domestic energy markets and advocates for numerous specific areas to open to 

analysis and leasing. They urge MMS to take bold action to make as many offshore areas 

available as possible and conclude that the plan is not sufficiently bold enough to meet future 

energy needs. 

Coastal Pipe of Louisiana strongly supports the MMS planning for OCS resources. However, 

the comment suggests that the MMS did not go far enough to fulfill its duty to the American 

consumer. 

Conam Construction Company supports expanded leasing on the U.S. OCS because it employs 

Alaskans; is safe; the reserves are there; and it solves America's energy shortages. 

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) supports development of all domestic energy resources and 

finds that high energy prices negatively impact consumers and the U.S. economy. The CEA 

supports MMS plans to access domestic resources and discusses how safe U.S. operations are 

compared to oil and gas operations worldwide. The CEA provides data about the OCS 

inventory, hurricane shut-downs, and safety/ environment policies. Specifically, CEA urges the 

MMS to open Alaska, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the GOM to offshore oil and gas 

development and to initiate revenue sharing between the federal government and individual 

localities. 
134

Corrosion Testing Services supports further OCS leasing development and expansion on current 

MMS planning. Jobs and national economic forecasting are the primary focus of this comment. 

Farm Bureau of Arkansas supports the MMS proposed 5-year plan and urges the MMS to 

expand leasing. 

Fieldwork Communications opposes MMS planning, specifically in Bristol Bay, due to extreme 

weather conditions, inhospitable coastlines, delicate ecosystems, and native peoples, whose 

interests are harmed by development. 

Florida Chamber of Commerce supports expanded oil and natural gas exploration and production 

in the Eastern GOM as long as this exploration is at least 100 miles away from Florida's coast; 

allows for ongoing military training exercises; and includes appropriate safeguards for Florida's 

beaches and beach communities. 

Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association supports the MMS planning and the 

programmatic proposals in general. 

Florida Minerals and Chemistry Council supports expansion of the offshore oil and gas 

development program; specifically for natural gas, an energy source critical to Florida. They 

enclosed their Energy Policy. 

Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce enclosed a resolution strongly supporting the MMS 

proposed 5-year program as providing sensible and responsible access to oil and gas resources on 

the Alaska OCS and elsewhere in U.S. offshore waters. 

Greater Houston Partnership, a group to foster economic development, supports MMS planning 

to develop the OCS and finds that the data is useful to chart reliable development schedules for 

companies to access resources as safely and effectively as possible under this plan. 

Greater Lafourche Port Commission’s Director provides personal views from 28 years as Port 

Director. The views are related to the evolution of this area and the impacts of the hurricanes of 

2005. The Director is strongly in favor of revenue sharing and makes the point that as the 

industry moved much further offshore, the impacts were greater. The comment generally is 

opposed to MMS planning, but reserves the position based on revenue sharing, mitigation, and 

strong mechanisms to fund localities. 

Greater New Orleans Inc. supports MMS planning and requests expedited actions to achieve 

final approval of the plan. 

Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce supports oil and gas development in Alaska and strongly 

urges the MMS to include additional Alaska offshore acreage. Specifically, they encourage 

consistent lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, Bristol Bay, and the Lower Cook Inlet. 

Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce specifically supports including the waters off the 

Virginia coast in the OCS plan. 

Harvey Canal Industrial Association strongly supports leasing in all the lease sale areas proposed 

in the MMS 5-year plan and requests additional acreage for additional leasing. 
135

Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) supports increased domestic oil and gas 

production on the OCS and provides numerous examples of America's need for energy and the 

costs associated with the energy supply needs of consumers. The IECA notes specific locations 

for MMS program expansion, generally recognizing that all areas need to be expanded. The 

IECA notes that today's sophisticated and safe technologies will allow for exploration and 

development without harm to the environment. 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a labor group, supports expanded offshore 

leasing during the 5-year period of 2007-2012. 

International Foodservice Distributors Association, a national trade group, urges MMS to expand 

OCS development and to access all offshore oil and natural gas supplies. 

International Paper supports MMS expansion of OCS oil and gas leasing and efforts to analyze 

OCS lands currently under presidential withdrawal or congressional moratoria. However, this 

comment notes that MMS does not propose a leasing strategy capable of satisfying the nation's 

growing energy demands. For this reason, MMS should promote greater domestic production 

through its leasing programs. At a minimum, MMS should consider opening the remaining 

portions of the Lease 181 area in the GOM and expand acreage offered for lease in the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas and the North Aleutian planning areas. 

IPSCO Inc., a steel and pipe producer, supports MMS plans to expand oil and gas leasing on the 

OCS, based on the belief that the domestic manufacturing sector is suffering from high natural 

gas prices. Supply disruptions are detrimental and global competition for limited liquefied 

natural gas supplies conflicts with import restrictions and works against U.S. industrial interests. 

The MMS is urged to make the new plan as flexible as possible. 

Jefferson Parish Chamber supports the MMS program in total, referencing the impacts of 

Hurricanes Rita and Katrina to make the point that geographic diversification is important. 

Krispy Kreme doughnut franchise owner in south Louisiana and Alabama supports the proposed 

5-year plan and cites fuel costs and domestic supplies for consumers as the reasons for this 

support. 

LA 1 Coalition notes the mounting frustration with MMS's lack of action in mitigating the 

impacts to Louisiana. Discussion of the importance of mitigation funding and revenue sharing 

dominates this comment. 

South Lafourche Levee District notes the importance of mitigation funding and revenue sharing. 

Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 341 is in favor of expanded access to 

development on the OCS, specifically in Alaska. They urge the MMS to allow for more acreage 

to allow for work opportunities and to alleviate a dependence on foreign oil. Revenue sharing is 

important. 

Louisiana Ammonia Producers supports the proposal and urges the MMS to advance a 

development plan that increases domestic oil and gas production and curtails high costs of 

natural gas. 
136

Louisiana Association of Business and Industry continues to support expanded OCS exploration 

and production. Based on the long-term needs of the nation, jobs, and other national interests, 

this comment urges the MMS to expedite exploration and development. 

Louisiana Chemical Association, a major consumer of natural gas, seeks more moderate gas 

prices and a more predictable gas marketplace. The Association urges the MMS to expand 

leasing opportunities, particularly for the Sale 181 area, and to streamline the leasing process. 

Lyondell Chemical Company supports MMS planning and states that greater OCS access is 

needed. 

McDonough Marine Service, a shipment and chartering company, supports MMS planning for 

the OCS 2007-2012. Fuel prices and national interests were noted to support this position. 

Michigan Manufacturers Association urges expansion and strongly supports MMS planning in 

all areas. 

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) provides comments from the perspective of the 

manufacturing sector, namely the chemical manufacturing industry, which is most hard-hit by 

the recent price spikes in natural gas. The NAM comments that the proposal does not adequately 

increase domestic supplies of natural gas and oil and does not address overwhelming public 

support for an expanded OCS plan. The NAM opposes the 25-mile buffer zone and the no 

obstruction zone and opposes the military mission line in the Central Gulf. This comment 

discusses the estimated reserves in the OCS and finds the OCS contains substantial energy 

resources. The NAM states that offshore leases could create a revenue stream for the states and 

finds the policy rationales for continuing federal moratoria on the OCS to be obsolete. The 

NAM concludes that congressional intent to use the OCS to support energy development 

requires MMS to expand production and promote investment. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) supports MMS planning for OCS 

development, due to the need for new supplies of natural gas to support the electric generation 

sector for the expansion of the Nation's grid in the 21st Century. Given Energy Information 

Administration data, the total endowment of recoverable oil and gas is a known resource. 

Congressional intention must be interpreted to warrant further development. 

North Pacific Fisheries Association is opposed to federal planning in the Bering Sea off of 

Port Moller and north of the Alaska Peninsula. Fishermen, the state of Alaska, and the local 

fishermen's marketing associations have spent countless millions of dollars marketing the purity 

of Alaskan seafood. Even in the best case scenario, air and water discharges will adversely 

affect the reputation for purity in the world market of Alaskan seafood. This group resolves for 

the President to extend the Presidential withdrawal. 

North Star Terminal & Stevedore Co., LLC fully supports expanded leasing in the U.S. OCS. 

Focusing on Alaska offshore waters but also mentioning other areas, they comment that OCS 

development is considered safe and important. 

Premier Pipe, LLP comments that high prices and tight supplies account for their support for 

MMS Planning during the 2007-2012 period. 
137

Pulp & Paperworkers' Resource Council comments that natural gas is a feedstock of the paper 

sector and supports MMS planning to expand leasing on the OCS. Long-term planning depends 

on establishing development opportunities in this country and state-of-the-art technology allows 

safe development. Future stability is needed. 

Resource Development Council supports increased access to the American OCS and the 

proposed lease sales for Alaska, specifically supporting the new schedule. Noting that 

development takes many, many years, the comment urges the MMS to stay on track. Local 

stakeholder consultation is a priority with conflict avoidance measures, and reasonable efforts to 

protect scientifically-verified, environmentally-sensitive areas. The Chukchi Sea is singled out 

as an area of importance. This comment supports the notion that the oil and gas industries can 

coexist with other industries in Alaska. The MMS is urged to include revenue sharing with 

states and local communities in its leasing plan. 

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. stresses that the price of natural gas is the reason they seek 

increased development along U.S. coasts and supports MMS planning on the OCS. The Society 

sees no reason to maintain the moratorium and the withdrawals that exist today. 

Solutions Through Science cites high natural gas prices as the main reason this group advocates 

in favor of the MMS program. As manufacturing facilities, the comment urges the MMS to 

move forward with the OCS planning as proposed. 

South Central Industrial Association, an industrial business group, supports MMS actions and 

urges the MMS to look at local conditions. A critical issue is to appropriately compensate 

Louisiana interests before further burdening Louisiana with increased impacts from new lease 

sales. Deteriorating coast and impacts on infrastructure are noted. 

South Louisiana Economic Council supports the MMS proposed plan and urges expeditious 

development with a plan that is as broad as possible. 

St. Mary Chamber of Commerce supports the MMS proposed plan and urges expeditious 

development with a plan that is as broad as possible. 

St. Mary Industrial Group supports the MMS proposed plan and urges expeditious development 

with a plan that is as broad as possible. 

Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber supports the MMS proposed 5-year plan and urges the MMS to 

expand leasing in adherence with strong environmental standards. Specific support for offshore 

expansion in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, in Bristol Bay and in the North Aleutian Basin is 

offered. 

Temperature Control Heating & Air Conditioning specifically supports the Virginia proposal. 

The Fertilizer Institute cites nitrogen fertilizer production as the dominant concern in support of 

MMS planning. Plant closures, reliance on imports, and high prices jeopardize food security and 

pose challenges to national security. Ammonia is the source of nearly all the nitrogen fertilizer 

produced in the world. Average U.S. ammonia production costs more than doubled from 1999 to 

2004. The MMS is urged to open and expand the availability of resources in all OCS areas and 

to include new areas in the South Atlantic region such as Georgia and the Carolinas. 
138

Recommendations related to resource estimates point to new technologies as a better way to 

identify resources and their locations. The Institute urges the MMS to expand the proposal to 

include all available areas and to build a program to provide for our future energy needs. 

The Port of Corpus Christi supports MMS in efforts to increase U.S. oil and gas production and 

to expand production opportunities in new areas. 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports MMS planning for the OCS and provides a detailed 

discussion of the Congressional actions in 2006 and Presidential authority over OCS areas 

currently off-limits. While the Chamber applauds MMS for consideration of two planning areas 

that are currently under moratoria or Presidential withdrawal, the Chamber finds the proposed 

plan does not go far enough. The Chamber finds that the plan does not adhere to the 

requirements of the Act and concludes that the need for domestic production is greater than ever 

and that oil and gas resources can be safely and responsibly recovered at this time. 

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices Plumbing and Pipefitting supports MMS 

proposed plans in the Alaska region. 

United Catcher Boats Association, being dependent on the Bering Sea groundfish and crab 

fisheries and on the health of the East Bering Sea fisheries, opposes MMS planning in the region. 

The draft EIS is not well-detailed and the value of the development is not worth the risks to the 

environment. 

United Fishermen of Alaska represents multiple interests in the Alaska region. Hunting and 

fishing interests are opposed to the MMS plan but are eager to engage in advisory committee 

processes for guiding input on development. 

Univar supports the proposed plan and the conclusions of the draft EIS. Developing resources 

with new technology, with a cohesive work relationship between government and industry will 

lead to future economic growth. They support revenue sharing. 

Wisconsin Crop Production Association, an agriculture trade association, represents over 100 

growers and agribusinesses that use high volumes of natural gas. Price and availability are 

important to this group, therefore, they support MMS planning in this 5-year document. 

Wisconsin Fertilizer & Chemical Association urges the MMS to open the remaining “Lease Sale 

181” area including the “Stovepipe”, expand the availability of resources in all OCS areas, and 

include new areas in the South Atlantic region such as Georgia and the Carolinas. 

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce supports more OCS development, based on rising prices 

after Rita and Katrina, sophisticated environmentally-friendly technology, and the needs of the 

country and the Wisconsin manufacturing sector. 

World Trade Center of New Orleans submitted comments on behalf of 1,900 corporate and 

individual members, in support of expanded leasing on the U.S. OCS. 
139

General Public 

In response to the PP, the MMS received over 73,400 comments in total from the general public, 

of which almost 55,000 comments are in favor of some level of access for oil and gas operations 

in the OCS and over 18,450 are opposed to some or all access. Most comments from private 

citizens were received regarding the 5-year program as a result of what appeared to be mass mail 

campaigns generating form letters for each respondent to sign and mail. 

A majority of the commenters, almost 75 percent, supported a 5-year plan that offers increased 

acreage for offshore oil and gas development planning. These comments focus on the instability 

in the Middle East, American military operations in Iraq, and high energy prices in the United 

States. Approximately 25 percent of the private citizens who wrote letters oppose development 

of the domestic OCS, viewing the environmental hazards as too great a risk for limited energy 

resources. 

Some commenters urged that Federal Government resources to be used to develop alternative 

resources, either in place of or in addition to oil and gas resources. 

The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.