U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

 Regulation and Enforcement 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

BOEMRE 2011-034 

Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2011 

Western Planning Area Lease Sale 218 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume II: Chapters 5-8 and Appendices 
U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

 Regulation and Enforcement 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

BOEMRE 2011-034 

Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2011 

Western Planning Area Lease Sale 218 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume II: Chapters 5-8 and Appendices 

Author 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

 Regulation and Enforcement 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Published by 

New Orleans

August 2011 
Table of Contents iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Volume I 

Page 

SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................xxi

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................................xxiii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...............................................................................................xxvii

1. THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................1-3

1.1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action.........................................................................1-3

1.2. Description of the Proposed Action .........................................................................................1-4

1.3. Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................1-4

1.3.1. Rule Changes following the Deepwater Horizon Event ...........................................1-6

1.4. Prelease Process .....................................................................................................................1-11

1.5. Postlease Activities ................................................................................................................1-13

1.6. Other OCS-Related Activities................................................................................................1-30

2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................2-3

2.1. Supplemental EIS NEPA Analysis ..........................................................................................2-3

2.2. Alternatives, Mitigating Measures, and Issues ........................................................................2-3

2.2.1. Alternatives ...............................................................................................................2-3

2.2.1.1. Alternatives for Proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 218 .........2-3

2.2.1.2. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed..............................................2-4

2.2.2. Mitigating Measures..................................................................................................2-4

2.2.2.1. Proposed Mitigating Measures Analyzed ................................................2-5

2.2.2.2. Existing Mitigating Measures ..................................................................2-5

2.2.3. Issues .........................................................................................................................2-6

2.2.3.1. Issues to be Analyzed...............................................................................2-6

2.2.3.2. Issues Considered but Not Analyzed .......................................................2-7

2.3. Proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 218 ...................................................................2-7

2.3.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action .......................................................................2-8

2.3.1.1. Description...............................................................................................2-8

2.3.1.2. Summary of Impacts ................................................................................2-8

2.3.1.3. Mitigating Measures ..............................................................................2-25

2.3.1.3.1. Topographic Features Stipulation .......................................2-25

2.3.1.3.2. Military Areas Stipulation...................................................2-26

2.3.1.3.3. Protected Species Stipulation ..............................................2-26

2.3.1.3.4. Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment 

Stipulation ...........................................................................2-26

2.3.2. Alternative B—The Proposed Action Excluding the Unleased Blocks Near 

the Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features....................................................2-26

2.3.2.1. Description.............................................................................................2-26

2.3.2.2. Summary of Impacts ..............................................................................2-26
iv Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

2.3.3. Alternative C—No Action.......................................................................................2-27

2.3.3.1. Description.............................................................................................2-27

2.3.3.2. Summary of Impacts ..............................................................................2-27

3. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO ....................................................................3-3

3.1. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario—Routine Operations ...............................................3-3

3.1.1. Offshore Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario ....................................................3-3

3.1.1.1. Exploration and Delineation ....................................................................3-5

3.1.1.1.1. Seismic Surveying Operations ..............................................3-5

3.1.1.1.2. Exploration and Delineation Drilling....................................3-7

3.1.1.2. Development and Production...................................................................3-8

3.1.1.2.1. Development and Production Drilling ..................................3-9

3.1.1.2.2. Infrastructure Presence........................................................3-10

3.1.1.2.2.1. Anchoring ......................................................3-10

3.1.1.2.2.2. Offshore Production Systems ........................3-10

3.1.1.2.2.3. Space-Use Requirements ...............................3-11

3.1.1.2.2.4. Aesthetic Quality ...........................................3-12

3.1.1.2.2.5. Workovers and Abandonments......................3-12

3.1.1.3. Major Sources of Oil Inputs in the Gulf of Mexico ...............................3-13

3.1.1.4. Offshore Transport.................................................................................3-16

3.1.1.4.1. Pipelines ..............................................................................3-16

3.1.1.4.2. Barges..................................................................................3-18

3.1.1.4.3. Oil Tankers..........................................................................3-18

3.1.1.4.4. Service Vessels....................................................................3-19

3.1.1.4.5. Helicopters ..........................................................................3-19

3.1.1.5. Operational Wastes and Discharges.......................................................3-20

3.1.1.6. Safety Issues...........................................................................................3-23

3.1.1.6.1. Hydrogen Sulfide and Sulfurous Petroleum........................3-23

3.1.1.6.2. Shallow Hazards..................................................................3-23

3.1.1.6.3. New and Unusual Technology ............................................3-24

3.1.1.7. Decommissioning and Removal Operations..........................................3-25

3.1.2. Coastal Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario.....................................................3-27

3.1.2.1. Service Bases .........................................................................................3-28

3.1.2.2. Gas Processing Plants ............................................................................3-29

3.1.2.3. Coastal Pipelines ....................................................................................3-30

3.1.2.4. Disposal Facilities for Offshore Operations...........................................3-31

3.2. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario—Accidental Events ...............................................3-31

3.2.1. Oil Spills..................................................................................................................3-32

3.2.1.1. Risk Analysis for Offshore Spills 1,000 bbl ........................................3-33

3.2.1.2. Risk Analysis for Offshore Spills <1,000 bbl ........................................3-36

3.2.1.3. Risk Analysis for Coastal Spills.............................................................3-36

3.2.1.4. Risk Analysis by Resource.....................................................................3-37

3.2.1.5. Spill Response........................................................................................3-37

3.2.1.5.1. BOEMRE Spill-Response Requirements and 

Initiatives.............................................................................3-37

3.2.1.5.2. Offshore Response and Cleanup Technology .....................3-39

3.2.1.5.3. Oil-Spill-Response Assumptions Used in the Analysis 

of a Most Likely Spill 1,000 bbl Incident Related to 

the Proposed Action ............................................................3-43

3.2.1.5.4. Onshore Response and Cleanup..........................................3-43
Table of Contents v

3.2.2. Losses of Well Control............................................................................................3-45

3.2.3. Pipeline Failures......................................................................................................3-52

3.2.4. Vessel Collisions.....................................................................................................3-53

3.2.5. Chemical and Drilling-Fluid Spills .........................................................................3-53

3.3. Cumulative Activities Scenario .............................................................................................3-54

3.3.1. OCS Program ..........................................................................................................3-56

3.3.2. State Oil and Gas Activity.......................................................................................3-57

3.3.3. Other Major Factors Influencing Offshore Environments ......................................3-60

3.3.4. Other Major Factors Influencing Coastal Environments.........................................3-67

3.3.5. Natural Events or Processes ....................................................................................3-76

3.3.5.1 Hurricanes ..............................................................................................3-76

3.3.5.2. Currents as Transport Agents.................................................................3-76

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................4-3

4.1. Proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 218 ...................................................................4-3

4.1.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action .....................................................................4-10

4.1.1.1. Air Quality .............................................................................................4-10

4.1.1.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment ...........................4-10

4.1.1.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events ..................................................4-13

4.1.1.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events..............................................4-17

4.1.1.1.4. Cumulative Impacts.............................................................4-19

4.1.1.2. Water Quality.........................................................................................4-22

4.1.1.2.1. Coastal Waters.....................................................................4-23

4.1.1.2.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment......4-23

4.1.1.2.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events.............................4-25

4.1.1.2.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ........................4-27

4.1.1.2.1.4. Cumulative Impacts .......................................4-29

4.1.1.2.2. Offshore Waters ..................................................................4-30

4.1.1.2.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment......4-30

4.1.1.2.2.2. Impacts of Routine Events.............................4-33

4.1.1.2.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ........................4-36

4.1.1.2.2.4. Cumulative Impacts .......................................4-39

4.1.1.3. Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes.....................................4-42

4.1.1.3.1. Description of the Affected Environment ...........................4-42

4.1.1.3.2. Impacts of Routine Events ..................................................4-47

4.1.1.3.3. Impacts of Accidental Events..............................................4-49

4.1.1.3.4. Cumulative Impacts.............................................................4-52

4.1.1.4. Wetlands.................................................................................................4-57

4.1.1.4.1. Description of the Affected Environment ...........................4-58

4.1.1.4.2. Impacts of Routine Events ..................................................4-62

4.1.1.4.3. Impacts of Accidental Events..............................................4-66

4.1.1.4.4. Cumulative Impacts.............................................................4-70

4.1.1.5. Seagrass Communities ...........................................................................4-75

4.1.1.5.1. Description of the Affected Environment ...........................4-76

4.1.1.5.2. Impacts of Routine Events ..................................................4-77

4.1.1.5.3. Impacts of Accidental Events..............................................4-79

4.1.1.5.4. Cumulative Impacts.............................................................4-81

4.1.1.6. Topographic Features.............................................................................4-83

4.1.1.6.1. Description of the Affected Environment ...........................4-83

4.1.1.6.2. Impacts of Routine Events ..................................................4-92
vi Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

4.1.1.6.3. Impacts of Accidental Events..............................................4-97

4.1.1.6.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-106

4.1.1.7. Sargassum ............................................................................................4-109

4.1.1.7.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-109

4.1.1.7.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-112

4.1.1.7.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-114

4.1.1.7.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-115

4.1.1.8. Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities..............................4-118

4.1.1.8.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-118

4.1.1.8.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-125

4.1.1.8.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-126

4.1.1.8.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-128

4.1.1.9. Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities........................4-130

4.1.1.9.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-130

4.1.1.9.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-132

4.1.1.9.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-134

4.1.1.9.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-135

4.1.1.10. Marine Mammals .................................................................................4-138

4.1.1.10.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-138

4.1.1.10.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-144

4.1.1.10.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-147

4.1.1.10.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-149

4.1.1.11. Sea Turtles............................................................................................4-151

4.1.1.11.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-151

4.1.1.11.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-157

4.1.1.11.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-159

4.1.1.11.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-161

4.1.1.12. Coastal and Marine Birds.....................................................................4-163

4.1.1.12.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-164

4.1.1.12.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-171

4.1.1.12.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-177

4.1.1.12.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-182

4.1.1.13. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat...........................................4-193

4.1.1.13.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-193

4.1.1.13.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-196

4.1.1.13.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-199

4.1.1.13.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-202

4.1.1.14. Commercial Fishing.............................................................................4-205

4.1.1.14.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-206

4.1.1.14.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-208

4.1.1.14.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-210

4.1.1.14.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-212

4.1.1.15. Recreational Fishing.............................................................................4-215

4.1.1.15.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-215

4.1.1.15.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-217

4.1.1.15.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-218

4.1.1.15.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-220

4.1.1.16. Recreational Resources ........................................................................4-221

4.1.1.16.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-222

4.1.1.16.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-225
Table of Contents vii

4.1.1.16.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-227

4.1.1.16.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-230

4.1.1.17. Archaeological Resources....................................................................4-232

4.1.1.17.1. Historic..............................................................................4-232

4.1.1.17.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-232

4.1.1.17.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-234

4.1.1.17.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-236

4.1.1.17.1.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-238

4.1.1.17.2. Prehistoric..........................................................................4-241

4.1.1.17.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-241

4.1.1.17.2.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-242

4.1.1.17.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-244

4.1.1.17.2.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-245

4.1.1.18. Human Resources and Land Use .........................................................4-247

4.1.1.18.1. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure .................................4-247

4.1.1.18.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-247

4.1.1.18.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-250

4.1.1.18.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-253

4.1.1.18.1.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-255

4.1.1.18.2. Demographics....................................................................4-258

4.1.1.18.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-258

4.1.1.18.2.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-260

4.1.1.18.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-261

4.1.1.18.2.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-261

4.1.1.18.3. Economic Factors..............................................................4-262

4.1.1.18.3.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-263

4.1.1.18.3.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-267

4.1.1.18.3.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-268

4.1.1.18.3.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-269

4.1.1.18.4. Environmental Justice .......................................................4-270

4.1.1.18.4.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-271

4.1.1.18.4.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-274

4.1.1.18.4.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-277

4.1.1.18.4.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-282

4.1.1.19. Additional Resources Considered due to the Deepwater Horizon 

Event ....................................................................................................4-289

4.1.1.19.1. Soft Bottoms......................................................................4-289

4.1.1.19.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-289

4.1.1.19.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-298

4.1.1.19.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-304

4.1.1.19.1.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-311

4.1.1.19.2. Diamondback Terrapins ....................................................4-315

4.1.1.19.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-315

4.1.1.19.2.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-317

4.1.1.19.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-318

4.1.1.19.2.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-319

4.1.2. Alternative B—The Proposed Action Excluding the Unleased Blocks Near 

Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features........................................................4-321

4.1.3. Alternative C—No Action.....................................................................................4-323
viii Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

4.2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action .......................................................4-326

4.3. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources....................................................4-329

4.4. Relationship between the Short-term Use of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance 

and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity......................................................................4-330 

Volume II 

Page 

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................ix

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................xi

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .....................................................................................5-3

5.1. Development of the Proposed Action ......................................................................................5-3

5.2. Notice of Preparation of the Supplemental EIS .......................................................................5-3

5.3. Development of the Draft Supplemental EIS...........................................................................5-3

5.3.1. Summary of Scoping Comments...............................................................................5-4

5.3.2. Summary of Written Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Intent .......5-4

5.3.3. Cooperating Agency..................................................................................................5-4

5.4. Distribution of the Draft Supplemental EIS for Review and Comment ..................................5-5

5.5. Public Hearings........................................................................................................................5-7

5.6. Coastal Zone Management Act................................................................................................5-8

5.7. Endangered Species Act...........................................................................................................5-8

5.8. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ............................................5-9

5.9. National Historic Preservation Act ..........................................................................................5-9

5.10. Major Differences Between the Draft and Final Supplemental EIS’s ...................................5-10

5.11. Letters of Comment on the Draft Supplemental EIS and BOEMRE’s Responses ................5-10

6. REFERENCES CITED........................................................................................................................6-3

7. PREPARERS .......................................................................................................................................7-3

8. GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................8-3

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Figures and Tables ...................................................................................................A-3

Appendix B Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis...........................................................................B-iii

Appendix C BOEMRE-OSRA Catastrophic Run ........................................................................ C-3

Appendix D Recent Publications of the Environmental Studies Program, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, 2006–Present......................................................................................D-3

Appendix E Agency-Funded Hurricane Research and Studies .................................................... E-3

KEYWORD INDEX.....................................................................................................................Keyword-3
List of Figures ix

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

Figure 1-1. Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas, Proposed Lease Sale Area, 

and Locations of Major Cities..............................................................................................A-3

Figure 1-2. Distance from the Macondo Well (Mississippi Canyon Block 252) to the Western 

Planning Area Boundary......................................................................................................A-3

Figure 1-3. Grid Areas of Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys in Deep Water from NTL 

2008-G06. ............................................................................................................................A-4

Figure 2-1. Location of Proposed Stipulations and Deferrals.................................................................A-4

Figure 2-2. Economic Impact Areas in the Gulf of Mexico. ..................................................................A-5

Figure 2-3. Military Warning Areas and Eglin Water Test Areas Located in the Gulf of Mexico. .......A-6

Figure 3-1. Offshore Subareas in the Gulf of Mexico. ...........................................................................A-7

Figure 3-2. Infrastructure and Transitioning Pipelines (from Federal OCS waters) in Texas and 

Louisiana..............................................................................................................................A-8

Figure 3-3. Air Quality Jurisdiction........................................................................................................A-9

Figure 3-4. OCS-Related Service Bases in the Gulf of Mexico. ............................................................A-9

Figure 3-5. Major Ports and Domestic Waterways in the Gulf of Mexico...........................................A-10

Figure 3-6. Oil-Spill Events (2008) in the Western Planning Area (Dickey, personal 

communication, 2010). ......................................................................................................A-11

Figure 4-1. Status of Ozone Attainment in Coastal Counties and Parishes of the Central and 

Western Planning Areas (USEPA, 2011)...........................................................................A-12

Figure 4-2. Coastal and Marine Waters of the Gulf of Mexico with Selected Rivers and Water 

Depths. ...............................................................................................................................A-12

Figure 4-3. Seagrass Locations of the Northern Gulf of Mexico..........................................................A-13

Figure 4-4. Location of Topographic Features in the Gulf of Mexico. ................................................A-14

Figure 4-5. Location of Known Chemosynthetic Communities in the Gulf of Mexico. ......................A-15

Figure 4-6. Summary of Sea Turtles Collected by Date Obtained from the Consolidated 

Numbers of Collected Fish and Wildlife That Have Been Reported to the Unified 

Area Command from the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Incident Area Commands, Rehabilitation Centers, and 

Other Authorized Sources Operating within the Deepwater Horizon/BP Incident 

Impact Area through November 2, 2010............................................................................A-16

Figure 4-7. Summary of Avian Species Collected by Date Obtained from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) as Part of the NRDA Process through November 30, 2010........A-17

Figure 4-8. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of LowIncome Residents across Counties and Parishes in Texas and Louisiana based on 

U.S. Census Data from 2010 (USDOC, Census Bureau, 2010; Dismukes, in 

preparation). .......................................................................................................................A-18

Figure 4-9. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of Minority 

Residents across Counties and Parishes in Texas and Louisiana based on U.S. 

Census Data from 2010 (USDOC, Census Bureau, 2010; Dismukes, in preparation). .....A-19
x Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Figure 4-10. Location of All Deepwater Horizon Waste Disposal Sites (USDOC, NOAA, 2011; 

USEPA and British Petroleum, 2010; British Petroleum, 2011a and 2011b)....................A-20

Figure 4-11. Distribution of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility’s Claimants and the Average Amount 

Paid to Each Claimant across Gulf of Mexico Counties and Parishes (Gulf Coast 

Claims Facility, 2011)........................................................................................................A-21

Figure C-1. Location of Five Hypothetical Oil-Spill Launch Points for OSRA within the Study 

Area......................................................................................................................................C-8

Figure C-2. Locations of Parishes, Counties, and Coastlines Examined in the Special OSRA 

Run Conducted in Order to Estimate the Impacts of a Possible Future Catastrophic 

Spill......................................................................................................................................C-8

Figure C-3. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point One (LP 1) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in 

Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. ......................................................................................C-9

Figure C-4. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point Two (LP 2) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in 

Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. ....................................................................................C-10

Figure C-5. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point Three (LP 3) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in 

Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. ....................................................................................C-11

Figure C-6. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point Four (LP 4) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in 

Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. ....................................................................................C-12

Figure C-7. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point Five (LP 5) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in 

Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. ....................................................................................C-13
List of Tables xi

LIST OF TABLES 

 Page 

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions. ..................................A-22

Table 2-1. Presidential and Secretarial Inquiries Resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Event 

and Spill. ............................................................................................................................A-26

Table 3-1. Projected Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico OCS............................................................A-27

Table 3-2. Offshore Scenario Information Related to the Proposed Action in the Western 

Planning Area.....................................................................................................................A-27

Table 3-3. Deepwater Rig Counts, Day Rates, and Annual Drill Rates in the Gulf of Mexico. .........A-28

Table 3-4. Oil Spilled from Pipelines on the Federal OCS, 2002-2009..............................................A-28

Table 3-5. Mean Number and Sizes of Spills Estimated to Occur in OCS Offshore Waters 

from an Accident Related to Activities Supporting the Proposed Action Over a 

40-Year Time Period..........................................................................................................A-29

Table 3-6. Properties and Persistence by Oil Component Group........................................................A-30

Table 3-7. Estimated Number of Spills that Could Happen in Gulf Coastal Waters from an 

Accident Related to Activities Supporting a Proposed Action. .........................................A-31

Table 3-8. Primary Cleanup Options Used during the Deepwater Horizon Response........................A-31

Table 3-9. Pipelines Damaged after 2004-2008 Hurricanes Passing through the WPA and 

CPA....................................................................................................................................A-32

Table 3-10. Causes of Hurricane-Related Pipeline Spills Greater Than 50 Barrels..............................A-32

Table 3-11. 2009 Offshore Total Oil and Gas Production in the Offshore Areas of 11 

Contiguous Texas Coastal Counties...................................................................................A-33

Table 3-12. Total Producing Wells, Total Oil, and Total Gas Production in the Nine Coastal 

Parishes of Louisiana in 2009. ...........................................................................................A-33

Table 3-13. Designated Ocean Dredged-Material Disposal Sites in the Cumulative Impact Area.......A-34

Table 3-14. Projected OCS Sand Borrowing Needs for Planned Restoration Projects.........................A-36

Table 3-15. Vessel Calls at U.S. Gulf Coast Ports in 2004 and 2009. ..................................................A-36

Table 3-16. Corps of Engineers’ Galveston District Maintenance Dredging Activity 2000-2008 

for Federal Navigation Channels in Texas.........................................................................A-37

Table 3-17. Designated Louisiana Service Bases Identified in Applications for Pipelines, 

Exploration, and Development Plans between 2003 and 2008 and Miles of 

Navigation Canal Bordered by Saline, Brackish Water, and Freshwater Wetlands. ........A-38

Table 3-18. CIAP Allocations for all Eligible States ($).......................................................................A-39

Table 3-19. CIAP Grants Status for Gulf of Mexico States ($). ...........................................................A-39

Table 3-20. Hurricane Landfalls in the Northern Gulf of Mexico from 1995 to 2010.........................A-40

Table 3-21. OCS Facility Damage after the 2004-2008 Hurricanes in the WPA and CPA. .................A-40

Table 4-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards...........................................................................A-41

Table 4-2. Estimated Abundance of Cetaceans in the Northern Gulf of Mexico...............................A-42

Table 4-3. Sea Turtle Taxa of the Northern Gulf of Mexico...............................................................A-43
xii Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-4. Comparison of Oil Spills by Type, Location, Year, and Volume (in U.S. gallons) 

and Their Relative Impacts to Birds based on Surveys and Modeling. .............................A-44

Table 4-5. Relative Oiling Ranks for Various Avian Species Groupings Collected PostDeepwater Horizon Event in the Gulf of Mexico.............................................................A-46

Table 4-6. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PostDeepwater Horizon Event in the Gulf of Mexico.............................................................A-47

Table 4-7. Economic Significance of Commercial Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico.............................A-51

Table 4-8. Top Species Landed by Recreational Fishermen in Texas. ...............................................A-51

Table 4-9. Angler Effort in 2009 in Texas. .........................................................................................A-52

Table 4-10. Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico in 2008. .......................A-52

Table 4-11. Top Species Landed by Recreational Fishermen in Texas — Seasonal. ...........................A-53

Table 4-12. Angler Effort in 2009 and 2010. ........................................................................................A-54

Table 4-13. Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in Selected Geographic Regions...........A-55

Table 4-14. Total Wages Earned by Employees in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in Selected 

Geographic Regions...........................................................................................................A-56

Table 4-15. Total Tourism Spending in Gulf Coast States....................................................................A-57

Table 4-16. Coastal Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Estimates in 2004. ............................................A-57

Table 4-17. Categories of Tourism Spending in Texas.........................................................................A-57

Table 4-18. Tourism in Gulf Coast Regions of Texas in 2009..............................................................A-58

Table 4-19. Number of Beaches and Beach Participation in Gulf States..............................................A-58

Table 4-20. Deepwater Horizon Damage Claims in Texas...................................................................A-59

Table 4-21. Monthly Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry during 2010............................A-60

Table 4-22. Quarterly Wages in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in 2009 and 2010............................A-61

Table 4-23. Shipwrecks in the Western Planning Area.........................................................................A-62

Table 4-24. OCS and Non-OCS Program Spill Rates...........................................................................A-63

Table 4-25. Classification of the Gulf Economic Impact Areas............................................................A-64

Table 4-26. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

TX-1...................................................................................................................................A-66

Table 4-27. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

TX-2...................................................................................................................................A-68

Table 4-28. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

TX-3...................................................................................................................................A-70

Table 4-29. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

LA1. ...................................................................................................................................A-72

Table 4-30. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

LA-2...................................................................................................................................A-74

Table 4-31. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

LA-3...................................................................................................................................A-76

Table 4-32. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

LA-4...................................................................................................................................A-78
List of Tables xiii

Table 4-33. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

MS-1. .................................................................................................................................A-80

Table 4-34. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

AL-1...................................................................................................................................A-82

Table 4-35. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

FL-1....................................................................................................................................A-84

Table 4-36. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

FL-2....................................................................................................................................A-86

Table 4-37. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

FL-3....................................................................................................................................A-88

Table 4-38. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

FL-4....................................................................................................................................A-90

Table 4-39. Baseline Population Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area. .....................A-92

Table 4-40. Baseline Employment Projections (in Thousands) by Coastal Subarea.............................A-93

Table 4-41. Liquid Waste Collected from the Deepwater Horizon Event. ...........................................A-94

Table 4-42. Solid Waste Collected from the Deepwater Horizon Event. .............................................A-95

Table 4-43. Deepwater Horizon Waste Destination Communities. ......................................................A-96

Table 4-44. Gulf Coast Claims Facility — Deepwater Horizon Claimant Data by State. ....................A-97

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments. .........................................................................................................A-100

Table C-1. Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at 

Launch Point One Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 

Days. ..................................................................................................................................C-14

Table C-2. Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at 

Launch Point Two Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 

Days. ..................................................................................................................................C-15

Table C-3. Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at 

Launch Point Three Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 

Days. ..................................................................................................................................C-16

Table C-4. Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at 

Launch Point Four Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 

Days. ..................................................................................................................................C-17

Table C-5. Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at 

Launch Point Five Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 

Days. ..................................................................................................................................C-18
CHAPTER 5 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Consultation and Coordination 5-3 

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

5.1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of this Supplemental EIS is to address the remaining proposed Gulf of Mexico WPA 

OCS oil and gas lease sale (Lease Sale 218) scheduled under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program: 2012-2017 (5-Year Program). This Supplemental EIS was prepared because of the 

potential changes to the baseline conditions of the environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural resources 

that may have occurred as a result of (1) the DWH event between April 20 and July 15, 2010 (the period 

when oil flowed from the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 [Figure 1-2]); (2) the acute 

impacts that have been reported or surveyed since that time; and (3) any new information that may be 

available since the publication of the Multisale EIS or the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS. The 

environmental resources include sensitive coastal environments, offshore benthic resources, marine 

mammals, sea turtles, coastal and marine birds, endangered and threatened species, and fisheries. This 

Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed action on the marine, coastal, and 

human environments. It is important to note that this Supplemental EIS was prepared using the 

scientifically credible information that was publicly available at the time this document was prepared. 

5.2. NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIS 

On November 10, 2010, a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental EIS (NOI) was published in the 

Federal Register. A second NOI was published on November 16, 2010, to correct clerical errors. 

Additional public notices were distributed via local newspapers, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Internet. 

A 45-day comment period, which closed on January 3, 2011, was announced for the NOI. Federal, State, 

and local governments, along with other interested parties, were invited to send written comments to the 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. The comments in these letters are 

summarized in Chapter 5.3.2.

5.3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS 

Scoping for the Draft Supplemental EIS was conducted in accordance with CEQ regulations 

implementing NEPA. Scoping provides those with an interest in the OCS Program an opportunity to 

provide comments on the proposed action. In addition, scoping provides BOEMRE an opportunity to 

update the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s environmental and socioeconomic information base. The 

scoping process commenced on November 16, 2010, with the publication of the corrected NOI in the 

Federal Register. The NOI and scoping process was conducted for both this Supplemental EIS for the 

WPA and for a separate Supplemental EIS for the CPA, which is currently under development. Scoping 

meetings were held in Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama. No meeting had more than 15 attendees. The 

dates, times, locations, and public attendance of the scoping meetings for the proposed Draft 

Supplemental EIS were as follows: 

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 Wednesday, November 17, 2010 

1:00 p.m. CST until adjournment 1:00 p.m. CST until adjournment 

Hilton New Orleans Airport Houston Airport Marriott 

New Orleans, Louisiana Houston, Texas 

9 registered attendees 16 registered attendees 

4 speakers 5 speakers 

Thursday, November 18, 2010 

1:00 p.m. CST until adjournment 

The Battle House Renaissance 

Mobile Hotel and Spa 

Mobile, Alabama 

13 registered attendees 

4 speakers 
5-4 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

5.3.1. Summary of Scoping Comments 

Comments (both verbal and written) were received in response to the NOI and from the three scoping 

meetings from Federal, State, and local government agencies; interest groups; industry; businesses; the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida; and the general public on the scope of the Supplemental EIS, significant issues 

that should be addressed, alternatives that should be considered, and mitigation measures. All scoping 

comments received were considered in the preparation of this Supplemental EIS. All speakers at the 

scoping meetings were generally supportive of the proposed lease sales and recognized the economic 

benefits of the OCS Program. Comments received from attendees included the following: 

 use currently available new information to evaluate impacts; 

 supported holding lease sales as soon as possible; 

 move expeditiously to complete the Supplemental EIS; 

 cancelling lease sales would harm the economy, damage energy production, depress 

job creation, and reduce revenues to the State and Federal treasuries; 

 resume permitting of existing leases; 

 Lease Sales 216, 218, and 222 should be held with no reduction in acreage; 

 recommended that the Supplemental EIS incorporate all new regulations and 

requirements put in place post-Macondo; and 

 put no restrictions on drilling in deepwater areas. 

5.3.2. Summary of Written Comments Received in Response to the Notice of 

Intent 

In response to the NOI, BOEMRE received 11 individual letters by e-mail, 595 identical form 

e-letters from an advocacy website, and a package of three CD’s with over 20,000 identical websitederived form letters from an advocacy group. Information submitted from written comments is 

summarized in Table 5-1, including the form letters submitted by the Consumer Energy Alliance. All 

scoping comments received were considered in the preparation of this Supplemental EIS. Scoping 

comments appropriate for a lease sale NEPA document include scenario information; physical, biological, 

and socioeconomic resources to consider; impacting factors and impacts on resources; alternatives to be 

analyzed; and mitigation measures. Several comments received did not apply to scoping for this 

document including, but not limited to, scheduling and delays of remaining lease sales, expediting the 

completion of the Supplemental EIS, impacts from delay of the lease sales that had been scheduled as part 

of the 5-Year Program, categorical exclusions, and using this Supplemental EIS as a document to tier 

future lease sales for the 2012-2017 lease sale program. All other comments described in Table 5-1 were 

considered in this document. 

5.3.3. Cooperating Agency 

According to Part 516 of the DOI Departmental Manual, BOEMRE must invite eligible governmental 

entities to participate as cooperating agencies when developing an EIS, in accordance with the 

requirements of NEPA and the CEQ regulations. The BOEMRE must also consider any requests by 

eligible government entities to participate as a cooperating agency with respect to a particular EIS, and 

then to either accept or deny such requests. 

The NOI’s published on November 10 and November 16, 2010, included invitations to other Federal 

agencies and State, tribal, and local governments to consider becoming cooperating agencies in the 

preparation of this Supplemental EIS. The USEPA (Region 6) and NOAA requested to participate as 

cooperating agencies. The BOEMRE has accepted NOAA and USEPA (Region 6) as cooperating 

agencies. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-5 

5.4. DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR REVIEW AND 

COMMENT

The BOEMRE sent copies of the Draft Supplemental EIS to the public and private agencies and 

groups listed below. Local libraries along the Gulf Coast were provided copies of this document; a list of 

these libraries is available on the BOEMRE Internet website at http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/

regulate/environ/libraries.html. To initiate a public review and comment period on the Draft 

Supplemental EIS, BOEMRE published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on April 20, 

2011 (USEPA Notice of Availability publication date, April 22, 2011); all comments received were 

considered in the preparation of this Final Supplemental EIS. 

Federal Agencies 

Congress 

Congressional Budget Office 

House Resources Subcommittee on Energy 

and Mineral Resources 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

Department of Commerce 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Department of Defense 

Department of the Air Force 

Department of the Army 

 Corps of Engineers 

Department of the Navy 

 Naval Mine and ASW Command 

Department of Energy 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve PMD 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Geological Survey 

National Park Service 

Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance 

Office of the Solicitor 

Department of State 

Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs 

Department of Transportation 

Coast Guard 

Office of Pipeline Safety 

Environmental Protection Agency 

 Region 4 

 Region 6 

Marine Mammal Commission 

State and Local Agencies 

Louisiana 

Governor’s Office 

City of Grand Isle 

City of Morgan City 

City of New Orleans 

Department of Culture, Recreation, and 

Tourism 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Transportation and 

Development 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce 

Jefferson Parish Director 

Jefferson Parish President 

Lafourche Parish CZM 

Lafourche Parish Water District #1 

Louisiana Geological Survey 

South Lafourche Levee District 

St. Bernard Planning Commission 

State House of Representatives, Natural 

Resources Committee 

State Legislature, Natural Resources 

Committee 

Texas 

Governor’s Office 

Attorney General of Texas 

City of Lake Jackson 

General Land Office 

Southeast Texas Regional Planning 

Commission 

State Legislature Natural Resources 

Committee 

State Senate Natural Resources Committee 

Texas Historical Commission 

Texas Legislation Council 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

Texas Water Development Board 

Texas Sea Grant 
5-6 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Industry 

Air Armament Center 

Alabama Petroleum Council 

American Petroleum Institute 

Area Energy LLC 

Baker Atlas 

Bellwether Group 

B-J Services Co 

BP Amoco 

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 

Coastal Conservation Association 

Coastal Environments, Inc. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc. 

Ecological Associates, Inc. 

Ecology and Environment 

Energy Partners, Ltd. 

EOG Resources, Inc. 

Escambia County Marine Resources 

Exxon Mobil Production Company 

Florida Petroleum Council 

Florida Propane Gas Association 

Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. 

Fugro Geo Services, Inc. 

Gulf Environmental Associates 

Gulf of Mexico Newsletter 

Horizon Marine, Inc. 

Industrial Vehicles International, Inc. 

International Association of Geophysical 

Contractors 

J. Connor Consultants 

John Chance Land Surveys, Inc. 

Marine Safety Office 

Midstream Fuel Service 

Mote Marine Laboratory 

Murphy Exploration & Production 

Newfield Exploration Company 

NWF Daily News 

Petrobras America, Inc. 

PPG Industries, Inc. 

Propane Market Strategy Newsletter 

Science Applications International 

Corporation 

Seneca Resources Corporation 

Shell Exploration & Production Company 

Stone Energy Corporation 

Strategic Management Services-USA 

T. Baker Smith, Inc. 

Texas Geophysical Company, Inc. 

The Houston Exploration Company 

Triton Engineering Services Co. 

W & T Offshore, Inc. 

Washington Post 

WEAR-TV 

Special Interest Groups 

1000 Friends of Florida 

Alabama Oil & Gas Board 

American Cetacean Society 

Audubon Louisiana Nature Center 

Bay County Audubon Society 

Citizens Assoc. of Bonita Beach 

Clean Gulf Associates 

Coastal Conservation Association 

Earthjustice 

Florida Chamber of Commerce 

Florida Institute of Oceanography 

Florida Marine Research 

Florida Natural Area Inventory 

Florida Public Interest Research Group 

Florida Sea Grant College 

Gulf Coast Environmental Defense 

Gulf County 

Gulf County Atlantic Fisheries 

Gulf Island National Seashore 

Hernando County Planning Department 

Hunt Oil 

Izaak Walton League of America, Inc 

JOC Venture 

Louisiana State University 

Marine Mammal Commission 

Mission Enhancement Office 

Mississippi State University 

Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Nature Conservancy 

Nicholas State University 

Perdido Key Association 

Population Connection 

Portersville Revival Group 

Sierra Club 

South Mobile Communities Association 

Southeastern Fisheries Association 

The Conservancy 

The Conservation Fund 

The Daspit Company 

The Nature Conservancy 

Walton County Growth Management 
Consultation and Coordination 5-7 

Ports/Docks 

Louisiana 

Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission 

Greater Lafourche Port Commission 

Grand Isle Port Commission 

Plaquemines Port, Harbor and Terminal 

District 

Port of Baton Rouge 

Port of Iberia District 

Port of New Orleans 

Twin Parish Port Commission 

St. Bernard Port, Harbor and Terminal 

 District 

Texas 

Brownsville Navigation District—Port of 

Brownsville 

Port Freeport 

Port Mansfield/Willacy County Navigation 

District 

Port of Beaumont 

Port of Corpus Christi Authority 

Port of Galveston 

Port of Houston Authority 

Port of Isabel—San Benito Navigation 

District 

Port of Port Arthur Navigation District 

5.5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

In accordance with 30 CFR 256.26, BOEMRE scheduled public hearings soliciting comments on the 

Draft Supplemental EIS. The hearings provided the Secretary of the Interior with information from 

interested parties to help in the evaluation of potential effects of the proposed lease sale. An 

announcement of the dates, times, and locations of the public hearings was included in the Notice of 

Availability for the Draft Supplemental EIS. A copy of the public hearing notices was included with the 

Draft Supplemental EIS that was mailed to the parties indicated above, posted on the BOEMRE Internet 

website (http://www.gomr.boemre.gov), and published in local newspapers. 

The hearings were held on the following dates and at the times and locations indicated below: 

Tuesday, May 17, 2011 

1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. CDT 

Houston Airport Marriott 

George Bush Intercontinental 

18700 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 

Houston, Texas 77032 

20 registered attendees 

4 speakers 

Thursday, May 19, 2011 

1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. CDT 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123 

8 registered attendees 

0 speakers 

Houston, Texas, May 17, 2011 

Four speakers representing industry provided testimony at the public hearings held in Houston, Texas, 

on May 17, 2011. Industry representatives included Walt Rosenbusch of the International Association of 

Geophysical Contractors, Marc Lawrence of Global Geoscience Solutions, Erik Milito of the American 

Petroleum Institute, and Clint Moore, a geologist. All speakers offered support for proceeding with 

proposed WPA Lease Sale 218. Mr. Rosenbusch and Mr. Lawrence commented that, although the 

“towed streamer” approach to seismic operations was the predominant method, the Supplemental EIS 

should also incorporate other types of seismic operations in their analysis. Mr. Milito emphasized the 

need to proceed with regularly scheduled lease sales in terms of needed job creation, increased 

government revenue, and needed energy production. Mr. Moore offered support for Mr. Milito’s 

comments. 

Responses to these comments have been incorporated into the responses to the letters of comment in 

Chapter 5.11. 

New Orleans, Louisiana, May 19, 2011 

There were no speakers at the public hearings held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on May 19, 2011. 
5-8 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

5.6. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

If a Federal agency’s activities or development projects within or outside of the coastal zone will have 

reasonably foreseeable coastal effects in the coastal zone, then the activity is subject to a Federal 

Consistency Determination (CD). A consistency review will be performed and a CD will be prepared for 

the affected States prior to the proposed lease sale. To prepare the CD’s, BOEMRE reviews each State’s 

Coastal Management Plan (CMP) and analyzes the potential impacts as outlined in this Supplemental 

EIS, new information, and applicable studies as they pertain to the enforceable policies of each CMP. 

The CZMA requires that Federal actions that are reasonably likely to affect any land or water use or 

natural resource of the coastal zone be “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” with relevant 

enforceable policies of the State’s federally approved coastal management program (15 CFR 930 

Subpart C). 

Based on the analyses, the BOEMRE Director makes an assessment of consistency, which is then sent 

to each State with the Proposed Notice of Sale. If a State concurs, BOEMRE can hold the lease sale. If 

the State objects, it must do the following under the CZMA: (1) indicate how the BOEMRE presale 

proposal is inconsistent with their CMP and suggest alternative measures to bring the BOEMRE proposal 

into consistency with their CMP; or (2) describe the need for additional information that would allow a 

determination of consistency. Unlike the consistency process for specific OCS plans and permits, there is 

no procedure for administrative appeal to the Secretary of Commerce for a Federal CD for presale 

activities. Either BOEMRE or the State may request mediation. Mediation is voluntary, and the DOC 

would serve as the mediator. Whether there is mediation or not, the final CD is made by DOI and it is the 

final administrative action for the presale consistency process. Each Gulf State’s CMP is described in 

Appendix B of the Multisale EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007b). 

5.7. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 

et seq.), establishes a national policy designed to protect and conserve threatened and endangered species 

and the ecosystems upon which they depend. In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, BOEMRE 

consulted with NMFS and FWS on possible and potential impacts from the proposed sale on 

endangered/threatened species and designated critical habitat under their jurisdiction. A biological 

assessment was prepared for each consultation. The action area analyzed in the biological assessments 

included the lease sale area addressed in this Supplemental EIS. 

The formal ESA consultation with NMFS was concluded with receipt of the Biological Opinion on 

July 3, 2007. The Biological Opinion concludes that the proposed lease sale and associated activities in 

the Gulf of Mexico under the 5-Year Program are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened and endangered species under NMFS jurisdiction or destroy or adversely modify designated 

critical habitat. The informal ESA consultation with FWS was concluded with a letter dated 

September 14, 2007. The FWS concurred with BOEMRE’s determination that this proposed action under 

the 5-Year Program was not likely to adversely affect the threatened/endangered species or designated 

critical habitat under FWS jurisdiction. 

Under these existing consultations with FWS and NMFS, BOEMRE continues to request annual 

concurrence from both NMFS and FWS to ensure current activities and any actual take remain consistent 

with the Terms and Conditions of the Biological Opinion. For 2010, NMFS emailed their concurrence to 

BOEMRE on December 3, 2009, and FWS emailed their concurrence to BOEMRE on December 8, 2009. 

Following the DWH event, on July 30, 2010, BOEMRE requested reinitiation of ESA consultation 

with both NMFS and FWS. The NMFS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on September 24, 2010. 

The FWS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on September 27, 2010. The reinitiated consultations are 

not complete at this time, although BOEMRE is in discussions with both agencies. The BOEMRE is 

working with both agencies to develop an interim coordination program while consultation is ongoing. 

The existing consultations remain in effect until the reinitiated consultations are completed. The 

existing consultation recognizes that BOEMRE-required mitigations and other reasonable and prudent 

measures should reduce the likelihood of impacts from BOEMRE-authorized activities. 

With consultation ongoing, BOEMRE will continue to comply with all Reasonable and Prudent 

Measures and the Terms and Conditions under these existing consultations, along with implementing the 
Consultation and Coordination 5-9 

current BOEMRE-imposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Based on the most recent 

and best available information at the time, BOEMRE will also continue to closely evaluate and assess 

risks to listed species and designated critical habitat in upcoming environmental compliance 

documentation under NEPA and other statutes. 

5.8. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 

Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS on any action that may result in adverse effects to 

EFH. The NMFS published the final rule implementing the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (50 CFR 600) on January 17, 2002. Certain OCS activities 

authorized by BOEMRE may result in adverse effects to EFH, and therefore, require EFH consultation. 

In March 2000, BOEMRE’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region consulted with NMFS’s Southeast 

Regional Office in preparing a NMFS regional finding for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region that allows 

BOEMRE to incorporate the EFH assessments into NEPA documents. The BOEMRE consulted on a 

programmatic level by letters of July 1999 and August 1999 to address EFH issues for certain BOEMRE 

OCS activities (i.e., plans of exploration and production, pipeline rights-of-way, and platform removals). 

An EFH consultation for the CPA and WPA lease sales included in the 5-Year Program, using the 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2003-2007; Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 

198, and 201; Western Planning Area Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200, Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (USDOI, MMS, 2002) as the NEPA document, was initiated in March 2002 by this Agency 

with NMFS’s Southeast Regional Office. The NMFS responded in April 2002, endorsing the 

implementation of resource protection measures previously developed cooperatively by this Agency and 

NMFS in 1999 to minimize and avoid EFH impacts related to exploration and development activities in 

the CPA and WPA. In addition to routine measures, additional conservation recommendations were 

made. In May 2002, this Agency responded to NMFS, acknowledging receipt and agreement to follow 

the additional conservation recommendations. The EFH conservation measures recommended by NMFS 

serve the purpose of protecting EFH. Continuing agreements, including avoidance distances from the 

topographic features’ No Activity Zones and live-bottom pinnacle features, as well as circumstances that 

require project-specific consultation, appear in the clarifying provisions of NTL 2004-G05. 

Effective January 23, 2006, NMFS modified the identification and descriptions of EFH. One of the 

most important changes noted in the amendment is the elimination of the EFH description and 

identification from waters between 100 fathoms and the seaward limit of the EEZ. 

Further programmatic consultation was initiated and completed for the 5-Year Program’s lease sales 

included in the Multisale EIS. The NMFS concurred by letter dated December 12, 2006, that the 

information presented in the 2003-2007 Draft Multisale EIS satisfies the EFH consultation procedures 

outlined in 50 CFR 600.920 and as specified in NMFS’s March 17, 2000, findings. Provided that 

BOEMRE’s proposed mitigations, NMFS’s previous EFH conservation recommendations, and the 

standard lease stipulations and regulations are followed as proposed, NMFS agrees that impacts to EFH 

and associated fishery resources resulting from activities conducted under the 5-Year Program’s lease 

sales would be minimal. Following the DWH event, on July 30, 2010, BOEMRE requested reinitiation of 

ESA consultation with both NMFS and FWS. The NMFS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on 

September 24, 2010. The EFH consultation was also addressed in NMFS’s letter. The reinitiated 

consultations are not complete at this time, although BOEMRE and NMFS have had discussions and are 

working on a new consultation document for the 2012-2017 Multisale EIS. 

5.9. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470) Federal agencies 

are required to consider the effect of their undertakings on historic properties. The implementing 

regulations for Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f), issued by the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (16 CFR 800), specify the required review process. The BOEMRE initiated a request for 

consultation with the affected Gulf States and Tribal Nations on November 12, 2010, via a formal letter. 

A timeline of 30 days was provided and two responses were received. 
5-10 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

The State of Louisiana, in a letter to BOEMRE dated December 16, 2010, indicated that no known 

historic properties will be affected by this undertaking and that consultation regarding the proposed action 

is not necessary. The Seminole Tribe of Florida-Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (STOF-THPO) 

responded to BOEMRE’s request for consultation on December 6, 2010. The STOF-THPO indicated that 

there was no objection to the proposed undertaking at this time. The STOF-THPO requested to review 

the impending remote-sensing survey reports that are to be conducted over the high-probability zones 

within the project area (which is not within the WPA or the subject of this Supplemental EIS). 

Additionally, the STOF-THPO requested to be notified if cultural resources that are potentially ancestral 

or historically relevant to the Seminole Tribe of Florida are inadvertently discovered at any point during 

this process. Neither of these responses requested consultation. No further responses were received 

beyond the 30-day timeline and no further requests for consultation were received. 

This Section 106 consultation is concluded at this time. The BOEMRE will continue to impose 

mitigating measures, and monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that historic properties are not 

affected by the proposed undertaking. The BOEMRE will reinitiate the consultation process with 

affected parties should such circumstances warrant further consultation. 

5.10. MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL 

EIS’S

Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS were received during the public hearings and were 

received via written and electronic correspondence. As a result of these comments, changes have been 

made between the Draft and Final Supplemental EIS’s. The text has been revised or expanded to provide 

clarification on specific issues, as well as to provide updated information. In addition, between the Draft 

and Final Supplement EIS, BOEMRE continued to update information and data relied on in this 

document and removed information determined to be irrelevant for this proposed action (e.g., information 

regarding DWH event that was not relevant to the WPA). None of the alterations between the Draft and 

Final Supplement EIS’s changed the conclusions herein. 

5.11. LETTERS OF COMMENT ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS AND 

BOEMRE’S RESPONSES

The Notice of Availability and announcement of public hearings were published in the Federal 

Register by BOEMRE on April 20, 2011 (USEPA Notice of Availability publication date, April 22, 

2011), were posted on BOEMRE’s Internet website, and were mailed to interested parties. Distribution of 

the Draft Supplemental EIS began on April 20, 2011. The comment period ended on June 6, 2011. 

Fourteen comment letters were received from the public and private agencies and groups listed below: 

Federal Agencies 

Department of Commerce 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Department of the Interior 

 Fish and Wildlife Service 

 National Park Service 

Environmental Protection Agency 

State Agencies and Representatives 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality 

Local Agencies 

No comments were received. 

Organizations and Associations 

American Petroleum Institute 

Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders 

of Wildlife, Earthjustice 

Center for Regulatory Effectiveness 

International Association of Geophysical 

Contractors 

Oceana 

USA Citizen1 

Industry 

Anadarko 

Chickasaw Distributors, Inc. 

General Public 

Dwight David 

Copies of these letters are presented on the subsequent pages. Each letter’s comments have been 

marked for identification purposes. The BOEMRE’s responses immediately follow each letter. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-11 
5-12 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS USEPA-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-13 U SEPA-1 (continued) U SEPA-2 U SEPA-3 
5-14 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS U SEPA-3 (continued) 
Consultation and Coordination 5-15 

USEPA-1 The purpose of NEPA is to help inform the decisionmaker regarding environmental impacts 

of the proposed action. For this reason, the analyses in this Supplemental EIS considered 

changes to baseline conditions that may have occurred since the Multisale EIS and the 2009-

2012 Supplemental EIS, including information that is now available since the DWH event. 

As acknowledged in this Supplemental EIS, credible scientific data regarding the potential 

short-term and long-term impacts of the DWH event and the associated oil spill are 

incomplete at this time. However, the NEPA regulations contemplate that agencies often do 

not have complete and perfect information on the impacts of their activities but recognize that 

a process is necessary to allow agencies to fulfill their missions and proceed to the 

decisionmaking stage. In light of the absence of this information, BOEMRE considered what 

information was relevant and essential to its analysis of alternatives based upon the individual 

resource analyzed. If essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, BOEMRE 

considered whether it was possible to obtain the information, if the cost of obtaining it is 

exorbitant, and, if it cannot be obtained, apply acceptable scientific methodologies to make 

reasoned estimates using available information in light of the otherwise incomplete or 

unavailable information. Information on many impacts of the DWH event and the associated 

oil spill, particularly as part of the NRDA process, may not be available for years, and 

certainly not within the contemplated timeframe of this NEPA process. In its place, subjectmatter experts have used what credible scientific information is currently available and have 

applied this information using accepted scientific methodologies to evaluate impacts to the 

resources. Language in Chapter 4.1, “Incomplete or Unavailable Information,” was clarified 

to prevent any misperceptions on this issue. 

 Although BOEMRE appreciates the suggestion by USEPA to include a stipulation that a 

Supplemental Information Report be prepared, such a stipulation is not necessary given the 

current status of other lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s 

2012-2017 Multisale EIS is currently in preparation. Subsequent NEPA documents for 

various OCS Program activities will be completed on regular intervals (approximately yearly) 

and will include new information that comes forth since the completion of the previous 

environmental documents. The EIS’s will be available for public review and comment. As 

such, a Supplemental Information Report would be redundant with these ongoing 

environmental reviews and an unnecessary diversion of resources. 

USEPA-2 Chapter 3.3.3 (“Dredged Material Disposal”) of this Supplemental EIS was revised to 

explain that dredged material is available for beneficial use if funds are available and to 

clarify that the ocean dredged material disposal sites listed in Table 3-13 of this 

Supplemental EIS are those sites utilized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

USEPA-3 Comments noted. Additional information was added to Chapter 4.1.1.18.4.3 to address 

information related to persons with limited English proficiency and to efforts that were made 

by the USCG (in their lead role in the Incident Command Center) to distribute news and 

information following the DWH event. 
5-16 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-17 
5-18 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-19 NOAA-1 
5-20 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS NOAA-2 NOAA-3 NOAA-4 NOAA-5 
Consultation and Coordination 5-21 NOAA-6 NOAA-7 
5-22 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS NOAA-8 NOAA-9 
Consultation and Coordination 5-23 NOAA -9 (continued) 
5-24 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-25 
5-26 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS NOAA-10 
Consultation and Coordination 5-27 
5-28 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

NOAA-1 Comment noted. The decision on which alternative will be selected will be made and, if the 

decision is to hold a lease sale under either Alternative A or B, will be announced in the Final 

Notice of Sale. 

NOAA-2 Information was added to the document to include the suggested revisions. 

NOAA-3 Information was added to the document to include the suggested revisions. 

NOAA-4 Information was added to the document to include the suggested revisions. 

NOAA-5 Information was added to Chapter 4.1.1.13.3 addressing the May 27, 2011, NOAA 

announcement that the Atlantic bluefin tuna does not warrant species protection under the 

ESA at this time. 

NOAA-6 The BOEMRE has clarified the Supplemental EIS language in Chapter 4.1 regarding 

“Incomplete or Unavailable Information” to address gaps in information on, among other 

things, mobile and nonmobile biological resources and endangered or threatened species. In 

compliance with CEQ’s NEPA regulations on incomplete or unavailable information, 

BOEMRE has determined that this information may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable 

significant impacts. However, it is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. In 

addition, in compliance with ESA Section 7(d), the action alternatives identified in this 

Supplemental EIS, if chosen, would not result in an irretrievable or irreversible commitment 

of resources that would foreclose the inclusion of reasonable and prudent measures. The 

BOEMRE will continue to consult with NMFS and, during the post-lease approval process, 

BOEMRE will consider imposing mitigations or conditions of approval to minimize or 

eliminate impacts on these species. 

NOAA-7 Comment noted. The BOEMRE acknowledges that oil exploration and production on the 

OCS involves inherent risks. The BOEMRE, as the lead regulatory and enforcement 

authority for OCS exploration and production, is constantly evaluating new information and 

technological innovations that may reduce these risks. This Supplemental EIS evaluates 

these risks generally, but most are predicated on site-specific factors that BOEMRE evaluates 

in the post-lease process when it imposes conditions of approval, as appropriate. 

NOAA-8 These recommendations will be considered as BOEMRE and NMFS develop a coordination 

and review strategy for BOEMRE-permitted activities, subject to the Memorandum of 

Understanding between BOEMRE and NMFS (May 23, 2011), and applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements. 

NOAA-9 Pursuant to the Biological Opinion, these listed conditions are implemented through lease 

stipulation and mitigations, and per guidance provided by NTL’s. 

NOAA-10 Comment noted. The stipulation and NTL 09-G39 would provide adequate protections for 

the Stetson “ring” feature by limiting bottom-disturbing activities within 100 ft (30 m) of the 

ring feature and requiring BOEMRE oversight. Although the stipulation and NTL do not 

specifically provide for a buffer area, hazard surveys post-lease would be required as part of 

the EP, DOCD, or pipeline application. The BOEMRE technical staff reviews the hazard 

surveys to identify additional potential sensitive biological features. If potential sensitive 

biological features are identified in the hazard survey, BOEMRE would require the operator 

to avoid the feature. These protections are more than adequate to protect potential sensitive 

biological features, including those areas around the Stetson ring, while potential changes to 

the No Activity Zone are considered by NOAA. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-29 
5-30 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS FWS-1 FWS-2 FWS-3 FWS-4 FWS -5 FWS-6 FWS-7 FWS-8 FWS-9 FWS -10 
Consultation and Coordination 5-31 FWS-11 FWS-12 FWS-13 FWS-14 FWS-15 FW S-16 FWS-17 FWS -18 FWS-19 FW S-20 
5-32 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS FWS-20 (cont ) FW S-21 FWS-22 
Consultation and Coordination 5-33 

FWS-1 The reference has been deleted. 

FWS-2 The FWS comment was noted and revisions were made to the text. 

FWS-3 A revision was made to the document to reflect the correction to Appendix E. 

FWS-4 The text has been edited in multiple locations to indicate that the discussion is of reported 

spills, which may not include all spills. 

FWS-5 The number of OCS-related pipeline landfalls that occur in Texas was added to Chapter 

3.1.1.4.1. 

FWS-6 Fraser and Ellis (2008) compared oil spill frequency predictions in advance of a project to 

observed data during and after. For this proposed action, the predicted number of spills is 

based on the estimated range of crude oil volume to be handled as a result of the lease sale. 

Because nearly all of the spills are 1 bbl or less (based on historical data) and the scenario 

includes such a wide range in oil production, BOEMRE’s ability to correctly predict spills 

resulting from the proposed action in a manner similar to Fraser and Ellis (2008) is not 

compatible with a single lease sale within the context of multiple lease sales over time in a 

single planning area. 

FWS-7 See Appendix C for first order results for 3, 10, 30, and 120 days for a 90-day spill event. 

The greatest increase in the percent chance of a spill contacting parish and county coastlines 

occurred between 3 and 30 days of the spill start. Tables C-1 through C-4 in Appendix C

show that, in most cases, there was up to a 5 percent increase in the percent chance of contact, 

with an individual parish or county coastline in the interval from 30 to 120 days after the spill 

start date. 

FWS-8 The text has been revised so that the sentence reflects the data found in Table 3-5. 

FWS-9 The text that references Chapter 3.2.2.1 has been revised and all references to that chapter 

has been deleted. 

FWS-10 The BOEMRE analyzes OCS spills using Anderson and LaBelle (2000), Poisson 

distributions, and the OSRA model. The BOEMRE analyzes coastal spills using historical 

data from USCG records. Although these USCG records include a source, such as pipeline or 

facility, they do not specify whether the oil is from State or Federal waters. The estimate of 

two 3,000-bbl spills on page 4-46 and in Table 3-7 refers to coastal spills both in the CPA 

and WPA. The BOEMRE did not estimate two spills in the WPA at an assumed size of 3,000 

bbl. The table gives an estimate of <1 to 1 spill in coastal waters. The comment that two 

3,000-bbl spills be included in calculating probability cannot be accommodated because of 

the different ways in which BOEMRE analyzes coastal and OCS spills. 

FWS-11 Additional information was added to Chapter 4.1.1.11.1 describing additional information 

about green sea turtle nesting on the Texas coast. 

FWS-12 Accidental and cumulative impacts to nesting sea turtles and their habitats are discussed in 

detail in the Multisale EIS and are not repeated in this document, but they are referenced in 

the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS. No new information relevant to these impacts has been 

released regarding sea turtle nesting habitats and eggs since publication of the Multisale EIS 

and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS. The language in Chapter 4.1.1.11.1 has been 

clarified. 

FWS-13 Additional information was added to the document to discuss the DWH event, identified 

those bird groups or species found in the WPA that either could have been impacted or were 
5-34 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

unlikely to have been impacted (based on migration and residency patterns), and the potential 

impacts to migrating birds found in the WPA. 

FWS-14 The document was revised to update information related to whooping cranes. 

FWS-15 The document was revised to update information related to the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act. 

FWS-16 Recommendation noted. 

FWS-17 Information was added to the document to discuss the use of dispersants and training of 

cleanup personnel to reduce impacts to coastal and marine birds and their habitat. 

FWS-18 Information was added to the document to discuss the total number of pipeline landfalls 

anticipated for the OCS Program from 2007 to 2046. 

FWS-19 Appendix B is not an evaluation of risk and makes the assumption that a low-probability, 

catastrophic oil spill occurred in either shallow water or deep water. The primary intent is to 

present a conservative estimate of the duration of a catastrophic oil spill so that the magnitude 

of potential effects, however small the risk, is understood. While BOEMRE will not allow an 

operator to begin drilling until adequate oil-spill response and containment capabilities are in 

place, it would be impossible to predict with absolute certainty the efficiency and efficacy of 

that capability in the event of a spill or when complete containment would be possible. If a 

loss of well control event occurred in the future, it is possible that it could be contained in a 

best case scenario within weeks with the utilization of the rapid subsea containment 

packages, thereby greatly limiting the amount of oil potentially lost to the environment. 

However, there are rare situations where this equipment might not be able to be used to 

control the well, for example, if the drilling structure were to fall directly on top of the well as 

debris during a loss of well control event. For these reasons, BOEMRE has presented a 

conservative estimate of the duration, based on past blowouts of comparable scale, and the 

period of time required to kill those wells. 

FWS-20 In Appendix B, the discussion of the least tern has been removed and discussions were added 

to address the endangered whooping crane and wood stork. 

FWS-21 The BOEMRE appreciates this comment, which was an oversight. Section 4.2.2.5 

(diamondback terrapins) of Appendix B was edited to reflect this comment. Since the actual 

effects from an oil spill are still unknown, some of the possible effects could include skin 

irritation from the oil or dispersants, respiratory problems from the inhalation of volatile 

petroleum compounds or dispersants, gastrointestinal problems caused by ingestion of oil or 

dispersants, and damage to other organs due to ingestion or inhalation of these chemicals. 

 The recommended change to Section 4.2.2.5 is to change the sentence to read, “The range of 

the possible chronic effects from oil and dispersants contact including lethal or sublethal oilrelated injuries may include skin irritation from the oil or dispersants, respiratory problems 

from the inhalation of volatile petroleum compounds or dispersants, gastrointestinal problems 

caused by ingestion of oil or dispersants, and damage to other organs due to ingestion or 

inhalation of these chemicals.” 

FWS-22 Comment noted. A preliminary analysis, following the methodology of Anderson and 

LaBelle (2000), of oil-spill occurrence data through June 2010 (including the Macondo spill) 

indicates a spill rate decline in the last 15 years compared with the entire 1964 to June 2010 

record. The results of this analysis have not been peer reviewed or published; therefore, the 

more conservative spill rates were used for this analysis. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-35 NPS-1 
5-36 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

NPS-1 Comment noted. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-37 LDEQ-1
5-38 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-39 

LDEQ-1 Comment noted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to comply with all applicable Federal, 

State, and local laws and regulations. 
5-40 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS TCEQ-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-41 

TCEQ-1 Comment noted. 
5-42 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-43 API-1 API-2 
5-44 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API-3 
Consultation and Coordination 5-45 API-4 
5-46 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API-5 
Consultation and Coordination 5-47 
5-48 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-49 API-6 
5-50 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-51 

Responses to Comments in API’s Transmittal Letter 

API-1 The decision on which alternative is selected will be made after this Supplemental EIS is 

finalized and, if the decision is to hold a lease sale under either Alternative A or B, it will be 

announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 

API-2 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on April 22, 2011, the subject-matter experts 

incorporated relevant information and updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. The 

incorporation of relevant information is time consuming, as it must be obtained and reviewed 

by subject-matter experts in the context of the source of the data, research methodology, and 

data quality. As is necessary under every NEPA analysis, at some point the subject-matter 

experts had to finalize their analyses to allow time for the Final Supplemental EIS to be 

prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. 

API-3 Based on a review of the OSAT-1 report by BOEMRE’s subject-matter experts, the data in 

the report does not change the conclusions regarding potential impacts in WPA waters 

because the OSAT reports targeted areas directly impacted by the DWH event, and no direct 

impacts have been identified in the WPA. Where relevant to a discussion of potential future 

impacts from an accidental event, OSAT-1 was referenced. 

API-4 This Supplemental EIS already provides detailed descriptions of the administrative and 

regulatory changes made by BOEMRE following the DWH event and oil spill (Chapter 

1.3.1), which are in effect to minimize the risk of future blowouts and oil spills. 

Chapter 1.3 describes the regulatory framework already in place, requiring that the OCS 

leasing process and all activities and operations on the OCS comply with other Federal, 

State, and local laws and regulations. Since these documents are readily available from 

BOEMRE or on the Internet, detailed descriptions are unnecessary in this Supplemental 

EIS. 

API-5 The document was revised in response to this comment. 

API-6 Chapter 4.1, “Incomplete or Unavailable Information,” has been expanded. Where relevant 

information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or 

unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives and, if so, was either acquired or, in the event it was 

impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were 

applied in its place. In addition, individual resource analyses highlight where information 

was incomplete or unavailable. 
5-52 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API ENCLOSURE 1, COM MENTS 1-5 
Consultation and Coordination 5-53 API ENCLOSURE 1, COMMENTS 6-10 
5-54 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API ENCLOSURE 1, COMMENTS 11-16 
Consultation and Coordination 5-55 API ENCLOSURE 1, COM MENTS 17-23 
5-56 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API ENCLOSURE 1, COM MENTS 24-25 
Consultation and Coordination 5-57 API ENCLOSURE 1, COMMENTS 26-29 
5-58 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API ENCLOSURE 1, COMMENTS 30-33 
Consultation and Coordination 5-59 API ENCLOSURE 1, COMMENTS 34-37 
5-60 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API ENCLOSURE 1, COM MENTS 37-41 
Consultation and Coordination 5-61 API ENCLOSURE 1, COMMENTS 42-49 
5-62 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API ENCLOSURE 1, COM MENTS 50-53 
Consultation and Coordination 5-63 

Responses to Comments in API’s Enclosure 1 Document 

API-1 The Supplemental EIS was developed to update the Multisale EIS to determine if new 

information since the publication of the Multisale EIS would change the conclusions of the 

Multisale EIS. The term “substantial” is used to quantify the degree rather than define a level 

of importance to this new information; in any event, the information did not change the 

conclusions of the Multisale EIS or the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS. 

API-2 The BOEMRE provided qualifying statements throughout the document regarding the 

relationship of this Supplemental EIS to the DWH event, where deemed appropriate. The 

baselines of all resources were analyzed for potentially effects from the DWH event. It is not 

the intent of this document to de-emphasize the DWH event. Few reviewers read the entire 

EIS. If it was stated only in the Summary that the Supplemental EIS provides an analysis of 

the proposed action, and not the DWH event, few reviewers would notice it. We feel it is 

important to make this clear because it appears that some reviewers are under the impression 

that this document is a Supplemental EIS on the DWH event. 

API-3 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on April 22, 2011, the subject-matter experts 

incorporated relevant information and updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. The 

incorporation of relevant information is time consuming, as it must be obtained and reviewed 

by subject-matter experts in the context of the source of the data, research methodology and 

data quality. As is necessary under every NEPA analysis, at some point the subject-matter 

experts had to finalize their analyses to allow time for the Final Supplemental EIS to be 

prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. 

API-4 Comment noted. The Summary is designed to be a brief overview of the Supplemental EIS 

and not an exhaustive reiteration of all of the findings in the Supplemental EIS. As such, 

appendices are not summarized in the Summary. 

API-5 Comment noted. The decision on which alternative will be selected will be made and, if the 

decision is to hold a lease sale under either Alternative A or B, it will be announced in the 

Final Notice of Sale. 

API-6 It is not possible to define one study/impact area for all resources. Certain resources can 

occur throughout the Gulf and others are mobile that may move through or within the WPA. 

The NEPA requires that the impacts from the proposed action must be considered wherever 

they may occur. The area of potential impacts is resource dependent and can extend beyond 

the leasing area defined by the proposed action. 

API-7 This Supplemental EIS is tiered from the Multisale EIS, and Chapter 1.3 of the Multisale EIS 

provides a more detailed discussion of the regulatory framework. In addition, BOEMRE 

prepared a publication entitled OCS Regulatory Framework for the Gulf of Mexico Region

(Matthews and Cameron, 2010) to provide guidance on applicable Federal laws and 

regulations. It is not the intent of this Supplemental EIS, nor is it required by NEPA, to 

provide an exhaustive list of all the possible regulations and laws of other Federal, State, and 

local commenting agencies. 

API-8 The chart was provided as a quick reference for potentially applicable Federal laws and is not 

meant to provide substantive analysis. No assignment of a table number is required. The 

regulations relevant to the discussion of alternatives and impacts in this Supplemental EIS 

and the lease sale program generally are discussed in detail in Chapter 1.4. 

API-9 The reorganization of BOEMRE is an ongoing process that is not complete at this time. The 

current schedule for the reorganization is to be in effect on October 1, 2011. In any event, the 
5-64 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

reorganization of BOEMRE is not relevant to a discussion of the reasonably foreseeable 

impacts of the proposed action or alternatives in this Supplemental EIS, which remain the 

same. 

API-10 The citation (Regg et al., 2000) is used to reference the different types of structures that may 

be employed in exploration and production in deep water. It is not a reference to NEPA 

compliance. The NTL 2008-G06 provides guidance on ROV surveys and does not suggest 

nor infer anything regarding new issues. 

API-11 The erroneous reference to Florida has been removed. The discussion regarding subregional 

OSRP’s was not specific to offshore Florida, but it was generally applicable to the WPA. 

This section has been clarified with the removal of the reference to Florida. 

API-12 Comment noted, but BOEMRE believes that the discussion regarding the OSRP process is 

clear and consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements for OSRP’s. 

API-13 Comment noted. 

API-14 The MOU described in the Supplemental EIS between BOEMRE and USCG was listed 

because it is specific to jurisdictional authorities established under the OCSLA and OPA 

relevant to this proposed action. A listing of all nonjurisdictional agreements that BOEMRE 

has with other agencies can be found at http://www.boemre.gov/MOU/MOUindex.htm. 

Cooperating agencies are discussed in Chapter 5.3.3 of this Supplemental EIS. 

API-15 Table 2-1 provides a chronology of inquires and is not intended as a summary of findings. 

API-16 Comment noted. The BOEMRE has determined that this change is unnecessary and may 

confuse readers by oversimplifying the analysis in Chapter 4. 

API-17 Comment noted. The subject-matter expert on this issue stands by their statement as drafted. 

API-18 The purpose of Chapter 2.3.1.2 is to provide impact summaries for routine activities and 

accidental events expected to occur from the proposed action. The analyses that support 

these impact summaries are contained in Chapter 4 and the chapter numbers for each 

resource are included in parentheses behind each resource heading in Chapter 2 so that the 

reader can easily locate them in Chapter 4. The reader is already referred to Appendix B 

numerous times in this Supplemental EIS, where deemed appropriate. Additional references 

would be unduly repetitive. Accidental, average, worst-case and catastrophic events are all 

described and analyzed in Chapter 4. 

API-19 The study API cites was determined by the subject-matter experts to be irrelevant in the 

context of oil and gas exploration and development on the OCS. The difference in order of 

magnitude of impacts from LNG deepwater ports when compared with oil and gas platforms 

is such that the conclusions from the Galloway studies are not relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of the proposed action. 

API-20 Comment noted, but BOEMRE feels the reference is sufficiently descriptive. 

API-21 This is in reference to soft bottoms, which are analyzed for the first time in this Supplemental 

EIS because of the DWH event. As such, this information is not tiered from prior NEPA 

documents. Despite the age of the reference, the statement is still valid when considering the 

vast expanse of soft bottoms in the Gulf of Mexico in proportion to that affected by the DWH 

event and to that affected by natural seeps. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-65 

API-22 As stated in Chapter 1, the purpose of the proposed action is to offer for lease certain blocks 

located in the WPA that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources. The 

purpose is not to identify all potential energy sources on the OCS or otherwise. The no action 

alternative considers the effect of cancelling the proposed lease sale in the WPA, not the 

effect of cancelling oil and gas production. Therefore, alternative methods of energy 

production are beyond the scope of this NEPA document and are not considered alternatives 

to cancelling the lease sale. 

API-23 The purpose of Chapter 3.1.1.2.2.2 is to briefly introduce the kinds of structures that may 

contribute to impact-producing factors and not unduly burden the reader with information 

easily obtained in other NEPA documents. The reader is referred to the EIS on FPSO’s. This 

document would have the specific conclusions, along with detailed analysis. 

API-24 Information was added to Chapter 3.2.2, updating the total number of OCS-related gas 

processing plants along the Gulf Coast. In addition, the following sentence was added to 

Chapter 3.1.2 of this Supplemental EIS: “As described in Chapter 4.1.2.1.4.1 of the 

Multisale EIS, no new oil refineries are expected to be constructed as a result of the WPA 

proposed action.” 

API-25 Modeling spill trajectories is a complex process that requires agency review and testing. The 

modeling group in BOEMRE is currently investigating changes and improvements to our oilspill modeling efforts as a result of the DWH event. The BOEMRE believes that the OSRA 

model included in this Supplemental EIS remains current and accurate, and it would be 

premature to abandon this model for models that have not been subject to a review process 

and remain untested. 

API-26 It is accurate that industry faces additional challenges working in ultra-deep waters. Over the 

years, industry has faced many challenges and has dealt with them very successfully. This 

sentence is not intended to infer that industry is not capable of working in deep water. 

API-27 Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is 

incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was 

essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, and if so, was either acquired or in the 

event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific 

methodologies were applied in its place. This may include information unavailable until the 

NRDA action is complete, if relevant, and has been identified in this Supplemental EIS. 

API-28 The air data has been incorporated into this Supplemental EIS. 

API-29 The document was revised in response to this comment. 

API-30 Based on the subject-matter experts’ review of the OSAT-1 report, the DWH impacts did not 

extend into WPA waters, including the subsurface plume. Although this plume did come 

very close to the WPA/CPA boundary, there is no evidence that impacts occurred within the 

WPA. The OSAT-2 report, as well as other reports related to coastal beaches and barrier 

islands, has been reviewed by subject-matter experts, and it has been determined that the data 

from those reports do not provide any relevant information that would change the results of 

this Supplemental EIS for this section. The Agency will be using future OSAT reports in 

subsequent NEPA documents, as appropriate. 

API-31 A change was made in Chapter 4.1.1.3.1 to correct the distance from 90 mi to 40 mi. 

API-32 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on April 22, 2011, the subject-matter experts 

incorporated relevant information and updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. The 

incorporation of relevant information is time consuming, as it must be obtained and reviewed 
5-66 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

by subject-matter experts in the context of the source of the data, research methodology, and 

data quality. As is necessary under every NEPA analysis, at some point the subject-matter 

experts had to finalize their analyses to allow time for the Final Supplemental EIS to be 

prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. 

API-33 This statement has been clarified in the Supplemental EIS. 

API-34 This statement has been clarified in the Supplemental EIS. 

API-35 When the proposed rule is final, the impact of water usage may be evaluated in future NEPA 

documents. This determination will be made by subject-matter experts upon their review of 

the requirements of the final rule. Without a final determination on the scope and 

applicability of this proposed rule, BOEMRE feels it would be premature to determine its 

relevance at this stage. In any event, if the rule is finalized and relevant, its effect would be 

expected to reduce impacts; thus this analysis remains conservative. 

API-36 The statement was updated to clarify the reasoning for the positive effect of fishery closures: 

“Closure areas imposed by State or Federal agencies may also impact the commercial 

fisheries positively in the long term by easing fishing pressure on commercially (especially 

annually) harvested populations.” 

API-37 It is noted that speckled trout are typically an estuarine species, and this change has been 

made in this Supplemental EIS. They are, however, common around oil and gas structures in 

offshore State waters as well as some OCS platforms adjacent to State waters. 

API-38 The suggested changes were made in the document. 

API-39 The opening statement is valid when considering reasonably foreseeable impacts of the 

proposed action. However, the following statement has been added to account for 

catastrophic events: “Adverse impacts from catastrophic events could be of longer duration 

and extend beyond the local area.” Due to the high costs of transporting OCS sand, the 

alternate usage of non-OCS sand resources, the uncertainty of sand volume required, and 

numerous other factors affecting the use of OCS sand resources, it would be difficult to 

estimate the amount of sand needed for proposed replenishment projects that would come 

from the OCS relative to sand need for beach replenishment from spills. In any event, this 

data, if available, would not be expected to result in relevant information on significant 

impacts from accidental or catastrophic events or reasonable methods for oil-spill response. 

API-40 The subject text was revised to explain the release of well gas in a layman’s term. 

API-41 This change was made to document. The term “nonroutine” has been removed. 

API-42 These changes were made to document. The sentence now reads, “There could be some 

adverse impacts on organisms contacted by oil, dispersant chemicals, or emulsions of 

dispersed oil droplets and dispersant chemicals that, at this time, are not completely 

understood, particularly in subsurface environments.” 

API-43 The BOEMRE believes the description remains appropriate. 

API-44 Similar language is included in other resource sections where appropriate. 

API-45 Although strict protocols described in this Supplemental EIS are followed to protect marine 

mammals and sea turtles, explosives removals always result in the loss of marine life. The 

invertebrates attached to structures are lost when the rigs are removed from the marine 
Consultation and Coordination 5-67 

environment and fish in close proximity to explosive charges will suffer mortality. This is 

expected in explosive structure removals and would not be considered the exception. It 

should be noted, however, that many of these structures have been in place for decades and 

have provided valuable hard substrate and habitat for a wide variety of fish and invertebrates. 

API-46 The ultimate decision on what, if any, mitigation measures are imposed are outside the scope 

of this Supplemental EIS. Determinations on mitigation are made by the decisionmaker or 

the ASLM as appropriate. As such, the statement remains accurate and is unchanged. 

API-47 The cited references are considered adequate and appropriate by the subject-matter experts. 

API-48 Clarifying changes were made to the document. The following statement was added to 

Chapter 4.4: “Additionally, the OCS Program continues to improve the knowledge and 

mitigation practices used in offshore development.” 

API-49 Clarifying changes were made to the document. 

API-50 All public hearings have a court reporter present, and it is clearly documented that all who 

had verbal comments were afforded the opportunity to speak. There were relatively few 

comments, but all attendees were given the opportunity to be heard. 

API-51 The purpose of scoping meetings is to give the public an opportunity to provide comments on 

issues that should be considered in the Supplemental EIS, and these comments must be 

considered by the Agency. Often comments are made that have nothing to do with the 

Supplemental EIS. All comments are retained for the administrative record, even if they are 

not germaine to the Supplemental EIS. 

API-52 Consultations are still underway and may not be concluded prior to the printing of the Final 

Supplemental EIS. The status of these consultations has been updated in this Supplemental 

EIS. Because this is a lease sale that does not in and of itself make any irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources that would foreclose the development or 

implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures to comply with the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), BOEMRE may proceed with publication of the 

Supplemental EIS and finalize a decision among the alternatives even if consultation is not 

complete, consistent with Section 7(d) of the ESA. 

API-53 All figures and tables have been reviewed, and revisions or updates have been made where 

appropriate. Figure 3-2 has been revised to include Texas and Louisiana OCS pipelines. 
5-68 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-1 AP I-2 AP I-3 AP I-4 AP I-5 
Consultation and Coordination 5-69 AP I -6 
5-70 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-7 AP I-8 
Consultation and Coordination 5-71 AP I-9 
5-72 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API-10 
Consultation and Coordination 5-73 
5-74 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-1 1 AP I-12 
Consultation and Coordination 5-75 AP I-1 3 AP I-1 4 
5-76 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-15 AP I-16 
Consultation and Coordination 5-77 AP I-17 
5-78 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-18 AP I-1 9 AP I-20 
Consultation and Coordination 5-79 AP I-21 AP I-22 AP I-23 AP I-24 
5-80 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-25 
Consultation and Coordination 5-81 API-26 API-27 API-28 API-29 API-30 API-31 API-32 
5-82 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-33 
Consultation and Coordination 5-83 API-34 API-35 API-36 API-37 API-38 API-39 
5-84 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API-40 API-41 API-42 API-43 API-44 API-45 API-46 
Consultation and Coordination 5-85 A PI-47 API-48 API-49 
5-86 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-50 AP I-51 
Consultation and Coordination 5-87 API-52 API-53 API-54 
5-88 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS A PI-55 API-56 
Consultation and Coordination 5-89 A PI-5 7 API-58 API-59 
5-90 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-60 
Consultation and Coordination 5-91 API-61 API-62 API-63 API-64 
5-92 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I-65 AP I-66 AP I-67 
Consultation and Coordination 5-93 API-68 API-69 API-70 API-71 API-72 
5-94 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS API-73 API-74 
Consultation and Coordination 5-95 

Responses to Comments in API’s Enclosure 2 Document 

API-1 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on April 22, 2011, the subject-matter experts 

incorporated relevant information and updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. However, 

the incorporation of relevant information is time consuming, as it must be obtained and 

reviewed by subject-matter experts in the context of the source of the data, research 

methodology, and data quality. As is necessary under every NEPA analysis, at some point 

the subject-matter experts had to finalize their analyses to allow time for the Final 

Supplemental EIS to be prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. 

API-2 Appropriate changes have been made to the document to provide the correct location of the 

DWH event. 

API-3 Comment noted. Appropriate changes have been made to the Final Supplemental EIS. 

API-4 Based on subject-matter expert review of the OSAT-1 report and other updated available data 

and information, the DWH spill did not extend into the WPA waters or sediments. Though 

the subsurface plume was close to the WPA/CPA boundary, there is no evidence that impacts 

occurred within the WPA. The statement has been corrected to reflect that there was no 

evidence of remnant oil in the WPA. 

API-5 The section that this comment refers to (Chapter 4.1.1.19.1.4) was specifically reviewed for 

the purpose of cumulative impacts on soft bottoms. The statement is specific to soft bottoms 

and, given the vast expanse of soft bottoms in the Gulf of Mexico, it is accurate. Each 

subject-matter expert reviews and bases their conclusions on the best data and information 

available and provides a write-up specific to that resource. Therefore, this conclusion may 

not be appropriate for all resources. 

API-6 See the response Comment API-1 in regards to incorporation of new information into the 

Supplemental EIS. Based on the subject-matter experts’ review of the OSAT-1 report, the 

DWH spill did not extend into WPA waters or sediments. The OSAT-2 report, as well as 

other reports related to coastal beaches and barrier islands, has been reviewed by subjectmatter experts and they determined that the data from those reports do not provide any 

relevant information that would change the conclusions presented in the Multisale, 2009-

2012 Supplemental EIS, or this Supplemental EIS. This Agency will be using future OSAT 

reports in subsequent NEPA documents, as appropriate. 

API-7 The BOEMRE does not agree that the language referenced makes the implication proffered 

by API. The subject-matter experts stand by their analysis. 

API-8 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on April 22, 2011, the subject-matter experts 

have incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. 

However, the incorporation of relevant information is time consuming, as it must be obtained 

and reviewed by subject-matter experts in the context of the source of the data, research 

methodology, and data quality. As is necessary under every NEPA analysis, at some point 

the subject-matter experts had to finalize their analyses to allow time for the Final 

Supplemental EIS to be prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. 

API-9 New information becomes available on a continuous basis. It must be obtained and reviewed 

by subject-matter experts in the context of the source of the data, research methodology, and 

data quality. This process is ongoing and new information that was determined relevant has 

been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. The report referred to in the comment 

(Kujawinski et al., 2011) indicates that regardless of the amount of dispersant applied, the 

concentrations and dispersant-to-oil ratios are lower than those tested in published toxicology 
5-96 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

assays, and if impacts to deepwater and pelagic biota were impacted by the dispersants, it 

could take a number of years to fully understand the impacts. As such, the subject-matter 

experts felt this report was not relevant at this time. In regards to possible informational 

gaps, BOEMRE has identified where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable 

significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable and has evaluated the need for the 

information to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, and 

if it was, either acquired the information or, in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to 

acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. The 

BOEMRE has the credible scientific information necessary to make a reasoned choice among 

the alternatives and to evaluate the effects of the proposed action and its alternatives. 

API-10 Comment noted. As the referenced information is similar to what was already provided in 

the Draft Supplemental EIS and Appendix B with regards to weathering oil and BTEX, 

BOEMRE feels that the Supplemental EIS has already adequately described the issue and 

potential impacts. 

API-11 Comment noted. The discussion regarding the oil budget is ongoing, and the information 

provided by the commenter is part of this preliminary discussion. As new information 

becomes available, it will be reviewed by subject-matter experts in the context of the source 

of the data, research methodology, and data quality, and it will applied to subsequent NEPA 

documents. Since the DWH spill did not reach WPA waters or sediments, complete 

information from the oil budget is not essential for this Supplemental EIS. Where relevant, 

BOEMRE applied credible scientific information that is available applied using accepted 

methodologies to supplement the oil budget. 

API-12 Comment noted. As noted in the Supplemental EIS, the DWH spill did not reach WPA 

waters or sediments. 

API-13 The referenced data on sampling results does not alter the fact that exposure did occur and 

that there may be health effects for those that were exposed. 

API-14 The reference and information identified in the comment has been added to Appendix B, 

although similar information is included elsewhere in the Supplemental EIS when addressing 

air quality issues. 

API-15 Comment noted. Kessler et al. (2011) was determined by the subject-matter experts to be 

relevant and has been referenced to this Supplemental EIS (Chapter 4.1.1.14.3). 

API-16 Comment noted. The following sentence has been added to Chapter 4.1.1.1.4: “It has been 

noted in de Gouw et al. (2011) and Gong et al. (2011) that lighter, more soluble 

hydrocarbons, like that seen in the DWH event, was dissolved or biodegraded during the 

transit from the wellhead to the surface.” 

API-17 Comment noted. The BOEMRE feels that the Supplemental EIS already adequately 

addresses relevant information on the potential effects to response workers and, thus, addition 

of the referenced information would be redundant. 

API-18 The BOEMRE’s subject-matter experts included in the Supplemental EIS the reports and 

information they found credible and relevant to the individual resource analysis. This NEPA 

analysis is not meant to be an exhaustive compilation of literature available, where not 

relevant to the resources analyses and the proposed action and alternatives. 

API-19 See the response to Comment API-1. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-97 

API-20 As in the Supplemental EIS, the DWH spill did not reach WPA waters and sediments, 

including soft-bottom benthic communities in the WPA. It would, however, be hard to 

support a statement that, if direct contact of soft-bottom benthic organisms with high 

concentrations of oil occurred, it would not result in acute toxicity. Therefore, the possibility 

exists that, if this occurred, some acute toxicity is likely. But again, the OSAT-1 report 

indicates that the spill did not reach these communities in the WPA. The referenced 

statement in the Supplemental EIS remains accurate. 

API-21 The analysis discusses the impact should the resource receive an exposure to lower 

concentrations of oil. It does not speculate on the amount or duration of oil from the DWH 

event that may have impacted the resource. The impact of exposure to oil by benthic 

resources has been studied extensively for decades, and more recent research has not changed 

the conclusions that exposure to oil can result in sublethal impacts. The referenced statement 

in the Supplemental EIS remains accurate. 

API-22 The statement has been clarified to relate to the WPA. However, the Supplemental EIS has 

been updated to indicate that based on OSAT-1 and NOAA data, the DWH spill did not reach 

WPA waters or sediments. 

API-23 The area considered in the soft-bottom analysis is expansive and extends into the coastal 

shoreline because the Gulf of Mexico is comprised primarily of soft-bottoms. It is 

acknowledged that using water column data to determine the exposure of benthic organisms 

would be somewhat speculative, but reasonable under the circumstances, given that the softbottom community can be affected by low dissolved oxygen levels caused by the interaction 

between oil and the microorganisms that consume oil, as well as by the oil that may settle out 

of the water column. Oil must first be in the water column to have this effect on benthic 

communities. The OSAT reports, as well as other similar reports, have been reviewed by 

subject-matter experts, and it has been determined that the data from those reports do not 

provide any relevant information that would change the conclusions in regards to soft 

bottoms. 

API-24 The subject-matter experts have updated the Supplemental EIS since its publication date 

(June 6, 2011), utilizing data published since the DWH event and through the end of the 

comment period. New information becomes available on a continuous basis. It must be 

obtained and reviewed by the subject-matter experts in the context of the source of the data, 

research methodology, and data quality. This process is ongoing, and new information made 

available and that was determined relevant has been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. 

API-25 Comment noted. The section noted is a description of impact-producing factors from 

accidental impacts and not a discussion quantifying the rate of hydrocarbon biodegradation, 

which would be difficult or impossible to quantify at this time. Therefore, the incorporation 

of the findings of these referenced studies would not be appropriate for this discussion. 

API-26 See the response to Comment API-25. 

API-27 New information that was available and was determined relevant has been used to finalize 

this Supplemental EIS. The relationship of these new and newly employed response methods 

to minimizing impacts on birds has been clarified/added to the Supplemental EIS. 

API-28 The impact upon birds feeding in oil-coated waters and consuming oil-coated prey is well 

established and supported, in part, by the number of birds and bird carcasses that were 

recovered after the DWH event. As such, the statement remains accurate, but the basis for 

the conclusion has been clarified/added to the Supplemental EIS. 
5-98 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API-29 The subject-matter experts has clarified in the Supplemental EIS where and under what 

circumstances the migration and residency of birds informs whether they could have been 

impacted by the DWH event. 

API-30 When a complete breakdown of the number of birds and how they were affected by the DWH 

event, as well as recovery rates, sublethal effects, nesting success, recolonization of affected 

habitat, and mortality attributed to the DWH event over successive nesting cycles becomes 

available, it will be incorporated into future NEPA documents. Until final numbers and 

breakdowns are published, the data that was available through the end of the comment period 

for this Supplemental EIS has been incorporated into the document. 

API-31 New information that was available and was determined relevant has been used to finalize 

this Supplemental EIS. 

API-32 The BOEMRE’s subject-matter experts have referenced OSAT-2 where relevant to the 

individual resource analyses. 

API-33 New information that was available and was determined relevant has been used to finalize 

this Supplemental EIS. 

API-34 The statement allows for the possibility that some impact to corals may have occurred due to 

their proximity to the spill. Additional research is required to state if corals this close to the 

spill were impacted and to what degree. In any event, the DWH spill did not reach WPA 

waters and sediments, and thus would not impact corals in the WPA. 

API-35 Comment noted. The subject-matter experts included this statement where relevant. 

API-36 The Supplemental EIS states that underwater currents make it unlikely that oil would be 

distributed in all directions around the well, but it makes no reference to the uniformity of oil 

around the well site. A statement has been added to clarify that oil would not likely be 

uniformly distributed around the well site. 

API-37 The subject-matter experts conducted a critical analysis of all reports, studies, and research to 

determine their suitability for use in this Supplemental EIS. The subject-matter experts, after 

reviewing the Oxford Economics Report, did come to the conclusion that the data were 

relevant to an analysis of the alternatives and their impacts, including a post-DWH 

environment. References are provided to allow the reader to review the cited document to 

answer specific questions about the data. 

API-38 The BOEMRE feels that the statement is accurate and validated and an additional reference 

on this issue has been included. 

API-39 The statement is accurate in that public perception of the DWH event did impact tourism, at 

least in the short term. The immediate impacts of the DWH event and subsequent cleanup 

activities upon tourism have been well documented in this Supplemental EIS. The duration 

of these impacts will be determined by the actual recovery of physical impacts and the public 

perception of the recovery efforts. As such, BOEMRE feels that the statements in this 

Supplemental EIS remain accurate. 

API-40 It would be premature to rule out the effects of dispersants on the potential contribution of oil 

degradation by bacteria to subsurface anoxic conditions until more research is completed. 

The BOEMRE is using a conservative approach by considering the worst possible impacts, 

including the potential for anoxic conditions after a spill. This conservative approach allows 

BOEMRE to proceed with a choice among alternatives. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-99 

API-41 There is no evidence at this time to support the statement that impacts from catastrophic 

subsurface blowouts would be localized and limited in duration. 

API-42 The full impact upon recreational fisheries in the CPA in respect to closures has not been 

fully determined since it will take several seasons to assess overall impacts to recreational 

take of those species targeted by recreational fishermen. However, there is sufficient data 

referenced in this Supplemental EIS to determine that recreational fishing in the WPA was 

not significantly impacted by the spill. 

API-43 Although fish might be expected to avoid oil, in the case of three whale sharks observed in 

the Gulf during the DWH event, this was not the case. The whale sharks were swimming at, 

or near, the water surface in areas where there was visible surface oil, although the NOAA 

scientist that observed them indicated that they were not visibly oiled. The inclusion of this 

information indicates the potential for whale sharks to be directly exposed to oil during spill 

events. This information in the Supplemental EIS has been updated to include the reference 

that reported these observations. Further scientific study may be needed to determine 

whether, and to what degree, individual whale sharks and/or populations might be affected. 

In regards to possible informational gaps, BOEMRE has identified where relevant 

information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or 

unavailable and has evaluated the need for the information to determine if it was essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives, and if it was, either acquired the information or, in 

the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific 

methodologies were applied in its place. The BOEMRE has the scientifically credible 

information necessary to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives and to evaluate the 

effects of the proposed action and its alternatives. 

API-44 The fact that mobile fish populations could move to other areas in the event of a spill is 

already adequately acknowledged in this Supplemental EIS. 

API-45 Although BOEMRE feels there is sufficient evidence currently available, BOEMRE 

acknowledges that it is not uniform geographically, and therefore, the “will be” affected has 

been changed to “could be” affected. 

API-46 There were no fishery closures in the WPA; however, as of the publication of the Draft 

Supplemental EIS, all fisheries closed after the DWH event have all been reopened. 

API-47 Chapter 4.2.2.3 and Appendix B have been updated to reflect the most recent report, which 

was published April 20, 2011. 

API-48 The BOEMRE agrees that the Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection Report may include 

individuals that were not necessarily affected by the DWH oil spill. However, it would be 

unduly speculative to assume that a certain percentage of the carcasses were related to the 

DWH oil spill. Absolute numbers of marine mammals affected by the DWH oil spill are 

unknown. While it is likely that not all animals on the Consolidated Fish and Wildlife 

Collection Report were affected by the spill, it is also likely that not all individuals were 

found; therefore, the overall number of deaths may be underestimated. Therefore, the 

Supplemental EIS has been clarified at Chapters 4.1.1.10.1 and 4.2.2.3. 

API-49 The results of the reports are not reported in the document because the relationship of raw 

data to impacts cannot be determined geographically. This information is provided annually 

to NMFS’s Southeast Regional Office. The BOEMRE only reports shut-downs to NMFS and 

does not report whether an animal is a “take.” The NMFS is the regulatory agency that 

would make that distinction. 

API-50 Comment noted. Language in the Supplemental EIS has been updated where appropriate. 
5-100 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API-51 See response to API-50. 

API-52 See response to API-50. 

API-53 Very little is known about the affects of the DWH event specifically on Sargassum, although 

it is important to note that the DWH spill did not reach WPA waters or sediments. The text 

has been changed to more conservatively allow for the possibility of impact rather than a 

presumption of impact. In regards to possible informational gaps, BOEMRE has identified 

where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is 

incomplete or unavailable and has evaluated the need for the information to determine if it 

was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, and if it was, either acquired the 

information or, in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, 

accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. The BOEMRE has the 

scientifically credible information necessary to make a reasoned choice among the 

alternatives and to evaluate the effects of the proposed action and its alternatives. 

API-54 The referenced language was streamlined by the subject-matter experts to remove 

information not relevant to the WPA as appropriate. 

API-55 Comment noted. 

API-56 Subject-matter experts determined the information that was relevant for the individual 

resource analyses. New information that was available and that was determined relevant has 

been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. 

API-57 The Supplemental EIS has been updated to reflect this updated report. 

API-58 The analysis in the Supplemental EIS has been clarified to indicate that the cause of death for 

most of the recovered carcasses has not yet been determined. 

API-59 The Supplemental EIS has been updated to reflect this updated report.. 

API-60 The statement was updated to reflect that data are becoming available regarding the 

concentrations of hydrocarbons in sediments or on benthic community structure on the 

seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico after the DWH event. Note however, that the DWH spill did 

not reach WPA waters or sediments. New information, including those referenced by API, is 

reviewed by the subject-matter experts as it becomes available, in the context of the source of 

the data, research methodology, and data quality. This process is ongoing, and new 

information that was available and that was determined relevant or complete has been used to 

update this Supplemental EIS. 

API-61 See the response to Comment API-50. 

API-62 The OSAT-2 report does not change the statement that a fair amount of oil may be buried 

below the beach surface in the CPA and, therefore, the statement remains accurate. 

API-63 The oil budget cited in Appendix B has been updated. 

API-64 See the response to Comment API-63. 

API-65 The supporting reference has been added to Appendix B. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-101 

API-66 As stated in the Supplemental EIS, the DWH spill did not reach WPA waters and sediments. 

In any event, BOEMRE feels that this statement is sufficiently clear that the severity of oiling 

may alter the resulting impacts. 

API-67 It has not been definitively determined that the third reptile was a misreport; therefore, the 

text remains unchanged to reflect the currently reported data. 

API-68 It still remains that few reports have been published regarding topographic features. New 

information, as it becomes available, is reviewed by subject-matter experts in context of the 

source of the data, research methodology, and data quality. This process is ongoing, and new 

information that was available and that was determined relevant or complete has been used to 

update this Supplemental EIS. In regards to possible informational gaps, BOEMRE has 

identified where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts 

is incomplete or unavailable and has evaluated the need for the information to determine if it 

was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, and if it was, either acquired the 

information or, in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, 

accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. The BOEMRE has the 

scientifically credible information necessary to make a reasoned choice among the 

alternatives and to evaluate the effects of the proposed action and its alternatives. 

API-69 The conclusions regarding the amount of oil remaining are not altered by the OSAT-1 and 

OSAT-2 findings. As such, the statements referenced by API remain accurate. 

API-70 The information referenced by API remains accurate. Any future information that becomes 

available will be used to update future NEPA documents. 

API-71 The OSAT-1 does not contradict the fact that hydrocarbons were detected at the wellhead, 

only that they are not currently being detected. The text has been changed to reflect that the 

subsea plumes were detected rather than are currently being detected. The fact that they were 

detected would constitute a potential impact so that statement should remain. It would be 

speculative at this time to debate if PAH’s in the water column were in dissolved rather than 

droplet form. But please note that this information was provided in the analysis of accidental 

events that may occur in the future. As identified in the Supplemental EIS, the DWH spill 

did not reach WPA waters or sediments. 

API-72 The experiment was on the behavior of oil released during a deepwater blowout and not on 

the use of dispersants. This Supplemental EIS has been clarified to reflect the limiting factors 

of the experiment. 

API-73 The discussion states that a 200-m (656-ft) thick subsea plume remained at a water depth of 

between 1,100 and 1,300 m (3,609 and 4,265 ft). It does not state that there were two 

plumes. The statement has been clarified to prevent this mistaken conclusion. 

API-74 It is expected that additional research currently being conducted and to be conducted may 

better describe the relationship of dispersants and behavior of dispersed oil in the future. 

However, based on information available, this analysis remains accurate. In regards to 

possible informational gaps, BOEMRE has identified where relevant information on 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable and has 

evaluated the need for the information to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice 

among the alternatives, and if it was, either acquired the information or, in the event it was 

impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were 

applied in its place. The BOEMRE has the scientifically credible information necessary to 

make a reasoned choice among the alternatives and to evaluate the effects of the proposed 

action and its alternatives. 
5-102 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-103 
5-104 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-105 CBD-2 CBD-3 
5-106 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-107 CBD-4 CBD-5 
5-108 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-6 CBD-7 
Consultation and Coordination 5-109 CBD-10 CBD-8 CBD-9 
5-110 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-10 (continued) CBD-1 1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-111 CBD-1 3 CBD-12 
5-112 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-14 CBD-15 
Consultation and Coordination 5-113 CBD -15 (continued) CBD -16 
5-114 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-17 CBD-18 
Consultation and Coordination 5-115 CBD-20 CBD-19 
5-116 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-2 1 CBD-22 CBD-2 3 CBD -20 (cont ) 
Consultation and Coordination 5-117 CBD -23 (cont) 
5-118 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

CBD-1 Comment noted. The BOEMRE disagrees with the Center for Biological Diversity’s 

assessment of this NEPA process and Supplemental EIS. The BOEMRE did take the 

requisite “hard look” mandated by NEPA, as evidenced by the fact that this supplemental 

analysis used the scientifically credible information available to evaluate significant new 

circumstances and information since the publication of the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 

Supplemental EIS. 

CBD-2 This Supplemental EIS for WPA Lease Sale 218 is not an environmental assessment. This 

Supplemental EIS is necessary because significant impacts may result from the proposed 

action or the alternatives. In any event, BOEMRE disagrees that the analyses and 

conclusions in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS are rendered obsolete 

due to the DWH event. The proposed action (i.e., the lease sale) remains the same, and much 

of the analysis in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS on the affected 

environment and impacts from routine events, accidental events that do not rise to the level of 

a catastrophic event similar to the DWH event, and cumulative impacts remain just as 

relevant today. The oil spill resulting from the DWH event was an accidental event, not part 

of the proposed action. Nonetheless, new significant information available since the 

Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, as well as the changes in baseline 

conditions as a result of the DWH oil spill, are adequately considered in this Supplemental 

EIS. 

CBD-3 A spill of the magnitude of the DWH spill was certainly not expected and would not have 

been a valid assumption prior to the event, nor is it a valid assumption for WPA Lease Sale 

218 in light of the exceedingly low probability for such an event, particularly in light of 

recent regulatory and technological changes. Although the DWH event remains an 

exceedingly low-probability accidental event, there are far more likely accidental scenarios 

whose impacts should and must be evaluated under NEPA. For the most part, these scenarios 

remain valid and were only somewhat impacted by information available since the DWH 

event. Therefore, the bulk of the analyses in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 

Supplemental EIS remain valid, and the purpose of this Supplemental EIS was to update and 

clarify those analyses that were changed. 

 In any event, in light of the DWH event and oil spill, BOEMRE ran OSRA with additional 

parameters and summarized the effort in Appendix C of this Supplemental EIS. Using new 

information available since the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, the 

subject-matter experts analyzed the potential impacts to resources in the context of these 

updated scenarios. 

CBD-4 See the response to Comment CBD-2. 

CBD-5 The BOEMRE’s consideration of appropriate mitigations and stipulations are already 

included for each alternative as part of the OCSLA lease sale process. An EIS is a disclosure 

document and, based upon its findings, is often used in the development of mitigations and 

stipulations to reduce or eliminate impacts of the chosen action alternative. Consistent with 

this principle, BOEMRE considers mitigations and stipulations to minimize the impacts of oil 

and gas exploration and development and to improve safety throughout the leasing process. 

The BOEMRE applies a number of lease sale mitigations and stipulations. Chapter 2.2.2.1

of this Supplemental EIS discusses these, including the Topographic Features Stipulation, 

Military Areas Stipulation, Protected Species Stipulation, and Law of the Sea Convention 

Royalty Payment Stipulation. Additionally, a number of site-specific mitigations for 

environmental protection and safety are routinely applied at the post-lease stage. All 

exploration plans, development plans, and pipeline applications are thoroughly reviewed to 

determine what protective measure(s) should to be included as a condition of plan or permit 

approval. Mitigations and stipulations are developed as conditions warrant and are subject to 

a review and approval process. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-119 

CBD-6 Long-term monitoring is not an alternative to the proposed action, nor is it a method for 

mitigating impacts of the proposed action or alternatives. Monitoring requirements are a 

result of consultations conducted with other Federal agencies as well as BOEMRE’s longterm monitoring of OCS-related activities. The analyses in the Multisale EIS, the 2009-2012 

Supplemental EIS, and this Supplemental EIS are based upon the best available information 

known to date. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 

impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine 

if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives and, if so, was either acquired 

or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific 

methodologies were applied in its place. The BOEMRE has done so here, and, in light of the 

above, long term monitoring is not an appropriate alternative for this Supplemental EIS. 

 This Supplemental EIS meets the requirements of NEPA in the development and 

consideration of alternatives. 

CBD-7 Chapter 4.1, “Incomplete or Unavailable Information,” has been updated on these issues 

and, where appropriate, has been described in the individual resource analyses. 

CBD-8 See the response to Comment CBD-7. The Gulf of Mexico, including the WPA, is a dynamic 

environment that will be studied far into the future. There will never be a “final” assessment 

of baseline conditions in such an environment; any baseline would be constantly evolving. 

Nevertheless, BOEMRE has extensive experience in this environment, holding over 90 lease 

sales in the Gulf of Mexico, preparing over 50 lease sale EIS’s, and continuing to study this 

ever-changing environment. The types of basic information included in the “Description of 

the Affected Environment” for each resource has been developed over many years and new 

information is added on a regular basis. In this Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts 

described new information on changes in baseline conditions as a result of the DWH spill, 

and this information was taken into account in analyzing the impacts of the proposed action 

on the various resources. In addition, three new resources were added to this Supplemental 

EIS in consideration of the DWH spill. These included soft bottoms, Sargassum, and 

diamondback terrapins. It is BOEMRE’s opinion that the discussion of baseline conditions in 

this Supplemental EIS is robust and is, in fact, much more lengthy than recommended by 

NEPA guidelines. 

CBD-9 See the response to Comment CBD-7. The CEQ regulation cited by the Center for Biological 

Diversity, namely 40 CFR 1502.22, acknowledges that information may be unavailable or 

incomplete and sets forth the analysis the agency must make prior to continuing without the 

incomplete or unavailable information. In this case, BOEMRE has identified where relevant 

information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or 

unavailable and has evaluated the need for the information to determine if it was essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives, and if it was, either acquired the information or, in 

the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific 

methodologies were applied in its place. The BOEMRE has the relevant information 

necessary to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives and to evaluate the effects of the 

proposed action and its alternatives. 

CBD-10 See the response to Comment CBD-7. The BOEMRE acknowledges that consultation 

reinitiated in light of the DWH event is still underway and may not be concluded prior to the 

printing of the Final Supplemental EIS. Because this is a lease sale that does not in and of 

itself make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would foreclose the 

development or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures to 

comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), BOEMRE may proceed with publication of 

this Supplemental EIS and finalize a decision among the alternatives even if consultation is 
5-120 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

not complete, consistent with Section 7(d) of the ESA. While consultation is ongoing, 

BOEMRE is developing an interim coordination program with NMFS and FWS. 

CBD-11 This Supplemental EIS supplements and updates information made available since the 

Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS. At the time of these prior NEPA 

documents, a spill of the magnitude of the DWH event was not a reasonably foreseeable 

occurrence. And, indeed, the likelihood of another event on this scale is exceedingly low, 

made even more so by BOEMRE’s promulgation of new drilling and safety regulations and 

the ongoing endeavors to advance containment technologies. Information that is currently 

available indicates that the resources in the WPA were not significantly affected or, in most 

cases, not affected at all by the DWH event. Two new appendices, however, were added to 

this Supplemental EIS to provide more information about general impacts of a catastrophic 

spill – Appendix B, “Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis,” and Appendix C, “BOEMREOSRA Catastrophic Run.” 

CBD-12 Comment noted. Where information is available on the impacts of deploying oil-spill 

response technologies (including from the Federal and State agencies with direct oversight of 

cleanup activities), the subject-matter experts included this information in their analyses of 

the resources. Where information is incomplete or unavailable, BOEMRE evaluated whether 

the information was relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts, and if so, was it 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives (Chapter 4.1, “Incomplete or Unavailable 

Information”). The capacity of both government and industry to respond to oil spills, both 

from a regulatory and technological perspective, is continually being updated and improved. 

Many of these changes are outside of BOEMRE’s authority (e.g., USCG), and for the 

purposes of this NEPA analysis, BOEMRE has taken a conservative approach, assumed for 

purposes of impact analysis that a catastrophic spill may occur, and has not relied on untested 

technological advances in oil-spill response in our analysis of impacts. 

CBD-13 The BOEMRE has relied on publicly available information on actual carcasses recovered, but 

has clarified in the Supplemental EIS that these numbers may underestimate the total number 

of individuals affected. As noted in the Supplemental EIS, extrapolation from this raw data is 

not reliable at this point in time. In this case, BOEMRE has identified where relevant 

information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or 

unavailable and has evaluated the need for the information to determine if it was essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives, and if it was, either acquired the information or, in 

the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific 

methodologies were applied in its place. 

CBD-14 The BOEMRE uses data on past OCS production and spills, along with estimates of future 

production, to evaluate the risk of future spills (Chapter 4.3.1.2 of the Multisale EIS). Data 

on the numbers, types, sizes, and other information on past spills, including those that are 

relevant to ultra deepwater wells, were reviewed to develop the spill scenario for analysis in 

this Supplemental EIS. Past spill data used in the model indicate that there is no trend of 

increased number of spills based on exploration in deeper water prior to Macondo. The spill 

scenario provides the set of reasonable assumptions and estimates of future spills; the type, 

frequency, quantity, and fate of the spilled oil for specific scenarios; and the rationale for the 

scenario assumptions or estimates. Neither high-temperature/high-pressure conditions nor 

water depth are used to calculate the risk of future spills because these are post-lease 

operational issues that cannot be reasonably predicted at the lease stage without site-specific 

information. In the post-lease stage, applicants submit site-specific data on conditions and 

BOEMRE technical staff reviews this data to determine whether conditions on approval, 

based on well data, are appropriate. The BOEMRE believes that the NEPA analysis in this 

Supplemental EIS is conservative, in that even with the oil-spill risk analysis showing that the 

risk of a spill remains low (whether in deep water or shallow water), for the purposes of 

impacts analysis, a potential spill was assumed and evaluated. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-121 

CBD-15 The statement regarding BOEMRE’s reliance on BOP’s is not an accurate assessment. The 

BOEMRE views the entire drilling process as a whole in the prevention of losses of well 

control and well blowouts, and no one component could reasonably be expected to be a 100 

percent fail safe in all scenarios. The BOP’s should not be viewed in isolation, when they are 

one of only a number of technological devices and regulatory initiatives to prevent and, if 

necessary, contain and kill blowouts. The BOEMRE also directed significant energies on 

improving the way wells are designed and drilled to prevent the occurrence of a well control 

incident that would require the use of the BOP (Chapter 1.3.1). Even with all of these 

improvements on well design and drilling practices and the changes to increase the reliability 

of the BOP stacks, BOEMRE did not stop there. In addition to prevention, BOEMRE 

focused resources on improvements to containment capabilities as well. Therefore, 

BOEMRE is not putting an unreasonable amount of reliance on the BOP’s, viewed in the 

context of a number of overlapping and complementary initiatives to prevent and, in the 

unlikely event a loss of well control results in a spill, contain and kill the spill. The 

BOEMRE has addressed this problem from every possible angle with the intent of reducing 

the overall risk. 

CBD-16 See the response to Comment CBD-15. 

CBD-17 Although this Supplemental EIS introduces and evaluates new information on containment 

systems as it is relevant to the proposed action and alternatives and in light of the DWH 

event, containment is being reviewed in more detail on a per application for permit to drill 

(APD) basis. An APD is not approved unless the operator has demonstrated a capability to 

contain a subsea blowout. To date, containment has been successfully demonstrated by 

several operators through the post-lease process. Currently, containment is being provided by 

Marine Well Containment Corporation (MWCC) and the Helix Well Containment Group. 

All equipment and containment strategies utilized by these organizations are inspected and 

reviewed by experts at BOEMRE. At this time, MWCC is not utilizing floating risers similar 

to Petrobras. While BP did utilize this technology during the DWH event without incident, 

MWCC has decided to utilize proven riser systems deployed from mobile offshore drilling 

units. Free-standing risers systems similar to Petrobras will not be utilized for containment 

until such a time that MWCC and BOEMRE can fully evaluate the technology. Although 

independent experts are free to opine on equipment and containment strategies, BOEMRE 

remains the Federal agency with oversight authority for oil and gas development on the OCS, 

including requirements for the drilling, safety, and oil-spill response, and it must make its 

own informed decision on whether an operator is complying with BOEMRE’s containment 

requirements. In any event, this issue is outside of the purview of this document or NEPA 

generally. 

CBD-18 See the response to Comment CBD-11. The OSRA model is a trajectory analysis, combined 

with the probability of spill occurrence. Past spill data used in the OSRA models, both for 

accidental spills and catastrophic runs, indicate that there is no trend of increased number of 

spills based on exploration in deeper water prior to Macondo. For purposes of this 

Supplemental EIS, BOEMRE believes that it is appropriate to run the OSRA model for both 

low-probability catastrophic spills (Appendix C) and for other types of accidental events 

(Table 3-5) to frame the impacts analysis and better inform the decisionmaker. 

CBD-19 See the responses to Comments CBD-11 and CBD-18. 

CBD-20 The CBD’s request that this Supplemental EIS be withdrawn until the OSRP review and/or 

certification processes have been made subject to public notice and comment has no 

precedence under NEPA. The regulations implementing the OSRP/certification requirements 

were the subject of notice and comment. Public notice and comment on individual OSRP 

submissions and certifications is not provided for in the statutes or regulations and raises a 

number of complicating factors (such as proprietary and personal contact information that 
5-122 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

must be included). Even if BOEMRE were allowed to subject the OSRP and certification 

processes to public notice and comment in the future, that is not a basis for withdrawing this 

Supplemental EIS now. Public notice and comment on the OSRP and certification process 

would be unlikely to result in information relevant to the reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts of the proposed action or the alternatives. If anything, public notice and 

comment would only be expected to further reduce the potential for impacts during the postlease process rather than increase the potential for heightened or new impacts. Thus, the 

Supplemental EIS remains conservative in its evaluation of potential impacts from oil spills 

and the potential for OSRP’s to reduce or minimize this potential. 

CBD-21 The BOEMRE has reviewed the “Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis” (Appendix B) to 

correct or update it where necessary. However, it should be noted that the analysis in 

Appendix B was intended to be a general overview of potential effects of a catastrophic spill 

and to complement the substantive analyses in the main body of the Supplemental EIS itself. 

It was never envisioned to replace such analyses for individual resources in the main 

Supplemental EIS. As such, the Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis should be read with the 

understanding that further detail about oil impacts on a particular resource can be found in the 

main Supplemental EIS or previous relevant NEPA documents. 

CBD-22 See the response to Comment CBD-21. The intent of this analysis was not how to mitigate 

for a catastrophic spill event but to estimate the potential effects if such a catastrophic spill 

event occurred. Potential mitigation measures are discussed in the main body of the 

Supplemental EIS, where appropriate. The 2007 NMFS Biological Opinion does not 

authorize lethal takes of any species from an oil spill, including sea turtles, and indeed it is 

not within NMFS’s or FWS’s power to “authorize” takes for some future accidental event. 

The Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis is meant to provide an overview of the potential 

effects of a catastrophic spill, and when read in conjunction with the main body of the 

Supplemental EIS, to inform the decisionmaker and public on potential impacts of the 

proposed action if a catastrophic spill does occur. Therefore, the information on sea turtles 

and marine mammals should be read in context of the information presented in the 

Supplemental EIS itself. The Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis recognized the potential for 

adverse population level effects of sea turtles and marine mammals as a result of a 

catastrophic spill event. The Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis does not assign detailed 

mortality rates, and it was never intended to do so. 

CBD-23 See the response to Comment CBD-13. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-123 
5-124 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-125 CRE-1 
5-126 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-127 CRE-2 
5-128 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS CRE-3 CRE-4 
Consultation and Coordination 5-129 CRE-5 
5-130 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

CRE-1 The NMFS is only issuing Marine Mammal Protection Act authorizations using the current 

Level A (180 dB) and Level B (160 dB) criteria. 

CRE-2 Comment noted. Please note that this Supplemental EIS uses the current Level A (180 dB) 

and Level B (160 dB) criteria to evaluate potential impacts on marine mammals. 

CRE-3 Comment noted. The BOEMRE notes, however, that for compliance with the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act for these purposes, NMFS would be the agency responsible for 

imposing feasible mitigation measures. 

CRE-4 Comment noted. 

CRE-5 The NOAA and FWS would be the agencies that could provide draft Biological Opinions for 

public review since they are the agencies that issue them. The recently revised MMPA 

petition package for seismic sources in the Gulf of Mexico will be announced by NMFS in 

the Federal Register, and interested parties can receive a copy at that time. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-131 
5-132 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS IAGC-1 IAGC-2 
Consultation and Coordination 5-133 
5-134 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

IAGC-1 A paragraph was added to Chapter 3.1.1.1.1 to describe the use of ocean bottom systems to 

acquire seismic data. 

IAGC-2 Comment noted. The decision on which alternative will be selected will be made after this 

Supplemental EIS is finalized and, if the decision is to hold a lease sale under either 

Alternative A or B, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-135 
5-136 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-137 OCE-1 
5-138 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS OCE-1 (continued) 
Consultation and Coordination 5-139 OCE-2 OCE-3 
5-140 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS OCE-3 (continued) OCE-4 
Consultation and Coordination 5-141 
5-142 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS OCE-5 OCE-6 
Consultation and Coordination 5-143 OCE-6 (continued) OCE-7 
5-144 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-145 
5-146 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-147 OCE-8 
5-148 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS OCE-8 (continued) 
Consultation and Coordination 5-149 OCE-9 
5-150 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS OCE -10 OCE-9 (continued) 
Consultation and Coordination 5-151 OCE-11 OCE-12 OCE-13 OCE-14 OCE-15 
5-152 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS OCEA -17 OCE-18 OCE-15 (cont) OCE-16 
Consultation and Coordination 5-153 OCE-19 OCE-20 OCE-21 OCE-22 
5-154 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS OCE-22 (cont) OCE-23 OCE-24 
Consultation and Coordination 5-155 OCE-25 OCE-26 OCE-27 
5-156 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS OCE-28 OCE-29 
Consultation and Coordination 5-157 OCE-30 OCE-31 OCE-32 
5-158 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS OCE-33 OCE-34 OCE-35 
Consultation and Coordination 5-159 OCE-36 
5-160 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-161 
5-162 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

OCE-1 This Supplemental EIS states that the purpose of the proposed action is to offer for lease 

certain OCS blocks located in the WPA that may contain economically recoverable oil and 

gas resources. While Oceana contends that the proposed action meets this purpose, they 

stated that it fails to do so in a manner that maintains competition and achieves other 

important national needs. WPA Lease Sale 218 is one of the sales in the 2007-2012 5-Year 

Program, the programmatic EIS for which addressed policy concerns such as those raised 

here by Oceana. Although the proposed action is cited as helping to reduce the need for oil 

imports, the defined need for the proposed action is to further the orderly development of 

OCS resources. Oceana contends that the amount of oil and gas potentially recoverable will 

have a negligible impact on our Nation’s dependence on foreign reserves since the U.S. 

consumes substantially more than may be recovered in the WPA. Although it is true that any 

single lease sale contributes a relatively small percentage of total hydrocarbon resources used 

in the U.S., the overall OCS Program contributes a significant amount. Oceana compared the 

figures of potentially recoverable oil with the overall demand rather than to that portion that 

is imported. As stated in this Supplemental EIS, approximately 57 percent of oil used in the 

U.S. is imported. Based upon BOEMRE’s estimates of between 0.222 and 0.423 billion 

barrels of oil that will be developed due to WPA Lease Sale 218, this production will be used 

in the U.S. and is expected to therefore contribute to a reduction of the amount of oil and gas 

that would otherwise be imported to fill that need. 

OCE-2 Oceana contends that this Supplemental EIS failed to provide such a clear basis for 

decisionmaking because it does not consider two reasonable alternatives, specifically 

increasing renewable energy and conservation or delaying the lease sale until studies of the 

impacts of the DWH oil spill are completed. Furthermore, Oceana contends that the stated 

need for the proposed action is to decrease the Nation’s reliance on foreign oil and gas. 

Therefore, Oceana stated that an alternative should discuss the reduction of imports on 

foreign oil by shifting the Nation’s transportation fleet away from gasoline and diesel. 

 If the proposed action were to evaluate means of deriving energy from the OCS, then an 

analysis of renewable energy alternatives on the OCS would be a viable alternative. 

However, the proposed action defined in this Supplemental EIS is the offering of leases in the 

WPA on the OCS for oil and gas exploration and production as part of the approved 2007-

2012 5-Year Program. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14, alternatives must be derived 

from the stated purpose. The alternatives presented in this Supplemental EIS are reasonable 

alternatives within the framework of leasing the OCS for oil and gas exploration. 

Additionally, the stated purpose of this Supplemental EIS is to further the orderly 

development of OCS resources, not as Oceana contends, to decrease the Nation’s reliance on 

foreign oil and gas. Therefore, an analysis of renewable/alternative energy and conservation 

alternatives would not be considered as derived from the stated purpose and need of this 

Supplemental EIS. Renewable/alternative energy and conservation are discussed under 

Alternative 10 (No Action) in the 2007-2012 5-Year Program EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). 

Energy alternatives are also discussed in Energy Alternatives and the Environment (King, 

2007). 

OCE-3 Oceana commented that there was no alternative that considered delaying the lease sale until 

adequate impact assessments of the DWH event are completed and can be fully considered. 

Oceana also stated that the lack of available data on the environmental impacts of the DWH 

spill prohibited a full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts, invalidating 

this Supplemental EIS. 

 The analyses in this Supplemental EIS considered changes to baseline conditions that may 

have occurred since the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, including the 

DWH event. As acknowledged in this Supplemental EIS, credible scientific data regarding 

the potential short-term and long-term impacts of the DWH event is incomplete. In light of 

the absence of this information, BOEMRE considered what information was relevant and 
Consultation and Coordination 5-163 

essential to its analysis of alternatives based upon the resource analyzed. If essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives, BOEMRE considered whether it was possible to 

obtain the information, if the cost of obtaining it is exorbitant, and if it cannot be obtained, 

apply acceptable scientific methodologies to inform the analysis in light of this incomplete or 

unavailable information. Information on many impacts of the DWH event and oil spill, 

particularly as part of the NRDA process, may not be available for years, and certainly not 

within the contemplated timeframe of this NEPA process. In its place, subject-matter experts 

have used the scientifically credible information available and scientific methodologies to 

evaluate impacts to the resources while this information is unavailable. Information that is 

available was analyzed by subject-matter experts, who determined that the resources in the 

WPA were not significantly affected or, in most cases, not affected at all by the DWH event. 

Fore example, many species of birds found in the WPA have migration and residency 

patterns which indicate that they would be unlikely to migrate laterally from the area affected 

by the spill into the WPA, or were at breeding grounds far to the north and outside of the area 

of impacts at the time of the DWH event. The data obtained to support the conclusions within 

this Supplemental EIS indicate that, due primarily to its geographical location and distance 

from the DWH site, the area to be offered for lease in the proposed WPA lease sale did not 

experience any significant adverse effects from the DWH event. The environmental baseline 

relevant to resources located in that area is essentially unchanged. Resources that are known 

to migrate to the WPA from the CPA could have been impacted by the spill, and analysis of 

those resources reflects these potential impacts; however, none were determined to be 

significant. 

OCE-4 Oceana stated that, by not including necessary information to gauge the impact of the DWH 

spill, this Supplemental EIS violates 40 CFR 1502.22, which states that “[i]f the incomplete 

information . . . is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of 

obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental 

impact statement.” 

 In accordance with Section 1502.22 of NEPA, “Incomplete or Unavailable information,” 

when an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human 

environment in an EIS and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall 

always make clear that such information is lacking. However, NEPA does not require that all 

informational gaps be addressed before an EIS is completed and a decision is made. In 

accordance with 1502.22, where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to 

determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, and if so, was either 

acquired or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted 

scientific methodologies were applied in its place. Language in Chapter 4.1, “Incomplete or 

Unavailable Information,” was clarified to prevent any misperceptions on this issue and the 

individual resource analyses sections identify this issue where appropriate. 

OCE-5 This Supplemental EIS evaluates impacts for the first lease sale to be held after the DWH 

event. Additional NEPA documents will be prepared for future lease sales. Where relevant 

information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or 

unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives, and if so, was either acquired or, in the event it was 

impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were 

applied in its place. The subject matter experts evaluated the potential impacts to each 

resource that could be expected in light of this unavailable and incomplete information, and 

they found that the impacts were not significant. Language in Chapter 4.1, “Incomplete or 

Unavailable Information,” was clarified to prevent any misperceptions on this issue and the 

individual resource analyses sections identify this issue where appropriate. 

. 
5-164 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

 Nonetheless, as additional information becomes available, additional regulations and 

mitigations can be implemented if long-term impacts to Atlantic bluefin tuna are discovered. 

This is consistent with a recent NOAA determination for the species. The NOAA has stated 

that “The status review team also looked at the best available information on the potential 

effects of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill on the future abundance of the western 

stock of bluefin tuna and found that it did not substantially alter the results of the extinction 

risk analysis.” This was part of their scientific review for the decision that, at this time, 

Atlantic bluefin tuna do not warrant species protection under the ESA. While the oil slick 

from the DWH event did occurred within known Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning grounds, it 

was in one portion of the entire Gulf of Mexico and these tuna could use other areas 

throughout the Gulf of Mexico and not just where the oil slick occurred. This can be seen in 

Teo et al. (2007), where most of his tagged tuna were west of Mississippi Canyon Block 252. 

OCE-6 While the probability of a high-volume oil spill is still very low, particularly in light of 

improved safety requirements for OCS activities, BOEMRE has nonetheless conducted an 

analysis of the effects of accidental oil spills on environmental and socioeconomic resources. 

OCE-7 Climate change is a global phenomenon influenced by many activities worldwide. The 

BOEMRE’s policy is to address programmatic issues such as global warming at the 5-Year 

Program level rather than at the individual lease sale level. Global warming is addressed in 

the 2007-2012 5-Year Program EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). 

OCE-8 The assumption that deeper water and well depth increases the risk of a spill is overly 

simplistic. 

 Water depth is not used to calculate the risk of future spills. Data on the numbers, types, 

sizes, and other information on past spills were reviewed to develop the spill scenario for 

analysis in this Supplemental EIS. The spill scenario provides the set of assumptions and 

estimates of future spills; the type, frequency, quantity, and fate of the spilled oil for specific 

scenarios; and the rationale for the scenario assumptions or estimates. Modeling spill 

trajectories is a complex process that requires BOEMRE review and testing. There had been 

no trend of increased number of oil spills based on exploration in deeper water prior to the 

DWH event. The modeling group in BOEMRE’s Headquarters is always investigating 

changes and improvements to our oil-spill modeling efforts; it would be premature at this 

point to drastically change the model as a result of the DWH event since data is still 

forthcoming. 

 The Draft Supplemental EIS describes the new regulations and requirements, such as the 

Drilling Safety Rule and Workplace Safety Rule, that have been introduced and reduce the 

risk of future blowouts (Chapter 1.3.1), but these changes do not eliminate the risk entirely. 

Two new NTL’s provide additional guidance related to spill-response efforts and subsea 

blowout containment. The NTL 2010-N06, “Information Requirements for Exploration 

Plans, Development and Production Plans, and Development Operations Coordination 

Documents on the OCS,” outlines how operators must certify that they are prepared to deal 

with a potential blowout and describe measures they propose to enhance their ability to 

prevent or reduce the likelihood of a blowout and to conduct early and effective intervention, 

including measures for drilling a relief well. The NTL 2010-N10, “Statement of Compliance 

with Applicable Regulations and Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequate Spill 

Response and Well Containment Resources,” informs operators that they must attest that they 

will conduct all authorized activities in compliance with all applicable regulations and that 

they have the demonstrated capacity to deploy containment resources that could adequately 

and promptly respond to a blowout/loss of well control. The BOEMRE has focused on 

improving the way wells are designed and drilled to prevent ever getting into a well control 

incident that would require the use of the BOP. In doing so, BOEMRE believes that, since 
Consultation and Coordination 5-165 

the DWH event, BOEMRE has lowered the overall risk by lowering the probability that a 

well control incident occurs. 

OCE-9 The capacity of both government and industry to respond to oil spills, both from a regulatory 

and technological perspective, is continually being updated and improved. Many of these 

issues are outside of BOEMRE’s authority (e.g., the USCG is responsible for response to and 

clean up of spills on the OCS). For the purposes of this NEPA analysis, BOEMRE has taken 

a conservative approach, assumed for purposes of impact analysis that a catastrophic spill 

may occur, and has not relied on untested technological advances in oil-spill response in our 

analysis of impacts. This Supplemental EIS presents impact analyses that presume contact 

with oil and, where known, the effect of cleanup operations. 

OCE-10 Appendix B is intended to be an overview of potential effects of a catastrophic spill, not 

specifically the DWH event. It was never envisioned to provide a site-specific analysis but 

instead be a reference to the type of impacts associated with a catastrophic spill. A specific 

spill scenario is too speculative. The analysis contained in Appendix B best suits a situation 

where there are a wide range of scenarios associated with an unexpected and unlikely lowprobability event. 

 The best example for long-term impacts from a catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is 

the Ixtoc spill of 1979, which BOEMRE has incorporated where appropriate in this 

Supplemental EIS. The Exxon Valdez spill occurred in such vastly different conditions and 

circumstances in Alaska that it probably is a poor example of impacts and recovery from an 

oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, although this spill may be relevant to discussions of impacts 

of oil on individual resources. 

 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on April 22, 2011, the subject-matter experts 

incorporated relevant information and updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. The 

incorporation of relevant information is time consuming, as it must be obtained and reviewed 

by subject-matter experts in the context of the source of the data, research methodology, and 

data quality. As is necessary under every NEPA analysis, at some point the subject-matter 

experts had to finalize their analyses to allow time for the Final Supplemental EIS to be 

prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. 

OCE-11 The BOEMRE agrees that there were many images of oil-soaked birds from the DWH spill. 

Pages B-17 and B-31 of Appendix B states that oiling is one of the primary concerns for 

effects on birds. 

OCE-12 When Appendix B was written, the intent was only to consider events in the Gulf of Mexico, 

which is why the Exxon Valdez spill was not discussed. Section 5.2.2.1 of Appendix B states 

that “there is a high probability of underestimating the impacts of oil spills on avian species” 

and further states that such effects may have long-term population-level effects. Citing the 

Alaska example, the commenter makes valid points that later surveys discovered many more 

affected birds and that some bird populations have not recovered in 20 years. Section 5.2.2.1 

of Appendix B has been changed to reflect this point. 

 The following clarifying language was added to the document: “Some populations could take 

years or decades before reaching a full recovery, and some may never recover.” 

OCE-13 Section 5.2.2.1 of Appendix B states that “there is a high probability of underestimating the 

impacts of oil spills on avian species. . . .” The commenter makes a valid point that some 

birds are able to fly despite being oiled and may later be found far from the original 

catastrophic oil-spill site. Section 5.2.2.1 of Appendix B has been changed to reflect this 

point. 
5-166 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

 The following clarifying language was added to the document: “Despite being oiled, some 

birds are able to fly and may later be killed from exposure to the oil, far from the catastrophic 

oil spill site.” 

OCE-14 The BOEMRE agrees that, while short-term impacts to birds from contact with oil is easier to 

evaluate, the long-term impacts to the population can take years to evaluate. Section 5.2.2.1 

of Appendix B was written to reflect these uncertainties with the recognition that a 

catastrophic oil spill may have population-level effects. The commenter is correct in pointing 

out that impacts to prey species may also affect the bird populations. While Section 3.2.2.1 

acknowledges this point, Section 5.2.2.1 of Appendix B has been changed to more clearly 

reflect this point. 

 The following clarifying language was added to the document: “The long-term impacts of 

potential food stress for bird species from an altered ecosystem are unknown, but 

disturbances to the ecosystem can cause long-term sublethal impacts, including 

malnourishment and decreased reproductive success.” 

OCE-15 The Appendix B is a general analysis and is not specific to the DWH spill, but it is the most 

relevant example of a catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, the commenter’s 

discussion of the timing of bluefin tuna spawning and larval stages to the DWH spill is an 

example of the possible effects from a long-term, population-level impact to one species and 

of the possible effects this may have on fisheries in the future. Sections 2.2.2.2, 3.2.2.2, 

4.2.2.2, and 5.2.2.2 discuss the possible impacts on fish, while Sections 2.2.2.5, 3.2.2.6, 

3.2.2.7, and 5.2.2.8 discuss the impacts on benthic habitat; Sections 2.2.3.2, 3.2.3.2, 4.2.3.2, 

and 5.2.3.2 discuss impacts on commercial fishing; and Sections 2.2.3.3, 3.2.3.3, 4.2.3.3, and 

5.2.3.3 discuss impacts on recreational resources and fishing. Section 3.2.2.2 also states 

“early life stages of animals are usually more sensitive to oil than adults (Boesch and 

Rabalais, 1987; NRC, 2005)”; the analysis is consistent with the point that the commenter 

makes here. 

OCE-16 The BOEMRE agrees with the commenter; the example of the areas closed to fisheries is an 

important impact, as exemplified by the areas closed as a result of the DWH spill. Appendix 

B discusses these impacts in Sections 2.2.3.2, 3.2.3.2, 4.2.3.2, and 5.2.3.2 regarding impacts 

on commercial fishing and in Sections 2.2.3.3, 3.2.3.3, 4.2.3.3, and 5.2.3.3 regarding impacts 

on recreational resources and fishing. 

OCE-17 While Appendix B is a general analysis and is not specific to the DWH spill, the commenter 

provides the excellent example of an unusual mortality event as another possible result from a 

catastrophic oil spill. In Appendix B, Sections 2.2.2.3, 3.2.2.3, 4.2.2.3, and 5.2.2.3 discuss 

possible impacts to marine mammals. Specifically, Section 5.2.2.3 discusses the possible 

long-term and population-level impacts and the various ways that the spill could contribute to 

these impacts. However, this section did not mention Unusual Mortality Events. This section 

has been revised to specify that Unusual Mortality Events could be caused by a catastrophic 

oil spill. 

 It is also important to note that the 2010-2011 unusual mortality event cited by the 

commenter (USDOC, NOAA, 2011d) actually began before the DWH oil spill occurred. 

However, BOEMRE recognizes that the DWH oil spill could have further impacted the 

unusual mortality event and will review the data being collected through the NRDA process. 

OCE-18 While the total number of marine mammals killed from the DWH oil spill is speculative, 

BOEMRE agrees that the detection rate of carcasses is low and that it is probable that there 

have been more deaths caused by the DWH oil spill than observed. In Appendix B, Sections 

2.2.2.3, 3.2.2.3, 4.2.2.3, and 5.2.2.3 discuss possible impacts to marine mammals. 

Specifically, Section 3.2.2.3 discusses the DWH oil spill and the numbers of marine 
Consultation and Coordination 5-167 

mammals that had been collected as of September 22, 2010. Section 3.2.2.3 states “this 

number represents only those marine mammals collected (either dead or alive) and does not 

address all potential impacts to the population. Based on these data, it is reasonable to 

assume that a catastrophic oil spill lasting up to 120 days could have population-level effects 

on many species of marine mammals (e.g. sperm whales, Bryde’s whales, etc.).” This section 

has been updated to further reflect the probable underestimate of deaths due to the low 

detection rate of carcasses and has also been updated to reflect the most recent Consolidated 

Fish and Wildlife Collection Reports after the DWH oil spill as of April 20, 2011. 

 The following clarifying language was added to Appendix B: “Due to known low detection 

rates of carcasses, it is likely that the deaths of marine mammals are underestimated 

(Williams et al., 2011).” 

OCE-19 While Appendix B does not discuss the full life history, habitats, and range of sea turtles, the 

Supplemental EIS does provide this information in Chapter 4.1.1.11. The same is also 

incorporated by reference from the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, 

which provides a thorough background on sea turtles. 

 Sea turtles are discussed in Sections 2.2.2.4, 3.2.2.4, 4.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.4 of Appendix B. 

Section 4.2.2.4 discusses the three species of sea turtle that nest in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 

and the impacts that a catastrophic oil spill could have on nesting sea turtles. The commenter 

provides a citation for the nesting sites for sea turtles. This section of Appendix B has been 

updated to use this citation. 

 The OBIS-SEAMAP (2009) reference was added to the document. 

OCE-20 Sargassum is discussed in Appendix B in Section 3.2.2.5 for offshore habitats, as well as in 

Section 4.2.2.4 for sea turtles and finally in Section 5.2.2.7 for open water habitats. Sections 

4.2.2.6 and 5.2.2.7 discuss seagrass beds. Coral reefs are discussed in Sections 2.2.2.5, 

3.2.2.6, 3.2.2.7, and 5.2.2.6. Further, Section 3.2.2.4 for sea turtles also discusses coral reefs 

as important sea turtle habitat. Consistent with the discussions in these sections, BOEMRE 

agrees with the commenter that the destruction of these habitats from a catastrophic oil spill 

would be harmful to sea turtles. The BOEMRE agrees that declines in the food supply for 

sea turtles, which include invertebrates and sponge populations could also affect sea turtle 

populations. Section 5.2.2.4 has been updated to reflect this change. 

 The following clarifying language was added to the document: “Declines in the food supply 

for sea turtles, which include invertebrates and sponge populations could also affect sea turtle 

populations.” 

OCE-21 Comment noted. 

OCE-22 In this Supplemental EIS, Chapter 4.1.1.11.2 discusses the impacts from routine events on 

sea turtles, which includes offshore activities. Chapter 4.1.1.11.3 discusses the impacts from 

accidental events on sea turtles. This section states, in regards to an accidental event at the 

lease sale site, “exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an 

oil slick are expected to most often result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health and/or 

reproductive fitness, increased vulnerability to disease) to sea turtles.” 

 In Appendix B, sea turtles are discussed in Sections 2.2.2.4, 3.2.2.4, 4.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.4. 

Section 2.2.2.4 discusses how sea turtles may be impacted near the site of a catastrophic 

event if they are near the blowout and within the initially released oil. Section 3 of this 

analysis is specific to a catastrophic oil spill that is growing in size. Section 3.2.2.4 states that 

sea turtles are more likely to be affected by a catastrophic spill in shallow water, citing the 

typical habitat for Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, and green sea turtles. This is not to say that sea 
5-168 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

turtles could not or would not be affected by an oil spill in the open ocean. The BOEMRE 

agrees with the commenter that sea turtles travel through the open ocean. 

 The Appendix B and the main body of the Supplemental EIS do not downplay the impacts of 

an offshore catastrophic oil spill on essential habitat for turtles in the open ocean convergence 

zones; rather, Appendix B only states that more sea turtles are likely to be affected in 

shallower waters. 

OCE-23 The BOEMRE agrees that catastrophic oil spills have the potential to affect sea turtles in 

many ways, including the following: (1) oil or dispersants on the sea turtle’s skin and body 

can cause skin irritation, chemical burns, and infections; (2) inhalation of volatile petroleum 

compounds or dispersants can damage the respiratory tract and lead to diseases; (3) ingesting 

oil or dispersants may cause injury to the gastrointestinal tract; and (4) chemicals that are 

inhaled or ingested may damage liver, kidney, and brain function, cause anemia and immune 

suppression, or lead to reproductive failure or death. 

Chapter 4.1.1.11.3 of this Supplemental EIS discusses impacts from accidental events on sea 

turtles. Appendix B furthers the discussion of the impacts on sea turtles in Sections 2.2.2.4, 

3.2.2.4, 4.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.4. However, to capture the point made by the commenter, the 

commenter’s list of potential impacts has been added to Section 5.2.2.4 of Appendix B. 

 The following clarifying language was added to the document: “While all of the pathways 

that an oil spill or the use of dispersants can affect sea turtles is poorly understood, some 

pathways may include the following: (1) oil or dispersants on the sea turtle’s skin and body 

can cause skin irritation, chemical burns, and infections; (2) inhalation of volatile petroleum 

compounds or dispersants can damage the respiratory tract and lead to diseases; (3) ingesting 

oil or dispersants may cause injury to the gastrointestinal tract; and (4) chemicals that are 

inhaled or ingested may damage liver, kidney, and brain function, cause anemia and immune 

suppression, or lead to reproductive failure or death.” 

OCE-24 Chapter 4.1.1.11.3 of this Supplemental EIS provides a general overview of the impacts 

from accidental events on sea turtles, while the effects of a catastrophic oil spill on sea turtles 

are further discussed in Sections 2.2.2.4, 3.2.2.4, 4.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.4 of Appendix B. Effects 

on nesting sites were discussed in Section 4.2.2.4 of Appendix B. The full life history of sea 

turtles are discussed in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, which were 

incorporated by reference, as well as in Chapter 4.1.1.11 of this Supplemental EIS. 

Appendix B discusses Sea turtle habitat (including Sargassum), seagrass beds, and coral 

reefs throughout the appendix. Appendix B has been updated, however, to reflect the 

examples and suggestions from this commenter, which improve upon the discussion on 

impacts to prey species and the effects on sea turtles. 

OCE-25 Phytoplankton and zooplankton do play a major role in the marine environment. However, 

several laboratory and field experiments and observations in the past decades have shown that 

impacts to planktonic and microbial populations are generally short lived and do not affect all 

groups evenly, and in some cases stimulate growth of important species (Gonzalez et al., 

2009; Graham et al., 2010; Hing et al., 2011; Dunstan et al., 1975, in Appendix B). 

 Information was added to Appendix B to include the role of plankton in the marine 

environment. 

OCE-26 The consideration of additional biomass from hydrocarbon-consuming microbiota 

contributing to benthic hypoxia along the Louisiana continental shelf (and potentially other 

areas of the documented “dead zone” sometimes stretching offshore Texas) is a valid point. 

The cause of the existing hypoxic zone is primarily derived from the decent of overlying 

plankton biomass rather than benthic origins, but hydrocarbon consuming bacteria would also 
Consultation and Coordination 5-169 

occur in the water column. Their associated increased biomass after sinking to the seafloor 

could have a cumulative impact on benthic oxygen demand. 

OCE-27 Comment noted. This data is not available yet but will be considered by BOEMRE in the 

future if and when made public. 

OCE-28 Data from David Valentine, a microbial geochemist at the University of California, Santa 

Barbara, contradict the assertion of long-term impacts to dissolved oxygen. His data indicate 

the methane was gone in 3 months after the Macondo well was capped, without appreciable 

impact to dissolved oxygen. John Kessler, an oceanographer from Texas A&M University, 

found similar results. The Joye et al. Nature Geoscience letter reference speculates about the 

persistence of oxygen depletion in hydrocarbon-enriched waters. “We suggest that microbial 

consumption of these gases could lead to the extensive and persistent depletion of oxygen in 

hydrocarbon-enriched waters.” There is no current field evidence supporting it. It is also 

worth consideration of the massive flux of hydrocarbons into the water column of the Gulf of 

Mexico on a continuous basis (including continuous methane seeps). 

OCE-29 The reference that corals have been shown to be resilient to oil contact remains accurate and 

is based on field research and science in the literature. One summary source is the most 

recent National Research Council’s 2003 book on Oil in the Sea. There are adverse impacts 

that can result from exposure of coral to oil. The Panama study referred to in this comment 

was funded by this Agency. Some excerpts from page 141 of this NRC reference are as 

follows: “long-term effects (greater than five years) of oil in Panama were more pronounced 

and detrimental due likely to repeat inoculation of oil from the surrounding mangroves into 

the coral ecosystem.” “In contrast, no long-lasting effects to the coral reef ecosystem were 

reported from the Persian Gulf War spills” (120 fold greater volume of oil). Absent another 

catastrophic spill in the near term, and repeated exposure to oil, this re-exposure situation 

would not occur at the Flower Gardens or any other coral habitat in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. Also, research done on direct exposure of coral to oil was summarized by one 

reference (Peters et al., 1997) including, “no adverse effects were measured for exposure of 

less than one hour.” This refers to the submersion of living corals in oil for up to a full hour 

with no impact. 

 The BOEMRE feels that the conclusion in the Supplemental EIS that deepwater coral is 

unlikely to be impacted by an oil plume from a blowout remains accurate. The likelihood of 

a deepwater coral habitat being impacted by any blowout event would have little to do with 

its proximity to the well site alone and would be more related to use of dispersants. The 

potential impacts of oil, including that which may be dispersed subsurface, is discussed in 

this Supplemental EIS. It should be noted that other deepwater coral sites revisited 20-30 mi 

(32-48 km) north of the Macondo well site (which were part of a BOEMRE/NOAA OER 

funded high-resolution imagery survey from before the spill), did not have any observable 

impacts from the spill. 

OCE-30 The BOEMRE agrees with the commenter and with the data from the Census of Marine Life. 

Appendix B is a hypothetic general analysis and therefore does not include all species. It is 

also not specific to the DWH spill, but takes it, along with the Ixtoc spill into account. Since 

data from the DWH spill have not yet been released on the effects to individual species, nor 

to biodiversity, BOEMRE has considered the effects from the Ixtoc spill. The data indicate 

that the impacts were relatively short term and did not significantly reduce the biodiversity of 

the Gulf of Mexico. However, BOEMRE agrees with the commenter that that the overall 

ecosystem and the biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico could be disrupted in the case of 

another catastrophic oil spill.

OCE-31 The microbial loop is an essential part of the marine ecosystem. The comments are noted and 

Appendix B has been updated. However, the study cited (Widger et al., 2011) does not 
5-170 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

support the argument of lasting effects to the spill on coastal microbial communities and 

pathogens. The study had only one pre-spill and one during spill time-point each, with no 

post-spill component to monitor trends. Further, the pathogens noted are commonly found in 

coastal waters after significant rain events and occur as a result of untreated freshwater 

reaching the coast (Stumpf et al., 2010; Wetz et al., 2008; Hsieh et al., 2007). The study 

(Widger et al., 2011) does not address the potential that the increase in microbial pathogens 

are a result of storm water run-off, and indeed does not even address if there was a significant 

rain event upstream that could have carried these terrestrial-derived pathogens to the coastal 

zone. (The above references can be found in Appendix B.) 

OCE-32 The BOEMRE is very aware of the character and significance of the Flower Garden Banks, 

as this Agency began protective measures and the stewardship of these unique ecosystems in 

the early 1970’s, long before they were designated as a National Marine Sanctuary. Attention 

and concern for these resources is warranted. Their sensitivity and unique biological 

assemblages have been carefully considered by BOEMRE over the past decades. The 

BOEMRE is an equal partner with the Sanctuary in the continuing environmental monitoring 

of the East and West Flower Garden Banks, the longest continuous coral monitoring project 

in the world. A detailed description of the Flower Garden Banks and other topographic 

features, including Stetson Bank, which is a part of the Flower Garden Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, appears in previous EIS documents referenced in this Supplemental EIS (i.e., the 

Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS). The potential for oil-spill impacts to 

the Flower Garden Banks have been specifically considered. Additional evaluation of any 

unique potential impacts to the Flower Garden Banks and Sanctuary will be considered. 

OCE-33 The Appendix B is a general overview of hypothetical impacts from a nonspecific 

hypothetical spill and, thus, there are no specific location or maps associated with it. 

OCE-34 The BOEMRE does not have access to the NRDA data that is being generated, as much of it 

has not been made publicly available. It may well be years before the results of NRDA are 

made available. While we do not dispute the other facts in the comment, they do not add 

value to the impact analysis for the proposed lease sale or the Appendix B. 

OCE-35 The BOEMRE agrees with the commenter that Appendix B in no way is a complete list of all 

species and subspecies that may have been affected by the DWH oil spill or that may be 

affected by any future catastrophic events in the Gulf of Mexico. The Campagna et al. (2011) 

paper referenced by the commenter states that there are many unprotected species that were 

also likely affected, including bluefin tuna, several species of sharks, and several coral 

species. The BOEMRE agrees that, assuming a catastrophic spill, such impacts would be 

probable. Thus, Appendix B addresses impacts that are common among species and 

addresses those impacts. In cases where the discussion requires, for purpose of impact 

analysis, a distinction between species, such distinction is made. Section 3.2.2.2 of 

Appendix B does discuss particular concern for whale sharks based on sightings after the 

DWH oil spill. Further, Chapter 4.1.1.13 of this Supplemental EIS does list many species of 

fish and sharks that could be impacted. 

 Campagna, C., F.T. Short, A.A. Polidoro, R. McManus, B.B. Collette, N.J. Pilcher, 

Y.S. de Mitcheson, S.N. Stuart, and K.E. Carpenter. 2011. Gulf of Mexico oil blowout 

increases risks to globally threatened species. Bioscience 61:393. 

OCE-36 Comment noted. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-171 USA CIT-1 
5-172 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-173 

USACIT-1 Comment noted. The decision on which alternative (including whether to cancel the lease 

sale) will be selected will be made after the Supplemental EIS is finalized and, if the decision 

is to hold a lease sale under either Alternative A or B, it will be announced in a Final Notice 

of Sale. 
5-174 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS ANAD-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-175 
5-176 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

ANAD-1 Comment noted. The decision on which alternative will be selected will be made after the 

Supplemental EIS is finalized and, if the decision is to hold a lease sale under either 

Alternative A or B, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-177 BAKER-1 
5-178 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

BAKER-1 Comment noted. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-179 
5-180 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-181 
5-182 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-183 DAVID-1 
5-184 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

DAVID-1 Comments noted. The decision on which alternative will be selected (including whether to 

cancel the lease sale) will be made after the Supplemental EIS is finalized and, if the decision 

is to hold a lease sale under either Alternative A or B, it will be announced in the Final Notice 

of Sale. But please note that this Supplemental EIS does take into account and analyze new 

regulations finalized and implemented since the DWH event to reduce the threat of 

catastrophic spills and to increase safety, new capabilities in industry that are either in place 

or being developed for spill containment, and improved inspection protocols. 
CHAPTER 6 

REFERENCES CITED
References Cited 6-3 

6. REFERENCES CITED 

Abramson, D., I. Redlener, T. Stehling-Ariza, J. Sury, A. Banister, and Y. Park. 2010. Impact on 

children and families of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. National Center for Disaster Preparedness. 

Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY. 

Acevedo, R., R. Morelock, and R.A. Olivieri. 1989. Modification of coral reef zonation by terrigenous 

sediment stress. Palaios 4:92-100. 

Ackerman, J.T., J.Y. Takekawa, K.L. Kruse, D.L. Orthmeyer, J.L. Yee, C.R. Ely, D.H. Ward, 

K.S. Bollinger, and D.M. Mulcahy. 2004. Using radiotelemetry to monitor cardiac response of freeliving tule greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons elgasi) to human disturbance. Wilson 

Bulletin 116:146-151. 

Adams, J.A. 1960. A contribution to the biology and postlarval development of the Sargassum fish, 

Histrio histrio (Linnaeus), with a discussion of the Sargassum complex. Bull. Mar. Sci. of the Gulf 

and Caribbean 10:55-82. 

Adcroft, A., R. Hallberg, J.P. Dunne, B.L. Samuels, J.A. Galt, C.H. Barker, and D. Payton. 2010. 

Simulations of underwater plumes of dissolved oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, 

L18605, doi:10.1029/2010GL044689. 

Aguilar-Perera, A. and A. Tuz-Sulub. 2010. Non-native, invasive red lionfish (Pterois volitans

[Linnaeus 1758]: Scorpaenidae), is the first recorded in the southern Gulf of Mexico, off the 

Northern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Aquatic Invasions, Volume 5, Supplement 1:S9-S12. 

Aguilera, F., J. Méndez, E. Pásaro, and B. Laffon. 2010. Review on the effects of exposure to spilled 

oils on human health. Journal of Applied Toxicology 30:291-301, doi:10.1002/jat.1521. 

Alexander, S.K. and J.W. Webb. 1983. Effects of oil on growth and decomposition of Spartina 

alterniflora. In: Proceedings, 1983 Oil Spill Conference. . . February 28-March 3, 1983, San 

Antonio, TX. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 529-532. 

Alexander, S.K. and J.W. Webb. 1987. Relationship of Spartina alterniflora growth to sediment oil 

content following an oil spill. In: Proceedings, 1987 Oil Spill Conference. . . April 6-9, 1988. 

Baltimore, MD. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 445-450. 

Alexander-Bloch, B. 2010. Vietnamese-American fishers fight for oil spill claim approval. The Times 

Picayune. Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/12/vietnameseamerican_fishermen.html. Accessed February 16, 2011.

Allen, A. 2010. Observations & lessons learned: Offshore operations, Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

Spiltec. 9 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/forums/documents/

Panel_II_Presentation_3_anchorage.pdf. Posted Summer 2010. Accessed December 23, 2010. 

Alonso-Alvarez, C., C. Perez, and A. Velando. 2007a. Effects of acute exposure to heavy fuel oil from 

the Prestige spill on a seabird. Aquatic Toxicology 84:103-110. 

Alonso-Alvarez, C., I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonso, and A. Velando. 2007b. Sublethal toxicity of the 

Prestige oil spill on yellow-legged gulls. Environment International 33:773-781. 

Alsop, F.J. III. 2001. Birds of North America. Smithsonian Handbook. New York: DK Publishing. 

1,008 pp. 

American Association of Port Authorities. 2007. US port ranking by cargo volume 2005. Internet 

website: http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/adv_table_3-12-07.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2010. 

American Petroleum Institute (API). 1989. Effects of offshore petroleum operations on cold water 

marine mammals: A literature review. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 385 pp. 

American Petroleum Institute (API). 2004. Development of a safety and environmental management 

program for offshore operations and facilities. Recommended Practice (RP) 75. 
6-4 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Amos, A.F. 1989. The occurrence of hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) along the Texas coast. 

Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-232. Pp. 9-11. 

Anchor Environmental CA, L.P. 2003. Literature review of effects of resuspended sediments due to 

dredging operations. Prepared for the Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force, Los 

Angeles, CA 140 pp. 

Anderson, J.B. 2007. The formation and future of the upper Texas coast: A geologist answers questions 

about sand, storms, and living by the sea. 1st ed. Texas A&M University Press. Gulf Coastal Studies 

No. 11. 184 pp. 

Anderson, C.M. 2010. Official communication. Email regarding the anticipated OCS spill rate postMacondo event. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Herndon, VA. August 3, 2010. 

Anderson, C.M. and R.P. LaBelle. 2000. Update of comparative occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. 

Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 6(5/6):302-321. 

Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, and D.M. Fry. 1996. Survival and dispersal of oiled brown pelicans after 

rehabilitation and release. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32:711-718. 

Armstrong, H.W., K. Fucik, J.W. Anderson, and J.M. Neff. 1977. Effects of oilfield brine effluent on 

benthic organisms in Trinity Bay, Texas. API Publication No. 4201. Washington, DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. 

Atauz, A.D., W. Bryant, T. Jones, and B. Phaneuf. 2006. Mica shipwreck project: Deepwater 

archaeological investigation of a 19th century shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 2006-072. 116 pp. 

Atkins, M., S. Mirza, J. Skinner, A. Mathew, and T. Edward. 2006. Pipeline damage assessment from 

Hurricane Ivan in the Gulf of Mexico. Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. TA&R 553. 

Atkins, M., T. Edward, D. Johnson, and M. Dance. 2007. Pipeline damage assessment from Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Herndon, VA. TA&R 581. 

Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions. 2004. Guidelines for marine artificial reef 

materials. Second edition. Number 121. 205 pp. Internet website: http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/

SFRP/Guidelines_for_Marine_Artificial_Reef_Materials_January_2004.pdf. 

Aurell, J. and B.K. Gullett. 2010. Aerostat sampling of PCDD/PCDF emissions from the Gulf oil spill in 

situ burns. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National 

Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 22 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/research/dioxin/docs/Gulfinsituburnemissionsampling.pdf. Accessed April 13, 

2011. 

Austin, D., K. Coelho, A. Gardner, R. Higgins, and T. McGuire. 2002a. Social and economic impacts of 

outer continental shelf activities on individuals and families. Volume I: Final report. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002-022. 298 pp. 

Austin, D.E., A. Gardner, R. Higgins, J. Schrag-James, S. Sparks, and L. Stauber. 2002b. Social and 

economic impacts of outer continental shelf activities on individuals and families. Volume II: Case 

studies of Morgan City and New Iberia, Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002-023. 197 pp. 

Austin-American Statesman. 2010. Land commissioner says state getting most ever in oil and gas 

proceeds though oil production topped out in 1970s. Internet website: http://www.politifact.com/

texas/statements/2010/may/02/jerry-patterson/land-commissioner-says-state-getting-most-ever-oil/. 

Posted May 3, 2010. Accessed October 12, 2010. 
References Cited 6-5 

Austin Post. 2010. New leads on Texas tar balls. July 10, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.austinpost.org/content/new-leads-texas-beach-tar-balls-finding. Accessed May 31, 2011. 

Australian Maritime Safety Authority. 2003. Post spill monitoring: Background paper. Prepared by 

Wardrop Consulting and the Cawthron Institute for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the 

Marine Safety Authority of New Zealand. Published by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 

Canberra. ISBN: 0 642 70991 2. 

Australian Maritime Safety Authority. 2010. Oil spill dispersants: Top 20 frequently asked questions 

(FAQs). Internet website: http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Protection/National_plan/

General_Information/Dispersants_Information/FAQ_Oil_Spills_Dispersants.asp. Accessed June 29, 

2010. 

Aversa, J. 2010. Oil spill’s economic damage may not go beyond Gulf. Internet website: http://

dailycaller.com/2010/06/28/oil-spills-economic-damage-may-not-go-beyond-gulf/. Accessed 

February 16, 2011. 

Avery, M.L., P.F. Springer, and N.S. Dailey. 1980. Avian mortality at man-made structures: An 

annotated bibliography (revised). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological 

Services Program. FWS/OBS-80/54. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: The state 

of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC. 

Awbrey, F.T. and A.E. Bowles. 1990. The effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on raptors: A 

preliminary model and a synthesis of the literature on disturbance. Prepared for Noise and Sonic 

Boom Impact Technology (NSBIT), Advanced Development Program Office, Human Systems 

Division, OL-AC HSD-NSBIT, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. NSBIT Technical Operating 

Report No. 12. 

Baca, B.J., T.E. Lankford, and E.R. Gundlach. 1987. Recovery of Brittany coastal marshes in the eight 

years following the Amoco Cadiz incident. In: Proceedings of the 1987 International Oil Spill 

Conference. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 459-464. 

Baca, B., G.A. Ward, C.H. Lane, and P.A. Schuler. 2005. Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) of 

dispersed oil on nearshore tropical ecosystems derived from the 20 year “TROPICS” field study. In: 

Proceedings of the International Oil Spill Conference. May 15-19, 2005. Miami Beach, FL. 

Bahr, L.M., Jr., J.W. Day, and J.H. Stone. 1982. Energy cost accounting of Louisiana fishery production. 

Estuaries 5(3):209-215. 

Bailey H. and P. Thompson. 2010. Effect of oceanographic features on fine-scale foraging movements 

of bottlenose dolphins. Marine Ecology Progress Series 418:223-233. 

Baird, P.H. 1990. Concentrations of seabirds at oil-drilling rigs. Condor 92:768-771. 

Bak, R.P. 1978. Lethal and sublethal effects of dredging on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

9(1):14-16. 

Bak, R.P.M. and J.H.B.W. Elgershuizen. 1976. Patterns of oil-sediment rejection in corals. Marine 

Biology 37:105-113. 

Baker, J.M., M.L. Guzman, P.D. Bartlett, D.I. Little, and C.M. Wilson. 1993. Long-term fate and effects 

of untreated thick oil deposits on salt marshes. In: Proceedings of the 1993 International Oil Spill 

Conference. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 395-399. 

Balsam, W.L. and J.P. Beeson. 2003. Sea-floor sediment distribution in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Sea 

Research Part I. Oceanographic Research Papers 50(12):1421-1444. 

Balseiro, A., A. Espi, I. Marquez, V. Perez, M.C. Ferreras, J.F. Garcia Marin, and J.M. Prieto. 2005. 

Pathological features in marine birds affected by the Prestige’s oil spill in the north of Spain. Journal 

of Wildlife Diseases 41:371-378. 
6-6 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Barnea, N., J. Michel, B. Bray, Z. Nixon, G. Imahori, and C. Moegling. 2009. Marine debris response 

planning in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. June 2009. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-31. 

Barras, J.A., S. Beville, D. Britsch, S. Hartley, S. Hawes, J. Johnston, P. Kemp, Q. Kinler, A. Martucci, 

J. Porthouse, D. Reed, K. Roy, S. Sapkota, and J. Suhayda. 2003. Historical and projected coastal 

Louisiana land changes: 1978-2050. USGS Open File Report 03-334. 

Barringer, F. 2010. As mess is sent to landfills, officials worry about safety. The New York Times, 

June 14, 2010. Internet website: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/science/earth/15waste.html. 

Accessed July 1, 2010. 

Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc. 1985. Tuscaloosa Trend regional data search and synthesis study. 

Volume I: Synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico Regional OCS Office, Metairie, LA. OCS Study MMS 85-0056. 398 pp. 

Barstow, D., L. Dodd, J. Glanz, S. Saul, and I. Urbina. 2010. Regulators failed to address risks in oil Rig 

fail-safe device. The New York Times, June 20, 2010. Internet website: http://www.nytimes.com/

2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1. Accessed January 28, 2011. 

Bass, A.S. and R.E. Turner. 1997. Relationships between salt marsh loss and dredged canals in three 

Louisiana estuaries. Journal of Coastal Research 13(3):895-903. 

Bassin, N.J. and T. Ichiye. 1977. Flocculation behavior of suspended sediments and oil emulsions. 

Journal of Sedimentary Research 47(2):671-677. 

Baumann, R.H. and R.E. Turner. 1990. Direct impacts of outer continental shelf activities on wetland 

loss in the central Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Geo. Water Sci. 15(3):189-198. 

Baxter II, L., E.E. Hays, G.R. Hampson, and R.H. Backus. 1982. Mortality of fish subjected to explosive 

shock as applied to oil well severance on Georges Bank. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 

Woods Hole, MA. Technical Report WHOI-82-54. 69 pp. 

Bea, R.G., N.W. Lai, A.W. Niedoroda, and G.H. Moore. 1983. Gulf of Mexico shallow-water wave 

heights and forces. In: Proceedings of the Offshore Technical Conference, Houston, TX, May 1983. 

OTC 4586. Pp. 49-62. 

Beale, C.M. 2007. The behavioral ecology of disturbance responses. International Journal of 

Comparative Psychology 20:111-120. 

Beauchamp, G. 2002. Higher-level evolution of intraspecific flock-feeding in birds. Behavioral Ecology 

and Sociobiology 51:480-487. 

Beauchamp, G. 2004. Reduced flocking by birds on islands with relaxed predation. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of London B 271:1039-1042. 

Beauchamp, G. 2008. What is the magnitude of the group-size effect on vigilance? Behavioral Ecology 

19(6):1361-1368. 

Beauchamp, G. and G.D. Ruxton. 2008. Disentangling risk dilution and collective detection in the 

antipredator vigilance of semipalmated sandpipers in flocks. Animal Behavior 75:1837-1842. 

Beerkircher, L.R. 2009. Official communication. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

Behrens, E.W. 1988. Geology of a continental slope oil seep, northern Gulf of Mexico. American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 72(2):105-114. 

Behrens, E.W., P.L. Parker, R.S. Scalan, J.K. Winters, J.M. Brooks, and B.B. Bernard. 1980. Chapter 

four. Marine benthic environment of the south Texas shelf. In: Flint, R.W. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. 

1980. Environmental studies, south Texas outer continental shelf, 1975-1977. Volume I: Ecosystem 

description. Submitted to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, 

DC. Contract AA551-CT8-51. 
References Cited 6-7 

Beiras, R. and L. Saco-Álvarez. 2006. Toxicity of seawater and sand affected by the Prestige fuel-oil 

spill using bivalve and sea urchin embryogenesis bioassays. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 

177:457-466. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36-41. 

Bell, W.B. 1972. Animal response to sonic booms. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 

51:758-765. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America: A Wildlife Management Institute book 

sponsored jointly with the Illinois Natural History Survey. Washington, DC: Stackpole Books. 

540 pp. 

Berecz, E. and M. Balla-Achs. 1983. Gas hydrates. New York, NY: Elsevier. 343 pp. 

Berman, A.E. 2005. The debate over subsidence in coastal Louisiana and Texas. Houston Geological 

Society. Internet website: http://www.hgs.org/en/art/?691. Posted November 24, 2005. Accessed 

October 5, 2010. 

Berns, D.M. 2003. Physiological responses of Thalassia testudinum and Ruppia maritima to 

experimental salinity levels. M.Sc. Thesis, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL. 71 pp. 

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, 

S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley, and A. Unnikrishnan. 2007. Observations; oceanic 

climate change and sea level. In: Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, 

K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

Internet website: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5.html. 

Birchwood, R., S. Noeth, and E. Jones. 2008. Safe drilling in gas-hydrate prone sediments: Findings 

from the 2005 drilling campaign of the GOM gas hydrates Joint Industry Project (JIP). U.S. Dept. of 

Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Fire in the Ice. Methane Hydrate Newsletter. 

Winter 2008. Pp. 1-8. Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/

MethaneHydrates/newsletter/newsletter.htm. 

Birkett, S.H. and D.J. Rapport. 1999. A stress-response assessment of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico 

ecosystem. In: Kumpf, H., K. Steidinger, and K. Sherman, eds. The Gulf of Mexico large marine 

ecosystem: Assessment, sustainability, and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc. 

Pp. 438-458. 

Bittner, J.E. 1996. Cultural resources and the Exxon-Valdez oil spill: An overview. In: Proceedings of 

the Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18:814-818. 

Block, B.A., H.D. Susanna, B. Blackwell, T.D. Williams, E.D. Prince, C.J. Farwell, A. Boustany, 

S.L.H. Teo, A. Seitz, A. Walli, and D. Fudge. 2001. Migratory movements, depth preferences, and 

thermal biology of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Science 293(5533):1310-1314. 

Blum, M.D. and H.H. Roberts. 2009. Drowning of the Mississippi Delta due to insufficient sediment 

supply and global sea-level rise. Nature Geoscience 2:488-491. Internet website: http://

www.deltas2010.com/blum2009.pdf. 

Boehm, P.D. and D.L. Fiest. 1982. Subsurface distributions of petroleum from an offshore well blowout. 

The Ixtoc I Blowout, Bay of Campeche. Environmental Science and Technology 16(2):67-74. 

Boehm, P., D. Turton, A. Raval, D. Caudle, D. French, N. Rabalais, R. Spies, and J. Johnson. 2001. 

Deepwater program: Literature review, environmental risks of chemical products used in Gulf of 

Mexico deepwater oil and gas operations. Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2001-011. 326 pp. 
6-8 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Boesch D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. 1987. Long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas 

development. Abingdon, Oxford, UK: Taylor and Francis. 

Boesch, D.F., M.N. Josselyn, A.J. Mehta, J.T. Morris, W.K. Nuttle, C.A. Simestad, and D.J.P. Swift. 

1994. Scientific assessment of coastal wetland loss, restoration and management in Louisiana. 

Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 20:1-103. 

Boland, G.S. 1986. Discovery of co-occurring bivalve Acesta sp. and chemosynthetic tube worms 

Lamellibrachia. Nature 323:759. 

Boland, G.S. and P.W. Sammarco. 2005. Observations of the antipatharian “black coral” Plumapathes 

pennacea (Pallas, 1766) (Cnidaria: Anthozoa), northwest Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science 

23:127-132. 

Bologna, P.A.X. and K.L. Heck, Jr. 1999. Macrofaunal associations with seagrass epiphytes: Relative 

importance of trophic and structural characteristics. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology 242(1):21-39. 

Bortone, S.A., P.A. Hastings, and S.B. Collard. 1977. The pelagic Sargassum ichthyofauna of the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Science 1:60-67. 

Boswell, R., T. Collett, D. McConnell, M. Frye, B. Shedd, S. Mrozewski, G. Guerin, A. Cook, 

P. Godfriaux, R. Dufrene, R. Roy, and E. Jones. 2009. Joint industry project Leg II discovers rich 

gas hydrate accumulations in sand reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S Dept. of Energy, National 

Energy Technology Laboratory, Fire in the Ice. Methane Hydrate Newsletter. Summer 2009. 

Pp. 1-5. Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/

MethaneHydrates/newsletter/newsletter.htm. 

Bourgeois, M. 2010. Official communication (email). Fish kills in the MRGO. Louisiana Dept. of 

Wildlife and Fisheries. August 23, 2010. 

Bowers, Q.D. 2008. The treasure ship New York: Her story, 1837-1846. Stack’s, New York. 

Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks, and J. Woerner. 2007. Effects 

of nutrient enrichment in the Nation’s estuaries: A decade of change. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 

Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26. 328 pp. 

Briggs, K.T., S.H. Yoshida, and M.E. Gershwin. 1996. The influence of petrochemicals and stress on the 

immune system of seabirds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 23:145-155. 

Bright, T.J. and R. Rezak. 1978. Northwestern Gulf of Mexico topographic features study: Final report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans OCS Office, New Orleans, LA. 

Study No. 1978-4. 692 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/

4069.pdf. 

Bright, T.J., R. Rezak, A.H. Bouma, W.R. Bryant, and W.E. Pequegnat. 1976. A biological and 

geological reconnaissance of selected topographical features on the Texas continental shelf. Final 

report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans OCS Office, New 

Orleans, LA. Contract # 08550-CT5-4. 

Britsch, L.D. and J.B. Dunbar. 1993. Land loss rates: Louisiana coastal plain. Journal of Coastal 

Research 9(2):324-338. 

Broder, J.M. 2010. Drillers fault study on moratorium losses. The New York Times. Internet website: 

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/drillers-fault-study-on-moratorium-losses/. Accessed 

December 12, 2010. 

Brody, S., S. Bernhardt, H. Grover, C. Spence, Z. Tang, and B. Whitaker. 2006. Identifying potential 

conflict associated with oil and gas exploration in Texas state coastal waters: A multi-criteria spatial 

analysis. Environmental Management 38:597-617. 
References Cited 6-9 

Brooks, J.M., M.C. Kennicutt II, and R.R. Bidigare. 1986. Final cruise report for Offshore Operators 

Committee study of chemosynthetic marine ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M 

University, Dept. of Oceanography, Geophysical and Environmental Research Group, College 

Station, TX. 102 pp. 

Brooks, J.M., C. Fisher, H. Roberts, B. Bernard, I. McDonald, R. Carney, S. Joye, E. Cordes, G. Wolff, 

and E. Goehring. 2009. Investigations of chemosynthetic communities on the lower continental 

slope of the Gulf of Mexico: Interim report 2. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-046. 360 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4877.pdf. 

Brown, Jr., L.F., J.L Brewton, J.H. McGowen, T.J. Evans, W.L. Fisher, and C.G. Groat. 1976. 

Environmental geologic atlas of the Texas coastal zone: Corpus Christi area. Austin, TX: The 

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology. 

Brown, Jr, L.F., J.H. McGowen, T.J. Evans, C.S. Groat, and W.L. Fisher. 1977. Environmental 

geological atlas of the Texas coastal zone: Kingsville area. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at 

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology. 

Bruseth, J.E. and T.S. Turner. 2005. From a watery grave: the discovery and excavation of La Salle’s 

shipwreck La Belle. Texas Historical Commission, Austin. 

Bryant, W. and J.Y. Lui. 2000. Chapter 3: Geology. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Deepwater 

Gulf of Mexico environmental and socioeconomic data search and literature study. Volume I: 

Narrative report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-049. Pp. 25-59. 

Bryant, W., N. Slowey, S. DiMarco, D. Bean, and D. Berti. 2004. DeepSea furrows: Physical 

characteristics, mechanisms of formation and associated environmental processes. Final report 

prepared for Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America. 4 pp. 

Burger, J. 1977. Determinants of hatching success in diamond-back terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin. 

American Midland Naturalist 97:444-464 

Burger, J. 1981. Behavioural responses of herring gulls Larus argentatus to aircraft noise. 

Environmental Pollution Series A, Ecological and Biological 24:177-184. 

Burger, A.E. 1993. Estimating the mortality of seabirds following oil spills: Effects of spill volume. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 26:140-143. 

Burger, J. 1994. Immediate effects of oils spills on organisms in the Arthur Kill. In: Burger, J., ed. 

Before and after an oil spill: The Arthur Kill. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 

Pp. 115-130. 

Burns, K.A. and A.H. Knap. 1989. The Bahia las Minas oil spill. Hydrocarbon uptake by reef building 

corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 20(8):391-398. 

Burns, K.A. and J.M. Teal. 1973. Hydrocarbons in the pelagic sargassum community. Deep Sea 

Research and Oceanographic Abstracts 20(2):207-211. 

Burns, K.A., S.D. Garrity, and S.C. Levings. 1993. How many years until mangrove ecosystems recover 

from catastrophic oil spills? Marine Pollution Bulletin 26(5):239-248. 

Burns III, G.H., C.A. Benson, T. Eason, J. Michel, S. Kelly, and B. Benggio. 1994. Recovery of 

submerged oil at San Juan, Puerto Rico 1994. International Oil Spill Conference. Internet website: 

http://www.iosc.org/papers/01798.pdf. 

Butler, R.G., A. Harfenist, F.A. Leighton, and D.B. Peakall. 1988. Impact of sublethal oil and emulsion 

exposure on the reproductive success of Leach’s storm-petrels: Short and long-term effects. Journal 

of Applied Ecology 25:125-143. 
6-10 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Butler, J.A., R.A. Seigel, and B. Mealey. 2006. Malaclemys terrapin—diamondback terrapin. In: 

Meylan, P.A., ed. Biology and conservation of Florida turtles. Chelonian Research Monographs 

3:279-295. 

Byrd, G.V., J.H. Reynolds, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of bird 

carcasses on beaches of Unalaska Island, Alaska, following the wreck of the M/V Selendang Ayu. 

Marine Ornithology 37:197-204. 

Byrne, C. 1989. Effects of the water-soluble fractions of No. 2 fuel oil on the cytokinesis of the Quahog 

clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 42:81-86. 

Byrne, C.J. and J.A. Calder. 1977. Effect of the water-soluble fractions of crude, refined, and waste oils 

on the embryonic and larval stages of the Quahog clam Mercenaria sp. Marine Biology 40:225-231. 

Byrne, J.H. and J.L. Roberts, eds. 2009. From molecules to networks: An introduction to cellular and 

molecular neuroscience. 2nd ed. Elsevier: New York, NY. 

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, D.B. Snyder, K.F. Bosma, J.D. Wood, 

T.D. Thibaut, and N.W. Phillips. 1999. Environmental survey of identified sand resource areas 

offshore Alabama: Volume I: Main text. Volume II: Appendices. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division (INTERMAR), 

Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 99-0052. 326 pp. + 132 pp. appendices. 

Cadlow, C., R. Clark, K. Edwards, S.D. Hile, C. Menza, E. Hickerson, and G.P. Schmahl. 2009. 

Biogeographic characterization of fish communities and associated benthic habitats within the Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: Sampling design and implementation of SCUBA surveys 

on the coral caps. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 81. 134 pp. 

Caetano, M., M.J. Madureira, and C. Vale. 2003. Metal remobilization during resuspension of anoxic 

contaminated sediment: Short-term laboratory study. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 143:23-40. 

Cagle, F.R. 1952. A Louisiana terrapin population (Malaclemys). Copeia 1952:74-76. 

Camilli, R., C.M. Reddy, D.R. Yoerger, B.A.S. Van Mooy, M.V. Jakuba, J.C. Kinsey, C.P. McIntyre, 

S.P. Sylva, and J.V. Maloney. 2010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegradation at 

Deepwater Horizon. Published online August 19, 2010. Science 8 October 2010: 

330:6001(201-204). DOI: 10.1126/science. 1195223. 

Campbell, T., L. Benedict, and C.W. Finkl. 2005. Regional strategies for coastal restoration along 

Louisiana barrier islands. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 44. Pp. 245-267. 

Camphuysen, K.C.J., M. Heubeck, S.L. Cox, R. Bao, D. Humple, C. Abraham, and A. Sandoval. 2002. 

The Prestige oil spill in Spain. Atlantic Seabirds 4:131-140. 

Camphuysen C.J., J. Chardine, M. Frederiksen, and M. Nunes. 2005. Review of the impacts of recent 

major oil spills on seabirds. In: Anonymous, ed. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology, 

Texel, 29 March – 1 April 2005. Oceanography Committee, ICES CM 2005/C:05, Ref. ACME+E, 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Cardiff, S. 2006. Official communication. List of seabirds of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Avian 

Biologist, Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Sciences, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Carls, M.G., G.D. Marty, T.R. Meyers, R.E. Thomas, and S.D. Rice. 1998. Expression of viral 

hemorrhagic septicemia virus in prespawning Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) exposed to weathered 

crude oil. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55(10):2300-2309. 

Carlson, P.R., Jr. and K. Madley. 2007. Statewide summary for Florida. In: Handley, D.A., 

D. Altsman, and R. DeMay, eds. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-

2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287 and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. Pp. 99-114. Internet website: http://

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. 
References Cited 6-11 

Carney, R. 1993. Presentation at the Thirteenth Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, 

December 4-6, 1993. Sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Carney, R.S. 1997. Workshop on environmental issues surrounding deepwater oil and gas development: 

Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0022. 164 pp. 

Carney, R.S. 1999. Status of environmental and physical oceanography information on the continental 

slope in the Gulf of Mexico—results of a workshop. In: McKay, M. and J. Nides, eds. Proceedings: 

Seventeenth annual Gulf of Mexico information transfer meeting, December 1997. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 99-0042. 419 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/

3206.pdf. 

Carney, K.M. and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial 

waterbirds. Waterbirds 22:68-79. 

Carney, R.S., R.L. Haedrich, and G.T. Rowe. 1983. Zonation of fauna in the deep sea. In: Rowe, G.T., 

ed. Deep-Sea Biology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 371-398. 

Carpenter, E.J. and J.L. Cox. 1974. Production of pelagic Sargassum and a blue-green epiphyte in the 

western Sargasso Sea. Limnology and Oceanography 19(3):429-436. 

Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stages of sea turtle development. Conservation Biology 

1(2):103-121. 

Carr, A. and A.B. Meylan. 1980. Evidence of passive migration of green turtle hatchlings in Sargassum. 

Am. Soc. Ichthyologists and Herpetologists 2:366-368. 

Carr, R.S., D.C. Chapman, B.J. Presley, J.M. Biedenbach, L. Robertson, P. Boothe, R. Kilada, T. Wade, 

and P. Montagna. 1996. Sediment porewater toxicity assessment studies in the vicinity of offshore 

oil and gas production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Science 53:2618-2682. 

Carson, R.T. and W.M. Hanemann. 1992. A preliminary economic analysis of recreational fishing losses 

related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. A Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska. 16 pp. 

Casselman, B. 2010. Aging oil rigs, pipelines expose Gulf to accidents. The Wall Street Journal. 

December 14, 2010. Internet website: http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704584804575644463302701660.html. Accessed December 2010. 

Casselman, B. and D. Gilbert. 2011a. Drilling is stalled even after ban is lifted. The Wall Street Journal. 

Internet website: http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052970204204004576050451696859780.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories. Posted 

January 3, 2011. Accessed January 3, 2011. 

Casselman, B. and D. Gilbert. 2011b. Path clears for deep-water drilling. The Wall Street Journal. 

Internet website: http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704111504576060122314549528.html?mod=

WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop. Posted January 4, 2011. Accessed January 4, 2011. 

Castege, I., Y. Lalanne, V. Gouriou, G. Hemery, M. Girin, F. D’Amico, C. Mouches, J. D’Elbe, 

L. Soulier, J. Pensu, D. Lafitte, and F. Pautrizel. 2007. Estimating actual seabirds mortality at sea 

and relationship with oil spills: lesson from the “Prestige” oil spill in Aquitaine (France). Ardeola 

54:289-307. 

Castellanos, D.L. and L.P. Rozas. 2001. Nekton use of submerged aquatic vegetation, marsh, and 

shallow unvegetated bottom in the Atchafalaya River Delta, a Louisiana tidal freshwater ecosystem. 

Estuaries 24(2):184-197. 
6-12 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. Gulf oil spill 2010: Light crude oil information for 

health professionals. Internet website: http://emergency.cdc.gov/gulfoilspill2010/

light_crude_health_professionals.asp. Accessed July 21, 2011. 

Chabreck, R.H., T. Joanen, and S.L. Paulus. 1989. Southern coastal marshes and lakes. In: Smith, 

L.M., R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. 

Chaisson, C. 2011. Official communication. Port Fourchon post-moratorium status as of June 2011. 

Executive Director, Greater Lafourche Port Commission, Port Fourchon, LA. June 27, 2011. 

Chambers, M. 2010. Gulf Coast ports surrounding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. U.S. Dept of 

Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Fact Sheet. June 2010. 4 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_fact_sheets/2010_001/pdf/entire.pdf. 

Chan, E.I. 1977. Oil pollution and tropical littoral communities: Biological effects of the 1975 Florida 

Keys oil spill. In: Proceeding of the 1977 Oil Spill Conference, March 8-10, 1977, New Orleans, 

LA. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Chapman, P.M., E.A. Power, R.N. Dexter, and H.B. Andersen. 1991. Evaluation of effects associated 

with and oil platform, using the sediment quality triad. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

10:407-424. 

Chin, C.S. and J. Church. 2010. Field report: Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island (September 9-10, 

2010. National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, Natchitoches, LA. Internet 

website: http://www.ncptt.nps.gov/2011/field-report-fort-livingston-grand-terre-island/. Accessed 

March 18, 2011. 

Cho, H.J. and C.A. May. 2008. Short-term spatial variations in the beds of Ruppia maritima

(Ruppiaceae) and Halodule wrightii (Cymodoceaccae) at Grand Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve, Mississippi, USA. Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences 53(2-3):133-145. 

Cho, H.J., P. Biber, and C. Nica. 2009. The rise of Ruppia maritima in seagrass beds: changes in coastal 

environment and research needs. In: Drury, E.K. and T.S. Pridgen, eds. Handbook on 

Environmental Quality. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 418 pp. 

Church, R.A. and D.J. Warren. 2008. Viosca Knoll wreck: Discovery and investigation of an early 

nineteenth-century sailing ship in 2,000 feet of water. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-018. 

41 pp. 

Church, R., D. Warren, R. Cullimore, L. Johnston, W. Schroeder, W. Patterson, T. Shirley. M. Kilgour, 

N. Morris, and J. Moore. 2007. Archaeological and biological analysis of World War II shipwrecks 

in the Gulf of Mexico: Artificial reef effect in deep water. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-015. 

387 pp. 

City of New Orleans. n.d. The New Orleans city assisted evacuation plan. Internet website: http://

www.nola.gov/~/media/Files/Emergency%20Prepardness/Emergency%20Preparedness%20

Documents/Assisted_Evac_Plan.ashx. Accessed February 17, 2011. 

Clapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan-Jacobs, and W.A. Hoffman. 1982. Marine birds of the southeastern 

United States and Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/01. 3 vols. 

Clark, R.B. 1982. The impact of oil pollution on marine populations, communities, and ecosystems: A 

summing up. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B 297:433-443. 

Clark, R.B. 1984. Impact of oil pollution on seabirds. Environmental Pollution Series A 33:1-22. 

Clark, C.E. and J.A. Veil. 2009. Produced water volumes and management practices in the United 

States. Prepared by the Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. 
References Cited 6-13 

Dept. of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory under Contract 

DE-AC02-06CH11357. ANL/EVS/R-09/1. Internet website: http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/

dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=2437. 

Clarke, D.G. and D.H. Wilber. 2000. Assessment of potential impacts of dredging operations due to 

sediment resuspension. DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-DOER-EP. U.S. Dept. of the 

Army, Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

Clausen, C.J. and J.B. Arnold III. 1975. Magnetic delineation of individual shipwreck sites; a new 

control technique. Bull. of the Texas Archaeological Soc. 46:69-86. 

Coastal Environments, Inc. (CEI). 1977. Cultural resources evaluation of the northern Gulf of Mexico 

continental shelf. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Office of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Interagency Archaeological Services, Baton Rouge, LA. 

4 vols. 

Coastal Environments, Inc. (CEI). 1982. Sedimentary studies of prehistoric archaeological sites. 

Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of State Plans and Grants, 

Baton Rouge, LA. 

Coastal Response Research Center. 2007. Submerged oil—State of the practice and research needs. 

Prepared by the Coastal Response Research Center, Durham, NN. 29 pp. + app. Internet website: 

http://www.crrc.unh.edu/workshops/submerged_oil/submerged_oil_workshop_report.pdf. Accessed 

December 27, 2010. 

Cohen, Y., A. Nissenbaum, and R. Eisler. 1977. Effects of Iranian crude oil on the Red Sea octocoral 

Heteroxenia fuscescens. Environmental Pollution 12:173-186. 

Cohen, J.E., C. Small, A. Mellinger, J. Gallup, and J. Sachs. 1997. Estimates of coastal populations. 

Science 278:1211–1212. 

Cole, K.L. and S.F. DiMarco. 2010. Low-frequency variability of currents in the deepwater eastern Gulf 

of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2010-015. 136 pp. 

Collard, S. 1990. Leatherback turtles feeding near a water mass boundary in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. 

Marine Turtle Newsletter 50:12-14. 

Collard, S.B. and A. Lugo-Fernandez. 1999. Coastal upwelling and mass mortalities of fishes and 

invertebrates in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico during spring and summer 1998. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS-99-0049. 20 pp. 

Collett, T.S. 2002. Energy resource potential of natural gas hydrates. American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 86(11):1971-1992. 

Collins, M.A. 1995. Dredging-induced near-filed resuspended sediment concentrations and source 

strengths. Final Report D-95-2. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers. 229 pp. 

Collins Center for Public Policy. 2010. Potential impacts of oil and gas explorations in the Gulf. A 

report to the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida. 40 pp. 

Conan, G. 1982. The long-term effects of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill. Philosophical Transactions of the 

Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 297(1087). The long-term effects of oil 

pollution on marine populations, communities, and ecosystems. Pp. 323-333. 

Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, 

E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. Witherington. 

2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

August 2009. 222 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/

loggerheadturtle2009.pdf/. Accessed July 17, 2011. 
6-14 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Connor, M. 2010. US oil spill not sticking to bond issuers-Moody’s. Internet website: http://

www.xe.com/news/2010-11-22%2015:20:00.0/1539229.htm. Accessed December 8, 2010. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1992. Preliminary report of potential effects of oil spilled 

from Texaco’s proposed pipeline from Platform A in Garden Banks Block 189 to the subsea tie-in 

with High Island Pipeline System’s (HIPS) existing pipeline in High Island Area Block A-377 

(modified route). Prepared for Texaco Pipeline, Inc., Jupiter, FL. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1994. Analysis of potential effects of oil spilled from 

proposed structures associated with Oryx’s High Island Block 384 unit on the biota of the East 

Flower Garden Bank and on the biota of Coffee Lump Bank. Prepared for Oryx Energy Company, 

Jupiter, FL. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1997. Gulf of Mexico produced water bioaccumulation study: 

Definitive component technical report. Prepared for the Offshore Operators Committee. 258 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2000. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico environmental and 

socioeconomic data search and literature synthesis. Volume I: Narrative report. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 2000-049. 340 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2004a. Geological and geophysical exploration for mineral 

resources on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf: Final programmatic environmental 

assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS EA/EIS MMS 2004-054. 466 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2004b. Gulf of Mexico comprehensive synthetic based muds 

monitoring program. Volume II: Technical. Final report. Prepared for SMB Research Group. 

358 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/2/3051.pdf. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2006a. Effects of oil and gas exploration and development at 

selected continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 2006-045. 636 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2006b. Effects of oil and gas exploration and development at 

selected continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume I: Executive summary. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 2006-044. 51 pp. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 2010. Report regarding the Minerals Management Service’s 

National Environmental Policy Act policies, practices, and procedures as they relate to outer 

continental shelf oil and gas exploration and development. August 16, 2010. 41 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100816-ceq-mms-ocsnepa.pdf. 

Cook, C.B. and A.H. Knap. 1983. Effects of crude oil and chemical dispersant on photosynthesis in the 

brain coral Diploria strigosa. Marine Biology 78:21-27. 

Corliss, J.B., J. Dymond, L. Gordon, J.M. Edmond, R.P. von Herzen, R.D. Ballard, K. Green, 

D. Williams, A. Bainbridge, K. Crane, and T.H. Van Adel. 1979. Submarine thermal springs on the 

Galapagos Rift. Science 203:1073-1083. 

CoreLogic. 2010. New CoreLogic data shows the potential impact of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

on coastal real estate. Internet website: http://www.corelogic.com/About-Us/News/New-CoreLogicData-Shows-the-Potential-Impact-of-the-BP-Deepwater-Horizon-Oil-Spill-on-Coastal-RealEstate.aspx. Accessed November 9, 2010. 

Coston-Clements, L., L.R. Settle, D.E. Hoss, and F.A. Cross. 1991. Utilization of the Sargassum habitat 

by marine invertebrates and vertebrates, a review. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Marine 
References Cited 6-15 

Fisheries Service, NOAA, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort Laboratory, Beaufort, NC. 

32 pp. 

Cox, S.A., E.H. Smith, and J.W. Tunnell, Jr. 1997. Macronektonic and macrobenthic community 

dynamics in a coastal saltmarsh: Phase I. Prepared for Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Wildlife 

Division. TAMU-CC-9701-CCS. Corpus Christi, TX. 67 pp. 

Cox, J., C. Coomes, S. DiMarco, K. Donohue, G.Z. Forristall, P. Hamilton, R.R. Leben, and D.R. Watts. 

In preparation. Study of deepwater currents in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2010-041. 473 pp. 

Cranswick, D. 2001. Brief overview of Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas pipelines: Installation, potential 

impacts, and mitigation measures. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2001-067. 19 pp. 

Cruz-Kaegi, M.E. 1998. Latitudinal variations in biomass and metabolism of benthic infaunal 

communities. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 

Cutter, S.L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C.G. Burton, E. Evans, E.C. Tate, and J. Webb. 2008. Community and 

regional resilience: Perspectives from hazards, disasters, and emergency management. CARRI 

Research Report 1. Oak Ridge, TN: Community and Regional Resilience Institute. 33 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.resilientus.org/library/FINAL_CUTTER_9-25-08_1223482309.pdf. Accessed 

February 16, 2011. 

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 21 pp. 

Dalton, M.S. and S.A. Jones, comps. 2010. Southeast Regional Assessment Project for the National 

Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Open-File Report 2010-1213. 38 pp. Internet website: http://

pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1213/pdf/ofr2010_1213.pdf. 

Dames & Moore, Inc. 1979. Mississippi, Alabama, Florida outer continental shelf baseline 

environmental survey; MAFLA, 1977/78. Volume I-A. Program synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. BLM/YM/ES-79/01-Vol-1-A. 278 pp. 

Dauterive, L.D. 2000. Rigs-to-Reefs policy, progress, and perspective. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 

2000-073. 8 pp. 

Davis, R.W. and G.S. Fargion, eds. 1996. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the north-central 

western Gulf of Mexico: Final report. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

96-0027. 355 pp. 

Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig, eds. 2000. Cetaceans, sea turtles and seabirds in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume II: Technical report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-

0006 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 2000-002. 346 pp. 

Davis, B., D.S. Etkin, M. Landry, and K. Watts. 2004. Determination of oil persistence: A historical 

perspective. In: Proceedings, Fifth Biennial Freshwater Spills Symposium. Internet website: http://

www.environmental-research.com/erc_papers/ERC_paper_19.pdf. 

Dawes, C.J., J. Andorfer, C. Rose., C. Uranowski, and N. Ehringer. 1997. Regrowth of seagrass 

Thalassia testudinum into propeller scars. Aquatic Botany 59:139-155. 

de Gouw, J.A., A.M. Middlebrook, C. Warneke, R. Ahmadov, E.L. Atlas, R. Bahreini, D.R. Blake, 

C.A. Brock, J. Brioude, D.W. Fahey, F.C. Fehsenfeld, J.S. Holloway, M. Le Henaff, R.A. Lueb, 

S.A. McKeen, J.F. Meagher, D.M. Murphy, C. Paris, D.D. Parrish, A.E. Perring, I.B. Pollack, 
6-16 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

A.R. Ravishankara, A.L. Robinson, T.B. Ryerson, J.P. Schwarz, J.R. Spackman, A. Srinivasan, and 

L.A. Watts. 2011. Organic aerosol formation downwind from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

Science 331 (6022):1273-1274. 

De Leon, M.T. and L.M. Smith. 1999. Behavior of migrating shorebirds at North Dakota prairie 

potholes. Condor 101:645-654. 

Dean, T.A. and S.C. Jewett. 2001. Habitat-specific recovery of shallow subtidal communities following 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Ecological Applications 11(5):1456-1471. 

Dean Runyan Associates. 2010. The economic impact of travel on Texas. Prepared for Texas Tourism, 

Office of the Governor, Texas Economic Development and Tourism. 141 pp. 

DeBose, J.L., G.P.Schmahl, M.F.Nuttall, and E.L.Hickerson. 2008. Coral bleaching mortality and 

resilience at Stetson Bank, a high latitude coral community in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Proceedings 

of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, July 7-11, 2008, Fort Lauderdale, FL. 

DeCort, T. 2010. Official communication. Gas release estimate for Macondo. September 14, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, Resource Evaluation, New Orleans, LA. 

Defenbaugh, R.E. 1976. A study of the benthic macroinvertebrates of the continental shelf of the 

northern GOM. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 

476 pp. 

DeLaune, R.D., W.H. Patrick, and R.J. Buresh. 1979. Effect of crude oil on a Louisiana Spartina 

alterniflora salt marsh. Environmental Pollution 20:21-31. 

DeLaune, R.D., R.P. Gambrell, J.H. Pardue, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1990. Fate of petroleum hydrocarbons 

and toxic organics in Louisiana coastal environments. Estuaries 132(1):72-80. 

Deleersnijder, E., J.M. Beckers, and E.J.M. Delhez. 2006. The residence time of settling particles in the 

surface mixed layer. Environmental Fluid Mechanics 6:25-42. 

Deming, J. and J. Baross. 1993. The early diagenesis of organic matter: Bacterial activity. In: 

Engel, M. and S. Macko, eds. Organic geochemistry. New York, NY: Plenum. Pp. 119-144. 

den Hartog, C. and R.P.W.M. Jacobs. 1980. Effects of the “Amoco Cadiz” oil spill on an eelgrass 

community at Roscoff (France) with special reference to the mobile benthic fauna. Helgoländer 

Meeresunters 33:182-191. 

Dennis, G.D. and T.J. Bright. 1988. Reef fish assemblages on hard banks in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 43(2):280-307. 

Diaz, R.J. and A. Solow. 1999. Ecological and economic consequences of hypoxia. Topic 2 Report for 

the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA 

Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis 

Series No. 16. 45 pp. 

Diercks, A-R., R.C. Highsmith, V.L. Asper, DJ. Joung, Z. Zhou, L. Guo, A.M. Shiller, S.B. Joye, 

A.P. Teske, N. Guinasso, T.L. Wade, and S.E. Lohrenz. 2010. Characterization of subsurface 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at the Deepwater Horizon site. Geophysical Research Letters, 

Vol. 37, L20602, doi:10.1029/2010GL045046. 

Digital Petrodata. 2010. Digital Petrodata. Internet website: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29413777/4-

2010-Digital-Petrodata-BLM-STATE-MMS-Oil-Gas-Lease-Sale-Auction-2010-April. Accessed 

November 30, 2010. 

Dillehay, T.D. 1989. Monte Verde: A late Pleistocene settlement in Chile. Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Dinsdale, E.A. and V.J. Harriot. 2004. Assessing anchor damage on coral reefs: A case study in 

selection of environmental indicators. Environmental Management 33(1):126-139. 
References Cited 6-17 

Dismukes, D.E. 2010a. Official communication. More conservative scenario. Associate Director, 

Louisiana State University, Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, LA. September 29, 2010.

Dismukes, D.E. 2010b. Official communication. Texas deepwater port? Associate Director, Louisiana 

State University, Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, LA. December 1, 2010. 

Dismukes, D.E. 2010c. Official communication. Gas processing. Associate Director, Louisiana State 

University, Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, LA. October 20, 2010. 

Dismukes, D.E. 2010d. Official communication. Pipeline landfalls. Associate Director, Louisiana State 

University, Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, LA. October 26, 2010. 

Dismukes, D.E. 2010e. Official communication. Waste disposal. Associate Director, Louisiana State 

University, Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, LA. November 23, 2010. 

Dismukes, D.E. 2010f. Official communication. E-mail entitled GOM employment observations. 

Associate Director, Louisiana State University, Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, LA. 

December 8, 2010. 

Dismukes, D.E. In preparation-a. OCS-related infrastructure fact book. Volume I: Post-hurricane 

impact assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Dismukes, D.E. In preparation-b. Fact book: Offshore oil and gas industry support sectors. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study BOEMRE 2010-042. 

Dismukes, D.E., M. Barnett, D. Vitrano, and K. Strellec. 2007. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas scenario 

examination: Onshore waste disposal. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2007-051. 5 pp. 

D.K. Shifflet and Associates. 2010a. Texas destinations 2006-2009. Report prepared for the The Office 

of the Governor, Economic Development Tourism Division, McLean, VA. 124 pp. 

D.K. Shifflet and Associates. 2010b. 2009-2010 destination attractions. [report]. McLean, VA. 21 pp. 

Dloughy, J.A. 2010. Government gives notice on abandoned platforms: Rule tells industry to dismantle 

‘idle iron’ and plug old oil, gas wells. Houston Chronicle, September 15, 2010. Internet website: 

http://www.reefrelieffounders.com/drilling/2010/09/16/houston-chroniclegovernment-gives-noticeon-abandoned-platforms-rule-tells-industry-to-dismantle-idle-iron-and-plug-old-oil-gas-wells-dontblame-bp-alone-for-spill-hayward/. Accessed March 1, 2011. 

Dobbs, C.D. and J.M. Vozarik. 1983. Immediate effects of a storm on coastal infauna. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 11:273-279. 

Dodge, R.E., R.C. Aller, and J. Thomson. 1974. Coral growth related to resuspension of bottom 

sediments. Nature 247:574-577. 

Dodge, R.E., S.C. Wyers, A.H. Knap, H.R. Frith, T.D. Sleeter, and S.R. Smith. 1984. The effects of oil 

and oil dispersants on hermatypic coral skeletal growth (extension rate). Coral Reefs 3:191-198. 

Dokka, R. 2006. Modern-day tectonic subsidence in coastal Louisiana. Geology 34(4):281-284. 

Dokka, R.K., G.F. Sella, and T.H. Dixon. 2006. Tectonic control of subsidence and southward 

displacement of southeast Louisiana with respect to stable North America. American Geophysical 

Union, Geophysical Research Letters Volume 33, L23308. Internet website: http://

www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/2006GL027250.pdf. 

Dokken, Q., R. Lehman, J. Prouty, C. Adams, and C. Beaver. 1993. A preliminary survey of Sebree 

Bank (Gulf of Mexico, Port Mansfield, TX), August 23-27, 1993. Texas A&M University, Center for 

Coastal Studies, Corpus Christi, TX. Center for Coastal Studies Technical Report No. 

TAMU-CC-9305-CCS. 13 pp. 
6-18 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Dokken, Q.R., I.R. MacDonald, J.W. Tunnell, Jr., T. Wade, K. Withers, S.J. Dilworth, T.W. Bates, 

C.R. Beaver, and C.M. Rinaud. 2003. Long-term monitoring of the East and West Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 1998-2001: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-031. 

89 pp. 

Donato, K.M. 2004. Labor migration and the deepwater oil industry. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2004-057. 

125 pp. 

Donato, K.M., D.T. Robinson, and C.L. Bankston III. 1998. To have them is to love them: Immigrant 

workers in the offshore industry. Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Latin American Studies 

Association, Chicago, IL, September 1998. 18 pp. (unnumbered Xerox). 

Donohue, K., P. Hamilton, R. Leben, R. Watts, and E. Waddell. 2008. Survey of deepwater currents in 

the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-031. 

375 pp. 

Dooley, J.K. 1972. Fishes associated with the pelagic Sargassum complex, with a discussion of the 

Sargassum community. Contrib. Mar. Science. 16:1-32. 

Doran, K.S., N.G. Plant, H.F. Stockdon, A.H. Sallenger, and K.A. Serafin. 2009. Hurricane Ike: 

Observations of coastal change. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 

Open-File Report 2009-1061. vi + 35 pp. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1061/pdf/

ofr2009-1061.pdf. 

Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.W. Langston. 2008. Collision effects of wind-power generators and other 

obstacles on birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134:233266. 

Driver, A. 2010. Helix readying Gulf oil spill containment system. Reuters. December 8, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/08/spill-helix-idUSN0818292520101208. 

Accessed December 27, 2010. 

Duarte, C.M., J.J. Middelburg, and N. Caraco. 2005. Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic 

carbon cycle. Biogeosciences 2:1-8. 

Dubois, S., C.G. Gelpi Jr., R.E. Condrey, M.A. Grippo, and J.W. Fleeger. 2009. Diversity and 

composition of macrobenthic community associated with sandy shoals of the Louisiana continental 

shelf. Biodiversity and Conservation 18(14):3759-3784. 

Ducklow, H.W. and R. Mitchell. 1979. Composition of mucus released by coral reef Coelenterates. 

Limnology and Oceanography 24(2):706-714. 

Dunne, R. and E. Miller. 2007. Post-release survival of oiled, rehabilitated waterfowl. In: Massey, J.G., 

ed. Proceedings of the Ninth International Effects of Oil on Wildlife Conference, Monterey, CA, 

2007, University of California at Davis Wildlife Health Center, Davis. 

Dunton, K.H., S.V. Shonberg, S. Herzka, P.A. Montagna, and S.A. Holt. 1998. Characterization of 

anthropogenic and natural disturbance on vegetated and nonvegetated bay bottom habitats in the 

Corpus Christi Bay National Estuarine Program Study Area. Volume II: Assessment of scarring in 

seagrass beds. CCBNEP-25B. 23 pp. 

Durako, M.J., M.O. Hall, F. Sargent, and S. Peck. 1992. Propeller scars in sea grass beds: An 

assessment and experimental study of recolonization in Weedon Island State Preserve, Florida. In: 

Web, F., ed. Proceedings, 19th Annual Conference of Wetland Restoration and Creation. 

Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL. Pp. 42-53. 

Eddleman, W.R., F.L. Knopf, B. Meanley, F.A. Reid, and R. Zembal. 1988. Conservation of North 

American rallids. Wilson Bulletin 100:458-475. 

Edwards, R. 2008. Sea levels: Science and society. Progress in Physical Geography 32(5):557-574. 
References Cited 6-19 

Eggleton, J. and K.V. Thomas. 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of 

contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environment International 30:973-980. 

Eleuterius, L.N. 1987. Seagrass ecology along the coasts of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 

Florida Marine Research Publications, No. 42. Pp. 11-24. 

Elgershuizen, J.H.B.W. and H.A.M. De Kruijf. 1976. Toxicity of crude oils and a dispersant to the stony 

coral Madracis mirabilis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 7(2):22-25. 

Elliott-Smith, E., S.M. Haig, and B.M. Powers. 2009. Data from the 2006 International Piping Plover 

Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 426. 332 pp. 

Ellis, M.S., E.A. Wilson-Ormond, and E.N. Powell. 1996. Effects of gas-producing platforms on 

continental shelf macroepifauna in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: Abundance and size structure. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2589-2605. 

Ellwood, B.B., W.L. Balsam, and H.H. Roberts. 2006. Gulf of Mexico sediment sources and sediment 

transport trends from magnetic susceptibility measurements of surface samples. Marine Geology 

230:237-248. 

Elsner, J.B., T.H. Jagger, M. Dickinson, and D. Rowe. 2008. Improving multiseason forecasts of North 

Atlantic hurricane activity. American Meteorological Society 21:1210-1219. Internet website: 

http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/ElsnerJaggerDickinsonRowe2008.pdf. 

Ely, C.R., D.H. Ward, and K.S. Bollinger. 1999. Behavioral correlates of heart rates of free-living 

greater white-fronted geese. Condor 101:390-395. 

Emery, W.J., K. Cherkauer, B. Shannon, and RW. Reynolds. 1997. Hull-mounted sea surface 

temperatures from ships of opportunity. American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA. Journal of 

Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 14:1237-1251. 

Energo Engineering. 2010. Assessment of damage and failure mechanisms for offshore structures and 

pipelines in Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Herndon, VA. TA&R 642. 

Engel, J. and R. Kvitek. 1998. Effects of otter trawling on a benthic community in Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology 12(6):1204-1214. 

Engle, V.D., J.L. Hyland, and C. Cooksey. 2008. Effects of Hurricane Katrina on benthic 

macroinvertebrate communities along the northern Gulf of Mexico coast. Environmental Monitoring 

Assessment 150:193-209. 

Enright, J.M., R. Gearhart II, D. Jones, and J. Enright. 2006. Study to conduct National Register of 

Historic Places evaluations of submerged sites on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-036. 136 pp. 

Environmental Science & Research Limited. 1998. The effects of air pollution on New Zealand 

ecosystems: Review of national and international research: Technical report no. 1. Ministry for the 

Environment, New Zealand. 77 pp. Internet website: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/

research-review-jun98.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2007. 

Energy Resources Co., Inc. (ERCO). 1982. Ixtoc oil spill assessment: Final report. 3 vols. Prepared for 

the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. Contract No. AA851-CTO-71. Study Nos. 1982-34, 1982-35, and 1982-37. 

Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and R.R.R. Lewis III. 2006. Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrass: A 

review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52:1553-1572. 

Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 1990a. Ground truthing anomalies, Port Mansfield entrance channel, 

Willacy County, Texas. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston 

District, Galveston, TX. Contract no. DACW64-89-D-0002. Delivery order no. 0006. Texas 

Antiquities permit no. 857. 60 pp. 
6-20 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 1990b. National Register assessment of the SS Mary, Port Aransas, 

Nueces County, Texas. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston 

District, Galveston, TX. Contract no. DCCW64-89-D-0002. Delivery order no. 0005. Texas 

Antiquities permit no. 858. 

Essink, K. 1999. Ecological effects of dumping of dredging sediments; options for management. 

Journal of Coastal Conservation 5(1):69-80. 

Etkin, D.S. 2009. Analysis of U.S. oil spillage. American Petroleum Institute, Regulatory and Scientific 

Affairs Department. API Publication 356. 86 pp. Internet website: http://www.api.org/ehs/water/

spills/upload/356-Final.pdf. 

European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. 2010. Methodologies for assessing socioeconomic 

benefits of European inland recreational fisheries. EIFAC Occasional Paper No. 46. 

European Wind Energy Association. 2011. The European offshore wind industry key trends and 

statistics 2010. 3 pp. Internet website: http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/

00_POLICY_document/Offshore_Statistics/110120_Offshore_stats_Exec_Sum.pdf. 

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trust Council. 2010. Killer whales. Internet website: http://

www.evostc.state.ak.us/Recovery/status_orca.cfm. Accessed July 17, 2011. 

Fanning, K., K.L. Carder, and P.R. Betzer. 1982. Sediment resuspension by coastal waters: A potential 

mechanism for nutrient re-cycling on the ocean’s margins. Deep-Sea Research 29:953-965. 

Farmer, A. and F. Durbian. 2006. Estimating shorebird numbers at migration stopover sites. Condor 

108:792-807. 

Fauchald, K. and P.A. Jamurs. 1979. The diet of worms: A study of polychaete feeding guilds. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 17:193-284. 

Fedde, M.R. and W.D. Kuhlmann. 1979. Cardiopulmonary responses to inhaled sulfur dioxide in the 

chicken. Poultry Science 58:1584-1591. 

Federal Register. 1997a. Hydrogen sulfide requirements for operations in the outer continental shelf. 

Final rule. 62 FR 17, pp. 3793-3800. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/federalregister/

PDFs/h2sfr.pdf. 

Federal Register. 1997b. Blowout preventer (BOP) testing requirements for drilling and completion 

operations. Proposed rule. July 15, 1997. 62 FR 135, pp. 37819-37824. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/federalregister/PDFs/BOPTesting.PDF. 

Federal Register. 1998. Blowout preventer (BOP) testing requirements for drilling and completion 

operations. Final rule. June 1, 1998. 63 FR 104, pp. 29604-29608. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/federalregister/PDFs/Bop.pdf. 

Federal Register. 1999. Rules and regulations, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removal of the American peregrine 

falcon from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and removal of the similarity of 

appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States. Final rule. 

August 25, 1999. 64 FR 164, pp. 46542-46558. 

Federal Register. 2001. Rules and regulations, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final determinations of critical 

habitat for wintering piping plovers. Final rule. July 10, 2001. 66 FR 132, pp. 36037-36086. 

Federal Register. 2005. 30 CFR Parts 250 and 282: Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer 

continental shelf—Plans and information. Final rule. 70 FR 167, pp. 51478-51519. Internet website: 

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=PoRRmE/2/2/0&WAISaction=

retrieve. Accessed July 15, 2011. 
References Cited 6-21 

Federal Register. 2006a. Oil and gas and sulphur in the outer continental shelf (OCS)—Safety and 

Environmental Management Systems. Advanced notice of proposed rule. 71 FR 98, pp. 29277-

29280. Internet website: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6-7790.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2006b. Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf—Incident 

reporting requirements. Final rule. 71 FR 73, pp. 19640-19646. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/federalregister/PDFs/AC57-4-17-06.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2007. Rules and regulations, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removal of the bald eagle from the 

federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Final rule. July 9, 2007. 72 FR 130, 

pp. 37346-37372. 

Federal Register. 2008. Record of decision for the final programmatic environmental impact statement 

for alternative energy development and production and alternate use of facilities on the outer 

continental shelf. January 10, 2007. 73 FR 7, pp. 1894-1895. 

Federal Register. 2009a. Safety and environmental management systems for outer continental shelf oil 

and gas operations. Proposed rule. 74 FR 115, pp. 28639-28654. Internet website: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-06-17/pdf/E9-14211.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2009b. Renewable energy and alternate uses of existing facilities on the outer 

continental shelf. Final rule. April 29, 2009. 74 FR 81, pp. 19638-19871. 

Federal Register. 2009c. Standards for living organisms in ships’ ballast water discharged in U.S. 

waters: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 74 FR 106, August 28, 2009. Internet website: http://

www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/docs/USCG-2001-10486-0138.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2009d. Rules and regulations, Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removal of the brown pelican 

(Pelecanus occidentalis) from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Final rule. 

November 17, 2009. 74 FR 220, pp. 59443-59472. 

Federal Register. 2010a. Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf—Safety and 

environmental management systems. Final rule. 75 FR 199, pp. 63610-63654. Internet website: 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-25665.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2010b. Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf—Increased 

safety measures for energy development on the outer continental shelf. Interim final rule. 75 FR 198, 

pp. 63346-63377. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-14/pdf/2010-

25256.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2010c. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS),Western and Central Planning Areas, Gulf of 

Mexico (GOM) oil and gas lease sales for the 2007-2012 5-Year OCS Program. November 10, 2010. 

75 FR 217, pp. 69122-69123. 

Federal Register. 2010d. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Western and Central Planning Areas, Gulf of 

Mexico (GOM) oil and gas lease sales for the 2007-2012 5-Year OCS Program. November 16, 2010. 

75 FR 220, pp. 70023-70024. 

Federal Register. 2010e. Approval and promulgation of air quality implementation plans; Louisiana; 

Baton Rouge 8-hour ozone nonattainment area; determination of attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 75 FR 174, pp. 54778-54779. September 9, 2010. 

Federal Register. 2010f. Listing endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a 

petition to list bluefin tuna as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Proposed 

rule. 50 CFR 223 and 224. Tuesday, September 21, 2010. 

Federal Register. 2010g. Cancellation of oil and gas Lease Sale 215 in the Western Planning Area on 

the outer continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement. July 28, 2010. 75 FR 144, p. 44276. Internet website: 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-18425.pdf. 
6-22 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Federal Register. 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Endangered Species Act listing 

determination for Atlantic bluefin tuna. June 1, 2011. 50 CFR 223 and 224. Pp. 31556-31570. 

Feldman, S. 2009. China beats US to offshore wind development. Internet website: http://

solveclimate.com/news/20090403/china-beats-us-offshore-wind-development. Posted April 3, 2009. 

Accessed March 23, 2011. 

Fenner, D. and K. Banks. 2004. Orange cup coral Tubastraea coccinea invades Florida and the Flower 

Garden Banks, northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Coral Reefs 23(4):505-507. 

Field, J. C., D.F. Boesch, D. Scavia, R. Buddemeier, V.R. Burkett, and D. Cayan. 2001. Potential 

consequences of climate variability and change on coastal areas and marine resources. In: Climate 

change impacts on the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Fingas, M. 1995. Oil spills and their cleanup. Chemistry and Industry. Internet website: http://

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5255/is_n24/ai_n28664618/. Accessed December 23, 2010. 

Fingas, M., F. Ackerman, P. Lambert, K. Li, Z. Wang, J. Mullin, L. Hannon, D. Wang, A. Steenkammer, 

R. Hiltabrand, R. Turpin, and P. Campagna. 1995. The Newfoundland offshore burn experiment: 

Further results of emissions measurement. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine 

Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Volume 2, June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 

Pp. 915-995. 

Fire in the Ice. 2009. Gulf of Mexico gas hydrate drilling and logging expedition underway. U.S Dept. 

of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Methane Hydrate Newsletter. Spring 2009. 

Pp. 1-10. Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/Hydrates/

Newsletter/MHNewsSpring09.pdf#Page=1. 

Fischel, M., W. Grip, and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1989. Study to determine the recovery of a Louisiana 

marsh from an oil spill. In: Proceedings, 1989 Oil Spill Conference. February 13-16, 1989, San 

Antonio, TX. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 383-387. 

Fisher, C.R. 1995. Characterization of habitats and determination of growth rate and approximate ages 

of the chemosynthetic symbiont-containing fauna. In: MacDonald, I.R., W.W. Schroeder, and 

J.M. Brooks, eds. 1995. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study: Final report. Volume 2: Technical 

report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0022. Pp. 5.1-5.47. 

Fisher, M. 2010. Official communication. Fish kills in Texas and effects of BP spill on Texas oysters. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Rockport Marine Lab. 

August 6, 2010. 

Fisher, M. 2011. Official communication. Fishing effort and catch data. Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, Rockport Marine Lab. April 12, 2011. 

Fisher, W.L., J.H. McGowen, L.F. Brown, Jr., and C.G. Groat. 1972. Environmental geologic atlas of 

the Texas coastal zone: Galveston-Houston area. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology. 

Fisher, W.L., L.F. Brown, Jr., J.H. McGowen, and C.G. Groat. 1973. Environmental geologic atlas of 

the Texas coastal zone: Beaumont-Port Arthur area. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology. 

Fisher, C.R., I. Urcuyo, M.A. Simpkins, and E. Nix. 1997. Life in the slow lane: Growth and longevity 

of cold-seep vestimentiferans. Marine Ecology 18:83-94. 

Flemer, D.A., B.F. Ruth, and C.M. Bundrick. 2002. Effects of sediment type on macrobenthic infaunal 

colonization of laboratory microcosoms. Hydrobiologia 485:83-96. 

Flint, R.W. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. 1980. Environmental studies, south Texas outer continental shelf, 

1975-1977. Volume I: Ecosystem description. Submitted to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Washington, DC. Contract AA551-CT8-51. 
References Cited 6-23 

Florida A&M University. 1988. Meteorological database and synthesis for the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS Study MMS 89-0064. 430 pp. 

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Final restoration plan/environmental assessment for the 

August 10, 1993 Tampa Bay oil spill. Volume 2: Human use and recreational injuries. 52 pp. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. FAQs: Sea turtles and hurricanes. Internet 

website: http://myfwc.com/Newsroom/Resources/News_Resources_SeaTurtlesAndHurricanes.htm. 

Accessed September 5, 2008. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010. Manatee mortality statistics. Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Internet website: 

http://myfwc.com/media/1329325/2010_cumulative_category_summary09jun_2011.pdf. Accessed 

July 11, 2011. 

Foley, B. 2010. Impact of fishing on shipwrecks: In: Archaeology in deep water. Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA. Internet website: http://www.whoi.edu/sbl/liteSite.do?

litesiteid=2740&articleId=4965. Accessed August 31, 2010. 

Ford, B., A. Borgens, W. Bryant, D. Marshall, P. Hitchcock, C. Arias, and D. Hamilton. 2008. 

Archaeological excavation of the Mardi Gras shipwreck (16GM01), Gulf of Mexico continental 

slope. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2008-037. 313 pp. 

Fourqurean, J.W. and L.M. Rutten. 2004. The impact of Hurricane Georges on soft-bottom, back reef 

communities: Site-and species-specific effects in south Florida seagrass beds. Bulletin of Marine 

Science 75(2):239-257. 

Fowler, G.S., J.C. Wingfield, and P.D. Boersma. 1995. Hormonal and reproductive effects of low levels 

of petroleum fouling in Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellancus). Auk 112:382-389. 

Francaviglia, R.V. 1998. From sail to steam. University of Texas Press, Austin. 324 pp. 

Frank, D.J., W. Sackett, R. Hall, and A. Fredericks. 1970. Methane, ethane, and propane concentrations 

in the Gulf of Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin 54:1933-1938. 

Fraser, G.S. and J. Ellis. 2008. Offshore hydrocarbon and synthetic hydrocarbon spills in eastern 

Canada: The issue of follow-up and experience. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and 

Management 10(2):173-187. June 2008. 

Fraser, G.S., J. Russell, and W.M. von Zharen. 2006. Produced water from offshore oil and gas 

installations on the Grand Banks, Newfoundland and Labrador: Are the potential effects to seabirds 

sufficiently known? Marine Ornithology 34:147-156. 

Frazier, D.E. 1967. Recent deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River: Their development and 

chronology. In: Sandridge, J.R., ed. Transactions Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 

San Antonio, TX, 27:287-315. Internet website: http://search.datapages.com/data/gcags/data/017/

017001/pdfs/0287.pdf. 

French-McCay, D.P. 2004. Oil spill impact modeling: Development and validation. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 23(10):2441-2456. 

Frid, A. and L.M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. 

Conservation Ecology 6:11. Internet website: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art11/. 

Frithsen, J.B., R. Elmgren, and D.T. Rudnick. 1985. Responses of benthic meiofauna to long-term, lowlevel additions of No. 2 fuel oil. Marine Ecology Progress Series 23:1-14. 

Fritts, T.H., A.B. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Collum, W. Hoffman, and M.A. McGehee. 1983. Turtles, 

birds, and mammals in the northern Gulf of Mexico and nearby Atlantic waters. U.S. Dept. of the 
6-24 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, DC. 

FWS/OBS-82/65. 455 pp. 

Fry, D.M., J. Swenson, L.A. Addiego, C.R. Grau, and A. Kang. 1986. Reduced reproduction of wedgetailed shearwaters exposed to weathered Santa Barbara crude oil. Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 15:453-463. 

Fry, D.M., S.I. Fefer, and L. Sileo. 1987. Ingestion of plastic debris by laysan albatross and wedge-tailed 

shearwaters in the Hawaiian islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):339-343. 

Fucik, K.W., T.J. Bright, and K.S. Goodman. 1984. Measurements of damage, recovery, and 

rehabilitation of coral reefs exposed to oil. In: Cairns, J. and A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of 

habitats impacted by oil spills. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers. 1984. 

Fucik, K.W., K.A. Carr, and B.J. Balcom. 1995. Toxicity of oil and dispersed oil to the eggs and larvae 

of seven marine fish and invertebrates from the Gulf of Mexico. In: Lane, P., ed. The use of 

chemicals in oil spill response. STP 1252. Ann Arbor, MI. Pp. 135-171. 

Gabe, T., G. Falk, M. McCarty, and V.W. Mason. 2005. Hurricane Katrina: Social-demographic 

characteristics of impacted areas; November 4, 2005. Congressional Research Service Report for 

Congress. 35 pp. Internet website: http://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/crsrept.pdf. Accessed 

February 17, 2011. 

Gable, E. 2008. Gulf recovery: Biologists assess Ike’s effects on Gulf Coast ecosystems. Landletter, 

October 9, 2008. Internet website: http://www.eenews.net/public/Landletter/2008/10/09/6. 

Accessed December 2010. 

Gagliano, S.M. 1999. Faulting, subsidence and land loss in coastal Louisiana. In: Louisiana Coastal 

Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 

Authority, Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, Appendix B—Technical methods, 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Gagliano, S.M. 2005a. Effects of earthquakes, fault movements, and subsidence on the south Louisiana 

landscape. Reprinted from The Louisiana Civil Engineer, Journal of the Louisiana Section of The 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Baton Rouge, LA. February 2005, 13(2):5-7, 19-22. Internet 

website: http://www.coastalenv.com/EffectofEarthquakeFaultMovementsandSubsidence.pdf. 

Gagliano, S.M. 2005b. Effects of natural fault movement on land submergence in coastal Louisiana. 

Proceedings, 14th Biennial Coastal Zone Conference, New Orleans, LA, July 17-21, 2005. 5 pp. 

Gallaway, B.J. 1981. An ecosystem of oil and gas development on the Texas-Louisiana continental 

shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, 

Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/27. 89 pp. 

Gallaway, B.J. and G.S. Lewbell. 1982. The ecology of petroleum platforms in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico: A community profile. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/27. Bureau of Land Management, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. Open-File Report 82-03. xiv + 92 pp. 

Gallaway, B.J. and M.C. Kennicutt II. 1988. Chapter 2. The characterization of benthic habitats of the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. In: Gallaway, B.J., ed. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope study, 

final report: Year 4. Vol. II: Synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 88-0053. Pp. 2-1 to 

2-45. 

Gallaway, B.J., L.R. Martin, and R.L. Howard, eds. 1988. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope 

study, annual report: Year 3. Volume II: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 87-0060. 

586 pp. 

Gallaway, B.J., J.G. Cole, and R.G. Fechhelm. 2003. Selected aspects of the ecology of the continental 

slope fauna of the Gulf of Mexico: A synopsis of the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope 
References Cited 6-25 

study, 1983-1988. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-072. 44 pp. 

Galveston.com. 2010. Summer season puts Galveston tourism back on track. Internet website: http://

www.galveston.com/cvb083010/. 

Ganning, B., D.J. Reish, and D. Straughan. 1984. Recovery and restoration of rocky shores, sandy 

beaches, tidal flats, and shallow subtidal bottoms impacted by oil spill. In: Cairns, J., Jr. and 

A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of habitats impacted by oil spills. Boston, MA. 

Gardner, J.V., L.A. Mayer, J.E. Hughes Clarke, and A. Kleiner. 1998. High-resolution multibeam 

bathymetry of East and West Flower Gardens and Stetson Banks, Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico 

Science 16:131-143. 

Gardner, J.V., J.D. Beaudoin, J.E. Hughes Clarke, and P. Dartnell. 2002. Multibeam mapping of selected 

areas of the outer continental shelf, northwestern Gulf of Mexico—Data, images, and GIS. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File Report 02-411. Internet website: http://

geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-411/index.html. Accessed September 9, 2010. 

Garrison, E.G., C.P. Giammona, F.J. Kelly, A.R. Tripp, and G.A. Wolf. 1989. Historic shipwrecks and 

magnetic anomalies of the northern Gulf of Mexico: Reevaluation of archaeological resource 

management. Volume II: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0024. 241 pp. 

Garza, M.D., A. Prada, M. Marela and M.X. Vasquez Rodruguez. 2009. Indirect assessment of 

economic damages from the Prestige oil spill: Consequences for liability and risk prevention. 

Disasters 2009. 

Gaston, G.R., C.F. Rakocinski, S.S. Brown, and C.M. Cleveland. 1998. Trophic function in estuaries: 

Response of macrobenthos to natural and contaminant gradients. Marine and Freshwater Research. 

49:833-846. 

Gearhart II, R., D. Jones, A. Borgens, S. Laurence, T. DeMunda, and J. Shipp. In press. Impacts of 

recent hurricane activity in historic shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-003. 

Gentner, B. and S. Steinback. 2008. The Economic contribution of marine angler expenditures in the 

United States, 2006. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SPO-94. 

Gentner Consulting Group. 2010. Economic impacts of recreational fishing closures resulting from the 

Deep Horizon oil spill: Preliminary estimates. Internet website: http://www.keepamericafishing.org/

-/pdf/econimpactsgulfoil2.pdf. 

Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc. 2005. Integrated study of the Great White Development Area, 

Blocks 813, 814, 857, and 858, Alaminos Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico. Report for Shell Offshore, 

Inc. Project No. 0105-945d. 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore petroleum resource development and marine mammals: 

A review and research recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review 42:1-12. 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. 1990. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press, Inc. 282 pp. 

Getter, C.D., G. Cintron, B. Kicks, R.R. Lewis III, and E.D. Seneca. 1984. The recovery and restoration 

of salt marshes and mangroves following an oil spill. In: Cairn, J., Jr. and A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. 

Restoration of habitats impacted by oil spills. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers, Ann Arbor 

Science Book. Pp. 65-104. 

Gibeaut, J.C., W.A. White, T. Hepner, R. Gutierrez, T.A. Tremblay, R. Smyth, and J. Andrews, with 

assistance from R. Waldinger, D. Sassen, L. Xu, and Y. Qiu. 2008. Texas shoreline change project, 

Gulf of Mexico shoreline change from the Brazos River to Pass Cavallo. A Report of the Texas 
6-26 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Coastal Coordination Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award 

No. NA870Z0251. Internet website: http://coastal.tamug.edu/am/capturedwebsites/

texasshorelinechange/report.pdf. Accessed January 2011. 

Gilbert, D. 2011. New scrutiny slams near shore exploration. The Wall Street Journal. Internet website: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576050442684314836.html?

KEYWORDS=new+scrutiny+slams+near-shore+exploration. Posted January 3, 2011. Accessed 

January 4, 2011. 

Gill, J.A., K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland. 2001. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the 

population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97:265-268. 

Gitschlag, G.R., J.S. Schrripa, and J.E. Powers. 2000. Estimation of fisheries impacts due to underwater 

explosives used to sever and salvage oil and gas platforms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 2000-087. 80 pp. 

Gittelsohn, J. 2010. Oil spill may cost $4.3 billion in property values. Bloomberg, June 11, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-11/bp-spill-may-cost-homeowners-4-3-

billion-in-property-values-along-shore.html. Accessed June 14, 2011. 

Gittings, S.R. 1998. Reef community stability on the Flower Garden Banks, northwest Gulf of Mexico. 

Gulf of Mexico Science 16(2):161-169. 

Gittings, S.R., comp. 2006. Conservation science in NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries: Description 

and recent accomplishments. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. Marine Sanctuaries 

Conservation Series ONMS-06-04. 30 pp. Internet website: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/

conservation/pdfs/accomplishments.pdf. 

Gittings, S.R., G.S. Boland, K.J.P. Deslarzes, D.K. Hagman, and B.S. Holland. 1992a. Long-term 

monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 92-0006. 

206 pp. 

Gittings, S.R., T.J. Bright, W.W. Schroeder, W.W. Sager, J.S. Laswell, and R. Rezak. 1992b. 

Invertebrate assemblages and ecological controls on topographic features in the northeast Gulf of 

Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 50(3):435-455. 

Gittings, S.R., G.S. Boland, K.J.P. Deslarzes, C.L. Combs, B.S. Holland, and T.J. Bright. 1992c. Mass 

spawning and reproductive viability of reef corals at the East Flower Garden Bank, northwest Gulf of 

Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 51(3):420-428. 

Gittings, S.R., G.S. Boland, C.R.B. Merritt, J.J. Kendall, K.J.P. Deslarzes, and J. Hart. 1994. Mass 

spawning by reef corals in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. A Report on Project Reef Spawn 

’94. Flower Gardens Fund Technical Series Report Number 94-03. 

Gobert, A. 2010. OCS pipelines (DOT jurisdiction) that terminate onshore Louisiana. Excel spreadsheet 

provided by Angie Gobert, Field Operations, to Perry Boudreaux, Leasing and Environment, Gulf of 

Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement by e-mail on 

April 2, 2010. 

Goh, B.P.L. and C.S. Lee. 2008. A study of the effect of sediment accumulation on the settlement of 

coral larvae using conditioned tiles. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Reef Symposium. 

July 7-11, 2008. Session No. 24. Fort Lauderdale, FL. 

Gómez Gesteira, J.L. and J.C. Dauvin. 2000. Amphipods are good bioindicators of the impact of oil 

spills on soft-bottom macrobenthic communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(11):1017-1027. 

Gong, C., A. Milkov, D. Grass, M. Sullivan, T. Searcy, P. Depret, and L. Dzou. 2011. The impact of 

weathering on MC 252 oil chemistry and its fingerprinting: Poster presentation. In: Proceedings of 

the International Oil Spill Conference, May 23-26, 2011, Portland, OR. 
References Cited 6-27 

Gonzalez, A. 2010. U.S. gas boom orphans LNG. The Wall Street Journal. October 22, 2010. Internet 

website: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304023804575566570816389914.html. 

Accessed March 1, 2011. 

Gonzalez, A. and N. Malik. 2010. Collision causes crude oil spill in Texas. The Wall Street Journal. 

January 24, 2010. Internet website: http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704562504575021540843701582.html. Accessed November 24, 2010. 

Good, B., J. Buchtel, D. Meffert, J. Radford, K. Rhinehart, and R. Wilson. 1995. Louisiana’s major 

coastal navigation channels. Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. 35 pp. 

Internet website: http://dnr.louisiana.gov/crm/D%20R%20S%20Reports/General/La.%20Navigation

%20Channels/Channels_1.pdf. 

Goodyear, A.C. 2005. Evidence for pre-Clovis sites in the Eastern United States. In: Bonnichsen, R., 

B.T. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M.R. Waters, eds. Paleoamerican origins: Beyond Clovis. College 

Station, Texas: Center for the Study of the First Americans, distributed by Texas A&M University 

Press. Pp 103-112. 

Gordon, J.C.D., D. Gillespie, L.E. Rendell, and R. Leaper. 1996. Draft report on playback of ATOC like 

sounds to sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) off the Azores. Wildlife Conservation Research 

Unit, Dept. of Zoology, Oxford, UK. 

Gore, R.H. 1992. The Gulf of Mexico. Pineapple Press, Florida. 

Gosselink, J.G., C.L. Cordes, and J.W. Parsons. 1979. An ecological characterization study of the 

Chenier Plain coastal ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. 3 vols. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Services. FWS/OBS-78/9 through 78/11. 

Gower, J. and S. King. 2008. Satellite images show the movement of floating Sargassum in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Nature Precedings: hdl:10101/npre.2008.1894.1. 

Gower, J., C. Hu, G. Borstad, and S. King. 2006. Ocean color satellites show extensive lines of floating 

Sargassum in the Gulf of Mexico. IEEE Trans. Deosci. Rem. Sens. 44(12):3619-3625. 

Gramling, R. 1984. Housing in the coastal zone parishes. In: Gramling, R.B. and S. Brabant, eds. The 

role of outer continental shelf oil and gas activities in the growth and modification of Louisiana’s 

coastal zone. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Lafayette, LA. Interagency Agreement NA-83-AA-D-CZ025; 

21920-84-02. Pp. 127-134. 

Green, M.M. 2006. Coastal restoration annual project reviews, December 2006. Louisiana Dept. of 

Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. 116 pp. Internet website: http://lacoast.gov/reports/apr/2006

%20Coastal%20Restoration%20Annual%20Project%20Reviews.pdf. 

Green, A. 2008. Facing the facts: A literacy forecast for Texas. Texas Workforce Commission. 4 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/adultlit/facing_facts.pdf. 

Greenberg, J. 2010. Offshore outlook: Still no deepwater drilling permits. Internet website: http://

www.workboat.com/blogpost.aspx?id=4295000422. Accessed December 14, 2010. 

Greenberg, J. 2011. OSV day rates. Workboat. May 2011, Vol. 68, No. 5. 

Greene, C.R. 1986. Underwater sounds from the semisubmersible drill rig SEDCO 708 drilling in the 

Aleutian Islands. Section 1. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. API Publication 4438. 

69 pp. 

Greene, G., C. Moss, and T. Spreen. 1997. Demand for recreational fishing in Tampa Bay, Florida: A 

random utility approach. Marine Resource Economics 12:293-305. 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2010a. Program statistics & overall summary, and state status reports. 

Internet website: http://www.gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/reports. Accessed November 27, 2010. 
6-28 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2010b. Program frequently asked questions. Internet website: http://

gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/faq#Q11. Accessed November 2010. 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2011. Texas program statistics (as of April 9, 2011). Internet website: 

http://www.gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/reports. Accessed April 12, 2011. 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2009a. Gulf of Mexico Alliance water quality. Internet website: http://

gulfofmexicoalliance.org/issues/welcome.html. Last updated June 2, 2009. Accessed March 15, 

2010. 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2009b. Gulf of Mexico Alliance priority issues. Internet website: http://

gulfofmexicoalliance.org/issues/welcome.html. Last updated June 2, 2009. Accessed March 15, 

2010. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2005. Generic amendment number 3 for 

addressing essential fish habitat requirements, habitat areas of particular concern, and adverse effects 

of fishing in the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico: shrimp fishery of the 

Gulf of Mexico, United States waters red drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, reef fish fishery of the 

Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory pelagic resources (mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic, stone crab fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, spiny lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic, coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 

Tampa, FL. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2010a. Federal fishing rules for the Gulf of 

Mexico. Internet website: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/fishrules.htm. Accessed August 5, 2010. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2010b. Supplemental recreational red snapper 

season to open October 1, 2010. Internet website: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/news_resources/Press

%20Releases/2010RedSnapperReopening.pdf. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2011. Recreational fishing regulations for 

Gulf of Mexico federal waters. Internet website: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/

downloads/rec_brochure_2010.pdf. 

Guo, J., D.W. Hughes, and W.R. Keithly. 1998. An analysis of Louisiana Highway 1 in relation to 

expanding oil and gas activities in the Central Gulf of Mexico. In: Lafourche Parish and Port 

Fourchon, Louisiana: Effects of the Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Industry on the Economy and 

Public Services, Part 1. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-019. 42 pp. 

Guzmán, H.M. and I. Holst. 1993. Effects of chronic oil-sediment pollution on the reproduction of the 

Caribbean reef coral Siderastrea siderea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26(5):276-282. 

Guzmán, H.M., J.B.C. Jackson, and E. Weil. 1991. Short-term ecological consequences of a major oil 

spill on Panamanian subtidal reef corals. Coral Reefs 10:1-12. 

Guzmán, H.M., K.A. Burns, and J.B.C. Jackson. 1994. Injury, regeneration, and growth of Caribbean 

reef corals after a major oil spill in Panama. Marine Ecology Progress Series 105:231-241. 

Haab, T.C., J.C. Whitehead, and T. McConnell. 2000. The economic value of marine recreational fishing 

in the southeast United States: 1997 southeast economic data analysis; final report, July 2000. 

105 pp. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/RecEcon/Publications/SE_vol2.pdf. 

Accessed April 4, 2011. 

Haab, T.C., R. Hicks, K. Schnier, and J.C. Whitehead. 2010. Angler heterogeneity and the speciesspecific demand for marine recreational fishing. Appalachian State University, Department of 

Economics Working Paper. Number 10-02. 43 pp. Internet website: http://econ.appstate.edu/

RePEc/pdf/wp1002.pdf. 

Haag, W.G. 1992. The Monte Sano site. In: Jeter, M.D., ed. Southeastern Archaeological Conference: 

Abstracts of the Forty-ninth Annual Meeting, Arkansas’ Excelsior Hotel, October 21-24, 1992. Little 

Rock, AR. 18 pp. 
References Cited 6-29 

Haby, M.G., R.J. Miget, and L.L. Falconet. 2009. Hurricane damage sustained by the oyster industry 

and the oyster reefs across the Galveston Bay system with recovery recommendations. A Texas 

AgriLife Extension Service/SeaGrant Extension Program Staff Paper. The Texas A&M University 

System, College Station, TX. TAMU-SG-09-201. 51 pp. 

Haddad, R. and S. Murawski. 2010. Analysis of hydrocarbons in samples provided from the cruise of the 

R/V Weatherbird II, May 23-26, 2010. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 14 pp. 

Haig, S.H. and C.L. Ferland. 2002. 2001 international piping plover census. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, OR. 293 pp. 

Hale, L.F. and J.K. Carlson. 2007. Characterization of the shark bottom longline fishery, 2005-2006. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-554. 28 pp. 

Hale, L.F., L.D. Hollinsead, and J.K. Carlson. 2007. Characterization of the shark bottom longline 

fishery, 2007. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-564. 25 pp. 

Hale, L.F., S.J.B. Gulak, and J.K. Carlson. 2009. Characterization of the shark bottom longline fishery, 

2008. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-586. 23 pp. 

Hall, R.J., A.A. Belisle, and L. Sileo. 1983. Residues of petroleum hydrocarbons in tissues of sea turtles 

exposed to the Ixtoc I oil spill. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 19(2):106-109. 

Hamilton, P. and A. Lugo-Fernandez. 2001. Observations of high speed deep currents in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. Geophysical Research Letters 28:2767-2870. 

Hamilton, P., J.J. Singer, E. Waddell, and K. Donuhue. 2003. Deepwater observations in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico from in-situ current meters and PIES: Final report. Volume II. Technical report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS-2003-049. 95 pp. 

Hammer, D. 2011. Ken Feinberg reaches deal to pay subsistence claims for commercial fishermen who 

consume a portion of their catch (April 2011). The Times-Picayune. Internet website: http://

www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2011/04/post_31.html. Accessed April 28, 2011. 

Handley, D.A., D. Altsman, and R. DeMay, eds. 2007. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico: 1940-2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006-5287 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. Internet website: http://

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. 

Haney, J.L, Y. Wei, and S.G. Douglas. 2004. A preliminary assessment of on-shore air quality impacts 

for the eastern Gulf Coast (Louisiana to Florida) using the 2000 Gulfwide Emissions Inventory: Draft 

report. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, by ICF Consulting, San Rafael, CA. 

Harbison, R.N. 1968. Geology of De Soto Canyon. Journal of Geophysical Research 73:5175-5185. 

Hargreaves, S. 2010. Drilling ban: Jobs at stake. Internet website: http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/24/

news/economy/drilling_jobs_at_stake/index.htm?postversion=2010062410. Accessed June 30, 2010. 

Harper, D.E., Jr. 1991. Macroinfauna and macroepifauna. In: Brooks, J.M., ed. 1991. MississippiAlabama continental shelf ecosystem study: Data summary and synthesis. Volume II: Technical 

narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 91-0063. 862 pp. 

Harper, D.E., Jr., L.D. McKinney, J.M. Nance, and R.R. Salzer. 1991. Recovery responses of two 

benthic assemblages following an acute hypoxic event on the Texas continental shelf, northwestern 

Gulf of Mexico. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 58:49-64. 

Harrison, P. 1983. Seabirds: An identification guide. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 448 pp. 

Harrison, P. 1996. Seabirds of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 317 pp. 
6-30 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Hart, A.D., K.D. Spring, J.M. Brooks, B.J. Presley, and B.A. Vittor. 1989. Fate and effects of drilling 

fluid and cutting discharges in shallow, nearshore waters. Washington, DC: American Petroleum 

Institute. 

Hartung, R. 1995. Assessment of the potential for long-term toxicological effects of the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill on birds and mammals. ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) Special Technical 

Publication. 

Harvey, J.T. and M.E. Dahlheim. 1994. Cetaceans in oil. In: Loughlin, T.R., ed. Marine mammals and 

the Exxon Valdez. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 257-264. 

Hayes, M.O., D.D. Domeracki, C.D. Getter, T.W. Kana, and G.I. Scott. 1980. Sensitivity of coastal 

environments to spilled oil, south Texas coast. Research Planning Institute, Inc. Report No. 

RPI/R/80/4/11-12. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, Columbia, SC. 89 pp. 

Hayman, P., J. Marchant, and T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds: An identification guide to the waders of the 

world. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 412 pp. 

Hazen, T.C., E.A. Dubinsky, T.Z. DeSantis, G.L. Andersen, Y.M. Picento, N. Singh, J.K. Jansson, 

A. Probst, S.E. Borglin, J.L. Fortney, W.T. Stringfellow, M. Bill, M.S. Conrad, L.M. Tom, 

K.L. Chavarria, T.R. Alusi, R. Lamendella, D.C. Joyner, C. Spier, J. Baelum, M. Auer, M.L. Zelma, 

R. Chakraborty, E.L. Sonnenthal, P. D’haeseleer, H.N. Holman, S. Osman, Z. Lu, J.D. Van Nostrand, 

Y. Deng, J. Zhou, and O.U. Mason. 2010. Deep-sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil-degrading 

bacteria. Published online: Science Express August 24, 2010. Science 330:6001(204-208). 

Heck, K.L., G. Hays, and R.J. Orth. 2003. Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass 

meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253:123-136. 

Helicopter Safety Advisory Conference. 2009. HSCA 2009 safety statistics. Internet website: http://

www.hsac.org/Minutes/may2010/2009SAFETYSTAT.pdf. Accessed December 17, 2010. 

Hell, J.W. and M.D. Ehlers, eds. 2008. Structural and functional organization of the synapse. New 

York, NY: Springer. 801 pp. 

Hemmerling, S.A. and C.E. Colten. 2003. Environmental justice considerations in Lafourche Parish, 

Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-038. 348 pp. 

Hemmerling, S.A. and C.E. Colten. In preparation. Environmental justice: A comparative perspective in 

Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Prepared under Contract No. 30951-

72404. 

Heneman, B. and the Center for Environmental Education. 1988. Persistent marine debris in the North 

Sea, northwest Atlantic Ocean, wider Caribbean area, and the west coast of Baja California. Final 

report for the Marine Mammal Commission. Contract MM3309598-5. Washington, DC. Available 

from NTIS, Springfield, VA: PB89-109938. 161 pp. 

Henfer, L.M., B.O. Wilen, T.E. Dahl, and W.E. Frayer. 1994. Southeast wetlands: Status and trends, 

mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 32 pp. 

Henningsson, S.S. and T. Alerstam. 2005. Barriers and distances as determinants for the evolution of 

bird migration links: The Arctic shorebird system. In: Proceedings; Biological Sciences, 2005. 

London: Royal Society of London 272(1578):2251-2258. 

Henriet, J.P. and J. Mienert. 1998. Gas hydrates; relevance to world marginal stability and climate 

change. Geological Society of London, England. Geological Society Special Publication No. 137. 

338 pp. 
References Cited 6-31 

Hernandez, F., S. Powers, and W. Graham. 2010. Seasonal variability in ichthyoplankton abundance and 

assemblage composition in the northern Gulf of Mexico off Alabama. Fishery Bulletin 

108(2):193-207. 

Hickerson, E.L. 2008. Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary draft—Post Hurricane Ike quick 

look cruise report. Prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. October 17, 2008. 17 pp. Internet website: http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/

document_library/science/postike.pdf. 

Hickerson, E.L. and G.P. Schmahl. 2007. Hurricane Rita impacts at the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

February 2007. 13 pp. Internet website: http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/document_library/science/

cruises/hurricaneritareport.pdf. 

Hickerson, E.L., G.P. Schmahl, M. Robbart, W.F. Precht, and C. Caldow. 2008. The state of coral reef 

ecosystems of the Flower Garden Banks, Stetson Bank, and other banks in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico. In: Waddell, J.E. and A.M. Clarke, eds. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United 

States and Pacific freely associated states: 2008. Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s 

Biogeography Team, Silver Spring, MD. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NOS NCCOS 73. NOAA/NCCOS. 569 pp. 

Hickerson, E., M. Nuttall, G.P. Schmahl, L. Horn, G. Taylor, J. Reed, J. Voss, C. Menza, E. Ebert, 

D. Walker, M. Shetler, D. Henagan, and D. Cooley. 2010. Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary baseline benthic and fish surveys: A collaborative cruise with FGBNMS, NCCOS, and 

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. Quick Look Report—FGBNMS-DFH14. May 16-21, 2010. 

3 pp. 

Hiett, R.L. and J.W. Milon. 2002. Economic impact of recreational fishing and diving associated with 

offshore oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2002-010. 98 pp. 

Hobaugh, W.C., C.D. Stutzenbaker, and E.L. Flickinger. 1989. The rice prairies. In: Smith, L.M., 

R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl 

in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. 

Hogan, J.L. 2003. Occurrence of the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) at South 

Deer Island in Galveston Bay, Texas, April 2001–May 2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological 

Survey, Austin, TX. USGS Open-File Report 03-022. 30 pp. 

Holand, P. 1999. Reliability of subsea BOP systems for deepwater application, phase II DW. SINTEF 

Report prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R 

Project 319. 118 pp. + apps. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/319/319AA.pdf. 

Holand, P. and P. Skalle. 2001. Deepwater kicks and BOP performance. SINTEF Report prepared for 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 383. 108 pp. + apps. 

Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/383/383%20AB%20Final%20report%20

Deepwater%20Kicks%20and%20BOP%20Performance.pdf. 

Holdway, D.A. 2002. The acute and chronic effects of wastes associated with offshore oil and gas 

production on temperate and tropical marine ecological processes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

44:185-203. 

Howard, R.K. and F.T. Short. 1986. Seagrass growth and survivorship under the influence of epiphyte 

grazers. Aquatic Botany 24(3):287-302. 

Hsu, S.A. 1979. An operational forecasting model for the variation of mean maximum mixing heights 

across the coastal zone. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 16:93-98. 
6-32 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Hu, C. and F.E. Muller-Karger. 2007. Response of sea surface properties to Hurricane Dennis in the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico. Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 34, L07606, 

doi:10.1029/2006GL028935. 

Hua, J. 1999. Behavior of chemically dispersed oil in marine sediment. Journal of Marine Science and 

Technology 7(1):35-42. 

Hudson, J.H. and D.M. Robbin. 1980. Effects of drilling mud on the growth rate of reef-building coral, 

Montastraea annularis. The R&D Program for OCS Oil and Gas Operations. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Geological Survey, Fisher Island Station, Miami Beach, FL. 

Hudson, J.H., E.A. Shinn, and D.M. Robbin. 1982. Effects of offshore oil drilling on Philippine reef 

corals. Bulletin of Marine Science 32(4):890-908. 

Hughes, D.W., J.M. Fannin, W. Keithly, W. Olatubi, and J. Guo. 2001. Lafourche Parish and Port 

Fourchon, Louisiana: Effects of the outer continental shelf petroleum industry on the economy and 

public services, part 2. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-020. 51 pp. 

Hunt D. 2006. Official communication. Impacts of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina on bird habitat. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeastern Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Lacombe, 

LA. September 2006. 

Hyland, J.L. and E.D. Schneider. 1976. Petroleum hydrocarbons and their effects on marine organisms, 

populations, communities, and ecosystems. In: Sources, effects and sinks of hydrocarbons in the 

aquatic environment. Proceedings of the Symposium, Washington, DC. August 9-11, 1976. 

Arlington, VA: American Institute of Biological Sciences. Pp. 465-506. 

Iledare, O.O. and M.J. Kaiser. 2007. Competition and performance in oil and gas lease sales and 

development in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico OCS region, 1983-1999. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-034. 

106 pp. 

Inoue, M., S.E. Welsh, L.J. Rouse, Jr., and E. Weeks. 2008. Deepwater currents in the eastern Gulf of 

Mexico: Observations at 25.5oN and 87oW. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-001. 95 pp. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 

2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds.). Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. 24 pp. Internet website: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/

assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf. 

International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (ITOPF). 2007. Fate of marine oil spills. 

Technical Information Paper. London, United Kingdom. 8 pp. Internet website: http://

www.itopf.com/_assets/documents/tip2.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010. 

International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (ITOPF). 2010a. Weathering process. 

Internet website: http://www.itopf.com/marine-spills/fate/weathering-process/. Accessed January 4, 

2011. 

International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (ITOPF). 2010b. Containment & recovery. 

Internet website: http://www.itopf.com/spill-response/clean-up-and-response/containment-andrecovery/. Accessed December 23, 2010. 

Irion, J.B. and R.J. Anuskiewicz. 1999. MMS seafloor monitoring project: First annual technical report, 

1997 field season. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 99-0014. 63 pp. 

Irion, J.B. and D.A. Ball. 2001. The New York and the Josephine: Two steamships of the Charles 

Morgan Line. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30(1):48-56. 
References Cited 6-33 

Irvine, G. 2000. Persistence of spilled oil on shores and its effects on biota. In: Seas at the millennium: 

An environmental evaluation. Volume III: Global issues and processes. Elsevier Science Ltd. 

Izon, D., E.P. Danenberger, and M. Mayes. 2007. Absence of fatalities in blowouts encouraging in 

MMS study of OCS incidents 1992-2006. Drilling Contractor, July/August. Pp. 84-90. Internet 

website: http://drillingcontractor.org/dcpi/dc-julyaug07/DC_July07_MMSBlowouts.pdf. 

Jackson, J.B.C., J.D. Cubit, B.D. Keller, V. Batista, K. Burns, H.M. Caffey, R.L. Caldwell, S.D. Garrity, 

C.D. Getter, C. Gonzalez, H.M. Guzman, K.W. Kaufmann, A.H. Knap, S.C. Levings, M.J. Marshall, 

R. Steger, R.C. Thompson, and E. Weil. 1989. Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian 

coastal marine communities. Science 243:37-44. 

Jackson, L.E., J.C. Kurtz, and W.S. Fisher. 2000. Evaluation guidelines for ecological indicators. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/620/R-99/005. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/ecol_ind.pdf. 

Jacob, J.S., S.W. Moulton, and R.A. Lopez. 2006. Texas coastal wetlands: Introduction. Internet 

website: http://www.texaswetlands.org/index.htm. Posted January 27, 2003. Accessed January 28, 

2011. 

Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood, L.K.M. Shoda, and R.L. Pitman. 1992. Marine mammals of the Gulf of 

Mexico: A field guide for aerial and shipboard observers. Texas A&M University Printing Center, 

College Station, TX. 92 pp. 

Jenssen, B.M. 1994. Review article: Effects of oil pollution, chemically treated oil, and cleaning on the 

thermal balance of birds. Environmental Pollution 86:207-215. 

Jenssen, B.M. and M. Ekker. 1991. Effects of plumage contamination with crude oil dispersant mixtures 

on thermoregulation in common eiders and mallards. Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology 20:398-403. 

Jernelöv, A. and O. Lindén. 1981. Ixtoc I: A case study of the world’s largest oil spill. Ambio 

10(6):299-306. 

Ji, Z.-G., W.R. Johnson, C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 2007. Oil spill risk analysis: Gulf of Mexico 

outer continental shelf (OCS) lease sales, Central Planning Area and Western Planning Area, 2007-

2012, and Gulfwide OCS Program, 2007-2046. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Environmental Division, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2007-040. 59 pp. 

Jindal, B. 2010. Governor Jindal letter to President Obama and Secretary Salazar: Severe impacts of 

moratorium on deepwater drilling. Press Release, June 3, 2010. Internet website: http://

emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/06032010-letter.html. Accessed January 13, 2011. 

Jochens, A.E., L.C. Bender, S.F. Di Marco, J.W. Morse, M.C. Kennicutt II, M.K. Howard, and 

W.D. Nowlin, Jr. 2005. Understanding the processes that maintain the oxygen levels in the deep 

Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-032. 129 pp. 

Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, 

R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm 

whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. 

341 pp. 

Johansen, O., H. Rye, and C. Cooper. 2001. DeepSpill JIP—field study of simulated oil and gas 

blowouts in deep water. In: Proceedings from the Fifth International Marine Environment Modeling 

Seminar, October 9-11, 2001, New Orleans, LA. 377 pp. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 1975. Waterfowl of North America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 

624 pp. 
6-34 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Johnson, W.B. and J.G. Gosselink. 1982. Wetland loss directly associated with canal dredging in the 

Louisiana coastal zone. In: Boesch, D.F., ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Erosion and 

Wetland Modification in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Options, Baton Rouge, LA. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/59. Pp. 60-72. 

Johnston, J.B., D.R. Cahoon, and M.K. La Peyre. 2009. Outer continental shelf (OCS)-related pipelines 

and navigation canals in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico: Relative impacts on wetland 

habitats and effectiveness of mitigation. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-048. 200 pp. 

Joint Analysis Group. 2010a. Review of R/V Brooks McCall data to examine subsurface oil. Internet 

website: http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/

JAG_Report_1_BrooksMcCall_Final_June20.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2010. 

Joint Analysis Group. 2010b. Review of preliminary data to examine oxygen levels in the vicinity of 

MC525#1. May 8 to August 9, 2010. Internet website: http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/

JAG_Oxygen_Report%20(FINAL%20090410).pdf. Accessed October 19, 2010. 

Jones, P. and G. Wells. 1987. Shuttle views the Earth: Oceans from space. Space shuttle views and 

explanation. LPI slide set contribution no. 1181. Slide nos. 30 and 31. Shuttle views from 1987. 

The Lunar and Planetary Institute, NASA. Contract # NASW-4574 operated by the Universities 

Space Research Association. Internet website: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/oceans/

index.shtml. Accessed December 2011. 

Judd, F.W., R.I. Lonard, J.H. Everitt, and R. Villarreal. 1988. Effects of vehicular traffic in the 

secondary dunes and vegetated flats of South Padre Island, Texas. 5 vols. Coastal Zone ’89. New 

York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers. Pp. 4,634-4,645. 

Kahn, R.A. and P. Ryan. 1991. Long-term effects of crude oil on common murres (Uria aalge) 

following rehabilitation. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 46:216-218. 

Kaplan, M.F. and C. Whitman. Unpublished. Measuring the economic impact of tourism and recreation 

industries on Gulf Coast communities—Relationship between OCS development and coastal 

resources (2008). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 1435-01-99-CA-30951-18261. x + 164 pp. 

Kaplan, M.F., A. Laughland, and J. Mott. In preparation. OCS-related infrastructure fact book. 

Volume II: Communities in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United 

States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 180 pp. Internet website: http://

downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 

Keim, B. and R.A. Muller. 2009. Hurricanes of the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana State University Press, 

Baton Rouge, LA. 

Kelley, W.R. 2002. Socioeconomic and environmental issues analysis of oil and gas activity on the outer 

continental shelf of the western Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002-011. 

72 pp. 

Kemp, W.M. 1989. Estuarine seagrasses. In: Day, J.W., Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. YanezArancibia, eds. Estuarine ecology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 558 pp. 

Kendall, J.J. and G. Rainey. 1991. Produced waters: Findings of recent studies in the coastal waters of 

Louisiana; session introduction. In: Geo-Marine, Inc., comp. Proceedings: Eleventh Annual Gulf of 

Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, November 1990. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 91-0040. 

524 pp. 
References Cited 6-35 

Kennedy, C.J., N.J. Gassman, and P.J. Walsh. 1992. The fate of benzo[a]pyrene in the Scleractinian 

corals Favia fragrum and Montastrea annularis. Marine Biology 113:313-318. 

Kennet, J.P. 1982. Marine geology. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 752 pp. 

Kennicutt II, M.C., ed. 1995. Gulf of Mexico offshore operations monitoring experiment, Phase I: 

Sublethal responses to contaminant exposure, final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0045. 

709 pp. 

Kennicutt II, M.C., J.M. Brooks, R.R. Bidigare, R.A. Fay, T.L. Wade and T.J. McDonald. 1985. Vent 

type taxa in a hydrocarbon seep region on the Louisiana slope. Nature (London) 317:351-353. 

Kennicutt II, M.C., J. Sericano, T. Wade, F. Alcazar, and J.M. Brooks. 1987. High-molecular weight 

hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico continental slope sediment. Deep-Sea Research 34:403-424. 

Kennicutt II, M.C., P.N. Boothe, T.L. Wade, S.T. Sweet, R. Rezak, F.J. Kelly, J.M. Brooks, B.J. Presley, 

and D.A. Wiesenburg. 1996. Geochemical patterns in sediments near offshore production platforms. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53: 2554-2566. 

Kenworthy, W.J. and M.S. Fonseca. 1996. Light requirements of seagrasses Halodule wrightii and 

Syringodium filiforme derived from the relationship between diffuse light attenuation and maximum 

depth distribution. Estuaries 19(3):740-750. 

Kenworthy, W.J., M.J. Durako, S.M.R. Fatemy, H. Valavis, and G.W. Thayer. 1993. Ecology of 

seagrasses in northeastern Saudi Arabia one year after the Gulf War spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

27:213-222. 

Kessler, J.D., D.L Valentine, M.C. Redmond, M. Du., E.W. Chan, S.D. Mendes, E.W. Quiroz, 

C.J. Villanueva, S.S. Shusta, L.M. Werra, S.A. Yvon-Lewis, and T.C. Weber. 2011. A persistent 

oxygen anomaly reveals the fat of spilled methane in the deep Gulf of Mexico. Science Express, 

10.1126/science.1199697. Internet website: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/01/05/

science.1199697. Posted January 6, 2011. Accessed January 13, 2011. 

Kilpatrick, A.M., S.L. LaDeau, and P.P. Marra. 2007. Ecology of West Nile virus transmission and its 

impact on birds in the Western Hemisphere. Auk 124:1121-1136. 

King, W.E. 2007. Energy alternatives and the environment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2007-016. 46 pp. 

Kingston, P.F. 1995. The Exxon Valdez and Braer oil spills; a comparison of their impacts on the marine 

environment. Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift Supplement 5:59-72. 

Kingston, P.F., I.M.T. Dixon, S. Hamilton, and D.C. Moore. 1995. The impact of the Braer oil spill on 

the macrobenthic infauna of the sediments off the Shetland Isles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 189:159-

170. 

Klasing, K., R. Donohoe, and J. Yamamoto. 2007. Dietary exposure to naphthalene in the Japanese quail 

(Coturnix coturnix japonica). In: Massey, J.G., ed. Proceedings of the Ninth International Effects of 

Oil on Wildlife Conference, Monterey, California, 2007, University of California at Davis Wildlife 

Health Center. 

Klein, M.L., S.R. Humphrey, and H.F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of 

waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. 

Kleypas, J.A., J.W. McManus, and L.A.B. Meñtz. 1999. Environmental limits to coral reef development: 

Where do we draw the line? American Zoologist 39:146-159. 

Knap, A.H. 1987. Effects of chemically dispersed oil on the brain coral, Diploria strigosa. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 18(3):119-122. 
6-36 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Knap, A.H., J.E. Solbakken, R.E. Dodge, T.D. Sleeter, S.J. Wyers, and K.H. Palmork. 1982. 

Accumulation and elimination of (9-14C) phenanthrene in the reef-building coral (Diploria strigosa). 

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:281-284. 

Knap, A.H., T.D. Sleeter, R.E. Dodge, S.C. Wyers, H.R. Frith, and S.R. Smith. 1983. The effects of oil 

spills and dispersant use on corals: A review and multidisciplinary experimental approach. Oil and 

Petrochemical Pollution 1(3):157-169. 

Knap, A.H., S.C. Wyers, R.E. Dodge, T.D. Sleeter, H.R. Frith, S.R. Smith, and C.B. Cook. 1985. The 

effects of chemically and physically dispersed oil on the brain coral Diploria strigosa (Dana)—a 

summary review. In: Proceedings, 1985 Oil Spill Conference. February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, 

CA. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 547-551. 

Ko, J-Y. 2007. The economic value of ecosystem services provided by the Galveston Bay estuary 

system. A Report Prepared for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Texas A&M 

University, Dept. of Marine Sciences & Center for Texas Beaches and Shores, Galveston, TX. 

Contract Number 582-4-65067. 39 pp. 

Ko, J-Y. and J.W. Day. 2004a. A review of ecological impacts of oil and gas development on coastal 

ecosystems in the Mississippi delta. Ocean and Coastal Management 47(11-12):597-623. 

Ko, J-Y. and J.W. Day. 2004b. Wetlands: Impacts of energy development in the Mississippi Delta. 

Encyclopedia of Energy, Volume 6. Elsevier Inc. Pp. 397-408. Internet website: http://

www.lsu.edu/cei/research_projects/Wetlands_final.pdf. 

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296. 

Kosin, I.L. 1958. Effect of simulated airplane sounds on the reproductive functions of the male domestic 

chicken. Journal of Applied Physiology 12:217-220. 

Kou, W.W. 2010. Direct seismic indicators of gas hydrates in the Walker Ridge and Green Canyon 

Areas, deepwater Gulf of Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Search and 

Discovery Article #80112. Internet website: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2010/

80112kou/ndx_kou.pdf. Posted October 22, 2010.

Krapu, G.L., J.L. Eldridge, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and D.A. Buhl. 2006. Fat dynamics of Arctic-nesting 

sandpipers during spring in mid-continental North America. Auk 123:323-334. 

Krivor, M.C., J. de Bry, N.J. Linville, and D.J. Wells. In press. Archival investigations for potential 

colonial-era shipwrecks in ultra-deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-004. 158 pp. 

Kuhn, N.L., I.A. Mendelssohn, and D.J. Reed. 1999. Altered hydrology effects on Louisiana salt marsh 

function. Wetlands 19:3. 

Kushmaro, A., G. Henning, D.K. Hofmann, and Y. Benayahu. 1997. Metamorphosis of Heteroxenia 

fuscescens Plaunlae (Cnidaria: Octocorallia) is inhibited by crude oil: A novel short term toxicity 

bioassay. Marine Environmental Research 43(4):295-302. 

LA 1 Coalition. 2010a. LA 1 Coalition continues aggressive efforts to fund phase 2 of highway project 

in the wake of Tiger 2 grant results. Press Release. Internet website: http://la1coalition.org/images/

Oct21_10LA1NewsRelease.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

LA 1 Coalition. 2010b. Facts & figures: LA Highway 1. Internet website: http://www.la1coalition.org/

facts.html#4. Accessed May 5, 2011. 

LA Bucket Brigade. 2011. Self-reported health and economic impact survey: An analysis of the 

Deepwater Horizon spill disaster in seven coastal Louisiana parishes. March 3, 2011. http://

www.labucketbrigade.org/article.php?id=718. Accessed July 19, 2011. 
References Cited 6-37 

LaCoast.gov. 2010a. CWPPRA restoration projects. Internet website. http://www.lacoast.gov/projects/

list.asp. Accessed December 13, 2010. 

LaCoast.gov. 2010b. Coastal wetland planning, protection, and restoration act, summary of wetland 

benefit for priority list. Internet website: http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/wva/CWPPRA%20project

%20benefits%202010-03-22.pdf. Posted March 22, 2010. Accessed May 24, 2010. 

LaCoast.gov. 2011. Atchafalaya Basin: Summary of basin plan. Internet website: http://lacoast.gov/

new/About/Basin_data/at/Default.aspx. Accessed January 28, 2011. 

Lack, D.L. 1968. Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. London: Methuen. 409 pp. 

LaDeau, S.L., A.M. Kilpatrick, and P.P. Marra. 2007. West Nile virus emergence and large-scale 

declines of North American bird populations. Nature 447:710-714 and Supplementary Information, 

10 pp. 

Lambert, G., D.B. Peakall, B.J.R. Philogene, and F.R. Engelhardt. 1982. Effect of oil and oil dispersant 

mixtures on the basal metabolic rate of ducks. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology 29:520-524. 

Lange, R. 1985. A 100-ton experimental oil spill at Halten Bank, off Norway. In: Proceedings, 1985 

Oil Spill Conference, February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, CA. Washington, DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. 

Lange, J.L., D.A. Schwartz, B.N. Doebbeling, J.M. Heller, and P.S. Thorne. 2002. Exposures to the 

Kuwait oil fires and their association with asthma and bronchitis among gulf war veterans. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 110(11):1141-1146. 

LeBlanc, D.J. 1985. Environmental and construction techniques involved with the installation of a gas 

pipeline across Timbalier Island, Louisiana. In: Proceedings, Sixth Annual Gulf of Mexico 

Information Transfer Meeting, October 22-24, 1985. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 86-0073. 

Pp. 203-205. 

Lee, M.R. and T.C. Blanchard. 2010. Health impacts of Deepwater Horizon oil disaster on coastal 

Louisiana residents. Louisiana State University, Department of Sociology, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Lee, D.S. and M.L. Moser. 1998. Importance des Sargasses pelagiques pour la recherché alimentaire des 

oiseaux marins. El Pitirre 11(3):111-112. 

Leighton, F.A. 1993. The toxicity of petroleum oils to birds. Environmental Reviews 1:92-103. 

Lewis, J.B. 1971. Effect of crude oil and an oil-spill dispersant on reef corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

2:59-62. 

Lewis, A. and D. Aurand. 1997. Putting dispersants to work: Overcoming obstacles. 1997 International 

Oil Spill Conference. API 4652A. Technical Report IOSC-004. 

LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M University. 1986. Gulf of Mexico 

continental slope study: Annual report, year 2. Volume II: Primary volume. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Office, Metairie, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 86-0090. 220 pp. 

Lin, Q. and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1996. A comparative investigation of the effects of South Louisiana 

Crude on the vegetation of fresh, brackish and salt marshes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32:202-209. 

Lirman, D., G. Deangelo, J. Serafy, A. Hazra, D. Smith Hazra, J. Herlan, J. Lou, S. Bellmund, J. Wang, 

and R. Clausing. 2008. Seasonal changes in the abundance and distribution of submerged aquatic 

vegetation in a highly managed coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia 596:105-120. 

Lissner, A.L., G.L. Taghon, D.R. Diener, S.C. Schroeter, and J.D. Dixon. 1991. Recolonization of deepwater hard-substrate communities: Potential impacts from oil and gas development. Ecological 

Implications 1(3):258-267. 
6-38 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Littler, D.S. and M.M. Littler. 2000. Caribbean reef plants; an identification guide to the reef plants of 

the Caribbean, Bahamas, Florida and Gulf of Mexico. OffShore Graphics Inc., Florida. Pp. 280-290. 

Liu, K-B. and M.L. Fearn. 2000. Holocene history of catastrophic hurricane landfalls along the Gulf of 

Mexico coast reconstructed from coastal lake and marsh sediments. In: Nig, Z.H. and 

K.K. Abdollahi, eds. Current stresses and potential vulnerabilities: Implications of global change for 

the Gulf Coast region of the United States. Baton Rouge, LA: Franklin Press. 

Llacuna, S., A. Gorriz, M. Durfort, and J. Nadal. 1993. Effects of air pollution on passerine birds and 

small mammals. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 24:59-66. 

Lohr, K. 2010. Louisiana Gulf Coast businesses lament losses. National Public Radio. October 13, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130537922. 

Accessed November 12, 2010. 

Long, B.F. and J.H. Vandermuelen. 1983. Geomorphological impact of cleanup of an oiled salt marsh 

(Ile Grande, France). In: Proceedings, 1983 Oil Spill Conference, February 28-March 3, 1983, San 

Antonio, TX. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 501-505. 

Longley, W.L., ed. 1994. Freshwater inflows to Texas bays and estuaries: Ecological relationships and 

methods for determination of needs. Texas Water Development Board and Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, Austin, TX. 386 pp. 

Loren C. Scott & Associates. 2008. The economic impacts of Port Fourchon on the national and Houma 

MSA economies. 31 pp. Internet website: http://www.portfourchon.com/site100-01/1001757/docs/

port_fourchon_economic_impact_study.pdf. 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2006. The 2006 evaluation report 

to the U.S. Congress on the effectiveness of Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration 

Act projects. Submitted by the Chairman of the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Task Force, U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, New 

Orleans, LA. 73 pp. Internet website: http://lacoast.gov/reports/program/CWPPRA%202006%20

Evaluation%20Report.pdf. 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Authority. 1998. Coast 2050: Toward a sustainable coastal Louisiana. Baton Rouge, 

LA: Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources. Internet website: http://www.coast2050.gov/

2050reports.htm. 

Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality. 2004. Louisiana environmental inventory report, 2nd annual 

edition, April 2004. Baton Rouge, LA. 92 pp. 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009. Louisiana is proud to be a hub of industry. 6 pp. Internet 

website: http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/hub-of-business_brochure.pdf. Accessed January 23, 

2011. 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources. 2010. Production information. SONRIS lite. Internet website: 

http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/www_root/sonris_portal_1.htm. Accessed October 6, 2010. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2008a. The impact of Hurricane Gustav on the fisheries 

resources of Louisiana: Preliminary report. September 8, 2008. 4 pp. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2008b. The impact of Hurricane Ike on the fisheries resources 

of Louisiana: Preliminary report. October 2, 2008. 5 pp. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2010. Oyster stock assessment report of the public oyster 

areas in Louisiana. Oyster Data Report Series No. 16. July, 2010. 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. 2010. Impact of President Obama’s order halting 

work on 33 exploratory wells in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Internet website: http://

www.lmoga.com/Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Gulf%20Moratorium.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2010. 
References Cited 6-39 

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). 2008. Dead zone again rivals record size. Press 

Release, July 28, 2008. Internet website: http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/. Accessed May 4, 2009. 

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). 2009. Gulf of Mexico dead zone surprisingly 

small in area, but severe. Press Release, July 24, 2009. Internet website: http://

www.gulfhypoxia.net/Research/Shelfwide%20Cruises/2009/Files/Press_Release.pdf/. Accessed 

August 24, 2009. 

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). 2010a. 2010 Dead zone—one of the largest 

ever. LUMCON News. Internet website: http://www.lumcon.edu/Information/news/default.asp?

XMLFilename=201008021451.xml. Accessed August 10, 2010. 

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). 2010b. 2010 Dead zone area extends to lower 

Texas coast. LUMCON News. Internet website: http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/News/default.asp?

XMLFilename=201008110954.xml. Accessed November 15, 2010. 

Loya, Y. 1975. Possible effects of water pollution on the community structure of Red Sea corals. 

Marine Biology 29:177-185. 

Loya, Y. 1976a. Effects of water turbidity and sedimentation on the community structure of Puerto 

Rican corals. Bulletin of Marine Science 26(4):450-466. 

Loya, Y. 1976b. Recolonization of Red Sea corals affected by natural catastrophes and man-made 

perturbations. Ecology 57:278-289. 

Loya, Y. and B. Rinkevich. 1979. Abortion effect in corals induced by oil pollution. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 1:77-80. 

Lu, L. and R.S.S. Wu. 2006. A field experimental study on recolonization and succession of 

macrobenthic infauna in defaunated sediment contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. Estuarine, 

Coastal and Shelf Science 68:627-634. 

Lubchenco, J.L., M. McNutt, B. Lehr, M. Sogge, M. Miller, S. Hammond, and W. Conner. 2010. BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil budget: What happened to the oil? Internet website: http://

www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/OilBudget_description_%2083final.pdf. Accessed 

September 8, 2010. 

Lugo-Fernandez, A., D.A. Ball, M. Gravois, C. Horrell, and J.B. Irion. 2007. Analysis of the Gulf of 

Mexico’s Veracruz-Havana route of La Flota de la Nueva España. Journal of Maritime Archaeology

2(1):24-47. 

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle 

survival. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC 

Press, Inc. Pp. 387-409. 

Lyons, T.J. and W.D. Scott. 1990. Principles of air pollution meteorology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 

Inc. 225 pp. 

Lytle, J.S. 1975. Fate and effects of crude oil on an estuarine pond. In: Proceedings, Conference on 

Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, San Francisco, CA. Pp. 595-600. 

MacDonald, I.R., ed. 1992. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study literature review and data synthesis, 

northern Gulf of Mexico: Volumes I-III. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 92-0033, 92-0034, and 92-0035. 

25, 218, and 263 pp., respectively. 

MacDonald, I.R., ed. 1998. Stability and change in Gulf of Mexico chemosynthetic communities: 

Interim report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0034. 114 pp. 

MacDonald, I.R., G.S. Boland, J.S. Baker, J.M. Brooks, M.C. Kennicutt II, and R.R. Bidigare. 1989. 

Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon seep communities. II. Spatial distribution of seep organisms and 

hydrocarbons at Bush Hill. Marine Biology 101:235-247. 
6-40 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

MacDonald, I.R., N.L. Guinasso, Jr., J.F. Reilly, J.M. Brooks, W.R. Callender, and S.G. Gabrielle. 1990. 

Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon seep communities. VI. Patterns in community structure and habitat. 

Geo-Marine Letters 10:244-252. 

MacDonald, I.R., N.L. Guinasso Jr., S.G. Ackleson, J.F. Amos, R. Duckworth, R. Sassen, and 

J.M. Brooks. 1993. Natural oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico visible from space. Journal of 

Geophysical Research 98(C9):16,351-16,364. 

MacDonald, I.R., N.L. Guinasso, R. Sassen, J.M. Brooks, S. Lee, and K.T. Scott. 1994. Gas hydrates 

that breach the sea-floor and intersect with the water column on the continental slope of the Gulf of 

Mexico. Geology 22:699-702. 

MacDonald, I.R., W.W. Schroeder, and J.M. Brooks, eds. 1995. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study: 

Final report. Volume 2: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0022. 319 pp. 

MacDonald, I.R., J.F. Reilly Jr., W.E. Best, R. Vnkataramaiah, R. Sassen, N.S. Guinasso Jr., and J. Amos. 

1996. Remote sensing inventory of active oil seeps and chemosynthetic communities in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. In: Schumacher, D. and M.A. Abrams, eds. Hydrocarbon migration and its nearsurface expression. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 66:27-37. 

Mackar, R. 2010. NIH to launch Gulf oil spill health study. Environmental Factor: Your online source 

for NIEHS news. Internet website: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2010/october/

spotlight-launch.cfm. Accessed October 2010. 

Madge, S. and H. Burn. 1988. Waterfowl: An identification guide to the ducks, geese, and swans of the 

world. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 298 pp. 

Magill, K. 2010. Local jobless rate remains lowest in La. Internet website: http://

www.houmatoday.com/article/20101123/ARTICLES/101129790. Accessed December 8, 2010. 

Maiaro, J.L. 2007. Disturbance effects on nekton communities of seagrasses and bare substrates in 

Biloxi Marsh, Louisiana. Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 78 pp. 

Internet website: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07032007-101237/unrestricted/

Maiaro_thesis.pdf. 

Mallman, E.P. and M.D. Zoback. 2007. Subsidence in the Louisiana coastal zone due to hydrocarbon 

production. Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium, Journal of Coastal Research SI 

50:443–449. Gold Coast, Australia. Internet website: http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/

ics2007/pdf/ICS085.pdf. 

Malme, C.I., P.W. Smith, and P.R. Miles. 1986. Characterization of geophysical acoustic survey sounds. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Mineral Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, Los Angeles, CA. 

OCS Study MMS 86-0032. 92 pp. 

Manville II, A.M. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, and wind 

turbines: State of the art and state of the science—next steps toward mitigation. In: Ralph, C.J. and 

T.D. Rich, eds. Bird conservation implementation in the Americas: Proceedings of the 3rd 

International Partners in Flight Conference, 2002. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. 

Pp. 1051-1064. 

Manzella, S., J. Williams, B. Schroeder, and W. Teas. 2001. Juvenile head-started Kemp’s ridleys found 

in floating grass mats. Marine Turtle Newsletter 52:5-6. 

Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC). 2010a. New oil spill containment system to protect Gulf 

of Mexico planned by major oil companies. Press Release, July 21, 2010. Internet website: http://

marinewellcontainment.com/press.php?pressid=1. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC). 2010b. ExxonMobil announces equipment for industry 

use through Marine Well Containment Company. Press Release, September 20, 2010. Internet 

website: http://www.marinewellcontainment.com/pdfs/
References Cited 6-41 

MWCC_Early_Response_Equipment_PR_092010_Issued%20092010.pdf. Accessed December 27, 

2010. 

Marshall, P.A. 2000. Skeletal damage in reef corals: Relating resistance to colony morphology. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 200:177-189. 

Marszalek, D.S. 1981. Impact of dredging on a subtropical reef community, southeast Florida, USA. In: 

Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium. Volume 1. May 18-22, 1981. 

Manila, Philippines. 

Martin, R.P. 1991. Regional overview of wading birds in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In: 

Proceedings of the Coastal Nongame Workshop. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 4, and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Pp. 22-33. 

Martin, R.P. and G.D. Lester. 1991. Atlas and census of wading bird and seabird nesting colonies in 

Louisiana: 1990. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 

Special Publication No. 3. 

Mason, J. 2010. The economic cost of a moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration to the Gulf 

region. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. 2005. A framework for offshore wind energy development in 

the United States. With the U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and GE 

Energy. 30 pp. Internet website: http://www.masstech.org/offshore/final_09_20.pdf. 

Matkin, C.O., E.L. Saulitis, G.M. Ellis, P. Olesiuk, and S.D. Rice. 2008. Ongoing population-level 

impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the “Exxon Valdez” oil spill in Prince William 

Sound, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 356:269-281. 

Matthews, T. and B. Cameron, Jr., 2010. OCS regulatory framework for the Gulf of Mexico region. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Report MMS 2010-019. 24 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/

2010/2010-019.pdf. 

Maze-Foley, K. and K.D. Mullin. 2006. Cetaceans of the oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico: 

Distributions, group sizes and interspecific associations. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8(2):203-213. 

McAuliffe, C.D. 1987. Organism exposure to volatile soluble hydrocarbons from crude oil spills—a 

field and laboratory comparison. In: Proceedings, 1987 Oil Spill Conference . . . April 6-9, 1988, 

Baltimore, MD. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 275-288. 

McAuliffe, C.D., A.E. Smalley, R.D. Groover, W.M. Welsh, W.S. Pickle, and G.E. Jones. 1975. 

Chevron Main Pass Block 41 oil spill: Chemical and biological investigation. In: Proceedings, 1975 

Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco, CA. 

Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

McAuliffe, C.D., B.L. Steelman, W.L. Leek, D.E. Fitzgerald, J.P. Ray, and C.D. Baker. 1981a. The 

1979 southern California dispersant treated research oil spills. In: Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill 

Conference . . . March 2-5, 1981, Atlanta, GA. Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Pp. 269-282. 

McAuliffe, C.D., G.P. Canevari, T.D. Searl, J.C. Johnson, and S.H. Greene. 1981b. The dispersion and 

weathering of chemically treated crude oils on the sea surface. In: Petroleum and the Marine 

Environment. Proceedings of Petromar ’80. London: Graham and Trotman Ltd. 

McCauley, R.D. and R.C. Harrel. 1981. Effects of oil spill cleanup techniques on a salt marsh. In: 

Proceedings, 1981 Oil Spill Conference . . . March 2-5, 1981, Atlanta, GA. Washington, DC: 

American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 401-407. 

McConnaughey, R.A., K.L. Mier, and C.B. Dew. 2000. An examination of chronic trawling effects on 

soft-bottom benthos of the eastern Bering Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:1377-1388. 
6-42 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

McCoy, M. and J. Salerno. 2010. Assessing the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on human 

health—workshop summary. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Pp. 43-74. 

McDonald, S.J., K.L. Willett, J. Thomsen, K.B. Beatty, K. Connor, T.R. Narasimhan, C.M. Erikson, and 

S.H. Safe. 1996. Sublethal detoxification responses to contaminant exposure associated with 

offshore production platforms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2606-2617. 

McGinnis, M.V., L. Fernandez, C. Pomeroy, S. Hitz, and C. Navarro. 2001. The politics, economics, 

and ecology of decommissioning offshore oil and gas structures. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA. OCS Study MMS 2001-006. 98 pp. 

McGrattan, K.B., W.D. Walton, A.D. Putorti Jr., W.H. Twilley, J.A. McElroy, and D.D. Evans. 1995. 

Smoke plume trajectory from in situ burning of crude oil in Alaska—field experiments. In: 

Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oil spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, 

Vol. 2, June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 

McGrail, D. 1982. Water and sediment dynamics at the Flower Garden Banks. In: Norman, R., ed. 

Environmental studies at the Flower Gardens and selected banks: Northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 

1979-1981. Executive summary. Technical Report No. 82-8-T. Pp. 27-29. 

McIlgorm, A., H.F. Campbell, and M.J. Rule. 2009. Understanding the economic benefits and costs of 

controlling marine debris in the APEC region (MRC 02/2007). A report to the Asia-Pacific 

Economic Cooperation, Marine Resource Conservation Working Group by the National Marine 

Science Centre (University of New England and Southern Cross University). Coffs Harbour, NSW, 

Australia. APEC#209-MR-01.3. 95 pp. 

McKeithen, M.A. 2007. Testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: Hearing on oil 

and gas resources on the outer continental shelf and areas available for leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, 

January 25, 2007. Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Office of Mineral Resources. Internet 

website: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/MarjoriesTestimonyFinal2.doc. Accessed 

February 16, 2011. 

McLaughlin, S.L. 1995. Roots, relics, and recovery: What went wrong with the Abandoned Shipwreck 

Act of 1987. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 19(3):149-198. 

MCS Advanced Subsea Engineering. 2010. Risk analysis of using a surface BOP. Prepared for the 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 640. 113 pp. + apps. 

Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/640/aa.pdf. 

McTigue, T.A. and R.J. Zimmerman. 1998. Use of infauna by juvenile Panaeus aztecus Ives and 

Panaeus setiferus (Linnaeus). Estuaries 21(1):160-175. 

Meckel, T.A., U.S. tenBrink, and S.J. Williams. 2006. Current subsidence rates due to compaction of 

Holocene sediments in southern Louisiana. Geophysical Research Letters Volume 33, L11403. 

Internet website: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026300.shtml. 

Melendez, J., J.J. Schubert, and M. Amani. 2006. Risk assessment of surface vs. subsurface BOPs on 

mobile offshore drilling units. Final project report prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service under the MMS/OTRC Cooperative Research Agreement 1435-01-04-

CA-35515. TA&R Project 540. 103 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/540/

aa.pdf. 

Meltzer, D.J., D.K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A.W. Barker, D.F. Dincauze, C.V. Hanes, F. Mina, L. Nunez, and 

D.J. Stanford. 1997. On the Pleistocene antiquity of Monte Verde, Chile. American Antiquity 

62(4):659-663. 

Memphis State University. 1971. Effects of noise on wildlife and other animals. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, DC, 

under contract number 68-04-0024. 

Mendelssohn, I.A. and M.W. Hester. 1988. Texaco USA: Coastal vegetation project, Timbalier Island. 

New Orleans, LA: Texaco USA. 207 pp. 
References Cited 6-43 

Mendelssohn, I.A., M.W. Hester, C. Sausser, and M. Fishel. 1990. The effect of a Louisiana crude oil 

discharge from a pipeline break on the vegetation of a southeast Louisiana brackish marsh. Oil and 

Chemical Pollution 7:1-15. 

Mendelssohn, I.A., M.W. Hester, and J.M. Hill. 1993. Effects of oil spills on coastal wetlands and their 

recovery. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 93-0045. 46 pp. 

Menzies, R.J., R.Y. George, and G.T. Rowe. 1973. Abyssal environment and ecology of the world 

oceans. Wiley-Interscience. 488 pp. 

Meo, S.A. 2009. Effect of duration of exposure to polluted air environment on lung function in subjects 

exposed to crude oil spill into sea water. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and 

Environmental Health 22(1):35-41. 

Meylan, A.B. and M. Donnelly. 1999. Status justification for listing the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) as critically endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of threatened animals. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology 3(2):200-204. 

Meylan, A. and D. Ehrenfeld. 2000. Conservation of marine turtles. In: Klemens, M.K., ed. Turtle 

conservation. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp. 96-125. 

Michel, J. 1992. Chapter 2. Oil behavior and toxicity. In: Hayes, M.O., R. Hoff, J. Michel, D. Scholz, 

and G. Shigenaka. An introduction to coastal habitats and biological resources for oil spill response. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and 

Restoration. NOAA Report No. HMRAD 92-4. Pp. 2-1 through 2-9. Internet website: http://

response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/678_Chapter2.pdf. 

Michot, T.C., C.W. Jeske, J.C. Mazourek, W.G. Vermillion, R.S. Kemmerer, and D. Baker. 2003. Atlas 

and census of wading bird and seabird nesting colonies in South Louisiana, 2001. BaratariaTerrebonne National Estuary Program Report No. 32. Thibodaux, LA. 93 pp. 

Mikuska, T., J.A. Kushlan, and S. Hartley. 1998. Key areas for wintering North American herons. 

Colonial Waterbirds 21:125-134. 

Miller, B.K. and W.R. Fontenot. 2001. Birds of the Gulf Coast. Louisiana University Press, Baton 

Rouge. 132 pp. 

Mills, M. 1992. Alaska sport fishing in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Special Report to the 

Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division. 182 pp. 

Mississippi Press. 2007. Sees salt dome as worst disaster since Katrina. News article. Internet website: 

http://www.gulflive.com/opinion/mississippipress/index.ssf?/base/opinion/119538457290590.xml. 

Accessed November 19, 2007. 

Mitchell, R. and I. Chet. 1975. Bacterial attack of corals in polluted seawater. Microbial Ecology 

2:227-233. 

Mitchell, R., I.R. MacDonald, and K.A. Kvenvolden. 1999. Estimation of total hydrocarbon seepage into 

the Gulf of Mexico based on satellite remote sensing images. Transactions, American Geophysical 

Union 80(49), Ocean Sciences Meeting, OS242. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 

Montagna, P.A. and D.E. Harper, Jr. 1996. Benthic infaunal long-term response to offshore production 

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2567-2588. 

Montagna, P.A. and J. Li. 1997. Modeling contaminant effects on deposit feeding nematodes near Gulf 

of Mexico production platforms. Ecological Modeling 98:151-162. 

Moore, S.F. 1976. Offshore oil spills and the marine environment. Technology Review 61-67. 

Moore, J.J. 2006. State of the marine environment in SW Wales, 10 years after the Sea Empress oil spill. 

Prepared for Countryside Council for Wales. Marine Monitoring Report No. 21. 
6-44 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Moore, D.R. and H.R. Bullis, Jr. 1960. A deep-water coral reef in the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 10(1):125-128. 

Moore, S.F. and R.L. Dwyer. 1974. Effects of oil on marine organisms: A critical assessment of 

published data. Water Research 8:819-827. 

Moridis, G.J., T.S. Collett, R. Boswell, M. Kurihara, M.T. Reagan, C. Koh, and E.D. Sloan. 2008. 

Toward production from gas hydrates: Current status, assessment of resources, and simulation-based 

evaluation of technology and potential. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Unconventional Reservoirs 

Conference, Keystone, CO, February 10-12, 2008. 43 pp. Internet website: http://

www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/Hydrates/reports/G308_SPE114163_Feb08.pdf. 

Morita A., Y. Kusaka, Y. Deguchi, A. Moriuchi, Y. Nakanaga, M. Iki, S. Miyazaki, and K. Kawahara. 

1999. Acute health problems among the people engaged in the cleanup of the Nakhodka oil spill. 

Environmental Research 91:185-194.

Morrison, R.I.G. 1984. Migration systems of some New World shorebirds. In: Burger, J. and B.L. Olla, 

eds. Shorebirds: Migration and foraging behavior. Behavior of marine animals. Current 

Perspectives in Research 6:125-206. 

Morrison, R.I.G., R.E. Gill, Jr., B.A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and 

S.M. Haig. 2000. Population estimates of Nearctic shorebirds. Waterbirds 23:337-352. 

Morrison, R.I.G., R.E. Gill, Jr., B.A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and 

S.M. Haig. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Canadian Wildlife Service 

Occasional Paper No. 104, Ottawa, Ontario. 

Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen, S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and 

B.A. Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North American shorebirds. Wader Study Group 

Bulletin 111:67-85. 

Morton, R.A. 1982. Effects of coastal structures on shoreline stabilization and land loss—the Texas 

experience. In: Boesch, D.F., ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Erosion and Wetland 

Modification in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Options. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-82/59. 

Morton, R.A. 2003. An overview of coastal land loss: With emphasis on the southeastern United States. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open-File Report 03-337. 

Morton, R.A., N. Buster, and M. Krohn. 2002. Subsurface controls on historical subsidence rates and 

associated wetland loss in south-central Louisiana. Transactions Gulf Coast Association of 

Geological Societies 52:767-778. 

Morton R.A., T.L. Miller, and L.J. Moore. 2004. Historical shoreline changes along the US Gulf of 

Mexico: A summary of recent shoreline. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open 

File-Report 2004-1089. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1043/ofr-2004-1043.pdf. 

Accessed February 2011. 

Morton, R.A., J.C. Bernier, J.A. Barras, and N.F. Ferina. 2005. Rapid subsidence and historical wetland 

loss in the Mississippi Delta plain: Likely causes and future implications. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2005-1216. 116 pp. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/

2005/1216/ofr-2005-1216.pdf. 

Mosier, A.E. 1998. The impact of coastal armoring structures on sea turtle nesting behavior at three 

beaches on the East Coast of Florida. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of South Florida, 

St. Petersburg, FL. 112 pp. 

Moulton, D.W., T.E. Dahl, and D.M. Dall. 1997. Texas coastal wetlands. Status and trends mid 1955 to 

early 1990’s. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region. 

Muller-Karger, F.E., F. Vukovich, R. Leben, B. Nababan, C. Hu, and D. Myhre. 2001. Surface 

circulation and the transport of the Loop Current into the northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Final report. 
References Cited 6-45 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-102. 39 pp. 

Mullin, K.D. and G.L. Fulling. 2004. Abundance of cetaceans in the oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico, 

1996-2001. Marine Mammal Science 20:787-807. 

Mullin, K.D. and W. Hoggard. 2000. Visual surveys of cetaceans and sea turtles from aircraft and ships; 

Chapter 4. In: Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig, eds. Cetaceans, sea turtles and birds in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume II: Technical 

report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

USGS/BRD/CR-1999-005 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-003. 364 pp. 

Murray, S.P. 1998. An observational study of the Mississippi/Atchafalaya coastal plume: Final report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0040. 513 pp. 

Murray, S.P. and J. Donley. 1996. Mississippi River plume hydrography: Second annual report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 96-0022. 175 pp. 

Murtaugh, J. 2010. Short-term spill impacts leave both winners and losers. Internet website: http://

blog.al.com/press-register-business/2010/11/short_term_spill_impacts_leave.html. Published 

November 14, 2010. Accessed June 14, 2011. 

Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. In: Lutz, 

P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 137-163. 

Nalco. 2010. Oil dispersant expert testimony. Internet website. http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/

4259.htm. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE). 2003. Standard material requirements—methods 

for sulfide stress cracking and stress corrosion cracking resistance in sour oilfield environments. 

National Association of Corrosion Engineers. ANSI/NACE MR1075-2003. 44 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/detail?doc_no=NACE%7CMR0175_2003&product_id=1082002. 

National Geographic Society. 1999. Field guide to the birds of North America, third edition. 

Washington, DC: National Geographic. 480 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1983. Drilling discharges in the marine environment. Panel on 

Assessment of Fates and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings in the Marine Environment. Marine 

Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Pp. 18-21. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1985. Oil in the sea—inputs, fates and effects. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 601 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Using oil spill dispersants on the sea. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 335 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1990. Decline of the sea turtles: Causes and prevention. Committee 

on Sea Turtle Conservation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 280 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Effects of trawling & dredging on seafloor habitat. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 136 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Oil in the sea III: Inputs, fates, and effects (Committee on Oil 

in the Sea: J.N. Coleman, J. Baker, C. Cooper, M. Fingas, G. Hunt, K. Kvenvolden, J. McDowell, 

J. Michel, K. Michel, J. Phinney, N. Rabalais, L. Roesner, and R.B. Spies). Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 265 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Oil spill dispersants: Efficacy and effects. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 377 pp. 
6-46 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

National Research Council (NRC). 2006. Review of recreational fisheries survey methods. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 202 pp. 

National Response Team. 2010. Oil spill response strategies for coastal marshes during the Deepwater 

Horizon MC252 spill. 10 pp. Internet website: http://www.nrt.org/Production/NRT/NRTWeb.nsf/

AllAttachmentsByTitle/SA-1061NRT_Marsh_Cleanup_Options_DWH.06032010.pdf/$File/

NRT_marsh_cleanup_overview_6-15.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed December 23, 2010. 

National Wetlands Inventory Group. 1985. Status and trends of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the 

conterminous United States, 1950’s to 1970’s. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 50:440-448. 

Natural Resources Defense Council. 2010. Gulf Coast seafood consumption survey. Internet website: 

http://docs.nrdc.org/health/files/hea_10120702a.pdf. 7 pp. 

NaturalGas.org. 2010a. Offshore drilling. Internet website. http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/

extraction_offshore.asp. Accessed December 21, 2010. 

NaturalGas.org. 2010b. Background. Internet website: http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/

background.asp. Accessed August 25, 2010. 

Navarro, K., S. Janssen, T. Nordbrock, and G. Solomon. 2011. Health alert: Disease clusters spotlight 

the need to protect people from toxic chemicals. Natural Resources Defense Council and National 

Disease Clusters Alliance. 28 pp. Internet website: http://www.nrdc.org/health/diseaseclusters/files/

diseaseclusters_issuepaper.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2011. 

Neal Adams Firefighters Inc. 1991. Joint industry program for floating vessel blowout control. Prepared 

for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 150. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/150/150AA.pdf. 

Neff, J.M. 1990. Composition and fate of petroleum and spill-treating agents in the marine environment. 

In: Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press, Inc. Pp. 1-33. 

Neff, J.M. 2005. Composition, environmental fates, and biological effects of water based drilling muds 

and cuttings discharged to the marine environment: A synthesis and annotated bibliography. 

Prepared for the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum and American Petroleum Institute. 

Duxbury, MA: Battelle. 83 pp. Internet website: http://www.perf.org/pdf/APIPERFreport.pdf. 

Neff, J.M. and T.C. Sauer, Jr. 1991. Review: Findings of the American Petroleum Institute study on 

produced waters. In: Geo-Marine, Inc. Proceedings: Eleventh Annual Gulf of Mexico Information 

Transfer Meeting. November, 1990. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 91-0040. 524 pp. 

Neff, J.M., T.C. Sauer, and N. Maciolek. 1989. Fate and effects of produced water discharges in 

nearshore marine waters. Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. 

Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic-based drilling 

fluids. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-064. 118 pp. 

Nelson, H.F. and E.E. Bray. 1970. Stratigraphy and history of the Holocene sediments in the SabineHigh Island Area, Gulf of Mexico. In: Morgam, J.P., ed. Deltaic sedimentation; modern and 

ancient. Special Publn. No. 15. Tulsa, OK: SEPM. 

Nelson, D.L. and M.M. Cox. 2008. Lehringer principles of biochemistry, fifth edition. W.H. Freeman. 

1,100 pp. 

Netto, S.A., F. Gallucci, and G. Fonseca. 2009. Deep-sea meiofauna response to synthetic-based drilling 

mud discharge off SE Brazil. Deep-Sea Research II 56:41-49. 

Newby, R. 2007. Texas shoreline change from GLO LIDAR: Elevation change in Jefferson County 

from 2001-2005. The Texas General Land Office, Austin, TX. 
References Cited 6-47 

Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, and D.R. Hitchcock. 1998. The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: 

A review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the 

seabed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 36:127-178. 

Newman, J.R. 1977. Sensitivity of the hose martin (Delichon urbica) to fluoride emissions. Fluoride 

10:73-76. 

Newman, J.R. 1980. Effects of air emissions on wildlife resources. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, National Power Plant Team. FWS/OBS-80/40.1. 

32 pp. 

Newman, S.H., A. Chmura, K. Converse, A.M. Kilpatrick, N. Patel, E. Lammers, and P. Daszak. 2007. 

Aquatic bird disease and mortality as an indicator of changing ecosystem health. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 352:299-309. 

Nicholls, J.L. and G.A. Baldassarre. 1990. Habitat associations of piping plovers wintering in the United 

States. Wilson Bulletin 102:581-590. 

Nicol, J.A.C., W.H. Donahue, R.T. Wang, and K. Winters. 1977. Chemical composition and effects of 

water extracts of petroleum and eggs of the sand dollar Melitta quinquiesperforata. Marine Biology 

40:309-316. 

Nisbet, I.C.T. 2000. Disturbance, habituation, and management of waterbird colonies. Waterbirds 

23:312-332. 

Nolan, B. 2010. Family business knocked to its knees by oil spill, moratorium. Internet website: http://

www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/09/family_business_knocked_to_its.html. 

Accessed December 12, 2010. 

Nolan, B. and A. Good. 2010. Moratorium in wake of Gulf oil spill idles much more than rigs, workers. 

Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/

moratorium_in_wake_of_gulf_oil.html. Accessed July 6, 2010. 

Norris, F.H., S.P. Stevens, B. Pfefferbaum, K.F. Wyche, and R. L. Pfefferbaum. 2008. Community 

resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American 

Journal of Community Psychology 41:127-150. 

Nowlin, W.D., Jr. 1972. Winter circulation patterns and property distributions. In: Capurro, L.R.A. and 

J.L. Reid, eds. Contributions on the physical oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M 

University Oceanographic Studies, Vol. 2. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co. Pp. 3-51. 

Nowlin, W.D., Jr., A.E. Jochens, R.O. Reid, and S.F. DiMarco. 1998. Texas-Louisiana shelf circulation 

and transport processes study: Synthesis report. Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 98-0035. 502 pp. 

Nudds, T.D. 1983. Niche dynamics and organization of waterfowl guilds in variable environments. 

Ecology 64:319-330. 

Nudds, T.D. 1992. Patterns in breeding waterfowl communities. In: Afton, A.D., M.G. Anderson, 

C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of 

breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Pp. 540-547. 

OBIS-SEAMAP. 2009. State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT): Nesting sites. Internet website: 

http://seamap.env.duke.edu/swot. Accessed July 12, 2011. 

Ocean Conservancy. 2011. Tracking trash: 25 years of action for the ocean. 43 pp. Internet website: 

http://act.oceanconservancy.org/pdf/Marine_Debris_2011_Report_OC.pdf. 

Odess, D. 2010. Official communication. Teleconference regarding Section 106 in relation to response 

to the oil spill. 
6-48 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

offshoreWIND.biz. 2010. Japan plans to build 1,000MW offshore wind power by 2020. Internet 

website: http://www.offshorewind.biz/2010/05/10/japan-plans-to-build-1000mw-offshore-windpower-by-2020/. Posted May 10, 2010. Accessed March 24, 2011. 

Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and sub-adult Kemp’s ridley sea turtle: Preliminary results 

from 1984-1987 surveys. In: Caillouet, C.W. and A.M. Landry, eds. First International Symposium 

on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Texas A&M University; 

Galveston, TX, October 1-4, 1985. TAMU-SG-89-105. Pp. 116-123. 

O’Hara, P.D. and L.A. Morandin. 2010. Effects of sheens associated with offshore oil and gas 

development on the feather microstructure of pelagic seabirds. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:672-678. 

Oil and Gas Journal. 2009. BP finds oil in multiple Lower Tertiary reservoirs. Internet website: http://

www.ogfj.com/index/article-display/5015598529/articles/oil-gas-financial-journal/volume-6/

Issue_10/Upstream_News/BP_finds_oil_in_multiple_Lower_Tertiary_reservoirs.html. Posted 

October 1, 2009. Accessed January 11, 2011. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2011a. Response/clean-up technology research & development and the BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Staff Working Paper No. 7. National Commission on the BP 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Originally released November 22, 2010; updated 

January 11, 2011. 28 pp. Internet website: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/

documents/Updated%20Response%20RD%20Working%20Paper.pdf. Accessed February 11, 2011. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2011b. Stopping the spill: The five-month effort to kill the Macondo well. Staff 

Working Paper No. 6. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 

Drilling. Internet website: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Updated

%20Containment%20Working%20Paper.pdf. Posted November 22, 2010. Updated January 11, 

2011. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2011c. Deepwater – The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling. Final 

report to the President. Released January 11, 2011. Internet website: http://

www.oilspillcommission.gov/final-report. Accessed March 10, 2011. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2011d. The use of surface and subsea dispersants during the BP Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. Staff Working Paper No. 4., Updated January 11, 2011. Internet website: http://

www.oilspillcommission.gov/resources#staff-working-papers. Accessed March 10, 2011. 

O’Keefe, D.J. and G.A. Young. 1984. Handbook on the environmental effects of underwater explosives. 

U.S. Dept. of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA, and Silver Spring, MD. 

NSWC TR 83-240. 

Okuyama, H., Y. Majima, A.M. Dannenberg, Jr., M. Suga, B.G. Bang, and F.B. Bang. 1979. 

Quantitative histological changes produced in the tracheal mucosa of young chickens by the 

inhalation of sulfur dioxide in low concentrations. Journal of Environmental Science and Health 

C13:267-300. 

Olsen, K.M. and H. Larsson. 1995. Terns of Europe and North America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 175 pp. 

Olsen, K.M. and H. Larsson. 1997. Skuas and jaegers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 190 pp. 

Onuf, C.P. 1994. Seagrasses, dredging and light in Laguna Madre, Texas, U.S.A. Estuarine Coastal 

Shelf Science 39:75-91. 

Onuf, C.P. 1996. Biomass patterns in seagrass meadows of the Laguna Madre, Texas. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 58(2):404-420. 

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT). 2010. Summary report for sub-sea and sub-surface oil and 

dispersant detection: sampling and monitoring. Prepared for Paul F. Zunkuft, RADM, U.S. Coast 

Guard. Federal On-Scene Coordinator. Deepwater Horizon MC 252. December 17, 2010. 
References Cited 6-49 

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT-2). 2011. Summary report for fate and effects of remnant 

oil in the beach environment. Operational Science Team (OSAT-2), Gulf Coast Incident 

Management Team. Prepared for Lincoln H. Stroh, CAPT, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator, Deepwater Horizon MC 252. February 10, 2011. 35 pp. Internet website: http://

www.dep.state.fl.us/deepwaterhorizon/files2/osat_2_report__10feb.pdf. 

Orth, R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, Jr., 

A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F.T. Short, M. Waycott, and 

S.L. Williams. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56(12):987-996. 

Osenberg, C.W., R.J. Schmitt, S.J. Holbrook, and D. Canestro. 1992. Spatial scale of ecological effects 

associated with and open coast discharge of produced water. In: Ray, J.P. and F.R. Englehardt, eds. 

Produced water: Technological/environmental issues and solutions. New York, NY: Plenum Press. 

Pp. 387-402. 

Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Prepared for the U.S. Travel 

Association. 27 pp. Internet website: http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/

Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pdf. 

Oynes, C. 2006. Deepwater expansion continues in the Gulf of Mexico. Pipeline & Gas Journal 

231(6):58. 

Pack, W. 2010. Oil spill may benefit Texas. My San Antonio Business. Internet website: http://

www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Oil-spill-may-benefit-Texas-794644.php. Accessed May 25, 

2010. 

Palinkas, L.A., A.J. Russell, M.A. Downs, and J.S. Petterson. 1992. Ethnic-differences in stress, coping, 

and depressive symptoms after the Exxon Valdez oil-spill. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 

180:287-295. 

Palka, D. and M. Johnson, eds. 2007. Cooperative research to study dive patterns of sperm whales in the 

Atlantic Ocean. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-033. 49 pp. 

Parker, P.L., G.P. Pfeiffer, R.E. Casey, C.S. Giam, J.S. Holland, E.T. Park, B.J. Presley, W.M. Sackett, 

N.P. Smith, C. Van Baalen, and D.E. Wohlschlang. 1975. Environmental assessment of the south 

Texas outer continental shelf. Chemical and biological survey component. Report to the U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Contract no. 08550-CT5-17. 

Parker, R.O., Jr., D.R. Colby, and T.P. Willis. 1983. Estimated amount of reef habitat on a portion of the 

U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. Bulletin of Marine Science 33:935-940. 

Parnell, J.F., D.G. Ainley, H. Blokpoel, G. Cain, T.W. Custer, J.L. Dusi, S. Kress, J.A. Kushlan, 

W.E. Southern, L.E. Stenzel, and B.C. Thompson. 1988. Colonial waterbird management in North 

America. Journal of the Colonial Waterbird Society 11:129-169. 

Parr, A.E. 1939. Quantitative observations on pelagic Sargassum vegetation of the western North 

Atlantic. Bull. Bingham Oceanog. Coll. 6:1-94 

Parsons, J.J. 1972. The hawksbill turtle and the tortoise shell trade. In: Études de géographie tropicale 

offertes a Pierre Gourou. Paris, France: Mouton. Pp. 45-60. 

Parsons, K.C. 1994. The Arthur Kill oil spills: Biological effects in birds. In: Burger, J., ed. Before 

and after an oil spill: The Arthur Kill. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Pp. 215-237.

Parsons, G. and A. Kang. 2007. Valuing beach closures on the Padre Island National Seashore. 

University of Delaware, Graduate College of Marine Studies. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA 

Grant Number NA04NOS4190063. Project Number 06-090. 31 pp. 

Pashley, D.N. 1991. Shorebirds, gulls, and terns: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama. In: Proceedings of 

the Coastal Nongame Workshop. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, and 

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Pp. 79-83. 
6-50 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Patin, S.A. 1999. Environmental impact of the offshore oil and gas industry. East Northpoint, NY: 

EcoMonitor Publishing. Pp. 425. 

Patrick, S.R., D.R. Patrick, and S.W. Fardo. 1993. Energy conservation guidebook. Lilburn, GA: The 

Fairmont Press, Inc. 471 pp. Internet website: http://books.google.com/books?id=f45IIzt4DCIC&pg

=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=ship,+%22discharge+water+temperature%22&source=bl&ots=

CEHy0wpaMz&sig=BZam0pB-2mDwo4vO5zGM9jBsQWY&hl=en&ei=nMEpTYnqJsSBlAf_-

7joAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=

false. Accessed January 10, 2011. 

Pattengill, C.V. 1998. The structure and persistence of reef fish assemblages of the Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 

Paull, C.K., B. Hecker, R. Commeau, R.P Freeman-Lynde, C. Neumann, W.P. Corso, S. Golubic, 

J.E. Hook, E. Sikes, and J. Curry. 1984. Biological communities at the Florida Escarpment resemble 

hydrothermal vent taxa. Science 226:965-967. 

PCCI Marine and Environmental Engineering. 1999. Oil spill containment, remote sensing and tracking 

for deepwater blowouts: status of existing and emerging technologies. Report prepared for the U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 311. 66 pp. + apps. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/311/311AA.pdf. 

Peakall, D.B., P.G. Wells, and D. Mackay. 1987. A hazard assessment of chemically dispersed oil spills 

and seabirds. Marine Environmental Research 22:91-106. 

Peakall, D.B., R.J. Norstrom, D.A. Jeffrey, and F.A. Leighton. 1989. Induction of hepatic mixed 

function oxidases in the herring gull (Larus argentatus) by Prudhoe Bay crude oil and its fractions. 

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 94C:461-463. 

Peake, D., G. Fargion, K. Mullen, and R. Pitman. 1995. Seabirds of the northwestern and central Gulf of 

Mexico. In: Abstracts of the Joint Meeting of the Wilson Ornithological Society and Virginia 

Society of Ornithology, Virginia, 4-7 May, 1995. 

Pearson, C.E., D.B. Kelley, R.A. Weinstein, and S.W. Gagliano. 1986. Archaeological investigations on 

the outer continental shelf: A study within the Sabine River valley, offshore Louisiana and Texas. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Reston, VA. OCS Study MMS 86-0119. 

314 pp. 

Pearson, C.E., S.R. James, Jr., M.C. Krivor, S.D. El Darragi, and L. Cunningham. 2003. Refining and 

revising the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf region high-probability model for historic 

shipwrecks: Final report. Volume I-III. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-060, 2003-061, and 

2003-062. 13, 338, and 138 pp., respectively. 

Peele, R.H., J.I. Snead, and W. Feng. 2002. Outer continental shelf pipelines crossing the Louisiana 

coastal zone: A geographic information system approach. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region OCS Study, New Orleans LA. MMS 2002-038. 24 pp. 

Penland, S., L. Wayne, L.D. Britsch, S.J. Williams, A.D. Beall, and V. Caridas Butterworth. 2001a. 

Geomorphic classification of coastal land loss between 1932 and 1990 in the Mississippi River Delta 

Plain, southeastern Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine 

Geology Program, Woods Hole Field Center, Woods Hole, MA. Open-File Report 00-417. 

Penland, S., L. Wayne, L.D. Britsch, S.J. Williams, A.D. Beall, and V. Caridas Butterworth. 2001b. 

Process classification of coastal land loss between 1932 and 1990 in the Mississippi River Delta 

Plain, southeastern Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine 

Geology Program, Woods Hole Field Center, Woods Hole, MA. Open-File Report 00-418. 

Penn State. 2010. Scientists discover dying corals, creatures near Gulf oil spill site. Press Release, 

November 5, 2010. Internet website: http://live.psu.edu/story/49703. Accessed November 30, 2010. 
References Cited 6-51 

Pequegnat, W.E. 1983. The ecological communities of the continental slope and adjacent regimes of the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. Prepared by TerEco Corp. for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 398 pp. 

Pequegnat, W.E., B.J. Gallaway, and L. Pequegnat. 1990. Aspects of the ecology of the deepwater fauna 

of the Gulf of Mexico. American Zoologist 30:45-64. 

Perez, C., A. Velando, I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonzo, and D. Oro. 2008. Monitoring polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon pollution in the marine environment after the Prestige oil spill by means of seabird 

blood analysis. Environmental Science and Technology 42:707-713. 

Perez, C., I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonso, and A. Velando. 2010. Sublethal effects on seabirds after the 

Prestige oil-spill are mirrored in sexual signals. Biological Letters 6:33-35. 

Perkins, S. 2010. Scour power, big storms shift coastal erosion into overdrive. Science News Magazine. 

178(5):14. Internet website: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/62040/title/Scour_power. 

Accessed December 2010. 

Peters, E.C., P.A. Meyers, P.P. Yevich, and N.J. Blake. 1981. Bioaccumulation and histopathological 

effects of oil on a stony coral. Marine Pollution Bulletin 12(0):333-339. 

Peters, E.C., N.J. Gassman, J.C. Firman, R.H. Richmond, and E.A. Power. 1997. Ecotoxicology of 

tropical marine ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16(1):12-40. 

Peterson, C.H., M.C. Kennicutt II., R.H. Green, P. Montagna, D.E. Harper, Jr., E.N. Powell, and 

P.F. Roscigno. 1996. Ecological consequences of environmental perturbations associated with 

offshore hydrocarbon production: A perspective on long-term exposures in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2637-2654. 

Pezeshki, S.R., R.D. Delaune, J.A. Nyman, R.R. Lessard, and G.P. Canevari. 1995. Removing oil and 

saving oiled marsh grass using shoreline cleaner (Publication No. 4620). International Oil Spill 

Conference. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 203-209. 

Pezeshki, S.R., M.W. Hester, Q. Lin, and J.A. Nyman. 2000. The effects of oil spill and cleanup on 

dominant U.S. Gulf Coast marsh macrophytes: A review. Environmental Pollution 108:129-139. 

Pipelines International. 2010. Getting the job done in swamp, marsh and wetland terrain. December 

2010. Vol. 006, pp. 34-35. Internet website: http://pipelinesinternational.com/pdfs/

PIN_Dec10_web.pdf. 

Poirier, O.A. and G.A. Thiel. 1941. Deposition of free oil by sediments settling in sea water. Bulletin of 

the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 25(12):2170-2180. 

Poirrier, M.A. 2007. Statewide summary for Louisiana. In: Handley, D.A., D. Altsman, and R. DeMay, 

eds. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287 and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. 61 pp. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. 

Pond, S. and G.L. Pickard. 1983. Introductory dynamical oceanography, 2nd ed. New York, NY: 

Pergamon Press. 329 pp. 

Powell, E.N. 1995. Evidence for temporal change at seeps. In: MacDonald, I.R., W.W. Schroeder, and 

J.M. Brooks, eds. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study: Final report. Volume 2: Technical report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0022. Pp. 8.1-8.65. 

Powell, P., P. Szaniszlo, W.E. Pequegnat, C. Venn, C.S. Giam, P.N. Boothe, B.J. Presley, J.R. Schwarz, 

S. Alexander, R.W. Flint, N.N. Rabalais, J.S. Holland, R. Yoshiyama, and D.E. Wohlschlang. 1980. 

Chapter Five: Benthic biota of the south Texas shelf. In: Flint, R.W. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. 

Environmental studies, south Texas outer continental shelf, 1975-1977. Volume I: Ecosystem 

description. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. Contract no. 

AA551-CT8-51. 
6-52 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Poysa, H. 1983. Morphology-mediated niche organization in a guild of dabbling ducks. Ornis 

Scandinavica 14:317-326. 

Precht, W.E. and R.B. Aronson. 2004. Climate flickers and range shifts of reef corals. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment 2:307-314. 

Precht, W.F., R.B. Aronson, K.J.P. Deslarzes, M.L. Robbart, T.J.T. Murdoch, A. Gelber, D.J. Evans, 

B. Gearheart, and B. Zimmer. 2006. Long-term monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden 

Banks, 2002-2003: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-035. 

Precht, W.F., R.B. Aronson, K.J.P. Deslarzes, M.L. Robbart, D.J. Evans, B. Zimmer, and L. Duncan. 

2008. Long-term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks, 2004-2005: Interim report. 

Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 2008-027. 123 pp. 

Prentki, R.T., C. Smith, O. Johansen, P. Daling, M. Moldestad, K. Skognes, and M. Reed. 2004. The 

MMS/SINTEF oil weathering model, further development and applications. Review version of paper 

presented at International Marine Environmental Modeling Seminar (IMEMS), Washington, DC, 

October 2004. Internet website: http://alaska.boemre.gov/reports/2005rpts/2005_020/Final%20

Report/Appendix%20E/prentki_OWM_Alaska.pdf. 

Price, W.A. 1958. Sedimentology and quaternary geomorphology of south Texas, supplementary to field 

trip manual, Sedimentology of south Texas”: Corpus Christi Geological Society spring field trip 

1958. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions 8(1958):41-75. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1997. Evolution, phylogeny, and current status. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musivk, eds. 

The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 1-28. 

Puder, M.G. and J.A. Veil. 2006. Offsite commercial disposal of oil and gas exploration and production 

waste: Availability, options, and costs. Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental Science 

Division. Internet website: http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/ANL-EVS-R-06-5.pdf. 

Pulich, W., Jr. and C. Onuf. 2007. Statewide summary for Texas. In: Handley, D.A., D. Altsman, and 

R. DeMay, eds. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002. Scientific 

Investigations Report 2006-5287. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. Pp. 7-16. 

Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. 

Pulsipher, A.G., O.O. Iledare, R.H. Baumann, D.E. Dismukes, and D.V. Mesyanzhinov. 1998. 

Environmental and safety risks of an expanding role for independents on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0021. 39 pp. 

Rabalais, N.N. 1990. Biological communities of the south Texas continental shelf. American Zoologist 

30:77-87. 

Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 2002. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, A.K.A. “The Dead 

Zone.” Annual Review of Ecological Systems 33:235-263. 

Railroad Commission of Texas. 2009. Self-evaluation report. Submitted to the Sunset Commission, 

September 2009. 215 pp. Internet website: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about/divisions/

RRCSelfEvaluationReport2009.pdf. 

Railroad Commission of Texas. 2010. Oil production and well counts (1935-2009). Internet website: 

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/data/production/oilwellcounts.php. Posted March 9, 2010. Accessed 

October 12, 2010. 

Ramseur, J.L. 2010. Oil spill in U.S. coastal waters: Background, governance, and issues for Congress. 

Congressional Research Service. Report for Congress 7-57, RL33705. April 30, 2010. 

Rappole, J.H. 2006. A guide to the birds of the southeastern states: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and 

Mississippi. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 
References Cited 6-53 

Rasmussen, E. 2008. Distance to the horizon, calculator. Erick’s Blog. Internet website. http://

www.erik-rasmussen.com/blog/2008/03/25/distance-to-the-horizon/. Posted March 25, 2008. 

Accessed December 30, 2010. 

Ravishankara, A.R. and J. Goldman. 2010. Air chemistry in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill area, NOAA 

WP-3D Airborne Chemical Laboratory Flights of 8 and 10 June 2010. Internet website: http://

www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/tropchem/2010gulf/NOAA_P3_Gulf_Mission_Report_final.pdf. 

Ray, J.P. 1998. Findings of the Offshore Operators Committee produced water bioaccumulation study. 

In: SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Production. June 7-10, 1998. Caracas, Venezuela. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc. 

Redden, J. 2009. Port Fourchon thrives despite the economy. Offshore Magazine. March 1, 2009. 

Internet website: http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/357201/articles/offshore/

supplements/port-of-fourchon/articles/port-fourchon-thrives-despite-the-economy.html. Accessed 

December 3, 2010. 

Rees, M.A. 2010. Paleoindian and early archaic. In: Reese, M.A., ed. Archaeology of Louisiana. 

Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. Pp. 34-62. 

Regg, J.B., S. Atkins, B. Hauser, J. Hennessey, B. Kruse, J. Lowenhaupt, B. Smith, and A. White. 2000. 

Deepwater development: A reference document for the deepwater environmental assessment, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS (1998 through 2007). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2000-015. 94 pp. 

Reible, D. 2010. After the oil is no longer leaking. The University of Texas, Austin. Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 44(15):5685–5686. 

Reimer, A.A. 1975. Effects of crude oil on corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 6(3):39-43. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2010a. Tar balls along Texas coast are from Deepwater Horizon; how they arrived 

unclear. July 5, 2010. Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/07/05/tar-ballsalong-texas-coast-are-deepwater-horizon-how-they-arrived-unclear. Accessed May 31, 2011. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2010b. Consolidated Fish and Wildlife collection report—Nov. 2, 2010. Internet 

website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/11/02/consolidated-fish-and-wildlife-collectionreport-nov-2-2010. Accessed June 29, 2011. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2010c. Shoreline treatment recommendation report. 27 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/09/09/shoreline-treatment-recommendation-report. 

Posted June 10, 2010. Accessed June 15, 2011. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2010d. Operations and ongoing response—July 06, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/07/06/operations-and-ongoing-response-july-06-2010. 

Accessed July 9, 2010. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2011. Language documents. Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/

search/apachesolr_search/language%20documents. Accessed June 27, 2011. 

Rezak, R. and T.J. Bright. 1979. Northwestern Gulf of Mexico topographic features study. Executive 

summary of the final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans 

OCS Office, New Orleans, Louisiana. Study no. 1979-14. 

Rezak, R. and T.J. Bright. 1981. Northern Gulf of Mexico topographic features study: Final report to 

the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA551-CT8-35. 5 vols. 

Rezak, R., T.J. Bright, and D.W. McGrail. 1983. Reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 

Their geological, biological, and physical dynamics. Final Technical Report No. 83-1-T. 

Rezak, R., T.J. Bright, and D.W. McGrail. 1985. Reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 

Their geological, biological, and physical dynamics. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons. 259 pp. 
6-54 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Rezak, R., S.R. Gittings, and T.J. Bright. 1990. Biotic assemblages and ecological controls on reefs and 

banks of the northwest Gulf of Mexico. American Zoologist 30:23-35. 

Rhodes, D.C. 1974. Organism-sediment relations on the muddy sea floor. Oceanography and Marine 

Biology: An Annual Review 12:263-300. 

Rhodes, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment relations using sediment 

profile imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the seafloor (RemotsTM 

System). Marine Ecology Progress Series 8:115-128. 

Rhodes, R.C., J.D. Thompson, and A.J. Wallcraft. 1989. Buoys-calibrated winds over the Gulf of 

Mexico. J. Atmos. and Ocean. Technology 6(4):608-623. 

Rice, S.A. and C.L. Hunter. 1992. Effects of suspended sediment and burial on Scleractinian corals from 

west central Florida patch reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 51(3):429-442. 

Richards, W.J. 1990. List of the fishes in the western central Atlantic and the status of early life history 

stage information. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-267. 

88 pp. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, C.I. Mame, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. San 

Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc. 

Ridgway, S.H. and D. Carder. 2001. Assessing hearing and sound production in cetacean species not 

available for behavioral audiograms: Experience with Physeter, Kogia, and Eschrichtius. Aquatic 

Mammals 27:267-276. 

Rigzone. 2010. Rig report: Offshore rig fleet by region. Internet website: http://www.rigzone.com/

data/. Accessed December 20, 2010. 

Rinkevich, B. and Y. Loya. 1977. Harmful effects of chronic oil pollution on a Red Sea Scleractinian 

coral population. In: Taylor, D.L., ed. Proceedings, Third International Coral Reef Symposium. 

Volume 2: Geology. Miami, FL. May, 1977. Pp. 585-591. 

Rinkevich, B. and Y. Loya. 1983. Response of zooxanthellae photosynthesis to low concentrations of 

petroleum hydrocarbons. Bulletin of the Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries 109-115. 

Ripley, S.D. and B.M. Beechler. 1985. Rails of the world, a compilation of new information, 1975-1983, 

(Aves: Rallidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 417. Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Institute Press. 

Robbart, M.L., R.B. Aronson, K.J.P. Deslarzes, W.F. Precht, L. Duncan, B. Zimmer, and T. DeMunda. 

2009. Post-hurricane assessment of sensitive habitats of the Flower Garden Banks vicinity. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-032. 160 pp. 

Roberts, H.H. and T.W. Neurauter. 1990. Direct observations of a large active mud vent on the 

Louisiana continental slope. Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 74:1508. 

Roberts, H.H., P. Aharon, R. Carney, J. Larkin, and R. Sassen. 1990. Sea floor responses to hydrocarbon 

seeps, Louisiana continental slope. Geo-Marine Letter 10(4):232-243. 

Rocke, T.E., T.M. Yuill, and R.D. Hinsdill. 1984. Oil and related toxicant effects on mallard immune 

defenses. Environmental Research 33:343-352. 

Rogers. C.S. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 62:185-202. 

Rogers, C.S. and V.H. Garrison. 2001. Ten years after the crime: Lasting effects of damage from a 

cruise ship anchor on a coral reef in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science 

69(2):793-803. 

Rooker, J.R., S.A. Holt, M.A. Soto, and G.J. Holt. 1998. Postsettlement patterns of habitat use by 

Sciaenid fishes in subtropical seagrass meadows. Estuaries 21(2):318-327. 
References Cited 6-55 

Roosenburg, W.M. 1994. Nesting habitat requirements of the diamondback terrapin: A geographic 

comparison. Wetland Journal 6(2):8-11. 

Roosenburg, W.M., K.L. Haley, and S. McGuire. 1999. Habitat selection and movements of the 

diamondback terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin, in a Maryland estuary. Chelonian Conservation and 

Biology 3:425-429. 

Rosman, I., G.S. Boland, and J.S. Baker. 1987. Epifaunal aggregations of Vesicomyidae on the 

continental slope off Louisiana. Deep-Sea Res. 34:1811-1820. 

Roth, A.F. and D.M. Baltz. 2009. Short-term effects of an oil spill on marsh-edge fishes and decapod 

crustaceans. Estuaries and Coasts 32:565-572. 

Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II. 2001. Deepwater program: Northern Gulf of Mexico continental 

slope benthic habitat and ecology. Year I: Interim report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-091. 

166 pp. 

Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II, eds. 2009. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope habitats and 

benthic ecology study: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-039. 456 pp. 

Rowe, G. and D.W. Menzel. 1971. Quantitative benthic samples from the deep Gulf of Mexico with 

some comments on the measurements of deep-sea biomass. Bulletin of Marine Science 

21(2):556-566. 

Roy, K.J. and S.V. Smith. 1971. Sedimentation and coral reef development in turbid water: Fanning 

Lagoon. Pacific Science 25:234-248. 

Rozas, L.P. 1992. Comparison of nekton habitats associated with pipeline canals and natural channels in 

Louisiana salt marshes. Wetlands 12(2):136-146. 

Rozas, L.P. and W.E. Odum. 1988. Occupation of submerged aquatic vegetation by fishes: Testing the 

roles of food and refuge. Oecologia 77:101-106. 

Runcie, J., C. Macinnis-Ng, and P. Ralph. 2004. The toxic effects of petrochemical on seagrasses. 

Literature review. For Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Institute for Water and Environmental 

Resource Management, Sydney, Australia. 20 pp. Internet website: http://www.amsa.gov.au/

marine_environment_protection/national_plan/Contingency_Plans_and_Management/

Research_Development_and_Technology/Toxic_Effects_Seagrasses.pdf. 

Russell, R.W. 2005. Interactions between migrating birds and offshore oil and gas platforms in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-009. 327 pp. 

Russo, M. 1992. Variations in late archaic subsistence and settlement patterning in peninsular Florida. 

In: Jeter, M., ed. Southeastern Archaeological Conference: Abstracts of the forty-ninth annual 

meeting, Little Rock, AR. 

Rützler, K. and W. Sterrer. 1970. Oil pollution damage observed in tropical communities along the 

Atlantic seaboard of Panama. BioScience 20(4):222-224. 

Ryan, P.G. 1988. Effects of ingested plastic on seabird feeding: Evidence from chickens. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 19(3):125-128. 

Ryan, P.G. 1990. The effects of ingested plastic and other marine debris on seabirds. In: Shomura, R.S. 

and M.L. Godfrey, eds. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 

April 2-7, 1989, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. Pp. 623-634. 

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd.. 1997. Fate and behavior of deepwater subsea oil well blowouts 

in the Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 

27 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/287/287AA.PDF. 
6-56 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. 2000. Technology assessment of the use of dispersants on spills 

from drilling and production facilities in the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf. Prepared for the 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Engineering and Research Branch, 

Herndon, VA. 19 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/349/349AB.pdf. 

Sadiq, M. and J.C. McCain. 1993. The Gulf War aftermath: An environmental tragedy. Dordrecht, The 

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Sager, W. 1997. Geophysical detection and characterization of seep community sites. In: 

MacDonald, I.R., ed. 1998. Stability and change in Gulf of Mexico chemosynthetic communities: 

Interim report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0034. Pp. 49-60. 

Sammarco, P.W., A.D. Atchison, D.A. Brazeau, G.S. Boland, and D.F. Gleason. 2004. Expansion of 

coral communities within the northern Gulf of Mexico via offshore oil and gas platforms. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 280:129-143. 

Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hamson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price, and C.C. Jones. 1980. Anatomy 

of an oil spill: Long-term effects from the grounding of the barge Florida off West Falmouth, 

Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Research 38:265-380. 

Santos, M.F.L., P.C. Lana, J. Silva, J.G. Fachel, and F.H. Pulgati. 2009. Effects of non-aqueous fluids 

cuttings discharge from exploratory drilling activities on the deep-sea macrobenthic communities. 

Deep-Sea Research II 56:32-40. 

Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida’s seagrasses: 

Assessment and management options. FRMI TR-1, Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, 

FL. 37 pp. + app. 

Sassen, R. 1998. Origins of hydrocarbons and community stability. In: MacDonald, I.R., ed. Stability 

and change in Gulf of Mexico chemosynthetic communities: Interim report. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 98-00034. Pp. 71-76. 

Sassen, R., J.M. Brooks, M.C. Kennicutt II, I.R. MacDonald, and N.L. Guinasso, Jr. 1993a. How oil 

seeps, discoveries relate in deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Oil and Gas Journal 91(16):64-69. 

Sassen, R., H.H. Roberts, P. Aharon, J. Larkin, E.W. Chinn, and R. Carney. 1993b. Chemosynthetic 

bacterial mats at cold hydrocarbon seeps, Gulf of Mexico continental slope. Organic Geochemistry 

20(1):77-89. 

Sathiakumar, N. 2010. Short-term physical effects: Oil spills. Presentation, School of Public Health, 

University of Alabama at Birmingham. http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/

PublicHealth/OilSpillHealth/NaliniSathiakumar-6-22-1110am.pdf. 

Saunders, J., A. Thurman, and R.T. Saucier. 1992. Preceramic(?) mound complexes in northeastern 

Louisiana. In: Jeter, M.D., ed. Southeastern Archaeological Conference: Abstracts of the FortyNinth Annual Meeting, Little Rock, AR. 

Sayre, A. 2010. Forecast: Louisiana will have slow job growth. Internet website: http://

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9IMCA800.htm. Accessed December 12, 2010. 

Scaife, W.W., R.E. Turner, and R. Costanza. 1983. Coastal Louisiana recent land loss and canals 

impacts. Environmental Management 7(5):433-442. 

Schaum, J., M. Cohen, S. Perry, R. Artz, R. Draxler, J.B. Frithsen, D. Heist, M. Lorber, and L. Phillips. 

2010. Screening level assessment of risks due to dioxin emissions from burning oil from the BP 

Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico spill. 21 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/research/

dioxin/docs/OilScreen25.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2011. 
References Cited 6-57 

Schiro, A.J., D. Fertl, L.P. May, G.T. Regan, and A. Amos. 1998. West Indian manatee (Trichechus 

manatus) occurrence in U.S. waters west of Florida. Presentation, World Marine Mammal 

Conference, 20-24 January, Monaco. 

Schlager, W. 1981. The paradox of drowned reefs and carbonate platforms. Geological Society of 

America Bulletin 92(4):197-211. Internet website: http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/

abstract/92/4/197. 

Schmahl, G.P. 2011. Official communication. Email regarding post-Deepwater Horizon research 

conducted at the Flower Garden Banks. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. May 24, 2011. 

Schmahl, G.P. and E.L. Hickerson. 2006. McGrail Bank, a deep tropical coral reef community in the 

northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In: Proceedings of 10th International Coral Reef Symposium. 

June 28-July 2, 2006, Okinawa, Japan. 

Schmidt, K. 2010a. Despite fears following spill, local jobless rate holds steady. Internet website: 

http://www.reefrelieffounders.com/drilling/2010/09/25/daily-comet-despite-fears-following-spilllocal-jobless-rate-holds-steady/. Accessed December 12, 2010. 

Schmidt, K. 2010b. Still no employment impact from spill, drilling uncertainty. Internet website: http://

www.dailycomet.com/article/20101028/ARTICLES/101029226. Accessed December 10, 2010. 

Schofield, P.J. 2009. Geographic extent and chronology of the invasion of the non-native lionfish 

(Pterois volitans [Linneaus 1758] and P. miles [Bennett 1828]) in the western North Atlantic and 

Caribbean Sea. Aquatic Invasions 4(3):473-479. 

Scholz, D.K., J.H. Kucklick, R.G. Pond, A.H. Walker, A. Bostrom, and P. Fischbeck. 1999. Fate of 

spilled oil in marine waters: Where does it go? What does it do? How do dispersants affect it? An 

information booklet for decision-makers. American Petroleum Institute Publication Number 4691, 

43 pp. Internet website: http://www.cleancaribbean.org/ccc_doc/pdf/API_Fate_of_Spilled_Oil.pdf. 

Schroeder, D.M. and M.S. Love. 2004. Ecological and political issues surrounding decommissioning of 

offshore oil facilities in the southern California Bight. Ocean and Coastal Management 47:21-48. 

Schummer, M.L. and W.R. Eddleman. 2003. Effects of disturbance on activity and energy budgets of 

migrating waterbirds in south-central Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:789-795. 

Schwartz, F.J. 1988. Aggregations of young hatchling loggerhead sea turtles in the Sargassum off North 

Carolina. Marine Turtle Newsletter 42: 9-10 

Schwartz, A. 2010. China beats U.S. to first offshore wind farm. Internet website: http://

www.fastcompany.com/1687492/china-beats-us-to-first-offshore-wind-farm. Posted September 8, 

2010. Accessed March 23, 2011. 

Scott-Denton, E. 2009. Official communication. Incidental seabird bycatch in fisheries in the Gulf of 

Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

Seba, E. 2010. Update 1—Texas waterway to fully reopen to ships in a week. Reuters. January 29, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2912414520100129?type=

marketsNews. Accessed November 26, 2010. 

Sen Gupta, B.K., M.K. Lobegeier, and L.E. Smith. 2009. Foraminiferal communities of bathyal 

hydrocarbon seeps, northern Gulf of Mexico: A taxonomic, ecologic, and geologic study. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 2009-013. 380 pp. 

Seni, S.J. and M.P.A. Jackson. 1983. Evolution of salt structures, east Texas diapir province, Part 2: 

Patterns and rates of halokinesis. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 

67(8):1245-1274. 
6-58 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Shaffer, G.P., J.W. Day, S. Mack, G.P. Kemp, I. van Heerden, M.A. Poirrier, K.A.Westphal, 

D. FitzGerald, A. Milanes, C.A. Morris, R. Bea, and P.S. Penland. 2009. The MRGO navigation 

project: A massive human-induced environmental, economic, and storm disaster. Journal of Coastal 

Research 54:206-224. 

Shafir, S., J. Van Rijn, and B. Rinkevich. 2007. Short and long term toxicity of crude oil and oil 

dispersants to two representative coral species. Environmental Science and Technology 

41:5571-5574. 

Sharp, B.E. 1996. Post-release survival of oiled, cleaned seabirds in North America. Ibis 138:222-228. 

Sharp, J.M. and S.G. Appan. 1982. The cumulative ecological effects of normal offshore petroleum 

operations contrasted with those resulting from continental shelf oil spills. Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B: Biological Sciences 297:309-322. 

Sharp, J.M. and D.W. Hill. 1995. Land subsidence along the northeastern Texas Gulf Coast: Effects of 

deep hydrocarbon production. Environmental Geology 25(3):181-191. Internet website: http://

www.springerlink.com/content/t5072854ukl2r262/. 

Sheavly, S.B. 2007. National marine debris monitoring program: Final program report, data analysis 

and summary. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Ocean Conservancy. 

Grant Number X83053401-02. 76 pp. 

Shigenaka, G. 2001. Toxicity of oil to reef-building corals: A spill response perspective. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS OR&R 8. 95 pp. Internet website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/

book_shelf/1_coral_tox.pdf. 

Shinn, E.A., J.H. Hudson, D.M. Robbin, and C.K. Lee. 1980. Drilling mud plumes from offshore 

drilling operations: Implications for coral survival. The R&D Program for OCS Oil and Gas 

Operations. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Fisher Island Station, Miami Beach, FL. 

Short, F.T., R.G. Coles, and C. Pergent-Martini. 2001. Global seagrass distribution. In: Short, F.T. and 

R.G. Coles, eds. 2001. Global seagrass research methods. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier 

Science B.V. Pp 5-6, 20. 

Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley guide to birds. National Audubon Society, Knopf, NY. 544 pp. 

Siegesmund, P., J. Kruse, J. Prozzi, R. Alsup, and R. Harrison. 2008. Guide to the economic value of 

Texas ports. Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin. Internet 

website: http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_5538_P1.pdf. Accessed November 30, 

2010. 

Singh, T. 2010. China starts construction on world’s biggest offshore wind farm. Internet website: 

http://inhabitat.com/china-starts-construction-on-worlds-biggest-offshore-wind-farm/. Posted 

October 25, 2010. Accessed March 24, 2011. 

Skagen, S.K. and F.L. Knopf. 1993. Toward conservation of midcontinental shorebird migrations. 

Conservation Biology 7:533-541. 

Skagen, S.K., D.A. Granfors, and C.P. Melcher. 2008. On determining the significance of ephemeral 

continental wetlands to North American migratory shorebirds. Auk 125:20-29. 

Smith, M.F., ed. 1984. Ecological characterization atlas of coastal Alabama: Map narrative. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/46 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 84-0052. 189 pp. 

Smultea, M.A. and B. Würsig. 1995. Behavioral reactions of bottlenose dolphins to the Mega Borg oil 

spill, Gulf of Mexico 1990. Aquatic Mammals 21:171-181. 

Snedden, G.A. In preparation. Forcing functions governing salt transport processes in coastal navigation 

canals and connectivity to surrounding wetland landscapes in south Louisiana using Houma 
References Cited 6-59 

navigation canal as a surrogate. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, National Wetlands 

Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Source Strategies Inc. 2010. Texas hotel performance report: Third quarter data tables: By metro, by 

metro by county. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2002. Fishery management plan for pelagic Sargassum 

habitat of the South Atlantic Region, including a final environmental impact statement, initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis, regulatory impact review, & social impact assessment/fishery impact 

statement: Second revised final. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, 

D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P. Tyack. 2007. 

Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 

33:411-521. 

Southwest Research Institute. 1981. Ecological investigations of petroleum production platforms in the 

central Gulf of Mexico. Submitted to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

New Orleans OCS Office, New Orleans, LA. Contract no. AA551-CT8-17. 

Spalding, E.A. and M.W. Hester. 2007. Effects of hydrology and salinity on oligohaline plant species 

productivity: Implications of relative sea-level rise. Estuaries and Coasts 30(2):214-225. 

St. Aubin, D.J. and V. Lounsbury. 1990. Oil effects on manatees: Evaluating the risks. Chapter 11. In: 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press, Inc. Pp. 241-251. 

Stadelman, W.J. 1958. The effects of sounds of varying intensity on hatchability of chicken eggs. 

Poultry Science 37:166-169. 

State of Louisiana. 2007. Integrated ecosystem restoration and hurricane protection: Louisiana’s 

comprehensive master plan for a sustainable coast. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of 

Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA. Internet website: http://www.lacpra.org/index.cfm?md=

pagebuilder&tmp=home&nid=24&pnid=0&pid=28&fmid=0&catid=0&elid=0. Accessed April 7, 

2011. 

Stehn, T. 2007. Official communication. Captive and wild whooping crane population sizes in 2007. 

Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Aransas National Wildlife 

Refuge, TX. 

Steidl, R.J. and B.F. Powell. 2006. Assessing the effects of human activities on wildlife. George Wright 

Forum 23:50-58. 

Stephens, B.P. 2009. Basement controls on subsurface geologic patterns and coastal geomorphology 

across the northern Gulf of Mexico: Implications for subsidence studies and coastal restoration. 

Transactions Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 59:729-751. Internet website: http://

www.searchanddiscovery.net/abstracts/html/2009/gcags/abstracts/stephens.htm. 

Stephens, B.P. 2010a. Basement controls on subsurface geologic patterns and near-surface geology 

across the northern Gulf of Mexico: A deeper perspective on coastal Louisiana. American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Annual Conference and Exhibition, April 11-14, 2010, New 

Orleans, LA. Search and Discovery Article #30129. Internet website: http://

www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2010/30129stephens/ndx_stephens.pdf. 

Stephens, B.P. 2010b. Basement controls on subsurface geologic patterns and coastal geomorphology 

across the northern Gulf of Mexico: Implications for subsidence studies and coastal restoration. 

Adapted from the presentation given to New Orleans Geological Society, July 14, 2010. 

Stephenson, R. 1997. Effects of oil and other surface-active organic pollutants on aquatic birds. 

Environmental Conservation 24:121-129. 
6-60 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Stephenson, R. and C.A. Andrews. 1997. The effect of water surface tension on feather wetability in 

aquatic birds. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:288-294. 

Steyn, P. 2010. Exxon Valdez oil spill. Answers.com. Internet website: http://www.answers.com/topic/

exxon-valdez-oil-spill. Accessed November 23, 2010. 

Stone, R.B. 1974. A brief history of artificial reef activities in the United States. In: Proceedings: 

Artificial Reef Conference, Houston, TX. Pp. 24-27. 

Stone, G.W. 2001. Wave climate and bottom boundary layer dynamics with implications for offshore 

sand mining and barrier island replenishment in south-central Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2000-053. 90 pp. 

Stone, R.B., W. Pratt, R.O. Parker, and G. Davis. 1979. A comparison of fish populations on an artificial 

and natural reef in the Florida Keys. Mar. Fish. Rev. 41(9):1-24. 

Stoner, A.W. 1983. Pelagic Sargassum: Evidence for a major decrease in biomass. Deep-Sea Research 

Part A. Oceanographic Research Papers 30(4):469-474. 

Stout, J.P, M.G. Lelong, J.L. Borom, and M.T. Powers. 1981. Wetland habitat of the Alabama coastal 

area. Part II: An inventory of wetland habitats south of the battleship parkway. Alabama Coastal 

Area Board, Technical Publication CAB-81-01. 

Stright, M.J., E.M. Lear, and J.F. Bennett. 1999. Spatial data analysis of artifacts redeposited by coastal 

erosion: A case study of McFaddin Beach, Texas. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Herndon, VA. OCS Study MMS 99-0068. 2 vols. 

Sturges, W., E. Chassignet, and T. Ezer. 2004. Strong mid-depth currents and a deep cyclonic gyre in the 

Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS-2004-040. 89 pp. 

Stutzenbaker, C.D. and M.W. Weller. 1989. The Texas coast. In: Smith, L.M., R.L. Pederson, and 

R.K. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. 

Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech. University Press. Pp. 385-405. 

Suchanek, T.H. 1993. Oil impacts on marine invertebrate populations and communities. American 

Zoologist 33:510-523. 

Swanson, C., F.D. McCay, S. Subbayya, J. Rowe, P. Hall, and T. Isaji. 2003. Modeling dredginginduced suspended sediment and the environmental effects in Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River 

for the proposed Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC, Liquefied Natural Gas Import Terminal. Prepared by 

Applied Science Associates for Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC. 

Swenson, E.M. and R.E. Turner. 1987. Spoil banks: Effects on a coastal marsh water-level regime. 

Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 24:599-609. 

Swift, T.L. and S.J. Hannon. 2010. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: A review of the 

concepts, evidence, and applications. Biological Reviews 85:35-53. 

Systems Applications International, Sonoma Technology, Inc., Earth Tech, Alpine Geophysics, and 

A.T. Kearney. 1995. Gulf of Mexico air quality study: Final report. Volumes I-III. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 95-0038, 95-0039, and 95-0040. 650, 214, and 190 pp., respectively. 

Szaro, R.C., P.H. Albers, and N.C. Coon. 1978a. Petroleum: effects on mallard egg hatchability. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 42:404-406. 

Szaro, R.C., M.P. Dieter, G.H. Heinz, and J.F. Ferrell. 1978b. Effects of chronic ingestion of south 

Louisiana crude oil on mallard ducklings. Environmental Research 17:426-436. 

Tan, L., M. Belanger, and C. Witthich. 2008. Revisiting the correlation between estimated seabird 

mortality and oil spill size. Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology 3:20-26. 
References Cited 6-61 

Taylor, H.A., M.A. Rasheed, and R. Thomas. 2006. Port Curtis post oil spill seagrass assessment, 

Gladstone-2006. DPI&F Information Series QI06046 (DPI&F, Cairns). 19 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.seagrasswatch.org/Info_centre/Publications/pdf/meg/

GladstonePostOilSpillReport2006_Final.pdf. 

Teal, J.M. and R.W. Howarth. 1984. Oil spill studies: A review of ecological effects. Environmental 

Management 8:27-44. 

Teal, J.M., J.W. Farrington, K.A. Burns, J.J. Stegeman, B.W. Tripp, B. Woodin, and C. Phinney. 1992. 

The West Falmouth oil spill after 20 years: Fate of fuel oil compounds and effects on animals. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 24(12):607-614. 

Teas, W.G. 1994. Marine turtle stranding trends, 1986-1993. In: Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, 

D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, comps. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea 

Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-351. Pp. 293-295. 

Telesnicki, G.J. and W.M. Goldberg. 1995. Effects of turbidity on the photosynthesis and respiration of 

two south Florida reef coral species. Bulletin of Marine Science 57(2):527-539. 

Teo, S.L.H, A. Boustany, H. Dewar, M.J.W. Stokesbury, K.C. Weng, S. Beemer, A.C. Seitz, C.J. Farwell, 

E.D. Prince, and B.A. Block. 2007. Annual migrations, diving behavior, and thermal biology of 

Atlantic bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, on their Gulf of Mexico breeding grounds. Marine Biology 

151:1-18. 

Terres, J.K. 1991. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. New York, NY: Wing 

Books. 1,109 pp. 

Teslik, L.H. and C. Menegatti. 2010. Oil spill will hurt U.S. economy, but not big enough to cause 

recession. The Washington Post. Internet website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

article/2010/07/01/AR2010070105311_pf.html. Accessed July 3, 2010. 

Tetrahedron, Inc. 1996. Reliability of blowout preventers tested under fourteen and seven days time 

interval. Study report prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 

TA&R Project 253. 33 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/253/AA.PDF. 

Texas General Land Office. 2007. The Texas Coastal Erosion Response Program in 2007: Highlights 

and a look forward. Presented by Lorrie Council, P.G., Coastal Protection Division. 

Texas General Land Office. 2010. Energy land and lease inventory system. Internet website: http://

www.glo.state.tx.us/energy/ellis.html. Accessed October 12, 2010. 

Texas General Land Office. 2011. Resource management codes: Texas State-owned submerged lands. 

Internet website: http://www.glo.texas.gov/cf/map-search/index.html. Accessed July 19, 2011. 

Texas Historical Commission. 2010. Marine stewards. Internet website: http://www.thc.state.tx.us/

stewards/stwmarine.shtml. Accessed August 31, 2010. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1990. Texas colonial waterbird census summary. Texas Parks 

and Wildlife Department and the Texas Colonial Waterbird Society, Special Administrative Report. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1999. Seagrass conservation plan for Texas. Texas Parks and 

Wildlife, Resource Protection Division, Austin, TX. 79 pp. Internet website: http://

www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_r0400_0041.pdf. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2003. Texas coastal wetland types. Website authors: Jacob, J.S., 

D. Moulton, and R.A. Lopez. Internet website: http://www.texaswetlands.org/index.htm. Accessed 

September 29, 2010. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2008. Biologist assesses Ike impacts to coastal ecosystems. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife News Release. October 1, 2008. Internet website: http://

www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20081001b. Accessed December 2010. 
6-62 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2009. Galveston Bay oyster reef restoration gets underway. 

News Release. September 17, 2009. Internet website: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/

releases/?req=20090917b&nrtype=all&nrspan=&nrsearch=. Accessed August 6, 2010. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2010a. Catch rate by minor bay application. Internet website: 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/maps/gis/ris/catch_rate/index.phtml. Accessed 

December 15, 2010. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2010b. Artificial reefs interactive mapping. Internet website: 

http://gis-apps.tpwd.state.tx.us/ris.net/ArtificialReefs/. Accessed February 15, 2011. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2010c. 2010-2011 Texas fishing and hunting regulations: 

Summary of recreational fishing regulations. Internet website: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/

publications/annual/. Accessed February 15, 2011. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2010d. The great Texas coastal birding trail. Brochure. Austin, 

TX. PWD BK W7000-1092. 12 pp. 

Texas State Government Homepage. n.d. Texas in focus: South Texas demographics. Internet website: 

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/southtexas/demographics.html. Accessed January 14, 

2011. 

Thatcher, C.A., S.B. Hartley, and S.A. Wilson. 2011. Bank erosion of navigation canals in the western 

and central Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, National Wetlands 

Resource Center, Open-File Report 2010-1017 and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, 

OCS Study BOEMRE 2010-039. 32 pp. + 2 apps. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/

1017_p/pdf/OF10-1017.pdf. 

The Encyclopedia of Earth. 2008. Gulf of Mexico large marine ecosystem. Internet website: http://

www.eoearth.org/article/Gulf_of_Mexico_large_marine_ecosystem?topic=49522. Updated 

December 28, 2010. Accessed January 11, 2011. 

The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (TGLPC). 2010a. Map of waterfront property available at Port 

Fourchon. Internet website: http://www.portfourchon.com/site100-01/1001757/docs/

2010_7_1_waterfront.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010. 

The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (TGLPC). 2010b. Map of non-waterfront property available at 

Port Fourchon. Internet website: http://www.portfourchon.com/site100-01/1001757/docs/

2010_7_1_nonwaterfront.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (TGLPC). 2010c. Port Fourchon north expansion. Internet 

website: http://www.portfourchon.com/explore.cfm/northernexpansion/. Accessed December 3, 

2010. 

The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (TGLPC). 2010d. South Lafourche airport in “excellent 

condition”: Many improvements since Port Commission acquisition. Internet website: http://

www.portfourchon.com/explore.cfm/20100222airptrev/. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

The Heinz Center. 2010. Evaluation of erosion hazards. Prepared for the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. Contract EMW-97-CO-0375. 205 pp. 

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2004. OCS-related infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico fact book. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2004-027. 249 pp. 

The Oil Drum. 2009. USA Gulf of Mexico oil production forecast update. Internet website: http://

www.theoildrum.com/node/5081. Posted February 9, 2009. Accessed January 4, 2011. 

The White House. 2010. Establishing the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Office of the 

Press Secretary, Executive Order, October 5, 2010. Internet website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

the-press-office/2010/10/05/executive-order-gulf-coast-ecosystem-restoration-task-force. 
References Cited 6-63 

Thistle, D. 1981. Natural physical disturbances and communities of marine soft bottoms. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 6:223-228. 

Thorhaug, A. 1988. Dispersed oil effects on mangroves, seagrasses, and corals in the wider Caribbean. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia 2:337-339. 

Thorhaug, A., J. Marcus, and F. Booker. 1986. Oil and dispersed oil on subtropical and tropical 

seagrasses in laboratory studies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 17:357-631. 

Tiner, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. vii + 59 pp. 

Tkalich, P. and E.S. Chan. 2002. Vertical mixing of oil droplets by breaking waves. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 44:1219-1229. 

Tokotch, B. 2010. Oil and coral fact sheet. 3 pp. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/

deepwater_horizon/Oil-CoralOnePage.pdf. Accessed December 6, 2010. 

Tolbert, C.M. 1995. Oil and gas development and coastal income inequality: Case studies at the place 

level. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 94-0052. 75 pp. 

Tolbert, C.M. and M. Sizer. 1996. U.S. commuting zones and labor market areas: 1990 update. 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division. Staff Paper No. 

AGES-9614. 

Toll Road News. 2009. LA1 bridge to Gulf oil & gas is tolling. Internet website: http://

tollroadsnews.com/node/4305. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

Torres, J.L. 2001. Impacts of sedimentation on the growth rates of Montastraea annularis in southwest 

Puerto Rico. Bulletin of Marine Science 69(2):631-637. 

Torres, R., M. Chiappone, F. Geraldes, Y. Rodriguez, and M. Vega. 2001. Sedimentation as an 

important environmental influence on Dominican Republic reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 

69(2):805-818. 

Trapido, E.J. 2010. Health and the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill. JSOST Deepwater Horizon Oil 

Spill Principal Investigator (PI) Conference, October 5-6, 2010, St. Petersburg, FL. 

Trefry, J.H. 1981. A review of existing knowledge on trace metals in the Gulf of Mexico. In: 

Proceedings of a symposium on environmental research needs in the Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX). 

Volume II-B. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Environmental Research Laboratory. Pp. 225-259. 

Trefry, J.H. and J.P. Smith. 2003. Forms of mercury in drilling fluid barite and their fate in the marine 

environment: A review and synthesis. In: Proceedings of the SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and 

Production Environmental Conference, March 10-12, 2003, San Antonio, TX. Paper SPE 80571-MS. 

10 pp. 

Trefry, J.H., K.L. Naito, R.P. Trocine, and S. Metz. 1995. Distribution and bioaccumulation of heavy 

metals from produced water discharges to the Gulf of Mexico. Water Science and Technology 

32(2):31-36. 

Trefry, J.H., R.P. Trocine, M.L. McElvaine, R.D. Rember, and L. Hawkins. 2003. Concentrations of 

total mercury and methylmercury in sediment adjacent to offshore drilling sites. In: Proceedings of 

the SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, March 10-12, 2003, San 

Antonio, TX. Paper SPE 80569-MS. 12 pp. 

Trivelpiece, W.Z., R.G. Butler, D.S. Miller, and D.B. Peakall. 1984. Reduced survival of chicks on oildosed adult Leach’s storm-petrels. Condor 86:81-82. 

Tuler, S., T. Webler, K. Dow, and F. Lord. 2009. Human dimensions impacts of oil spills: Brief 

summaries of human impacts of oil and oil spill response efforts. Social and Environmental Research 
6-64 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Institute. Project funded by the Coastal Response Research Center. Internet website: http://

www.seri-us.org/projects/HDOil.html. 

Tuler, S., T. Weber, R. Lord, and K. Dow. 2010. A case study into the human dimensions of the 

DM-932 oil spill in New Orleans. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute. 

32 pp. 

Tunnell, J.W., Jr. 1981. Sebree Bank: Observations derived from scuba dive during a Bureau of Land 

Management sponsored cruise during August 24-27, 1981. In: Dokken, Q., R. Lehman, J. Prouty, 

C. Adams, and C. Beaver. 1993. A preliminary survey of Sebree Bank (Gulf of Mexico, Port 

Mansfield, TX), August 23-27, 1993. Texas A&M University, Center for Coastal Studies, Corpus 

Christi, TX. Center for Coastal Studies Technical Report No. TAMU-CC-9305-CCS. 13 pp. 

Tunnell, J.W., Jr., Q.R. Dokken, M.E. Kindinger, and L.C. Thebeau. 1981. Effects of the Ixtoc I oil spill 

on the intertidal and subtidal infaunal populations along lower Texas coast barrier island beaches. In: 

Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill Conference, March 2-5, Atlanta, GA. Washington DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. Pp. 467-475. 

Turner, R.E. and D.R. Cahoon. 1988. Causes of wetland loss in the coastal Central Gulf of Mexico. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 87-0119 (Volume I: Executive Summary), 87-0120 (Volume II: Technical 

Narrative), and 87-0121 (Volume III: Appendices). 32, 400, and 122 pp., respectively. 

Turner, R.E., R. Costanza, and W. Scaife. 1982. Canals and wetland erosion rates in coastal Louisiana. 

In: Conference on Coastal Erosion and Wetland Modification in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, 

and Options. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. 

FWS/OBS 82/59. 

Turner, R.E., J.M. Lee, and C. Neill. 1994. Backfilling canals to restore wetlands: Empirical results in 

coastal Louisiana. Wetlands Ecology and Management 3(1):63-78. 

Tuttle, J.R. and A.J. Combe III. 1981. Flow regime and sediment load affected by alterations of the 

Mississippi River. In: Cross, R.D. and Williams, D.L., eds. Proceedings, National Symposium: 

Freshwater Inflow Estuaries. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Biological Services. FWS/OBS-81/104. Pp. 334-348. Internet website: http://

www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3779.pdf. 

United Louisiana Vietnamese American Fisherfolks. 2010. Loss of subsistence use claim framework & 

template for Louisiana Vietnamese American fisherfolks & other Louisiana fisherfolks. Internet 

website: http://www.mqvncdc.org/event_page.php?id=38. Accessed March 28, 2011. 

United Nations Environment Programme. 2009. Marine litter: A global challenge. Nairobi, Kenya: 

United Nations Environmental Programme. 232 pp. Internet website: http://www.unep.org/pdf/

unep_marine_litter-a_global_challenge.pdf. 

Upton, H.F. 2010. Commercial fishery disaster assistance. Congressional Research Service. Report for 

Congress. RL 34209. Internet website: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34209.pdf. 

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Coping with an oiled sea: an analysis of oil 

spill response technologies, OTA-BP-O-63, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

70 pp. Internet website: http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9011.pdf. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 2004. County typology codes. Internet website: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/TypologyCodes/. Accessed September 20, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 2010. Estimating the economic effect of the deepwater drilling moratorium on 

the Gulf Coast economy: Inter-agency report, September 16, 2010. Report presented at the 

Department of Commerce Testimony—111th Congress by Rebecca Blank, Under Secretary for 

Economic Affairs, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 25 pp. Internet website: http://www.commerce.gov/

sites/default/files/documents/2010/november/blank091610_report.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2010. 
References Cited 6-65 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Census Bureau. 2003. Language use and English-speaking ability: 2000; 

Census 2000 brief. 11 pp. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2003. SeaWiFS Project—

detailed description. Internet website: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/BACKGROUND/

SEAWIFS_970_BROCHURE.html. Updated July 30, 2003. Accessed January 11, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007a. Report to Congress on the impact 

of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on commercial and recreational fishery habitat of Alabama, 

Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. July 2007. 191 pp. + apps. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/HurricaneImpactsHabitat_080707_1200.pdf. Accessed 

December 30, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

consultation on the effects of the five-year outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program 

(2007-2012) in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Opinion. 

June 29. F/SER/2006/02611. 127 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010a. Essential fish habitat; a marine fish 

habitat conservation mandate for Federal agencies. South Atlantic Region. Internet website: http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide_2010.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010b. Final recovery plan for the sperm 

whale (Physeter macrocephalus). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, MD. 165 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010c. Report to Congress: Status of 

fisheries of the United States. 20 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/

statusoffisheries/sos_full28_press.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010d. Information and databases on 

fisheries landings. Internet website (latest data for 2009): http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/

landings/annual_landings.html. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010e. Fisheries economics of the U.S. 

Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/fisheries_economics_2008.html. 

Accessed December 28, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011a. 2010-2011 cetacean unusual 

mortality event in northern Gulf of Mexico. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/

mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.htm. Accessed June 29, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011b. Dolphins and whales and the Gulf 

of Mexico oil spill. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/mammals.htm. 

Accessed June 29, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011c. Sea turtles and the Gulf of Mexico 

oil spill. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/turtles.htm. Accessed 

June 30, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011d. Deepwater Horizon MC252: 

Documented sea turtles in northern Gulf of Mexico from 4/30/1-0/18/10. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/images/oilspill/turtles2010.jpg. Accessed June 30, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011e. Sea turtle strandings in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/gulfofmexico.htm. Accessed 

July 11, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011f. Status of stocks: 2010 report on 

the status of U.S. fisheries. Annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries. 21 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2011/07/docs/report.pdf. 
6-66 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007a. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); 5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 79 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

seaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-leatherback-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007b. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas); 5-year review: Summary and 

evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 102 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-green-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007c. Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); 5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 90 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-hawksbill-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007d. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii); 5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 50 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-Kemps-ridley-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007e. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta); 5-year review: Summary and 

evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 65 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-Loggerhead-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Shoreline 

assessment manual, third edition. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Response and Restoration, Seattle, WA. HAZMAT Report 2000-1. 

120 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/

fwscontingencyappendices/N-Manuals-Response-Assessment/ShorelineAssessment_NOAA.pdf. 

Accessed February 13, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. NOAA attributes 

recent increase in hurricane activity to naturally occurring multi-decadal climate variability. NOAA 

Magazine. November 29, 2005. Internet website: http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/

mag184.htm. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. NOAA fact sheet, 

small diesel spills (500-5000 gallons) (Office of Response and Restoration). November 2006. 

Internet website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/974_diesel.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. 2007. National Artificial Reef 

Plan: Guidelines for siting, construction, development, and assessment of artificial reefs. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/PartnershipsCommunications/recfish/

NARPREVISION_3_07_07_FINAL.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008a. The Gulf of 

Mexico at a glance. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
References Cited 6-67 

National Ocean Service, Washington, DC. 34 pp. Internet website: http://gulfofmexicoalliance.org/

pdfs/gulf_glance_1008.pdf. Accessed February 27, 2009. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008b. Interagency report 

on marine debris sources, impacts, strategies, and recommendations. Interagency Marine Debris 

Coordinating Committee, Silver Spring, MD. 62 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008c. NOAA responds 

to New Orleans barge collision oil spill. Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/

stories2008/20080724_oilspill.html. Accessed November 26, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Final: 

Amendment 1 to the consolidated Atlantic highly migratory species fishery management plan; 

essential fish habitat. U.S. Dept. of the Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory 

Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. xiii + 395 pp. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/EFH/Final/FEIS_Amendment_Total.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010a. Using booms in 

response to oil spills. National Ocean Service. 4 pp. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/

deepwater_horizon/NOAA_boom_fact_sheet.pdf. Last revised May 10, 2010. Accessed 

December 27, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010b. Environmental 

Response Management Application (ERMA). 2010c. Potential oiling footprint, NOAA/NESDIS 

(RADARSAT-2 ScanSAR). NESDIS Anomaly Analysis 17-May-10 11:36 CDT. Cumulative 

Aquatracka fluorometry results, Deepwater Horizon Response. Internet website: http://

gomex.erma.noaa.gov/. Accessed April 4, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010c. Tarballs from 

Deepwater Horizon found on Bolivar and Galveston Island. Gulf of Mexico News. July 5, 2010. 

Internet website: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/news/gomexnews.html. Accessed May 31, 

2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010d. Archive of 

hurricane seasons (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010). National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL. Internet 

website: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010e. Flower Gardens 

National Marine Sanctuary species list. Internet website: http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/

document_library/science/recdivingspecieslist.pdf. Accessed September 16, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010f. Corals that are 

Candidates for Listing Under the ESA. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources Web Page. 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/corals.htm. Accessed 

December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010g. Oil spill 

resources. Sanctuary Impacts. Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary website. Internet 

website: http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/education/oilspill.html. Accessed October 8, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010h. Flower Gardens 

National Marine Sanctuary draft management plan. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010i. Approximate oil 

locations from April 27, 2010 to May 1, 2010, including forecast for May 2 (map). Internet website: 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1893_TM-2010-04-30-2145.pdf. Accessed June 29, 

2011. 
6-68 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010j. Environmental 

Response Management Application (ERMA). Internet website: http://gomex.erma.noaa.gov. 

Accessed October 14, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010k. Resources related 

to Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps. Internet website: http://

response.restoration.noaa.gov/resource_resourcetopic.php?RECORD_KEY(resourcetopics)=

resourcetopic_id&resourcetopic_id(resourcetopics)=37. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010l. NOAA ship 

Thomas Jefferson June 15-27 mission summary. Internet website: http://www.noaa.gov/

sciencemissions/PDFs/thomas_jefferson_cruise_%20recap_july2_2010.pdf. Accessed September 8, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011a. Potential oiling 

footprint – NOAA/NESDIS (RADARSAT-2 ScanSAR). April 2010 to August 2010. Internet 

website: http://gomex.erma.noaa.gov/erma.html#x=-88.38501&y=29.16176&z=6&layers=

9651+9655+9657+9506+9447+9413+9309+9203+9095+8981+8816+8747+8666+8592+8523+8332

+8236+8152+8058+7961+7849+7768+7685+7585+7531+7473+7252+7162+7157+6914+6807+676

4+6583+6548+6564+6484+6372+6268+6272+6214+6197+6174+6060+5895+5771+5675+5600+54

82+5430+5336+5258+5200+5147+5073+5021+4944+4880+4686+4585+4509+4435+4354+4264+4

164+4065+3976+3906+3580+3494+3399+3295+3203+3101+3009+2915+2835+2751+2647+2574+

2512+2362+2439+2361+2312+2311+2266+2244+2213+2127+2230+2073+2058+2066+1966+1984

+1965+1953+1820+1876+1827+1785+8920+1550+1530+1584+1582+1515+1454+1467+1453+141

7+1404+1345+1330+1329+1309+1328+1248+1267+1171+1202+1164+1165+1144+1126+1125+10

84+1115+1129+1053+1013+1005+1004+968+928+837+836+789+739+653+639+637+576+567+55

5+551+546+507+504+492+473+365+5723. Accessed April 7, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011b. Threats to marine 

turtles: Threats in the marine environment. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

turtles/threats.htm. Accessed June 12, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011c. Endangered 

species listing for Atlantic bluefin tuna not warranted. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/

20110527_bluefintuna.html. Posted May 27, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011d. 2010-2011 

cetacean unusual mortality event in northern Gulf of Mexico. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.htm. Updated July 6, 2011. 

Accessed July 12, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2010. Creating an offshore wind industry in the United States: A strategic work 

plan for the United States Department of Energy, fiscal years 2011 – 2015. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program. September 2, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/offshore/

offshore_wind_strategic_plan.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Natural gas processing: The crucial 

link between natural gas production and its transportation to market. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Washington DC, January 2006. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010a. Crude and petroleum products 

explained, use of oil. Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=

oil_use. Last updated March 1, 2010. Accessed March 30, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010b. Crude and petroleum products 

explained, oil imports and exports. Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/

index.cfm?page=oil_imports. Last updated February 23, 2010. Accessed March 30, 2010. 
References Cited 6-69 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010c. Natural gas consumption by end use. 

Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm. Last updated 

March 29, 2010. Accessed March 30, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010d. Table browser. Table 5a. 

U.S. natural gas supply, consumption and inventories, and Table 4a. U.S. crude oil and liquid fuel 

supply, consumption, and inventories. Internet websites: Table 4a: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/

steo/pub/cf_tables/steotables.cfm?tableNumber=9. Table 5a: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/

cf_tables/steotables.cfm?tableNumber=15. Posted December 7, 2010. Accessed January 4, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010e. Short-term energy outlook. Internet 

website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html. Posted December 7, 2010. Accessed 

January 4, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2011a. Natural gas consumption by end use. 

Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm. Last updated 

March 29, 2011. Accessed April 26, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2011b. Short-term energy and summer fuels 

outlook. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/pub/

contents.html#US_Crude_Oil_And_Liquids_Fuels. Posted April 12, 2011. Accessed April 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Coast Guard. 2010a. Polluting incidents in and around U.S. waters. 

A spill/release compendium: 1969-2008. Office of Investigations & Compliance Analysis (CG-545), 

Washington DC. Internet website: http://www.safety4sea.com/admin/images/media/pdf/2010.09.01-

Spill_Compendium.pdf. Accessed December 23, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Coast Guard. 2010b. Ballast water management. Internet website: 

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/bwm.asp. Accessed October 28, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Coast Guard. 2010c. Deepwater Horizon response daily report, 

period 175. October 12, 2010. Coast Guard Unified Area Command. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Hurricane Ike 

preliminary recovery assessment. Internet website: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/hazard/hurricane/2008/

ike/impact_report.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010a. Quarterly census of employment and wages for 

2001-2009. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010b. Fact sheet: Employment in the oil and gas well 

drilling industry. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/oil_gas_drilling.htm. Accessed July 1, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2010. Keeping workers safe 

during oil spill response and cleanup operations: Gulf oil response and heat. Internet website: http://

www.osha.gov/oilspills/heatstress.html. Accessed January 12, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 1992. Planning assistance to States program, Section 22 

report, inlets along the Texas Gulf Coast. Galveston District, Southwestern Division, August 1992. 

56 pp. Internet website: http://cirp.usace.army.mil/pubs/archive/Inlets_Along_TX_Gulf_Coast.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2002. Diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin (spp)). 

Internet website: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/tessp/profile.cfm?Type=Freshwater%20

Turtles&Name=Diamondback%20Terrapin&View=Species. Accessed October 18, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2004a. Louisiana coastal area (LCA): Ecosystem 

restoration study. Volume I, LCA Study—main report. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 

New Orleans District, New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.lca.gov/Library/

ProductList.aspx?ProdType=0&folder=1125. Accessed March 18, 2011. 
6-70 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2004b. Barataria-Plaquemines barrier island complex 

project CWPPRA project Fed No/BA-38 Pass La Mer to Chaland Pass and Pelican Island: 

Environmental assessment. New Orleans District, New Orleans, LA. 89 pp. + apps. Internet 

website: http://lacoast.gov/reports/env/BA-38ea304.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2008. Maintenance dredging and disposal of dredged 

materials Mississippi and Louisiana portions of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway federally authorized 

navigation project: Draft environmental assessment, January 2008. Mobile District Office, Mobile, 

AL. 232 pp. Internet website: http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/pd/EAs/

GIWW_DRAFTEAforPUBLIC(2)jj.pdf

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers, 2009a. Louisiana coastal protection and restoration 

(LACPR): Final technical report. Programmatic cumulative effects analysis appendix. U.S. Dept. of 

the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, Mississippi Valley Division. 49 pp. with 

annexes. Internet website: http://lacpr.usace.army.mil/FinalReport/Vol%20IV/Programmatic%20

Cumulative%20Effects%20Analysis.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2009b. Louisiana coastal protection and restoration 

(LACPR): Final technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 

Mississippi Valley Division. 265 pp. with attachments. Internet website: http://

lacpr.usace.army.mil/default.aspx?p=LACPR_Final_Technical_Report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2009c. Corps hurricane response. Task Force Hope Status 

Report Newsletter. December 14, 2009. 8 pp. Internet website: http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/

hps2/pdf/Dec_14_2009.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2010. Draft supplemental environmental assessment for 

the beach erosion control and storm damage reduction project, Panama City Beach, Bay County. 

Mobile District, Planning and Environmental Division, Environmental Resources Branch, Coastal 

Environment Team. 27 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2011a. Amount of dredged material ocean disposed by 

year in cubic yards by single district. Internet website: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd/. Stated as 

current through 2008. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2011b. United States of America ocean dumping report for 

calendar year 2008 dredged material. Headquarters, Washington DC. Internet website: http://

el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd/file.htm. Stated as current through 2008. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010. Increased safety measures for energy development on the outer 

continental shelf, May 27, 2010. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. 44 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=

33598. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1982. Ixtoc I oil spill economic impact study. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans OCS Office, New Orleans, LA. 

Study no. 1982-33. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010a. 

Modifications to suspension of deepwater drilling operations: Environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact (October 12, 2010). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Herndon, VA. 43 pp. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/eppd/PDF/EAModificationsSuspension10122010.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010b. 

Fact sheet: The workplace safety rule on safety and environmental management systems (SEMS). 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 2 pp. Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/news/

pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=45791. 
References Cited 6-71 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010c. 

Technical Information Management System (TIMS). Accessed September 13, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010d. 

BOEMRE issues guidance for deepwater drillers to comply with strengthened safety and 

environmental standards. Press Release and Document. December 13, 2010. 18 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1213.htm. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010e. 

Loss of well control—statistics and summaries 2006-2010. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/incidents/blowouts.htm. Updated November 19, 2010. Accessed December 15, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010f. 

BOEMRE website incident statistics and summaries 1996-2010. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/incidents/IncidentStatisticsSummaries.htm. Specifically accessed the page Gulf of 

Mexico Region Spills  50 Barrels (2,100 gallons)—2007: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/

SigPoll2007.htm. Accessed November 11, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010g. 

BOEMRE website incident statistics and summaries 1996-2010. Internet websites: http://

www.boemre.gov/incidents/IncidentStatisticsSummaries.htm. Specifically accessed the page Gulf of 

Mexico Region Spills  50 Barrels (2,100 gallons)—2008: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/

SigPoll2008.htm. Accessed November 30, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010h. 

Questions, answers, and related resources. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/

offshore/egom/faq.html. Accessed October 5, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010i. 

Summary OCS spills of 50 barrels (2,100 gallons) and greater, calendar year 1964-2009. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/spills1964-1995.htm. Accessed November 24, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010j. 

Federal and academic scientists return from deep-sea research cruise in Gulf of Mexico: Scientists 

observe damage to deep-sea corals. Press Release. November 4, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1104a.htm. Accessed November 24, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2011. 

Combined leasing report: June 1, 2011. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/ld/PDFs/

LeaseStatsJune2011.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping crane recovery plan (second 

revision). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 92 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes, piping 

plover (Charadrius melodious). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes – 

Big Rivers Region. 141 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

consultation on the effects of the five-year outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program 

(2007-2012) in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Opinion. 

September 14. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Species report. Chapter 4. Internet website: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do. Accessed on August 30, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Deepwater Horizon bird impact data from 

the DOI-ERDC NRDA database 12 May 2011. 6 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/

dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2005122011.pdf. Accessed July 11, 

2011. 
6-72 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2006. 

2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. FHW/06-NAT. 174 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal barrier resource 

system. Recommendations for additions to or deletions from the Coastal Barrier Resource System. 

Vol. 18, Louisiana. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2010a. Summary of the water cycle. Internet website: 

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesummary.html. Accessed October 4, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2010b. NAS—nonindigenous aquatic species. Pterois 

volitans/miles. Internet website: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/collectioninfo.aspx?NoCache=8%

2F11%2F2009+10%3A53%3A53+AM&SpeciesID=963&State=&County=&HUCNumber=. 

Accessed October 18, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 1984. Port Arthur and Bouma Bank quads, 

sheets I-VIII. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Map MMS 84-0003. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 1987. Programmatic environmental 

assessment: Structure removal activities, Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS EIS/EA MMS 87-0002. 84 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 1997. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

Sales 169, 172, 175, 178 and 182: Central Planning Area—final environmental impact statement. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 97-0033. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2000. Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations 

and activities: Environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000-001. 264 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2000/2000-001.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2001a. Proposed use of floating production, 

storage, and offloading systems on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf, Western and Central 

Planning Areas—final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2000-090. 782 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2000/2000-090.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2001b. Outer continental shelf oil & gas 

leasing program: 2002-2007—draft environmental impact statement, October 2001. 2 vols. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2001-079. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2002. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

sales: 2003-2007; Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201; Western Planning Area 

Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200—draft environmental impact statement. 2 vols. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

EIS/EA MMS 2002-015. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2005. Structure-removal operations on the 

Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf—programmatic environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

EIS/EA MMS 2005-013. 

U.S. Dept. of Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2006a. Planning area resources addendum to 

assessment of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the Nation’s outer 

continental shelf, 2006. MMS Fact Sheet RED-2006-02, July 2006. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region, New Orleans, LA. 2 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.boemre.gov/revaldiv/PDFs/NA2006BrochurePlanningAreaInsert.pdf.
References Cited 6-73 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2006b. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2006: 

America’s expanding frontier. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2006-022. 144 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/whatsnew/techann/2006/2006-022.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007a. Outer continental shelf oil and gas 

leasing program: 2007-2012—final environmental impact statement. Volumes I-II. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-003. 

Internet website: http://www.BOEMRE.gov/5-year/PDFs/MMSProposedFinalProgram2007-

2012.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007b. Gulf of Mexico 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. 2 vols. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

EIS/EA MMS 2007-018. Internet website: http://www.gomr.BOEMRE.gov/PDFs/2007/2007-018-

Vol1.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007c. Proposed final program: Outer 

continental shelf oil and gas leasing program, 2007-2012 (April 2007). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. 146 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/5-

year/PDFs/MMSProposedFinalProgram2007-2012.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007d. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas 

scenario examination: Pipeline landfalls. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2007-053. 8 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PDFs/2007/2007-053.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007e. Final programmatic environmental 

impact statement for alternative energy development and production and alternate use of facilities on 

the outer continental shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. 

OCS EIS/EA 2007-046. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007f. NTL No. 2007-G03: Marine trash and 

debris awareness and elimination. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/

regulate/regs/ntls/2007NTLs/07-g03.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007g. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas 

scenario examination: Exploration and development activity. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2007-052. 

14 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2008a. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

sales: 2009-2012; Central Planning Area Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222; Western Planning Area Sales 

210, 215, and 218—final supplemental environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2008-041. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2008b. Preliminary evaluation of in-place gas 

hydrate resources: Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2008-004. 

Internet website: http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/GasHydrateFiles/MMS2008-004.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2008c. NTL No. 2008-G05: Shallow hazards 

program. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/

2008NTLs/08-g05.pdf. 
6-74 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009a. Petroleum spills from Federal outer 

continental shelf oil and gas facilities caused by major hurricanes, 2002 to 2008: Lili (2002), Ivan 

(2004), Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Gustav (2008) and Ike (2008). September 24, 2009. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/PDFs/Hurricanes2002to2008.pdf. Accessed March 18, 

2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009b. NTL No. 2009-G39: Biologicallysensitive underwater features and areas. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/

homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/2009NTLs/09-G39.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009c. NTL No. 2009-G40: Deepwater 

benthic communities. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/

ntls/2009NTLs/09-G40.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009d. Rigs to reefs policy addendum: 

Enhanced reviewing and approval guidelines in response to the post-Hurricane Katrina regulatory 

environment. Related document, OCS Report MMS 2000-073. Internet website: http://

www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/rigs-to-reefs/Rigs-to-Reefs-Policy-Addendum.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009e. NTL 2009-G35: Sub-seabed disposal 

and offshore storage of solid wastes. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/

regulate/regs/ntls/2009NTLs/09-G35.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. National Park Service. 2005. November 2005 archeology e-gram. Internet 

website: http://www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/egrams/0511.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. National Park Service. 2008. Padre Island National Seashore: The 2008 sea 

turtle nesting season. Internet website: http://www.nps.gov/pais/naturescience/2008-season.htm. 

Accessed February 16, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. National Park Service. 2009. Sea turtle recovery project (turtle nesting). 

Internet website: http://www.nps.gov/pais/naturescience/strp.htm. Accessed February 18, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. National Park Service. 2010. Padre Island National Seashore: Current sea 

turtle nesting season; sea turtle nesting in Texas. Internet website: http://www.nps.gov/pais/

naturescience/current-season.htm. Accessed February 16, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. National Park Service. 2011. Padre Island National Seashore: Sea turtle 

recovery project; international efforts to save Kemp’s ridley. Internet website: http://www.nps.gov/

pais/naturescience/strp.htm. Accessed February 16, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Office of Public Affairs. 2010a. Salazar calls for new safety measures for 

offshore oil and gas operations; orders six month moratorium on deepwater drilling. May 27, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press0527.htm. Accessed November 16, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Office of Public Affairs. 2010b. Readout of BOEMRE Director Bromwich’s 

meeting with shallow water drilling coalition. September 14, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press0914.htm. Accessed November 16, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. 2010. Gulf Coast ports surrounding the deepwater horizon oil spill. June 

2010. Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Internet website: http://www.bts.gov/

publications/bts_fact_sheets/2010_001/pdf/entire.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Coast Guard. 2003. Final environmental impact statement for the Port 

Pelican LLC deepwater port license application. Commandant, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Coast 

Guard, Washington, DC. 
References Cited 6-75 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Louisiana 1 improvements: 

Golden Meadow to Port Fourchon. Revised Record of Decision. Internet website: http://

www.dotd.state.la.us/press/LA1_ROD_Addm.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. National Transportation Safety Board. 1998. Safety recommendation 

M-98-124. Internet website: http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1998/M98_124.pdf. Accessed 

October 2003. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2009. Vessel calls snapshot, 2009. 

10 pp. Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/

Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2010. Deepwater port licensing 

program: Pending applications. Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/

deepwater_port_licensing/dwp_planned_ports/dwp_planned_ports.htm. Accessed September 30, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2011. Cruise summary tables: 

North American cruises by departure port. Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/

north_america_cruise_summary_data.xls. Accessed July 8, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Sector notebook project: Oil and gas extraction. 51 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/

notebooks/oilgaspt1.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Coastal condition report. EPA-620/R-01/005. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html. Accessed August 24, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Exemption of oil and gas exploration and production 

wastes from federal hazardous waste regulations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Solid Wastes, Washington, DC. EPA530-K-01-004. 40 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/

osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/oil/oil-gas.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Final NPDES general permit for new and existing sources 

and new dischargers in the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction category for the western 

portion of the outer continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico (GMG290000). U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 117 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/genpermit/

gmg290000finalpermit2004.pdf. 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Coastal condition report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/downloads.html/. Accessed August 24, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Natural gas processing: The crucial link between natural 

gas production and its transportation to market. 11 pp. Internet website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/

pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2006/ngprocess/ngprocess.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007a. Region 6 compliance assurance and enforcement, 

offshore and oil and gas NPDES permits. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/w/

offshore/home.htm. Accessed November 26, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007b. National Estuary Program coastal condition report. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, 

Washington DC. EPA-842/B-06/001. Internet website: Accessed February 1, 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007c. USEPA Region 6 NPDES OCS general permit no. 

GMG290000. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/w/offshore/permit10012007.pdf. 

Accessed April 28, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007d. NPDES general permit for new and existing sources and 

new dischargers in the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction category for the western 

portion of the outer continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico (GMG290000). U.S. Environmental 
6-76 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Protection Agency. 15 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/Region06/water/npdes/genpermit/

gmg290000fedreg.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. Coastal condition report III. EPA/842-R-08-002. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/nccr/. Accessed February 27, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES), vessel discharges, final vessel general permit. 5 pp. Internet website: http://

cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=350. Updated December 15, 2008. Accessed April 20, 

2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008c. National list of beaches. Report number EPA-R-08-004. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Region 4 environmental assessment for the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting for eastern Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas 

exploration, development and production. Permit 904/P-09-001. 129 pp. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/region04/water/permits/documents/ea_12_09_09.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. Ozone standards, counties violating primary groundlevel ozone standard (also see maps), 2006-2008. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/

groundlevelozone/actions.html. Accessed October 5, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. Region 4 air permits. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/index.htm. Accessed November 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010c. Greenhouse gas reporting program. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. Accessed February 1, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010d. Particulate matter. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/pm/. Accessed December 2, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010e. Dispersants. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/

bpspill/dispersants-bp.html. Accessed July 9, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010f. Recovered oil, contaminated materials and liquid and 

solid wastes management directive, Louisiana, June 29, 2010. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/

bpspill/waste/wastemanagementdirective_la.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010g. Recovered oil, contaminated materials and liquid and 

solid wastes management directive, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, June 29, 2010. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste/wastemanagementdirective_msalfl.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010h. Waste staging and decontamination areas in Alabama, 

Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, June 28-October 4. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/

data/waste_facility_assessments.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010i. Dispersants toxicity testing – Phase II questions and 

answers; August 2, 2010. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/qandaphase2.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011a. 8-hour ozone nonattainment area/state/county report. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gnca.html. Accessed April 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011b. General conformity: Regulatory actions. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/air/genconform/regs.html. Accessed June 12, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Army, Corps of Engineers. 2003. Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Program: Regional implementation agreement. USEPA Region 6, 

USACOE Galveston District, USACOE New Orleans District. July 2003. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/region6/water/ecopro/em/ocean/ria.pdf. 
References Cited 6-77 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2007. Coastal wetlands: Lessons learned from past efforts in 

Louisiana could help guide future restoration and protection. Government Accountability Office, 

Washington DC. GAO 08-130. 62 pp. Internet website: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08130.pdf. 

U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection. 2010. The BP oil spill and the Gulf Coast tourism: Assessing the 

impact. Internet website: https://hsdl.org/?view&doc=126706&coll=limited. 

U.S. Travel Association. 2010. Economic impact of travel and tourism. The Power of Travel Data 

Center. Internet website: http://poweroftravel.org/statistics. 

Valentine, J. 2010. Official communication. Media reports of fisheries closures offsetting population 

losses from the spill. Senior Marine Scientist & Associate Professor, Dauphin Island Sea Lab and 

University of South Alabama. November 18, 2010. 

Van Zandt, S., W.G. Peacock, D. Henry, H. Grover, and W.E. Highfield. 2010. Social vulnerability and 

Hurricane Ike: Using social vulnerability mapping to enhance coastal community resilience in Texas. 

Special permission via email correspondence working paper from the Hazard Reduction & Recovery 

Center, Texas A&M University. 

Vandermuelen, J.H. 1982. Some conclusions regarding long-term effects of some major oil spills. 

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Communities and 

Ecosystems 297(1087):335-351. 

Vandegrift, K.J., S.H. Sokolow, P. Daszak, and A.M. Kilpatrick. 2010. Ecology of avian influenza 

viruses in a changing world. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1195:113-128. 

Vashcenko, M.A. 1980. Effects of oil pollution on the development of sex cells in sea urchins. 

Biologische Anstalt Helgoland 297-300. 

Veil, J.A., M.G. Puder, D. Elcock, and R.J. Redweik, Jr. 2004. A white paper describing produced water 

from production of crude oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane. Prepared by Argonne National 

Laboratory, Argonne, IL, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory, Contract W-31-109-Eng-38. 79 pp. Internet website: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/

dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=1715. 

Velando, A., D. Alvarez, J. Mourino, F. Arcos, and A. Barros. 2005a. Population trends and 

reproductive success of the European shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis on the Iberian Peninsula 

following the Prestige oil spill. Journal of Ornithology 146:116-120. 

Velando, A., I. Munilla, and P.M. Leyenda. 2005b. Short-term indirect effects of the ‘Prestige’ oil spill 

on European shags: Changes in availability of prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302:263-274. 

Visser, J.M. and G.W. Peterson. 1994. Breeding populations and colony site dynamics of seabirds 

nesting in Louisiana. Colonial Waterbirds 17:146-152. 

Vittor, B.A. 2000. Benthic macroinfauna of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico OCS, near DeSoto Canyon. 

In: Schroeder, W.W. and C.F. Wood, eds. Physical/Biological Oceanographic Integration Workshop 

for the DeSoto Canyon and Adjacent Shelf, October 19-21, 1999. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-074. 

168 pp. 

Wallace, B., J. Kirkley, T. McGuire, D. Austin, and D. Goldfield. 2001. Assessment of historical, social, 

and economic impacts of OCS development on Gulf Coast communities. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2001-026. 12 pp. 

Wang, F.C. 1987. Effects of levee extension on marsh flooding. Journal of Water Resources Planning 

and Management 113:161-176. 

Wang, F.C. 1988. Saltwater intrusion modeling: The role of man-made features. In: Turner, R.E. and 

D.R. Cahoon, eds. Causes of wetland loss in the coastal central Gulf of Mexico. Volume 2. 
6-78 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

87-0120. Pp. 71-100. 

Wang, P. and T. Roberts. 2010. Ongoing beach cleanup of the BP oil spill—a superficial job, literally. 

University of South Florida, Dept. of Geology, Coastal Research Laboratory, Tampa, FL.. 15 pp. 

Internet website: http://news.usf.edu/article/articlefiles/2566-PW%202nd%20Beach%20report.pdf. 

Wang, D.W., S.A. Mitchell, W.J. Teague, E. Jarosz, and M.S. Hulbert. 2005. Extreme waves under 

Hurricane Ivan. Science 3009:896. 

Ward, G.A., B. Baca, W. Cyriacks, R.E. Dodge, and A. Knap. 2003. Continuing long-term studies of the 

TROPICS Panama oil and dispersed oil spill sites. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Oil 

Spill Conference, April 2-10, 2003, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Warham, J. 1990. The petrels: Their ecology and breeding systems. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

440 pp. 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, eds. 2010. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico marine mammal stock assessments – 2011. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NE-219. 598 pp. 

Wartzok, D. and D.R. Ketten. 1999. Marine mammal sensory systems. In: Reynolds, J.E. and 

S.A. Rommel, eds. Biology of marine mammals. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Pp. 117-175. 

Waters, M.R., S.L. Forman, T.A. Jennings, L.C. Nordt, S.G. Driese, J.M. Feinberg, J.L. Keene, 

J. Halligan, A. Lindquist, J. Pierson, C.T. Hallmark, M.B. Collins, and J.E. Wiederhold. 2011. The 

Buttermilk Creek Complex and the origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. Science 

331:1599-1603. 

Weatherly, G. 2004. Intermediate depth circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: PALACE float results for the 

Gulf of Mexico between April 1998 and March 2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OSC Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS-2004-013. 

51 pp. 

Webb, J.W. 1988. Establishment of vegetation on oil-contaminated dunes. Shore and Beach, October. 

Pp. 20-23. 

Webb, T. 2010. BP oil spill: Failed safety device on Deepwater Horizon rig was modified in China. 

The Observer. Internet website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/18/deepwaterhorizon-blow-out-preventer-china. Posted July 18, 2010. Accessed September 22, 2010. 

Webb, J.W., G.T. Tanner, and B.H. Koerth. 1981. Oil spill effects on smooth cordgrass in Galveston 

Bay, Texas. Contributions in Marine Science 24:107-114. 

Webb, J.W., S.K. Alexander, and J.K. Winters. 1985. Effects of autumn application of oil on Spartina 

alterniflora in a Texas salt marsh. Environ. Poll. Series A. 38(4):321-337. 

Weinstein, B.L. 2010. The economic and fiscal consequences of the drop in shallow-water drilling 

permits: Impacts on the Gulf Coast and the Nation. Southern Methodist University, Maguire Energy 

Institute, Cox School of Business. September 2010. Internet website: http://pressdocs.cox.smu.edu/

maguire/Maguire%20Institute%20Shallow%20Water%20Report%209-10.pdf. Accessed 

November 28, 2010. 

Weir, R.D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made obstacles: A review of the state of 

the art and solutions. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa. 

Welsh, S.E., M. Inoue, L.J. Rouse, Jr., and E. Weeks. 2009. Observation of the deepwater manifestation 

of the Loop Current and Loop Current rings in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2009-050. 110 pp. 
References Cited 6-79 

Wells, R.J.D. and J.R. Rooker. 2004. Spatial and temporal habitat use by fishes associated with 

Sargassum mats in the NW Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 74:81-99 

Wesseling, I., A.J. Uychiacoc, P.M. Aliño, T. Aurin, and J.E. Vermaat. 1999. Damage and recovery of 

four Philippine corals from short-term sediment burial. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176:11-15. 

West Engineering Services, Inc. 2002. Mini shear study. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service. TAR Project 455. 16 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/

tarprojects/455/Final%20Report.pdf. 

West Engineering Services, Inc. 2004. Shear ram capability study. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service. TAR Project 463. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/463/(463)%20West%20Engineering%20Final%20Report.pdf

West Engineering Services, Inc. 2006. Assess the acceptability and safety of using equipment, 

particularly BOP and wellhead components, at pressures in excess of rated working pressure. 

Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TAR Project 566. 56 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/566/566AA.pdf. 

Wheeler, N.M., S.B. Reid, K.J. Craig, J.R. Zielonka, D.R. Stauffer, and S.R. Hanna. 2008. Cumulative 

increment analysis for the Breton National Wilderness Area. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-058. 

White, I.C. and J.M. Baker. 1999. The Sea Empress oil spill in context. International Conference on the 

Sea Empress Oil Spill, 11-13th February 1998, Cardiff, Wales. 33 pp. Internet website: http://

www.itopf.com/uploads/seeec.pdf. 

White, W.A., T.R. Calnan, R.A. Morton, R.S. Kimble, T.G. Littleton, J.H. McGowen, H.S. Nance, and 

K.E. Schmedes. 1986. Submerged lands of Texas, Brownsville-Harlingen area. University of Texas 

at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, TX. 

Whittle, K.J., R. Hardy, P.R. Mackie, and A.S. McGill. 1982. A quantitative assessment of the sources 

and fate of petroleum compounds in the marine environment. Philosophical Transactions of the 

Royal Society of London. B. 297:193-218. 

Wicker, K.M., R.E. Emmer, D. Roberts, and J. van Beek. 1989. Pipelines, navigation channels, and 

facilities in sensitive coastal habitats: An analysis of Outer Continental Shelf impacts, Coastal Gulf 

of Mexico. Volume I: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0051. 470 pp. 

Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. Linke. 2001. 

Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

42:1285-1290. 

WikiHow. 2010. The how to manual. How to calculate the distance to the horizon. Internet website. 

http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Distance-to-the-Horizon. Updated September 29, 2010. 

Accessed December 30, 2010. 

Wilber, D.H., W. Brostoff, D.G. Clarke, and G.L. Ray. 2005. Sedimentation: Potential biological effects 

from dredging operations in estuarine and marine environments. DOER Technical Notes Collection. 

ERDC TN-DOER-E20. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Engineer Research and Development Center, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

Wilber, D.H., G.L. Ray, D.G. Clarke, and R.J. Diaz. 2008. Responses of benthic infauna to large-scale 

sediment disturbance in Corpus Christi Bay, Texas. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology 365:13-22. 

Wilhelm, S.I., G.J. Robertson, P.C. Ryan, and D.C. Schneider. 2007. Comparing an estimate of seabirds 

at risk to a mortality estimate from the November 2004 Terra Nova FPSO oil spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 54:537-544. 
6-80 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Williams, R., S. Gero, L. Bejder, J. Calambokidis, S. Kraus, D. Lusseau, A. Read, and J. Robbins. 2011. 

Underestimating the damage: Interpreting cetacean carcass recoveries in the context of the 

Deepwater Horizon/BP Incident. Conservation Letters 0:1-6, doi:10.1111/j.1755-263x2011.00168x. 

Wilson, D.L., J.N. Fanjoy, and R.S. Billings. 2004. Gulfwide emission inventory study for the regional 

haze and ozone modeling efforts: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 2004-072. 273 pp. 

Wilson, D.L., R. Billings, R. Oommen, and R. Chang. 2007. Year 2005 Gulfwide emission inventory 

study. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-067. 149 pp. 

Wilson, D.L., R. Billings, R. Oommen, B. Lange, J. Marik, S. Mcclutchey, and H. Perez. In press. Year 

2008 Gulfwide emission inventory study. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study BOEMRE 2010-045. 

Winge, O. 1923. The Sargasso Sea, its boundaries and vegetation. Rep. Dan. Oceanog. Expd, 

1908-1910. 3 Misc. Pap. 2:1-34 

Wolfe, S.H., J.A. Reidenauer, and D.B. Means. 1988. An ecological characterization of the Florida 

Panhandle. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(12) and 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

88-0063. 278 pp. 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2006. The 2006 complete economic and demographic data source 

(CEDDS) on CD-ROM. 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2010. The 2011 complete economic and demographic data source 

(CEDDS) on CD-ROM. 

Wright, D.G. and G.E. Hopky. 1998. Guidelines for the use of explosives in or near Canadian fisheries 

waters. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2107. 

Wu, S.-Y., B. Yarnal, and A. Fisher. 2002. Vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level rise: A 

case study of Cape May County, New Jersey. Climate Research 22:255–270. 

Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidly. 2000. The marine mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. 

College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 232 pp. 

Wyers, S.C., H.R. Frith, R.E. Dodge, S.R. Smith, A.H. Knap, and T.D. Sleeter. 1986. Behavioral effects 

of chemically dispersed oil and subsequent recovery in Diploria strigosa. Marine Ecology 7:23-42. 

Yarwood, G., G. Mansell, M. Jimenez, and S. Lau. 2004. 2000 Gulf-wide emissions inventory—OCS 

on-shore impacts modeling (Texas), a preliminary look. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Novato, CA: ENVIRON International 

Corporation. September 1, 2004. 

Yender, R.A. and J. Michel, eds. 2010. Oil spills in coral reefs: Planning and response considerations. 

Second edition. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office 

of Response and Restoration. 82 pp. Internet website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/

book_shelf/70_coral_full_report.pdf. 

Zabala, J., I. Zuberogoitia, J.A. Martinez-Climent, and J. Etxezarreta. 2010. Do long lived seabirds 

reduce the negative effects of acute pollution on adult survival by skipping breeding? A study with 

European storm petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) during the “Prestige” oil-spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 62:109-115. 

Zeller, T., Jr. 2010. Drill ban means hard times for rig workers. The New York Times. Internet website: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/business/18rig.html?_r=1. Accessed June 29, 2010. 

Zenz House, K., D.P. Schrag, C.F. Harvey, and K.A. Lackner. 2006. Permanent carbon dioxide storage 

in deep-sea sediments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(33):12291-12295. 
References Cited 6-81 

Zhang, Z. and D. McConnell. 2011. Rock physics modeling of the gas hydrate and free gas mixed 

system in Green Canyon 955, Gulf of Mexico, and implications for gas hydrate prospecting. U.S 

Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Fire in the Ice, January 2011. Pp. 15-19. 

Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/MethaneHydrates/

newsletter/newsletter.htm. Accessed March 18, 2011. 

Zieman, J.C. 1976. The ecological effects of physical damage from motor boats on turtle grass beds in 

Southern Florida. Aquatic Botany 2:127-139. 

Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of the seagrasses of south Florida: A community profile. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/25. 123 pp. 

Zieman, J.C., R. Orth, R.C. Phillips, G. Thayer, and A. Thorhaug. 1984. The effects of oil on seagrass 

ecosystems. In: Cairns, J., Jr. and A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of habitats impacted by oil 

spills. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers. 

Zuberogoitia, I., J.A. Martinez, A. Iraeta, A. Azkona, J. Zabala, B. Jimenez, R. Merino, and G. Gomez. 

2006. Short-term effects of the Prestige oil spill on the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 52:1176-1181. 
CHAPTER 7 

PREPARERS
Preparers 7-3 

7. PREPARERS 

Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section 

Barry Obiol, Lead NEPA Coordinator, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Casey Rowe, Coordinator, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Keely Hite, Headquarters’ Coordinator, Environmental Specialist 

Pat Adkins, Information Management Specialist 

Bruce Baird, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Tom Bjerstedt, Coordinator, Senior Physical Scientist 

Perry Boudreaux, Biologist 

Darice K. Breeding, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Sindey Chaky, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Dennis Chew, Marine Biologist 

Deborah Epperson, Protected Species Biologist 

Barret Fortier, Biologist 

Donald (Tre) W. Glenn III, Protected Species Biologist 

Mike Gravois, Geographer 

Rebecca Green, Oceanographer 

Larry M. Hartzog, Environmental Scientist 

Christopher Horrell, Senior Marine Archaeologist 

Chin Hua Huang, Meteorologist 

Mark Jensen, Economist 

Alvin Jones, Physical Scientist 

Jack Irion, Unit Supervisor, Marine Archaeologist 

Agatha Kaller, Marine Biologist 

Nancy M. Kornrumpf, Program Analyst 

Carla Langley, Geographer 

Daniel (Herb) Leedy, Supervisor, Biological Sciences Unit 

Jill Lewandowski, Marine Biologist 

Lissa Lyncker, Biologist 

Alexis Lugo-Fernandez, Oceanographer 

Harry Luton, Social Scientist 

Margaret Metcalf, Physical Scientist 

Deborah H. Miller, Technical Editor 

Megan Milliken, Environmental Protect Specialist 

David P. Moran, Biologist 

Maureen M. Mulino, Marine Biologist 

Michelle Nannen, Marine Biologist 

S. Erin O’Reilly, Physical Scientist 

Catherine A. Rosa, Environmental Assessment Program Specialist 

James Sinclair, Marine Biologist 

Kim Skrupky, Marine Biologist 

Kristen L. Strellec, Economist 

Kate Winters, Biologist 
CHAPTER 8 

GLOSSARY
Glossary 8-3 

8. GLOSSARY 

Acute—Sudden, short term, severe, critical, 

crucial, intense, but usually of short duration. 

Anaerobic—Capable of growing in the absence of 

molecular oxygen. 

Annular preventer—A component of the 

pressure control system in the BOP that forms 

a seal in the annular space around any object 

in the wellbore or upon itself, enabling well 

control operations to commence.

Anthropogenic—Coming from human sources, 

relating to the effect of humankind on nature. 

API gravity—A standard adopted by the 

American Petroleum Institute for expressing 

the specific weight of oil. 

Aromatic—Class of organic compounds 

containing benzene rings or benzenoid 

structures.

Attainment area—An area that is shown by 

monitored data or by air-quality modeling 

calculations to be in compliance with primary 

and secondary ambient air quality standards 

established by the USEPA. 

Barrel (bbl)—A volumetric unit used in the 

petroleum industry; equivalent to 42 U.S. 

gallons or 158.99 liters. 

Benthic—On or in the bottom of the sea.

Biological Opinion—The FWS or NMFS 

evaluation of the impact of a proposed action 

on endangered and threatened species, in 

response to formal consultation under Section 

7 or the endangered Species Act.

Block—A geographical area portrayed on official 

BOEMRE protraction diagrams or leasing 

maps that contains approximately 2,331 ha 

(9 mi2

).

Blowout—An uncontrolled flow of fluids below 

the mudline from appurtenances on a wellhead 

or from a wellbore. 

Blowout preventer (BOP)—One of several 

valves installed at the wellhead to prevent the 

escape of pressure either in the annular space 

between the casing and drill pipe or in open 

hole (i.e., hole with no drill pipe) during 

drilling completion operations. Blowout 

preventers on jackup or platform rigs are 

located at the water’s surface; on floating 

offshore rigs, BOP’s are located on the 

seafloor.

Bottom kill—A wild well-control procedure 

involving the intersection of an uncontrolled 

well with a relief well for the purpose of 

pumping heavy mud or cement into the wild 

well to stanch the flow of oil or gas (the well 

control strategy for the Macondo spill 

deployed in mid-July 2010 that resulted in the 

successful capping of the well. 

Cetacean—Aquatic mammal of the order Cetacea, 

such as whales, dolphins, and porpoises. 

Chemosynthetic—Organisms that obtain their 

energy from the oxidation of various inorganic 

compounds rather than from light 

(photosynthetic). 

Cofferdam containment dome—A vertically 

elongated box structure designed to fit loosely 

over the Macondo lower marine riser package 

to capture escaping oil at the surface (an early 

containment strategy for the Macondo spill 

deployed in May 2010). 

Coastal waters—Waters within the geographical 

areas defined by each State’s Coastal Zone 

Management Program. 

Coastal wetlands—forested and nonforested 

habitats, mangroves, and marsh islands 

exposed to tidal activity. These areas directly 

contribute to the high biological productivity 

of coastal waters by input of detritus and 

nutrients, by providing nursery and feeding 

areas for shellfish and finfish, and by serving 

as habitat for birds and other animals. 

Coastal zone—The coastal waters (including the 

lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent 

shorelands (including the waters therein and 

thereunder) strongly influenced by each other 

and in proximity to the shorelines of the 

several coastal states; the zone includes 

islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt 

marshes, wetlands, and beaches and extends 

seaward to the outer limit of the United States 

territorial sea. The zone extends inland from 

the shorelines only to the extent necessary to 

control shorelands, the uses of which have a 

direct and significant impact on the coastal 

waters. Excluded from the coastal zone are 

lands the use of which is by law subject to the 
8-4 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

discretion of or which is held in trust by the 

Federal Government, its officers, or agents. 

See also State coastal zone boundaries. 

Completion—Conversion of a development well 

or an exploratory well into a production well. 

Condensate—Liquid hydrocarbons produced with 

natural gas; they are separated from the gas by 

cooling and various other means. Condensates 

generally have an API gravity of 50o

-120o. 

Continental margin—The ocean floor that lies 

between the shoreline and the abyssal ocean 

floor, includes the continental shelf, 

continental slope, and continental rise. 

Continental shelf—General term used by 

geologist to refer to the continental margin 

province that lies between the shoreline and 

the abrupt change in slope called the shelf 

edge, which generally occurs in the Gulf of 

Mexico at about 200 m water depth. The 

continental shelf is characterized by a gentle 

slope (about 0.1o

). This is different from the 

juridicial term used in Article 76 of the 

Convention on the Law of the Sea (see the 

definition of Outer Continental Shelf). 

Continental slope—The continental margin 

province that lies between the continental 

shelf and continental rise, characterized by a 

steep slope (about 3o

-6o). 

Critical habitat—Specific areas essential to the 

conservation of a protected species and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

Crude oil—Petroleum in its natural state as it 

emerges from a well, or after it passes through 

a gas-oil separator but before refining or 

distillation. An oily, flammable, bituminous 

liquid that is essentially a complex mixture of 

hydrocarbons of different types with small 

amounts of other substances. 

Deferral—Action taken by the Secretary of the 

Interior at the time of the Area Identification 

to remove certain areas/blocks from the 

proposed sale. 

Delineation well—A well that is drilled for the 

purpose of determining the size and/or volume 

of an oil or gas reservoir. 

Demersal—Living at or near the bottom of the 

sea. 

Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event—All actions 

stemming from the April 20, 2010, explosion 

and subsequent sinking of the Transocean 

drillship Deepwater Horizon, up to and 

including the Macondo well kill declaration on 

September 19, 2010.

Development—Activities that take place 

following discovery of economically 

recoverable mineral resources, including 

geophysical surveying, drilling, platform 

construction, operation of onshore support 

facilities, and other activities that are for the 

purpose of ultimately producing the resources.

Development Operations Coordination 

Document (DOCD)—A document that must 

be prepared by the operator and submitted to 

BOEMRE for approval before any 

development or production activities are 

conducted on a lease in the Western Gulf. 

Development well—A well drilled to a known 

producing formation to extract oil or gas; a 

production well; distinguished from a wildcat 

or exploratory well and from an offset well. 

Direct employment—Consists of those workers 

involved the primary industries of oil and gas 

exploration, development, and production 

operations (Standard Industrial Classification 

Code 13—Oil and Gas Extraction). 

Discharge—Something that is emitted; flow rate 

of a fluid at a given instant expressed as 

volume per unit of time. 

Dispersant—A suite of chemicals and solvents 

used to break up an oil slick into small 

droplets, which increases the surface area of 

the oil and hastens the processes of weathering 

and microbial degradation. 

Dispersion—A suspension of finely divided 

particles in a medium. 

Drilling mud—A mixture of clay, water or 

refined oil, and chemical additives pumped 

continuously downhole through the drill pipe 

and drill bit, and back up the annulus between 

the pipe and the walls of the borehole to a 

surface pit or tank. The mud lubricates and 

cools the drill bit, lubricates the drill pipe as it 

turns in the wellbore, carries rock cuttings to 

the surface, serves to keep the hole from 

crumbling or collapsing, and provides the 

weight or hydrostatic head to prevent 

extraneous fluids from entering the well bore 
Glossary 8-5 

and to downhole pressures; also called drilling 

fluid. 

Economically recoverable resources—An 

assessment of hydrocarbon potential that takes 

into account the physical and technological 

constraints on production and the influence of 

costs of exploration and development and 

market price on industry investment in OCS 

exploration and production. 

Effluent—The liquid waste of sewage and 

industrial processing. 

Effluent limitations—Any restriction established 

by a State or the USEPA on quantities, rates, 

and concentrations of chemical, physical, 

biological, and other constituents discharged 

from point sources into U.S. waters, including 

schedules of compliance. 

Epifaunal—Animals living on the surface of hard 

substrate. 

Essential habitat—Specific areas crucial to the 

conservation of a species and that may 

necessitate special considerations. 

Estuary—Coastal semienclosed body of water 

that has a free connection with the open sea 

and where freshwater meets and mixes with 

seawater. 

Eutrophication—Enrichment of nutrients in the 

water column by natural or artificial methods 

accompanied by an increase of respiration, 

which may create an oxygen deficiency. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)—The maritime 

region extending 200 nmi from the baseline of 

the territorial sea, in which the United States 

has exclusive rights and jurisdiction over 

living and nonliving natural resources. 

Exploration Plan (EP)—A plan that must be 

prepared by the operator and submitted to 

BOEMRE for approval before any exploration 

or delineation drilling is conducted on a lease 

in the Western Gulf. 

Exploration well—A well drilled in unproven or 

semi-proven territory to determining whether 

economic quantities of oil or natural gas 

deposit are present; exploratory well. 

False crawls—Refers to when a female sea turtle 

crawls up on the beach to nest (perhaps) but 

does not and returns to the sea without laying 

eggs. 

Field—An accumulation, pool, or group of pools 

of hydrocarbons in the subsurface. A 

hydrocarbon field consists of a reservoir in a 

shape that will trap hydrocarbons and that is 

covered by an impermeable, sealing rock. 

Floating production, storage, and offloading 

(FPSO) system—A tank vessel used as a 

production and storage base; produced oil is 

stored in the hull and periodically offloaded to 

a shuttle tanker for transport to shore.. 

Gathering lines—A pipeline system used to bring 

oil or gas production from a number of 

separate wells or production facilities to a 

central trunk pipeline, storage facility, or 

processing terminal. 

Geochemical—Of or relating to the science 

dealing with the chemical composition of and 

the actual or possible chemical changes in the 

crust of the earth. 

Geophysical survey—A method of exploration in 

which geophysical properties and relationships 

are measured remotely by one or more 

geophysical methods. 

Habitat—A specific type of environment that is 

occupied by an organism, a population, or a 

community. 

Hermatypic coral—Reef-building corals that 

produce hard, calcium carbonate skeletons and 

that possess symbiotic, unicellular algae 

within their tissues. 

Harassment—An intentional or negligent act or 

omission that creates the likelihood of injury 

to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as 

to significantly disrupt normal behavior 

patterns that include, but are not limited to, 

feeding or sheltering. 

Hydrocarbons—Any of a large class of organic 

compounds containing primarily carbon and 

hydrogen. Hydrocarbon compounds are 

divided into two broad classes: aromatic and 

aliphatics. They occur primarily in petroleum, 

natural gas, coal, and bitumens. 

Hypoxia—Depressed levels of dissolved oxygen 

in water, usually resulting in decreased 

metabolism. 

Incidental take—Takings that result from, but are 

not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise 

lawful activity (e.g., fishing) conducted by a 

Federal agency or applicant (see Taking). 
8-6 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Indirect employment—Secondary or supporting 

oil- and gas-related industries, such as the 

processing of crude oil and gas in refineries, 

natural gas plants, and petrochemical plants. 

Induced employment—Tertiary industries that 

are created or supported by the expenditures of 

employees in the primary or secondary 

industries (direct and indirect employment), 

including consumer goods and services such 

as food, clothing, housing, and entertainment. 

Infrastructure—The facilities associated with oil 

and gas development, e.g., refineries, gas 

processing plants, etc. 

Jack-up rig—A barge-like, floating platform with 

legs at each corner that can be lowered to the 

sea bottom to raise the platform above the 

water. 

Junk shot—A wild well-control procedure 

accompanying a top kill that introduces 

foreign objects into the drilling fluid (such as 

shredded rope, rubber, or golf balls) and that is 

designed to clog the openings or partial 

openings in a nonfunctioning blowout 

preventer (an early well control strategy for 

the Macondo spill in May 2010). 

Kick—A deviation or imbalance, typically sudden 

or unexpected, between the downward 

pressure exerted by the drilling fluid and the 

upward pressure of in situ formation fluids or 

gases.

Landfall—The site where a marine pipeline 

comes to shore. 

Lease—Authorization that is issued under Section 

8 or maintained under Section 6 of the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act and that 

authorizes exploration for, and development 

and production of, minerals. 

Lease sale—The competitive auction of leases 

granting companies or individuals the right to 

explore for and develop certain minerals under 

specified conditions and periods of time. 

Lease term—The initial period for oil and gas 

leases, usually a period of 5, 8, or 10 years 

depending on water depth or potentially 

adverse conditions. 

Lessee—A party authorized by a lease, or an 

approved assignment thereof, to explore for 

and develop and produce the leased deposits in 

accordance with regulations at 30 CFR 250. 

Lower marine riser package—The head 

assembly of a subsurface well at the point 

where the riser connects to a blowout 

preventer.

Macondo—Prospect name given by BP to the 

Mississippi Canyon Block 252 exploration 

well that the Deepwater Horizon rig was 

drilling when a blowout occurred on April 20, 

2010.

Macondo spill—The name given to the oil spill 

that resulted from the explosion and sinking of 

the Deepwater Horizon rig from the period 

between April 24, 2010, when search and 

recovery vessels on site reported oil at the sea 

surface until uncontrolled flow from the 

Macondo well was capped. 

Marshes—Persistent, emergent, nonforested 

wetlands characterized by predominantly 

cordgrasses, rushes, and cattails. 

Military warning area—An area established by 

the Department of Defense within which 

military activities take place. 

Minerals—As used in this document, minerals 

include oil, gas, sulphur, and associated 

resources, and all other minerals authorized by 

an Act of Congress to be produced from 

public lands as defined in Section 103 of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976. 

Nepheloid—A layer of water near the bottom that 

contains significant amounts of suspended 

sediment. 

Nonattainment area—An area that is shown by 

monitoring data or by air-quality modeling 

calculations to exceed primary or secondary 

ambient air quality standards established by 

the USEPA. 

Nonhazardous oil-field wastes (NOW)—Wastes 

generated by exploration, development, or 

production of crude oil or natural gas that are 

exempt from hazardous waste regulation under 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas 

and Geothermal Exploration, Development 

and Production Wastes, dated June 29, 1988, 

53 FR 25446; July 6, 1988). These wastes 

may contain hazardous substances. 

Naturally occurring radioactive materials 

(NORM)—naturally occurring material that 

emits low levels of radioactivity, originating 
Glossary 8-7 

from processes not associated with the 

recovery of radioactive material. The 

radionuclides of concern in NORM are 

Radium-226, Radium-228, and other isotopes 

in the radioactive decay chains of uranium and 

thorium. 

Offloading—Unloading liquid cargo, crude oil, or 

refined petroleum products. 

Operational discharge—Any incidental 

pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or 

dumping of wastes generated during routine 

offshore drilling and production activities. 

Operator—An individual, partnership, firm, or 

corporation having control or management of 

operations on a leased area or portion thereof. 

The operator may be a lessee, designated 

agent of the lessee, or holder of operating 

rights under an approved operating agreement. 

Organic matter—Material derived from living 

plants or animals. 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)—All submerged 

lands that comprise the continental margin 

adjacent to the United States and seaward of 

State offshore lands. 

Pelagic—Of or pertaining to the open sea; 

associated with open water beyond the direct 

influence of coastal systems. 

Penaeids—Chiefly warm water and tropical 

prawns belonging to the family Penaeidae. 

Plankton—Passively floating or weakly motile 

aquatic plants (phytoplankton) and animals 

(zooplankton). 

Platform—A steel or concrete structure from 

which offshore development wells are drilled. 

Play—A prospective subsurface area for 

hydrocarbon accumulation that is 

characterized by a particular structural style or 

depositional relationship. 

Primary production—Organic material produced 

by photosynthetic or chemosynthetic 

organisms. 

Produced water—Total water discharged from 

the oil and gas extraction process; production 

water or production brine. 

Production—Activities that take place after the 

successful completion of any means for the 

extraction of resources, including bringing the 

resource to the surface, transferring the 

produced resource to shore, monitoring 

operations, and drilling additional wells or 

workovers. 

Province—A spatial entity with common geologic 

attributes. A province may include a single 

dominant structural element such as a basin or 

a fold belt, or a number of contiguous related 

elements. 

Ram—The main component of a blowout 

preventer designed to shear casing and tools in 

a wellbore or to seal an empty wellbore. A 

blind shear ram accomplishes the former and a 

blind ram the latter.

Recoverable reserves—The portion of the 

identified hydrocarbon or mineral resource 

that can be economically extracted under 

current technological constraints. 

Recoverable resource estimate—An assessment 

of hydrocarbon or mineral resources that takes 

into account the fact that physical and 

technological constraints dictate that only a 

portion of resources can be brought to the 

surface. 

Recreational beaches—Frequently visited, sandy 

areas along the Gulf of Mexico shorefront that 

support multiple recreational activities at the 

land-water interface. Included are National 

Seashores, State Park and Recreational Areas, 

county and local parks, urban beachfronts, and 

private resorts. 

Refining—Fractional distillation of petroleum, 

usually followed by other processing (for 

example, cracking). 

Relief—The difference in elevation between the 

high and low points of a surface. 

Reserves—Proved oil or gas resources. 

Rig—A structure used for drilling an oil or gas 

well. 

Riser insertion tube tool—A “straw” and gasket 

assembly improvised during the Macondo spill 

response that was designed to siphon oil and 

gas from the broken riser of the Deepwater 

Horizon lying on the sea bottom (an early 

recovery strategy for the Macondo spill in 

May 2010). 

Royalty—A share of the minerals produced from 

a lease paid in either money or “in-kind” to the 

landowner by the lessee. 
8-8 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Saltwater intrusion—Saltwater invading a body 

of freshwater. 

Sciaenids—Fishes belonging to the croaker family 

(Sciaenidae). 

Seagrass beds—More or less continuous mats of 

submerged, rooted, marine, flowering vascular 

plants occurring in shallow tropical and 

temperate waters. Seagrass beds provide 

habitat, including breeding and feeding 

grounds, for adults and/or juveniles of many 

of the economically important shellfish and 

finfish. 

Sediment—Material that has been transported and 

deposited by water, wind, glacier, 

precipitation, or gravity; a mass of deposited 

material. 

Seeps (hydrocarbon)—Gas or oil that reaches the 

surface along bedding planes, fractures, 

unconformities, or fault planes. 

Sensitive area—An area containing species, 

populations, communities, or assemblages of 

living resources, that is susceptible to damage 

from normal OCS-related activities. Damage 

includes interference with established 

ecological relationships. 

Shear ram—The component in a BOP that cuts, 

or shears, through the drill pipe and forms a 

seal against well pressure. Shear rams are 

used in floating offshore drilling operations to 

provide a quick method of moving the rig 

away from the hole when there is no time to 

trip the drill stem out of the hole. 

Shunting—A method used in offshore oil and gas 

drilling and production activities where 

expended cuttings and fluids are discharged 

through a downpipe, which terminates no 

more than 10 m from the ocean floor, rather 

than discharged at the ocean surface. 

Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team—The 

on-the-scene responders for post-spill 

shoreline protection who established priorities, 

standardized procedures and establish 

terminology.

Spill of National Significance—Designation by 

the USEPA Administrator under 40 CFR 

300.323 for discharges occurring in the inland 

zone and the Commandant of the CG for 

discharges occurring in the coastal zone, 

authorizing the appointment of a National 

Incident Commander for spill-response 

activity. 

State coastal zone boundary—The State coastal 

zone boundaries for each CZMA-affected 

State are defined at http://

coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/docs/

StateCZBoundaries.pdf. 

Structure—Any OCS facility that extends from 

the seafloor to above the waterline; in 

petroleum geology, any arrangement of rocks 

that may hold an accumulation of oil or gas. 

Subarea—A discrete analysis area. 

Subsea isolation device—An emergency 

disconnection and reconnection assembly for 

the riser at the seafloor.

Supply vessel—A boat that ferries food, water, 

fuel, and drilling supplies and equipment to an 

offshore rig or platform and returns to land 

with refuse that cannot be disposed of at sea. 

Taking—To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any 

endangered or threatened species, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct 

(including actions that induce stress, adversely 

impact critical habitat, or result in adverse 

secondary or cumulative impacts). 

Harassments are the most common form of 

taking associated with OCS Program 

activities. 

Tension-leg platform (TLP)—A production 

structure that consists of a buoyant platform 

tethered to concrete pilings on the seafloor 

with flexible cable. 

Top hat—A short cylindrical sleeve with a 

tapered apex designed to fit atop of the lower 

marine riser package and to capture oil and 

gas from the flowing Macondo well (a 

functional subsurface recovery strategy for the 

Macondo spill in June and July, before the 

well was capped on July 15, 2010). 

Top kill—A wild well-control procedure 

involving the pump-down under pressure of 

heavy drilling fluid to equalize pressure and to 

stop the flow of gas and oil exiting a blowout 

(an early well control strategy for the 

Macondo spill deployed in May 2010). 

Total dissolved solids—The total amount of 

solids that are dissolved in water.
Glossary 8-9 

Total suspended particulate matter—The total 

amount of suspended solids in water. 

Total suspended solids—The total amount of 

suspended solids in water. 

Trunkline—A large-diameter pipeline receiving 

oil or gas from many smaller tributary 

gathering lines that serve a large area; 

common-carrier line; main line. 

Turbidity—Reduced water clarity due to the 

presence of suspended matter. 

Unified Area Command—A system of satellite 

work, coordination, and remediation stations 

administered by the Unified Incident 

Commander during a spill of national 

significance. 

Unified Incident Command—Command and 

coordination center for the National Incident 

Commander.

Volatile organic compound (VOC)—Any 

organic compound that is emitted to the 

atmosphere as a vapor. 

Water test areas—Areas within the Eastern Gulf 

where Department of Defense research, 

development, and testing of military planes, 

ships, and weaponry take place. 

Weathering (of oil)—The aging of oil due to its 

exposure to the atmosphere, causing marked 

alterations in its physical and chemical 

makeup. 
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A 

 

FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures and Tables A-3 

Eastern

 Planning

 Area

Central Planning Area

Western Planning Area

TEXAS

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

60 m

800 m

200 m

400 m

1600 m

2400 m

VENICE

MORGAN

CITY

HOUMA

BROWNSVILLE

CORPUS

CHRISTI TAMPA

HOUSTON

PORT

ARTHUR

BEAUMONT NEW

ORLEANS LAKE

CHARLES

LAFAYETTE PANAMA

CITY

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

TALLAHASSEE

NAPLES

Planning Area Proposed Sale Area

0 100 200 Kilometers

0 100 200 Miles

Figure 1-1. Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas, Proposed Lease Sale Area, and Locations of 

Major Cities. 

Central Planning Area

Western Planning Area

TEXAS

FL

LOUISIANA MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

VENICE

MORGAN

CITY

HOUMA

BROWNSVILLE

CORPUS

CHRISTI

HOUSTON

PORT

ARTHUR

BEAUMONT NEW

ORLEANS

LAKE

CHARLES

LAFAYETTE

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

301.5 Miles*

* Geodesic distance measurement from Macondo site is an approximation, using a non-projected coordinate system

Macondo

Well Site

Distance from MC 252 Macondo well to WPA (miles)

Planning Area

0 100 200 Kilometers

0 100 200 Miles

Proposed Sale Area

Figure 1-2. Distance from the Macondo Well (Mississippi Canyon Block 252) to the Western Planning 

Area Boundary. 
A-4 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Eastern

 Planning

 Area

Central Planning Area

Western Planning Area

TEXAS

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

VENICE

MORGAN

CITY

HOUMA

BROWNSVILLE

CORPUS

CHRISTI TAMPA

HOUSTON

PORT

ARTHUR

BEAUMONT NEW

ORLEANS LAKE

CHARLES

LAFAYETTE PANAMA

CITY

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

TALLAHASSEE

NAPLES

14 21

19 20 18

17

16

15

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Planning Area Grids

0 100 200 Kilometers

0 100 200 Miles

Figure 1-3. Grid Areas of Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys in Deep Water from NTL 2008-G06. 

Topographic

Features

Blocks

Topographic Features Blocks

1.4-Nautical-Mile 

Buffer Zone

Blocks Beyond

U.S. Exclusive

Economic Zone

Pinnacle Trend

Blocks

Blocks within

15 Miles of

Baldwin County,

Alabama

Central Planning Area

Western Planning Area

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

60 m

800 m

400 m

200 m

1600 m

2400 m

0 100 200 Kilometers

0 100 200 Miles

Proposed Sale Area

Topographic Feature Stipulation Block

Pinnacle Trend Stipulation Block

Blocks Within 15 Miles of Baldwin County,

Alabama, Coast

Blocks Beyond U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

(northern portion of the Eastern Gap)

1.4 Nautical Mile Buffer Zone North of the

Continental Shelf Boundary Between the 

U.S. and Mexico

Deferred Area East of Military Mission Line

Deferred Area Required by GOMESA of 2006

Figure 2-1. Location of Proposed Stipulations and Deferrals. 
Figure 2-2. Economic Impact Areas in the Gulf of Mexico. 
A-6 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Eastern

 Planning

 Area

Central Planning Area

Western Planning Area

TEXAS

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

VENICE

MORGAN

CITY

HOUMA

BROWNSVILLE

CORPUS

CHRISTI TAMPA

HOUSTON

PORT

ARTHUR

BEAUMONT NEW

ORLEANS LAKE

CHARLES

LAFAYETTE PANAMA

CITY

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

TALLAHASSEE

NAPLES

W-155

W-453

W-470

W-59

W-147

EWTA-1

W-151

W-92

EWTA-3

EWTA-2

W-228

W-602 W-168

EWTA-4

EWTA-5

W-174

EWTA-6

W-147

0 100 200 Kilometers

0 100 200 Miles

Military Warning Area Boundary

Military Mission Line

Planning Area

Proposed Sale Area

Figure 2-3. Military Warning Areas and Eglin Water Test Areas Located in the Gulf of Mexico. 
W 0-60m W 1600-2400mW 800-1600m W >2400m W 200-400m W 400-800m W 60-200m C 0-60m (Western) C 60-200m C 800-1600m (Western) C 1600-2400m C >2400m 

C 0-60m (Eastern) 

TEXAS LOUISIANA MISSISSIPPI A

0 100 200 Kilometers 0 100 200 Miles Figure 3-1. Offshore Subareas in the Gulf of Mexico. 
A-8 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

WESTERN PLANNING AREA

CENTRAL

PLANNING

AREA

Refinery

Port

Terminal

* No equivalent Texas State Pipeline Data

Transitioning OCS Pipeline 0 100 200Kilometers

0 100 200Miles

TEXAS LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

CENTRAL PLANNING AREA

WESTERN

PLANNING

AREA

0 110 220Kilometers

0 100 200Miles

Refinery

Port

Terminal

Transitioning OCS Pipeline

State of Louisiana Pipeline

Figure 3-2. Infrastructure and Transitioning Pipelines (from Federal OCS waters) in Texas and Louisiana. 
Figures and Tables A-9 

Eastern

 Planning

 Area

Central Planning Area

Western Planning Area

TEXAS

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

VENICE

MORGAN

CITY

HOUMA

BROWNSVILLE

CORPUS

CHRISTI TAMPA

HOUSTON

PORT

ARTHUR

BEAUMONT NEW

ORLEANS LAKE

CHARLES

LAFAYETTE PANAMA

CITY

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

TALLAHASSEE

NAPLES

USEPA/BOEMRE Air Quality 

Jurisdictional Boundary Planning Area Proposed Sale Area

BOEMRE

Air Quality Jurisdiction

USEPA Air Quality

Jurisdiction

0 100 200 Kilometers

0 100 200 Miles

Figure 3-3. Air Quality Jurisdiction. 

Figure 3-4. OCS-Related Service Bases in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Figure 3-5. Major Ports and Domestic Waterways in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Figures and Tables A-11 

Wal k

East Breaks

Garden Banks Gree

Alaminos Canyon Keathley Canyon Port

Isabel

Galveston

Area

High

Island

Area

Amery Terrace

Brazos

Area

Sigsbee Escarpment

Vermilion

Area Eugene

Island

Area Ship

Shoa

Are a

West

Cameron

Area

East

Cameron

Area

Corpus

Christi

Mustang

Island

Area

High

Island

Area,

South

Addition

Matagorda

Island

Area

West

Cameron

Area,

South

Addition

Galveston Area,

South Addition

Vermilion

Area,

South

Addition

West

Cameron

Area, Area,

West

Addition

Mustang Island Area,

East Addition

North

Padre

Island

Area,

East

Addition

Ship Shoal Ship Shoal

South Add

South

Padre

Island

Area,

East

Addition

East

Cameron

Area,

South

Addition

Eugene Island Area,

South Addition

Brazos Area,

South Addition

High

Island

Area,

East

Addition

North

Padre

Island

Area

High

Island

Area,

East

Addition,

South

Extension

South

Padre

Island

Area

South

Marsh

Island

Area,

South

Addition

South

Marsh

Island

Area

South

Marsh

Island

Area,

North

Addition

Sabine Pass Area (LA) Sabine Pass Area (LA)

Port Isabel

Sabine Pass Area (TX) Sabine Pass Area (TX)

Harris

Kenedy

Brazoria

Hardin

Victoria

Calcasieu

Matagorda

Kleberg

Nueces

Jackson

Jefferson

Refugio

Cameron

Vermilion

Willacy

Iberia

San Patricio

Orange

Chambers

Calhoun

St. Mary

Galveston

St. Martin

Aransas

WESTERN PLANNING AREA

CENTRAL PLANNING AREA

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

* USCG Data Used as Oil Spill Events Source for the Gulf of Mexico Region

Cameron

Oil Spill Events* (2008)

Western Planning Area

Gulf of Mexico OCS

# of Spill Events = 36

Total Spill Amount = 39 bbl

10 - 49.9 bbl

1 - 9.99 bbl

<1 bbl

0 50 100 Kilometers

0 50 100 Statute Miles

Figure 3-6. Oil-Spill Events (2008) in the Western Planning Area (Dickey, personal communication, 2010). 
A-12 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Status of counties and parishes is based on USEPA Ozone Nonattainment State/Area/County Report, April, 2011 (USEPA, 2011)

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

FLORIDA

Central Planning Area Western Planning Area

Eastern

Planning

Area

Collin

Ellis

Kaufman

Galveston

Johnson

Montgomery

Brazoria

Tarrant

Fort

Bend

Harris

Chambers

Rockwall

Liberty

Parker

Waller

Dallas

Denton

East

Baton

Rouge

Iberville

Livingston

Ascension

West

Baton

Rouge

Ozone Non-attainment Area

0 100 200 Kilometers

0 100 200 Miles

Figure 4-1. Status of Ozone Attainment in Coastal Counties and Parishes of the Central and Western Planning 

Areas (USEPA, 2011). 

Figure 4-2. Coastal and Marine Waters of the Gulf of Mexico with Selected Rivers and Water Depths. 
TEXAS

GEORGIA

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

VENICE

MORGANCITY

HOUMA

BROWNSVILLE

CORPUSCHRISTI 

HOUSTON

PORTARTHUR

BEAUMONT NEW

ORLEANS

LAKECHARLES

LAFAYETTE

PANAMACITY

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

TALLAHASSEE

Seagrass Area 

0 100 200 Kilometers0 100 200 Miles

Gulf of Mexico

Figure 4-3. Seagrass Locations of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. 
A-14 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

2400 m

1600 m

800 m

400 m

200 m

60 m

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

EAST FLOWER

GARDEN BANK

29 FATHOM

BANK

32 FATHOM BANK

EWING BANKS

SACKETT BANK

PARKER DIAPHUS BANK

BANK

JAKKULA BANK

FISHNET

BANK

SWEET BANK REZAK

BANK

COFFEE LUMP

BANK

STETSON BANK

BIG DUNN

BAR BANK SMALL DUNN 

BAR BANK

BAKER SOUTH BAKER

BANK

MYSTERIOUS

BANK

NORTH 

HOSPITAL

BANK

SOUTHERN

BANK

HOSPITAL BANK

ARANSAS BANK

DREAM

BANK BLACKFISH 

RIDGE

CLAYPILE 

BANK

APPELBAUM BANK

WEST FLOWER 

GARDEN BANK

ELVERS BANK

GEYER BANK

BRIGHT BANK

MACNEIL BANK

SIDNER

BANK

BOUMA BANK

ALDERDICE

SONNIER BANK

BANK

MCGRAIL

BANK

RANKIN BANKS

Central Planning Area

Western Planning Area

0 100 200 Kilometers

0 100 200 Miles Topographic Feature

Figure 4-4. Location of Topographic Features in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Figures and Tables A-15 

Central Planning Area

Western Planning Area

TEXAS LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

60 m 800 m

400 m

200 m

1600 m

2400 m

VENICE

MORGAN

CITY

HOUMA

BROWNSVILLE

CORPUS

CHRISTI

HOUSTON PORT

ARTHUR

BEAUMONT NEW

ORLEANS

LAKE

CHARLES

LAFAYETTE

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

0 100 200 Kilometers

Proposed Sale Area Known Chemosynthetic Community 0 100 200 Miles

Figure 4-5. Location of Known Chemosynthetic Communities in the Gulf of Mexico. 
A-16 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

238

289

494

598

660

815

1032

1073 1086 1107 1122 1125 1129 1129 1135 1144 1144

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

5/28/10

6/6/10

6/20/10

7/4/10

7/15/10

8/1/10

8/14/108/31/10

9/7/10

9/14/109/21/109/28/1010/4/1010/6/10

10/12/1010/27/10

11/2/10

Date

# Collected

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

% Change

Figure 4-6. Summary of Sea Turtles Collected by Date Obtained from the Consolidated Numbers of Collected Fish 

and Wildlife That Have Been Reported to the Unified Area Command from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Incident Area Commands, Rehabilitation 

Centers, and Other Authorized Sources Operating within the Deepwater Horizon/BP Incident Impact 

Area through November 2, 2010. (Data on the Y-axis reflects the cumulative number of individual sea 

turtles collected by date [alive and dead] and data on the Z-axis reflects proportional change from one 

reporting date to the next. For the latest available information on oiled or affected sea turtles 

documented in the area, event response, and daily maps of the current location of spilled oil, see 

RestoreTheGulf.gov, 2011). 
Figures and Tables A-17 

4676

4943

5303

5697 5833

6359

6844

7267

7651 7835 8000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

9/14/20109/21/20109/28/201010/3/201010/6/2010

10/12/201010/20/201010/27/2010

11/3/2010

11/16/201011/30/2010

Date

# Collected

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

% Chang

e

Figure 4-7. Summary of Avian Species Collected by Date Obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) as Part of the NRDA Process through November 30, 2010. (Data on the Y-axis reflects the 

cumulative number of individual birds collected, identified, and summarized by date; data on the Zaxis reflects proportional change from one reporting date to the next. The data used in this table are 

verified as per the FWS QA/QC processes. Disclaimer: All data should be considered provisional, 

incomplete, and subject to change. For more information, see USDOI, FWS, 2010). 
A-18 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

TEXAS

LOUISIANA MISSISSIPPI

- Terminals

- Waste Facilities

- Supply Bases

- Ship Repair Yards

- Refineries

- Ports

- Platform Fabrication

- Pipecoating

- Petrochemical Facilities

- Natural Gas Storage

- Heliports

- Electric Generators

Oil and Gas Related Infrastructure

0 100 200

Kilometers

0 100 200

Miles

* 2009 U.S. Census Data

Poverty Range*

34 - 42%

27 - 33%

21 - 26%

14 - 20%

7 - 13%

Figure 4-8. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of Low-Income Residents 

across Counties and Parishes in Texas and Louisiana based on U.S. Census Data from 2010 

(USDOC, Census Bureau, 2010; Dismukes, in preparation). 
Figures and Tables A-19 

TEXAS

LOUISIANA MISSISSIPPI

- Terminals

- Waste Facilities

- Supply Bases

- Ship Repair Yards

- Refineries

- Ports

- Platform Fabrication

- Pipecoating

- Petrochemical Facilities

- Natural Gas Storage

- Heliports

- Electric Generators

Minority Range* Oil and Gas Related Infrastructure

* 2010 U.S. Census Data

5 - 25%

26 - 46%

47 - 67%

68 - 88%

89 - 100%

0 100 200

Kilometers

0 100 200Miles

Figure 4-9. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of Minority Residents across 

Counties and Parishes in Texas and Louisiana based on U.S. Census Data from 2010 (USDOC, 

Census Bureau, 2010; Dismukes, in preparation). 
A-20 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Harris

Cameron

Baldwin

Mobile

Miami-Dade

Terrebonne

Vermilion

Lafourche

Jackson Okaloosa

Plaquemines

St. Mary

Hillsborough

Harrison

Jefferson Jefferson Davis

Galveston

Ascension

TEXAS LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA GEORGIA

FLORIDA

ARKANSAS SOUTH

CAROLINA

0 100 200Kilometers

0 100 200Miles

* 2010 NOAA Deepwater Horizon Data

Waste Disposal Sites per County/Parish

5 +

3 - 4

1 - 2

Deepwater Horizon W aste Disposal Sites*

Figure 4-10. Location of All Deepwater Horizon Waste Disposal Sites (USDOC, NOAA, 2011; 

USEPA and British Petroleum, 2010; British Petroleum, 2011a and 2011b). 
Figures and Tables A-21 

$43,597

$67,753

$71,300

$79,900

$106,458

$226,700 Harris County, TX

Hidalgo County., TX

Matagorda County, TX

Jim Wells County, TX

Lafayette County, FL

West Baton Rouge Parish, LA

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA GEORGIA

FLORIDA

OKLAHOMA

ARKANSAS SOUTH

CAROLINA

0 100 200Kilometers

0 100 200Miles

Average Payout per Claimant*

* 2011 Gulf Coast Claims Facility Data

N/A

$3,250 - 12,159

$12,160 - 18,759

$18,760 - 25,359

$25,360 - 31,959

$31,960 - 38,559

$38,600 - 226,700

Figure 4-11. Distribution of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility’s Claimants and the Average Amount Paid to Each 

Claimant across Gulf of Mexico Counties and Parishes (Gulf Coast Claims Facility, 2011). 
A-22 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 1-1 

 

Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions 

Regulation Summary Existing 

Requirement New Requirement Cost 

Requires the operator to evaluate 

the best practices according to 

API RP 65-Part 2 and submit a 

written description for the 

evaluation. 

Written description must include 

the mechanical barriers and 

cementing practices the operator 

will use for each casing string. 

30 CFR 

§250.415(f) 

Evaluate best 

practices in 

API RP 65-

Part 2 

No evaluation 

required 

API RP 65 Part 2 addresses 

cementing practices and factors 

affecting cementing success. 

No meaningful cost 

Schematics of all control systems, 

including primary controls, 

secondary controls, and pods for 

the BOP system must be 

submitted. 

30 CFR 

§250.416(d) 

Submittal of 

schematics of 

all control 

systems for 

BOP stack 

Schematic of BOP 

system showing 

inside diameter of 

BOP stack, number 

and type of 

preventers, location 

of choke and kill 

lines 

Location of the controls must be 

included 

No meaningful cost 

 

Information that the 

blind-shear ram is 

capable of shearing 

the pipe 

Verification that the blind-shear 

rams installed in the BOP stack 

are capable of shearing the drill 

pipe in the hole under maximum 

anticipated surface pressure. 

Independent thirdparty certification 

will require a small 

cost per well 

Independent third party must be a 

technical classification society or 

an API licensed manufacturing, 

inspection, certification firm, or 

licensed professional engineering 

firm. 

30 CFR 

§250.416(e) 

Independent 

third party 

verification 

to ensure 

blind-shear 

rams are 

capable of 

cutting the 

drill pipe 

used 

No independent 

third-party 

certification 

required 

Independent third-party must not 

be the OEM. 

Will add moderate 

costs 

 

30 CFR 

§250.418(i) 

Submit 

qualifications 

of 

independent 

third parties 

with APD 

No independent 

third-party 

certification 

required 

Description of qualifications in 

accordance with §250.416 (e) 

No meaningful cost 
Figures and Tables A-23 

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions (continued). 

Regulation Summary Existing 

Requirement New Requirement Cost 

PE will verify there are two 

independent barriers 

Small cost per well 

if performed by an 

independent third 

party 

No cost if PE 

certification is done 

in house 

30 CFR 

§250.420(a) 

(6) 

Professional 

Engineer 

verification 

of well casing 

and 

cementing 

program 

No PE verification 

required 

Verify the casing cementing 

design is appropriate for the 

purpose it was intended under 

expected wellbore conditions Assumed that some 

majors would 

verify in-house; 

smaller operators 

will use third party 

Estimated that 80% 

of wells already use 

dual mechanical 

barriers 

Installation of dual 

mechanical barriers 

is estimated to take 

21 hours 

30 CFR 

§250.420(b) 

(3) 

Dual 

mechanical 

barriers 

No requirement Operator must install dual 

mechanical barriers in addition to 

cement in the final casing string 

and document to BOEMRE. 

Dual float valves, or one float 

valve and a mechanical plug. 

Will add significant 

costs to regulation 

Perform a pressure 

test on all casing 

strings (except 

drive/structural) 

according to 

250.423 (a) 

Pressure tests are 

already required, no 

extra equipment 

time 

Each pressure test 

only takes a few 

minutes 

30 CFR 

§250.423(b) 

(2) 

Pressure test 

on the casing 

seal assembly 

No requirement to 

ensure proper 

installation of the 

casing in the subsea 

wellhead 

Additional pressure test for the 

intermediate and production 

casing strings on the casing seal 

assembly to ensure proper 

installation of the casing in the 

subsea wellhead. 

 

No meaningful cost 

Negative pressure 

test will take 90 

minutes for each 

required string of 

casing 

30 CFR 

§250.423(c) 

Negative 

pressure test 

No negative 

pressure test 

required 

Perform a negative pressure test to 

ensure proper installation of 

intermediate and production 

casing strings 

 

Will result in 

significant costs for 

the regulation 

30 CFR 

§250.442(e) 

Maintain 

ROV and a 

trained crew 

ROV’s used for 

visual inspection 

every 3 days; 

250.446(b) 

Required to maintain an ROV and 

trained crew on each floating rig 

on a continuous basis. 

All rigs are 

assumed to have an 

ROV on board. 

This regulation will 

not add additional 

costs. 
A-24 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions (continued). 

Regulation Summary Existing 

Requirement New Requirement Cost 

 ROV must be capable of shutting 

in the well during emergency 

situations 

Regulation does not 

require a timed test, 

therefore current 

ROV’s will be 

capable of 

performing all 

required functions. 

30 CFR 

§250.442(f) 

Provide an 

autoshear and 

deadman 

system for 

dynamically 

positioned 

rigs 

No 

autoshear/deadman 

system requirement 

All dynamically positioned rigs 

must have an autoshear and 

deadman system 

Industry standard 

for dynamically 

positioned rigs to 

have 

autoshear/deadman 

systems 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.442(g) 

Barriers on 

BOP control 

panels to 

prevent 

accidental 

disconnect 

functions 

No two-handed 

requirement 

Incorporate enable buttons on 

control panels to ensure 2-handed 

operations for all critical 

functions. 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.442(h) 

Label subsea 

BOP control 

panel 

No labeling 

requirement 

Clearly label all control panels, 

such as hydraulic control panels 

and ROV interface on the BOP 

No meaningful cost 

Develop and use a management 

system for operating the BOP 

system 

Written procedures for operating 

the BOP stack and LMRP 

30 CFR 

§250.442(i) 

Develop 

management 

system for 

BOP 

No management 

requirement 

 

 

Minimum knowledge 

requirements for personnel 

authorized to operate and maintain 

critical BOP components 

No meaningful cost 

 

 

30 CFR 

§250.442(j) 

Training for 

BOP 

equipment 

No training 

requirement 

Train BOP personnel in deepwater 

well control theory and practice in 

accordance with 30 CFR 250, 

Subpart O 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.446(a) 

Document 

maintenance 

and 

inspections to 

BOP system 

No documentation 

requirement 

BOP maintenance and inspections 

must meet or exceed provisions of 

Sections 17.10 and 18.10 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.449(j) 

Subsea 

function test 

for ROV 

intervention 

No initial test on the 

seafloor 

All ROV intervention functions 

must be tested during the stump 

test and one set of rams during the 

initial test on the seafloor 

Initial test on the 

seafloor is not 

industry standard 
Figures and Tables A-25 

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions (continued). 

Regulation Summary Existing 

Requirement New Requirement Cost 

ROV hot stabs must be function 

tested and capable of actuating at 

least 1 set of pipe rams, 1 set of 

blind-shear rams and unlatching 

the LMRP 

on a subsea 

BOP stack 

Stump test for 

subsea BOP stack 

Operator must examine all surface 

and subsea well-control 

equipment to ensure that it is 

properly maintained and capable 

of shutting in the well during 

emergency operations 

ROV seafloor test 

is estimated to take 

about 24 hours 

Will add significant 

costs 

30 CFR 

§250.449(k) 

Autoshear/ 

deadman 

function test 

No required 

function test 

The autoshear and deadman 

systems must be function tested 

during the stump test and during 

the initial test on the seafloor. 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.451(i) 

Emergency 

activation of 

blind or 

casing shear 

rams 

No required action If the blind-shear or casing shear 

rams are activated in a well 

control situation, the BOP must be 

retrieved and fully inspected and 

tested 

Emergency 

situation only, will 

incur significant 

loss of rig time 

Approval required from District 

Manager before displacing killweight drilling fluid from the 

wellbore 

Submit reasons for displacing and 

provide detailed procedures of 

displacement process. 

30 CFR 

§250.456(j) 

District 

Manager 

approval for 

displacing 

kill-weight 

drilling fluid 

 

No approval 

requirement 

 

Follow procedures in 250.456 

No meaningful cost 

 

 

All ROV intervention functions 

must be tested during the stump 

test and 1 set of rams during the 

initial test on the seafloor 

ROV hot stabs must be function 

tested and capable of actuating at 

least 1 set of pipe rams, 1 set of 

blind-shear rams and unlatching 

the LMRP 

30 CFR 

§250.516(d) 

(8) 

Subsea 

function test 

for ROV 

intervention 

on a subsea 

BOP stack 

Stump test BOP 

stack before 

installation 

Operator must examine all surface 

and subsea well-control 

equipment to ensure that it is 

properly maintained and capable 

of shutting in the well during 

emergency operations 

Will add costs for 

well completions 

operations 
A-26 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions (continued). 

Regulation Summary Existing 

Requirement New Requirement Cost 

All ROV intervention functions 

must be tested during the stump 

test and 1 set of rams during the 

initial test on the seafloor 

ROV hot stabs must be function 

tested and capable of actuating at 

least 1 set of pipe rams, 1 set of 

blind-shear rams and unlatching 

the LMRP 

30 CFR 

§250.616(h) 

(1) 

Subsea 

function test 

for ROV 

intervention 

on a subsea 

BOP stack 

Stump test BOP 

stack before 

installation 

Operator must examine all surface 

and subsea well-control 

equipment to ensure that it is 

properly maintained and capable 

of shutting in the well during 

emergency operations 

Will add costs for 

well workover 

operations 

Source: Federal Register, 2010. 

Table 2-1 

 

Presidential and Secretarial Inquiries Resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Event and Spill 

Initiator and Date Purpose Expected Outputs 

April 30, 2010 

President Obama 

Reported if additional precautions and 

technologies should be required to improve the 

safety of oil and gas operations on the OCS. 

The so-called “30-day Report” or 

“Safety Measures Report” was delivered 

to the Secretary on May 27, 2010 

(USDOI, 2010a). 

April 30, 2010 

Secretary Salazar 

Created OCS Safety Oversight Board (Board) to 

provide recommendations for improving and 

strengthening DOI’s overall management, 

regulation, and oversight of OCS operations, 

including undertaking further audits or reviews, 

and reviewing existing authorities and 

procedures. 

The Board delivered its report to the 

Secretary on September 1. It was made 

public with an implementation plan on 

September 8, 2010 (USDOI, 2010b). 

May 11, 2010 

Secretary Salazar 

Impaneled a review by the National Academy of 

Engineering (NAE) of the root causes of the 

Deepwater Horizon event and provide 

recommendations 

The NAE panel forecasts delivery of 

their final report that presents the 

Committee’s final analysis, including 

findings and/or recommendations, by 

June 1, 2011 (pre-publication version); a 

final published version will follow by 

December 30, 2011 (NAE and NRC, 

2011). 

May 21, 2010 

President Obama 

Created the National Commission on the BP 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 

Drilling to develop findings and 

recommendations within 6 months. 

The Commission delivered the Final 

Report to the President on January 11, 

2011 (Oil Spill Commission, 2011). 

May 25, 2010 

Secretary Salazar 

Requested that the DOI’s Office of the Inspector 

General investigate any deficiencies in 

BOEMRE policies and practices that may have 

contributed to the Deepwater Horizon event. 

The DOI’s Office of the Inspector 

General released its report on December 

7, 2010 (USDOI, Office of the Inspector 

General, 2010). 
Figures and Tables A-27 

Table 3-1 

 

Projected Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Proposed Action OCS Program 

(2007-2046) 

Western Planning Area 

 Reserve/Resource Production 

 Oil (BBO) 0.222-0.423 6.629-8.060 

 Gas (Tcf) 1.495-2.647 52.211-59.961 

Central Planning Area 

 Reserve/Resource Production 

 Oil (BBO) 0.801-1.624 21.933-24.510 

 Gas (Tcf) 3.332-6.560 90.155-102.761 

BBO = billion barrels of oil 

Tcf = trillion cubic feet 

Table 3-2 

 

Offshore Scenario Information Related to the Proposed Action in the Western Planning Area 

Offshore Subareas1

 0-60 m 60-200 m 200-400 m 400-800 m 800-1,600 m 1,600-2,400 m >2,400 m Total WPA2

Wells Drilled 

Exploration and Delineation Wells 21-36 5-7 1 3-4 5-10 2-3 3-5 40-66 

Development and Production Wells 58-89 11-15 4-7 8-13 43-75 8-15 5-8 137-221 

Producing Oil Wells 3-4 1-2 1-2 4-7 23-39 4-8 3-4 39-65 

Producing Gas Wells 48-73 9-11 3-4 3-4 15-26 3-5 2-3 83-127 

Production Structures 

 Installed 19-31 2 1 1 1-3 1-2 1 26-41 

 Removed Using Explosives 9-17 1 0 0 0 0 0 14-25 

 Total Removed 12-22 2 1 1 1-3 1 1 19-33 

Length of Installed Pipelines 

(km)3 60-420 NA NA NA NA NA NA 130-760 

Service-Vessel Trips 

(1,000's round trips) 21-33 3 1 1-3 18-51 16-33 16-17 76-141 

Helicopter Operations 

(1,000’s operations) 300-680 30-44 14-22 14-22 14-66 14-44 14-22 400-900 

1 See Figure 3-1. 

2

 Subarea totals may not add up to the planning area total because of rounding. 

3 Projected length of pipelines does not include length in State waters. 

NA = not available. 
A-28 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 3-3 

 

Deepwater Rig Counts, Day Rates, and Annual Drill Rates in the Gulf of Mexico* 

Rig Type Number of Rigs Loaded Day Rate 

Drillship 11 $1,000,000 

Deep Semisubmersible 21 $923,953 

Low Semisubmersible 4 $715,792 

MODU Total or Weighted Average 36 $924,060 

Platform 10 $400,000 

* Current to August 2010. 

Table 3-4 

 

Oil Spilled from Pipelines on the Federal OCS, 2002-2009 

Regulator Area Total Oil Spilled 

(bbl) 

Oil Spilled due to 

Hurricanes (bbl) 

Proportion of Total due to 

Hurricanes (%) 

BOEMRE Federal OCS 5,522 5,179 94 

DOT Federal OCS 5,667 3,272 58 

DOT State Waters 9,903 9,622 97 

Source: USDOI, BOEMRE and DOT data. 
Figures and Tables A-29 

Table 3-5 

 

Mean Number and Sizes of Spills Estimated to Occur 

in OCS Offshore Waters from an Accident Related 

to Activities Supporting the Proposed Action Over a 40-Year Time Period 

Spill Size Group Spill Rate 

(spills/BBO) 1

Number of Spills 

Estimated for a WPA 

Proposed Action 2

Number of Spills 

Estimated for a CPA 

Proposed Action 2

Estimated 

Spill Size 1

0-1.0 bbl 3,357.31 745-1,420 2,690 -5,452 0.073

1.1-9.9 bbl 74.7 17-32 60-121 34

10.0-49.9 bbl 16.18 4-7 13-27 204

50.0-499.9 bbl 6.37 1-3 5-11 904

500.0-999.9 bbl 0.52 <1 <1-1 6404

>1,000 bbl 1.51 <1-1 1-3 4,6004

>10,000 bbl 0.39 <1 <1-1 15,0004

Notes: The number of spills estimated is derived by application of the historical rate of spills per volume 

crude oil handled (1985-1999) (Anderson and LaBelle, 2000) to the projected production for a 

proposed action in the WPA or CPA (Table 4-1). Projected production is an estimate of 

recoverable resource and is influenced by supporting infrastructure, as well as economic and 

technological factors. The actual number of spills that may occur in the future could vary from 

the estimated number. 

1 Source: Anderson and LaBelle, 2000. 

2 Source: Table 4-1. 

3 Average spill size. 

4 Median spill size. 
A-30 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 3-6 

 

Properties and Persistence by Oil Component Group 

Properties and Persistence Light-weight Medium-weight Heavy-weight 

Hydrocarbon compounds Up to 10 carbon atoms 10-22 carbon atoms >20 carbon atoms 

API o >31.1o 31.1o-22.3 o <22.3 o 

Evaporation rate Rapid (within 1 day) and 

complete 

Up to several days; not 

complete at ambient 

temperatures 

Negligible 

Solubility in water High Low (at most a few mg/L) Negligible 

Acute toxicity High due to monoaromatic 

hydrocarbons (BTEX) 

Moderate due to diaromatic 

hydrocarbons 

(naphthalenes – 2 ring 

PAH’s) 

Low except due to 

smothering (i.e., heavier oils 

may sink) 

Chronic toxicity None, does not persist due 

to evaporation 

PAH components 

components (e.g., 

naphthalenes – 2 ring 

PAH’s) 

PAH components (e.g., 

phenanthrene, anthracene – 

3 ring PAH’s) 

Bioaccumulation potential None, does not persist due 

to evaporation 

Moderate Low, may bioaccumulate 

through sediment sorption 

Compositional majority Alkanes and cycloalkanes Alkanes that are readily 

degraded (specify, as done 

for others) 

Waxes, asphaltenes, and 

polar compounds (not 

significantly bioavailable or 

toxic) 

Persistence Low due to evaporation Alkanes readily degrade, 

but the diaromatic 

hydrocarbons are more 

persistent 

High; very low degradation 

rates and can persist in 

sediments as tarballs or 

asphalt pavements 

Sources: Michel, 1992; Canadian Center for Energy Information, 2010. 
Figures and Tables A-31 

Table 3-7 

 

Estimated Number of Spills that Could Happen in Gulf Coastal Waters 

from an Accident Related to Activities Supporting a Proposed Action 

Size Category Assumed Size 

WPA 

Proposed Action 

CPA 

Proposed Action 

Total 15-34 49-126 

<1 bbl 1 bbl 12-29 44-114 

>1 bbl and <50 bbl 3 bbl 1-2 2-5 

>50 bbl and <1,000 bbl 150 bbl 1-2 2-6 

>1,000 bbl 3,000 bbl <1-1 <1-1 

Note: The estimated number of spills is obtained from the count of coastal spills for 2001 

proportioned to reflect that OCS oil comprised 19 percent of the oil crossing into 

GOM coastal waters in 2001. Intrastate oil and refined product transport were not 

included. The low estimate in the range was obtained from Dickey (personal 

communication, 2006) and the high estimate was obtained from aggregated 

national data available on the Internet (USDOT, Coast Guard, 2001). 

Sources: Dickey, personal communication, 2006; USDOT, Coast Guard, 2001; National 

Ocean Economics Program, 2006; USDOE, EIA, 2006. 

Table 3-8 

 

Primary Cleanup Options Used during the Deepwater Horizon Response

Fresh Oil Sheens Mousse Tarballs Burn Residue 

On-Water 

Response 

Disperse, skim, 

burn 

Light sheens 

very difficult to 

recover, heavier 

sheens picked up 

with sorbent 

boom or sorbent 

pads 

Skim Snare boom Manual removal 

On-Land 

Response 

Sorbent pads, 

manual 

recovery, 

flushing with 

water, possible 

use of chemical 

shoreline 

cleaning agents 

Light sheens 

very difficult to 

recover, heavier 

sheens picked up 

with sorbent 

boom or sorbent 

pads 

Sorbent pads, 

manual recovery 

Snare boom, 

manual removal, 

beach cleaning 

machinery 

Manual removal 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010a. 
A-32 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 3-9 

 

Pipelines* Damaged after 2004-2008 Hurricanes Passing through the WPA and CPA 

Hurricane 

Total 

Damage 

Reports 

Pipe and 

Movement 

Platform 

Connection Riser Mudflow Outside Impact Unknown 

Ivan 168 38 20 67 16 9 18 

Katrina 299 61 139 66 1 9 14 

Rita 243 31 94 89 0 8 21 

Gustav/Ike 314 14 2 273 2 7 16 

* Not discriminated by diameter. 

Sources: Energo Engineering, 2010; Atkins et al., 2007. 

Table 3-10 

 

Causes of Hurricane-Related Pipeline Spills Greater Than 50 Barrels 

Hurricane Amount Spilled (bbl) Cause 

Ivan 1,720 Mudflow 

Ivan 671 Movement 

Ivan 126 Platform 

Ivan 200 Platform 

Ivan 250 Platform 

Ivan 260 Platform 

Ivan 95 Movement 

Ivan 123 Movement 

Katrina 960 Movement 

Katrina 50 Platform 

Katrina 55 Riser 

Katrina 132 Mudslide 

Katrina 50 Movement 

Rita 75 Riser 

Rita 100 Outside Force 

Rita 862 Outside Force/Platform 

Rita 67 Platform 

Rita 108 Riser 

Ike 69 Movement 

Ike 108 Riser 

Ike 56 Platform 

Ike 1,316 Outside Force 

Ike 209 Riser 

Ike 268 Riser 

Source: USDOI, BOEMRE data. 
Figures and Tables A-33 

Table 3-11 

 

2009 Offshore Total Oil and Gas Production in the Offshore Areas of 11 Contiguous Texas Coastal Counties 

County Texas State District No. Total Oil Produced (bbl) Total Gas Produced (MMcf) 

Jefferson 3 86,078 35,936 

Chambers 3 6,166 10,035 

Galveston 3 0 0 

Brazoria 3 0 0 

Matagorda 3 0 0 

Calhoun 2 116,934 0 

Aransas 4 0 0 

Nueces 4 20,806 39,967 

Kleberg 4 0 0 

Kenedy 4 0 0 

Willacy 4 0 0 

Cameron 4 0 0 

Source: Railroad Commission of Texas, 2010. 

Table 3-12 

 

Total Producing Wells, Total Oil, and Total Gas Production in the Nine Coastal Parishes of Louisiana in 2009 

Parish Total Producing Wells Total Oil Produced (bbl) Total Gas Produced (Mcf) 

St. Bernard 114 666,757 12,662,442 

Plaquemines 1,734 16,870,508 74,737,520 

Jefferson 221 1,202,961 11,199,616 

Lafourche 539 5,769,795 35,366,426 

Terrebonne 569 5,984,437 93,070,163 

St. Mary 345 3,400,486 40,127,959 

Iberia 172 2,891,805 48,567,357 

Vermilion 249 3,062,983 63,928,992 

Cameron 323 3,278,189 57,276,938 

TOTAL 4,266 43,127,921 436,940,000 

Mcf = 1,000 ft3 

bbl = 42 U.S. gal 

Source: SONRIS lite database (Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, 2010). 
A-34 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 3-13 

 

Designated Ocean Dredged-Material Disposal Sites in the Cumulative Impact Area 

ODMDS Location Coordinates 

Name Latitude Longitude 

Water 

Depth Size Authorized Material, Last Time Used and Amount Disposed 

30°17'24"N 87°18'30"W 

30°17'00"N 87°19'50"W 

30°15'36"N 87°17'48"W 

Pensacola 

Nearshore 

30°15'15"N 87°19'18"W 

~36 ft, 

~11 m 

2.48 mi2, 

642 ha, 

1,587 ac 

Medium-grained sand, <10% fines. 

1987; 157,100 yd3

30°08'50"N 87°19'30"W 

30°08'50"N 87°16'30"W 

30°07'05"N 87°16'30"W 

Pensacola 

Offshore 

30°07'05"N 87°19'30"W 

65-80 ft 

20-24 m 

6 mi2, 

1,554 ha, 

3,840 ac 

Primarily fine-grained. 

2005; 63,000 yd3

30°10'00"N 88°07'42"W 

30°10'24"N 88°05'12"W 

30°09'24"N 88°04'42"W 

30°08'30"N 88°05'12"W 

Mobile 

30°08'30"N 88°08'12"W 

~46 ft, 

~14 m 

4.8 mi2, 

1,243 ha, 

3,072 ac 

Dredged material meeting US EPA Ocean 

Dumping Criteria. 

2008; 2,235,993 yd3

30°12'06"N 88°44'30"W 

30°11'42"N 88°33'24"W 

30°08'30"N 88°37'00"W Pascagoula 

30°08'18"N 88°41'54"W 

38-52 ft, 

11.5-19 m 

18.5 mi2, 

4,791 ha, 

11,840ac 

Suitable material from the Mississippi 

Sound and vicinity. 

2008; 1,489,100 yd3

30°12'00"N 89°00'30"W 

30°12'00"N 88°59'30"W 

30°11'00"N 89°00'00"W 

30°07'00"N 88°56'30"W 

30°06'36"N 88°57'00"W 

Gulfport West 

30°10'30"N 89°00'36"W 

~27 ft, 

~8.2 m 

5.2 mi2, 

1,346 ha, 

3,328 ac 

Dredged material meeting US EPA Ocean 

Dumping Criteria. 

2005; 390,000 yd3

30°11'10"N 88°58'24"W 

30°11'12"N 88°57'30"W 

30°07'36"N 88°54'24"W Gulfport East 

30°07'24"N 88°54'48"W 

~30 ft, 

~9.1 m 

2.47 mi2, 

640 ha, 

1,581 ac 

Meet US EPA Ocean Dumping Criteria. 

1996; 323,300 yd3

29°22'00"N 88°56'30"W 

29°23'00"N 88°54'30"W 

Mississippi 

River - Gulf 

Outlet 29°24'30"N 88°52'30"W 

20-40 ft, 

6-12 m 

6.03 mi2, 

1,562 ha, 

3,859 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. 

2005; 909,100 yd3 

28°53'58"N 89°25'31"W 

28°53'45"N 89°25'09"W 

28°53'13"N 89°25'28"W 

Mississippi 

River - 

Southwest 

Pass 28°53'11"N 89°24'49"W 

8-106 ft, 

2.7-32.2 m 

3.44 mi2, 

891 ha, 

2,202 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of the 

Southwest Pass Channel. 

2008; 6,890,400 yd3

29°13'30"N 89°53'30"W 

29°13'54"N 89°53'48"W Barataria Bay 

Waterway 

29°14'21"N 89°54'06"W 

8-20 ft, 

2.4-6.1 m 

1,4 mi2, 

362 ha, 

896 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of 

Barataria Bay Waterway. 

1988; 775,000 yd3

28°58'09"N 90°29'30"W 

28°58'57"N 90°31'30"W 

Houma 

Navigation 

Canal (Cat 

Island Pass) 28°57'57"N 90°31'54"W 

6-30 ft, 

1.8-9.1 m 

2.08 mi2, 

539 ha, 

1,331 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of Cat 

Island Pass, Louisiana. 

1997; 117,400 yd3
Figures and Tables A-35 

Table 3-13. Designated Ocean Dredged-Material Disposal Sites in the Cumulative Impact Area (continued). 

ODMDS Location Coordinates 

Name Latitude Longitude 

Water 

Depth Size Authorized Material, Last Time Used and Amount Disposed 

29°07'00"N 91°31'30"W 

29°08'00"N 91°29'00"W Atchafalaya 

Bar Channel 

29°09'00"N 91°27'00"W 

~16 ft, 

~4.8 m 

9.14 mi2, 

2,367 ha, 

5,850 ac 

Dredged material from the bar channel of 

the Atchafalaya River. 

2008; 9,545,800 yd3

29°30'00"N 93°10'18"W 

29°30'51"N 93°10'00"W Calcasieu 

River & Pass 

29°30'00"N 93°09'27"W 

36-46 ft, 

11 to 14 m 

5.8 mi2, 

1,502 ha, 

3,712 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of the 

Calcasieu River and Pass Project. 

2008; 364,700 yd3

29°27'30"N 93°37'00"W 

29°27'30"N 93°36'45"W 

29°26'38"N 93°36'45"W 

Sabine-Neches 

Waterway No. 

1 & 2 

29°26'38"N 93°37'00"W 

25.7-42.6 ft, 

9-13 m 

6.6 mi2, 

1709 ha, 

4,224 ac 

Dredged material from the Sabine-Neches 

area. 

2006; 1,524,200 yd3

29°35'52"N 93°41'45"W 

29°35'52"N 93°41'30"W 

29°35'00"N 93°41'30"W 

Sabine-Neches 

Waterway 

No. 3 & 4 

29°35'00"N 93°41'45"W 

16.4-33 ft, 

5-10 m 

8.9 mi2, 

2,305 ha, 

5,696 ac 

Dredged material from the Sabine-Neches 

area. 

2008; 1,691,900 yd3

29°20'22"N 94°37'11"W 

29°19'32"N 94°36'56"W 

29°19'23"N 94°37'06"W 

Galveston 

Harbor & 

Channel 

29°20'13"N 94°37'21"W 

33-51 ft, 

10-15.5 m 

6.6 mi2, 

1,709 ha, 

4,224 ac 

Dredged material from the Galveston, 

Texas, area. 

2008; 2,395,800 yd3 

28°54'28"N 95°13'40"W 

28°54'35"N 95°13'28"W 

28°55'07"N 95°14'01"W 

Freeport 

Harbor, New 

Work 

28°54'60"N 95°14'13"W 

54-61 ft, 

16.4-18.6 m 

2.64 mi2, 

684 ha, 

1,690 ac 

Dredged material from the Freeport 

Harbor Entrance and Jetty Channels, 

Texas. 

1992; 46,800 yd3

28°24'27"N 96°16'04"W 

28°24'33"N 96°15'52"W 

28°25'10"N 96°16'30"W 

Matagorda 

Ship Channel 

28°25'04"N 96°16'42"W 

25-40 ft, 

7.5-12.2 m 

0.56 mi2, 

145 ha, 

358 ac 

Dredged material from the Matagorda 

Ship Channel, Texas. 

2006; 336,700 yd3

27°50'10"N 96°59'17"W 

27°50'20"N 96°59'09"W 

27°50'48"N 96°59'57"W 

Corpus Christi 

Ship Channel 

27°50'38"N 97°00'05"W 

35-50 ft, 

10.6-15.2m 

0.63 mi2, 

163 ha, 

403 ac 

Dredged material from the Corpus Christi 

Ship Channel, Texas. 

2007; 954,600 yd3

26°32'11"N 97°13'44"W 

26°31'58"N 97°13'44"W 

26°31'58"N 97°14'42"W 

Port Mansfield 

26°32'11"N 97°14'42"W 

35-50 ft, 

10.6-15.2 m 

0.42 mi2, 

109 ha, 

269 ac 

Dredged material from the Port Mansfield 

Entrance Channel, Texas. 

1986; 104,200 yd3

26°02'18"N 96°06'30"W 

26°02'18"N 97°07'26"W 

26°02'05"N 97°07'26"W 

Brazos Island 

Harbor 

26°02'05"N 96°06'30"W 

55-65 ft, 

16.7-19.8 m 

0.42 mi2, 

109 ha, 

269 ac 

Dredged material from the Brazos Island 

Harbor Entrance Channel, Texas. 

1997; 350,900 

~ approximately. 

Sources: National Archives and Records Administration, 2010; U.S. Dept. of the Army, COE, 2011a. 
A-36 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 3-14 

 

Projected OCS Sand Borrowing Needs for Planned Restoration Projects 

Restoration Project Maximum Sand (yd3) Source (OCS Area and Block) (if known) 

Pelican Island (CWPPRA BA-35) ~5,500,000 West Delta (Sandy Point site) 

Raccoon Island (CWPPRA TE-48) 750,000 to 830,000 Ship Shoal 64 & 71 

Cameron Parish Shoreline ~10,000,000 Sabine Bank 

Point Au Fer Shoreline N/A N/A 

LCA Terrebonne Basin 

Raccoon Island ~8,340,000 Ship Shoal 88 & 89; South Pelto 12 & 13 

Whiskey Island ~7,720,000 Ship Shoal 88 & 89; South Pelto 12 & 13 

Trinity and East Islands ~16,260,000 Ship Shoal 88 & 89; South Pelto 12 & 13 

Timbalier Island ~10,700,000 Ship Shoal 88 & 89; South Pelto 12 & 13 

East Timbalier Island ~11,230,000 N/A 

LCA Barataria Basin 

Caminada Headland ~6,000,000 South Pelto 12 &13 

TOTAL ~76,500,000

N/A = not available 

~ approximately 

Table 3-15 

 

Vessel Calls at U.S. Gulf Coast Ports in 2004 and 2009 

Vessel Type 2004 Percent of Total Calls in U.S. 2009 Percent of Total Calls in U.S. 

Tanker 52.4 55.8 

Container 7.0 9.0 

Dry Bulk 42.6 46.8 

RO-RO (Roll-on Roll-off) 7.0 9.9 

Gas 59.8 62.6 

Combo 56.2 75.6 

General 28.8 39.0 

All Types 31.2 34.1 

Source: USDOT, MARAD, 2009. 
Figures and Tables A-37 

Table 3-16 

 

Corps of Engineers’ Galveston District Maintenance Dredging Activity 2000-2008 

for Federal Navigation Channels in Texas 

Volume Dredged Harbor, Channel, or Waterway Year 

yd3 m3

Houston-Galveston Ship Channel 2000 1,860,000 1,422,072 

Sabine-Neches Waterway 2001 3,107,000 2,375,472 

Freeport Harbor and Channel 2001 1,895,000 1,448,831 

Matagorda Ship Channel 2001 218,400 166,979 

Freeport Harbor and Channel 2002 1,526,400 1,167,017 

Sabine-Neches Waterway 2002 2,200,400 1,682,327 

Corpus Christi Ship Channel 2003 711,600 544,057 

Sabine-Neches Waterway 2003 2,710,500 2,072,326 

Freeport Harbor 2003 1,261,600 964,562 

Galveston Harbor and Channel 2003 1,602,300 1,225,046 

Freeport Harbor 2004 1,417,600 1,083,833 

Matagorda Ship Channel 2004 279,200 213,464 

Sabine-Neches Waterway 2004 1,421,900 1,087,121 

Sabine-Neches Waterway 2005 812,500 621,201 

Freeport Harbor 2005 143,900 110,019 

Sabine-Neches Waterway 2006 1,165,000 890,706 

Freeport Harbor 2006 2,620,300 2,003,363 

Galveston Harbor and Channel 2006 2,863,000 2,188,921 

Matagorda Ship Channel 2006 257,400 196,796 

Corpus Christi Ship Channel 2006 114,500 87,541 

Freeport Harbor 2007 1,856,200 1,419,167 

Galveston Harbor 2007 2,247,100 1,718,031 

Corpus Christi Ship Channel 2007 729,900 558,049 

Sabine-Neches Waterway 2007 30,600 23,395 

Sabine-Neches Waterway 2008 1,293,600 989,028 

Freeport Harbor 2008 1,205,900 921,977 

Galveston Harbor and Channel 2008 1,851,800 1,415,803 

TOTAL 37,403,600 28,597,104 

Source: U.S Dept. of the Army, COE, 2011b. 
A-38 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 3-17 

 

Designated Louisiana Service Bases Identified in Applications for Pipelines, Exploration, 

and Development Plans between 2003 and 2008 and Miles of Navigation Canal Bordered 

by Saline, Brackish Water, and Freshwater Wetlands 

Number of Pipeline 

Applications with Designated 

Service Base 

Number of Exploration and 

Development Plans with 

Designated Service Base Shore Base 

2003-2008 Percent 2003-2008 Percent 

Miles 

Bordering Salt 

and Brackish 

Wetlands 

Miles 

Bordering 

Fresh 

Wetlands 

Fourchon 303 31.5 618 44.4 0** 0** 

Cameron 247 25.7 383 27.5 0 0 

Intracoastal City 102 10.6 94 6.7 6.4 0 

Venice 96 10.0 139 9.9 Miss. River 0 

Morgan City 68 7.1 52 3.7 Miss. River 0 

Leeville 37 3.9 18 1.3 0 0 

Grand Isle 29 3.0 2 0.1 0 0 

Dulac 20 2.1 8 0.6 1.7 0 

Berwick 14 1.5 19 1.4 Atch. River 0 

Lake Charles 12 1.2 1 0.1 3.4 0 

Freshwater City 10 1.0 18 1.3 0 0 

Houma 8 0.8 18 1.3 5.3 6.6 

Amelia 2 0.2 7 0.5 0 0 

Galliano 1 0.1 7 0.5 0 0 

Boothville 3 0.3 6 0.4 Miss. River 0 

Abbeville 7 0.7 0 0.0 0 0 

Grand Chenier 2 0.2 1 0.1 0 0 

Grand Total 961 99.9 1,391 99.8 16.8 6.6 

 *= compiled by BOEMRE staff using operator-designated service bases from OCS plans and pipeline applications. 

**= “0” indicates the service base has no surrounding wetlands in the category. 
Figures and Tables A-39 

Table 3-18 

 

CIAP Allocations for all Eligible States ($) 

Recipient FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Total 

Alabama 25,551,607.04 25,551,607.04 19,728,257.36 19,524,845.48 90,356,316.92

State Share 16,608,544.58 16,608,544.58 12,823,367.28 12,691,149.56 58,731,606.00

County Share 8,943,062.46 8,943,062.46 6,904,890.08 6,833,695.92 31,624,710.92

Alaska 2,425,000.00 2,425,000.00 37,471,876.48 37,085,568.47 79,407,444.95

State Share 1,576,250.00 1,576,250.00 24,356,719.71 24,105,619.51 51,614,839.22

Borough Share 848,750.00 848,750.00 13,115,156.77 12,979,948.97 27,792,605.74

California 7,444,441.75 7,444,441.75 4,923,124.98 4,872,363.83 24,684,372.31

State Share 4,838,887.13 4,838,887.13 3,200,031.24 3,167,036.49 16,044,841.99

County Share 2,605,554.61 2,605,554.61 1,723,093.74 1,705,327.34 8,639,530.30

Louisiana 127,547,898.57 127,547,898.57 120,911,588.83 119,663,560.77 495,670,946.74

State Share 82,906,134.07 82,906,134.07 78,592,532.74 77,781,314.50 322,186,115.38

Parish Share 44,641,764.50 44,641,764.50 42,319,056.09 41,882,246.27 173,484,831.36

Mississippi 30,939,850.55 30,939,850.55 23,819,815.26 23,574,217.72 109,273,734.08

State Share 20,110,902.86 20,110,902.86 15,482,879.92 15,323,241.52 71,027,927.16

County Share 10,828,947.69 10,828,947.69 8,336,935.34 8,250,976.20 38,245,806.92

Texas 48,591,202.09 48,591,202.09 35,645,337.09 35,279,443.73 168,107,185.00

State Share 31,584,281.36 31,584,281.36 23,169,469.11 22,931,638.42 109,269,670.25

County Share 17,006,920.73 17,006,920.73 12,475,867.98 12,347,805.30 58,837,514.74

Table 3-19 

 

CIAP Grants Status for Gulf of Mexico States ($) 

Recipient Total 

Allocation 

Amount 

Applied For 

Amount 

Awarded 

Amount 

Under Review 

Allocation 

Balance 

Alabama 90,356,316.92 26,371,168.00 17,665,845.59 8,705,322.41 63,985,148.92

State 58,731,606.00 13,408,368.07 10,576,735.04 2,831,633.03 45,323,237.93

County 31,624,710.92 12,962,799.93 7,089,110.55 5,873,689.38 18,661,910.99

Louisiana 495,670,946.74 167,570,557.69 151,147,595.40 16,422,962.29 328,100,389.05

State 322,186,115.38 114,414,404.38 109,013,629.00 5,400,775.38 207,771,711.00

Parish 173,484,831.36 53,156,153.31 42,133,966.40 11,022,186.91 120,328,678.05

Mississippi 109,273,734.08 41,527,869.50 32,065,439.00 9,462,430.50 67,745,864.58

State 71,027,927.16 33,239,105.50 30,083,154.00 3,155,951.50 37,788,821.66

County 38,245,806.92 8,288,764.00 1,982,285.00 6,306,479.00 29,957,042.92

Texas 168,107,185.00 25,091,736.63 22,005,691.30 3,086,045.33 143,015,448.36

State 109,269,670.25 19,627,047.36 18,627,047.36 1,000,000.00 89,642,622.89

County 58,837,514.74 5,464,689.27 3,378,643.94 2,086,045.33 53,372,825.47

Total GOM 863,408,182.74 260,561,331.82 222,884,571.29 37,676,760.53 602,846,850.91
A-40 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 3-20 

 

Hurricane Landfalls in the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

from 1995 to 2010 

Event Year Impacted State Storm Name Intensity at Landfall 

1 1995 AL, FL Opal Hurricane Category 3 

2 1995 FL Erin Hurricane Category 2 

3 1997 LA, AL Danny Hurricane Category 1 

4 1998 FL Earl Hurricane Category 1 

5 1998 MS, AL Georges Hurricane Category 2 

6 1999 TX Bret Hurricane Category 3 

7 2002 LA Lili Hurricane Category 1 

8 2003 TX Claudette Hurricane Category 1 

9 2004 MS, AL Ivan Hurricane Category 4 

10 2005 LA, MS Cindy Hurricane Category 1 

11 2005 FL, AL Dennis Hurricane Category 3 

12 2005 LA, MS Katrina Hurricane Category 5 

13 2005 TX, LA Rita Hurricane Category 3 

14 2007 TX, LA Humberto Hurricane Category 1 

15 2008 LA Gustav Hurricane Category 2 

16 2008 TX, LA Ike Hurricane Category 4 

17 2008 TX Dolly Hurricane Category 1 

* No hurricane landfalls in the northern Gulf of Mexico in 2009 or 2010. 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010b. 

Table 3-21 

 

OCS Facility Damage after the 2004-2008 Hurricanes in the WPA and CPA 

Platforms 

Storm Platforms Exposed to High Winds 

(≥73 mph) Destroyed Damaged 

Damaged 

Pipelines 

(≥10 in) 

Ivan (2004) 150 7 14 13 

Katrina (2005) 43 NR 40 

Rita (2005) 3,050* 69 NR 101 

Gustav (2008) 677 1 40 NR 

Ike (2008) 2,127 60 124 NR 

NR = not reported. 

* Combined totals for both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Statistics compiled from BOEMRE website and press releases. 
Figures and Tables A-41 

Table 4-1 

 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Primary Standards Secondary Standards 

Pollutant Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time

9 ppm (10 mg/m3 Carbon Monoxide ) 8-hour (1) 

35 ppm (40 mg/m3

) 1-hour (1) 

None 

0.15 μg/m3 Lead (2) Rolling 3-Month Average Same as Primary 

1.5 μg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary 

Nitrogen Dioxide 53 ppb (3) Annual (Arithmetic Average) Same as Primary 

100 ppb 1-hour (4) None 

Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 μg/m3 24-hour (5) Same as Primary 

15.0 μg/m3 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual (6) (Arithmetic Average) Same as Primary 

35 μg/m3 24-hour (7) Same as Primary 

0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hour (8) Same as Primary 

0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hour (9) Same as Primary 

Ozone 

0.12 ppm 1-hour (10) Same as Primary 

0.03 ppm Annual (Arithmetic Average) 

0.14 ppm 24-hour (1) 

0.5 

ppm 

Sulfur Dioxide 3-hour (1) 

75 ppb (11) 1-hour None 

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

(2) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. 

(3) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the 

purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard. 

(4) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each 

monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22, 2010). 

(5) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 

(6) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or 

multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3

. 

(7) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3

 (effective December 17, 2006). 

(8) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective 

May 27, 2008). 

(9) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

 (b) The 1997 standard—and the implementation rules for that standard—will remain in place for 

implementation purposes as USEPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone 

standard to the 2008 ozone standard. 

 (c) USEPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008). 

(10)(a) USEPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations 

under that standard (“anti-backsliding”). 

 (b) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly 

average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is <1. 

(11)(a) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily 

maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb. 
A-42 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-2 

 

Estimated Abundance of Cetaceans 

in the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

Species Common Name Estimated Number of 

Individuals 

Balaenoptera edeni Bryde’s whale 15 

Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale* 1,665 

Kogia spp. Dwarf and Pygmy sperm whale 453 

Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier’s beaked whale 65 

Mesoplodon sp. Blainville’s and Gervais’ beaked whale 57 

Feresa attenuata Pygmy killer whale 323 

Pseudorca crassidens False killer whale 777 

Orcinus orca Killer whale 49 

Globicephala sp. Pilot whale, short-finned 716 

Peponocephala electra Melon-headed whale 2,283 

Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphin 1,589 

Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin 13,883 

Steno bredanensis Rough-toothed dolphin unknown 

Lagenodelphis hosei Fraser’s dolphin unknown 

Stenella frontalis Atlantic spotted dolphin unknown 

Stenella longirostris Spinner dolphin 1,989 

Stenella attenuate Pantropical spotted dolphin 34,067 

Stenella clymene Clymene dolphin 6,575 

Stenella coeruleoalba Striped dolphin 3,325 

*Endangered. 

Source: Waring et al., 2010. 
Figures and Tables A-43 

Table 4-3 

 

Sea Turtle Taxa of the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

Order Testudines (turtles) Relative Occurrence ESA Status 

Family Cheloniidae (hardshell sea turtles) 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) C T 

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) C T/E 

Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) R E 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) C E 

Family Dermochelyidae (leatherback sea turtle) 

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) U E 

Population status in the northern Gulf is summarized according to the following categories: 

COMMON (C): A common species is one that is abundant wherever it occurs in the region (i.e., the 

northern Gulf). Most common species are widely distributed over the area. 

UNCOMMON (U): An uncommon species may or may not be widely distributed but does not occur 

in large numbers. Uncommon species are not necessarily rare or endangered. 

RARE (R): A rare species is one that is present in such small numbers throughout the region that it is 

seldom seen. Although not threatened with extinction, a rare species may become endangered if 

conditions in its environment change. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) status is summarized according to listing status under the following 

categories: 

ENDANGERED (E): Species determined to be in imminent danger of extinction throughout all of a 

significant portion of their range. 

THREATENED (T): Species determined likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. 
Table 4-4 Comparison of Oil Spills by Type, Location, Year, and Volume (in U.S. gallons) and Their Relative Impacts to Birds based on Su

Incident Type Location Year Volumeb, c Bird Surveysd Estimated Morta

Ixtoc Blowout Mexico 1979 145.6 million >3,000 No research or modExxon Valdez Tanker Alaska, USA 1989 10.8 million >30,000 100,000-645,000 Sea Empress Tanker Wales, UK 1996 22.1 million >4,500 No research or modM/V Citrus Tanker Alaska, USA 1996 Unknown >1,000 1,930 Erika Tanker France 1999 6.1 million >74,000 80,000-150,000 Prestige Tanker Spain 2002 19.2 million >9,000 115,000-300,000 Terra Nova Rig Newfoundland, CAN 2004 42,000 No survey 3,593-16,122 M/V Selendang Ayu Tanker Alaska, USA 2004 354,218 1,603 Pending** Black Sea Tanker Kerch Strait, RUS 2007 1.47 million >30,000 No research or modDeepwater Horizon Blowout Louisiana, USA 2010 210 million 8,000 Pending** a Since the Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989, but including the Ixtoc I blowout in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico (1979; Jernelöv, 2

in Helm et al. (2008) for additional information. Includes oil spills associated with tankers, barges, wells, rigs-platforms, and blowou

data are available. This list of spills is not exhaustive but reflects a representative cross-section of oil-spill events across the world o

a more comprehensive review of oil spills, locations, spill volumes, and bird mortality, refer to Burger (1993, Table 1), Castege et aal. (2008, Tables 1-6), and Tan et al. (2010, Table 1). b Volume estimates are in gallons. c Volume estimates were in some cases converted from figures cited in a specific reference using the conversion of metric tons to 

42 gal/bbl (Wilhelm et al., 2007, p. 540). In other cases, the figures were pulled from the Tables in Helm et al. (2008). NOTE: 

poor predictor of bird mortality associated with an oil spill (Burger, 1993), although it should be considered for inclusion in any mmortality, preferably with some metric of species composition and abundance (preferably density) pre-spill (Wilhelm et al., 2007). d Figures cited in specific references usually as a part of the damage assessment process including beached-bird surveys, boat or sh

surveys to collect dead or oiled birds. It has been well documented that, in most cases, survey efforts to collect bird carcasses represtotal mortality for a given oil-spill event. That is, the recovery rate of oiled carcasses is biased low; Burger (1993) and Wiese and Jomethodologies, arrived at recovery rate estimates of only 20%. Piatt and Ford (1996) derived a recovery mean rate estimate of only 

based on 17 different studies spanning 21 years (1970-1991). e Final estimated mortality typically includes results from drift and carcass experiments plus modeling efforts to account for birds oil

detected; that is, a correction for detection and scavenging bias, deposition and persistence rates, and the effects of wind, currents, habitat. Refer to Flint and Fowler (1998), Flint et al. (1999), Castège et al. (2007), Wilhelm et al. (2007), Byrd et al. (2009), and 

additional information regarding biases associated with mortality estimates from carcass surveys only. f Most of the references used herein are from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 
Table 4-4. Comparison of Oil Spills by Type, Location, Year, and Volume (in U.S. gallons) and Their Relative Impacts to Birds base

Modelinga (continued). * Literature searches on the Internet revealed only two avian-related references as a result of the Ixtoc I oil spill: Chapman, 1981 and 1

** Pending results of the NRDA process and litigation regarding damage claims against litigants; see also Helm et al., 2006 and 2008. 1 Jernelöv, 2010. 2 Helm et al., 2006. 3 Helm et al., 2008. 4 Ford et al., 1996. 5 Piatt and Ford, 1996. 6 Banks et al., 2008. 7 Law and Kelley, 2004. 8 Flint et al., 1999. 9 Cadiou et al., 2004. 10 Castège et al., 2004. 11 Castège et al., 2007. 12 Alonso-Alvarez et al., 2007. 13 Munilla and Velando. 2010. 14 Velando et al., 2005a. 15 Velando et al., 2005b. 16 Camphuysen et al., 2002. 17 Wilhelm et al., 2007. 18 Byrd et al., 2009. 19 Tan et al., 2010. 20 USDOI, FWS, 2010. 21 Oil Spill Commission, 2010.
A-46 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-5 

 

Relative Oiling Ranks for Various Avian Species Groupings Collected Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa

Species Group # Representative Spp.1 # Collected # Oiled Oiling Rate (% + SE)2 Oiling 

Rank3 

Diving* 5 182 102 0.50 + 0.19 1 

Seabirds* 25 5946 2512 0.37 + 0.05 2 

Shorebirds* 13 97 24 0.13 + 0.06 6 

Passerines* 21 77 17 0.20 + 0.07 5 

Marsh/Wading* 21 424 117 0.24 + 0.05 4 

Waterfowl* 11 56 16 0.37 + 0.13 3 

Raptors* 6 16 3 0.05 + 0.05 7 

a Data obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as summarized a table dated November 30, 2010. 

The data used in this table are verified as per the FWS QA/QC processes. Disclaimer: All data should be 

considered provisional, incomplete, and subject to change. For more information, see USDOI, FWS, 2010. 

* Species Group: As defined in the text of this Supplemental EIS. As of November 30, 2010, 8,000 individuals 

of 102 species had been collected and identified by FWS. Six new species were added since the 

November 16th summary. NOTE: The Top 5 most-impacted species are all representative of the “seabirds” 

group, with an oiling rate (0.44) above the combined average of all species, including “unknowns” and “other” 

(0.27). 

1 Represents the actual number of birds identified to the species level for each of the Species Groups; reflects 

sample size for determining mean Oiling Rate. This number should be fairly representative of the suite of 

species available to be oiled. However, this number is dependent on efforts to correctly assign species to 

unidentified birds or unknowns, which is also a function of the search effort. The search effort has likely 

declined dramatically since the Deepwater Horizon was plugged/capped. 

2 Oiling Rate: For each species, an oiling rate was calculated by dividing the “total” number of oiled individuals 

(∑ alive + dead) /∑ of individuals collected for a given species/row. These rates were then used to calculate 

summary statistics. In general, it has been well documented that the number of birds collected after a spill 

event represents a small fraction of the total oiled population (direct mortality) due to various factors: speciesspecific differences in vulnerability to spilled oil; species-specific differences in distribution, habitat use, and 

behavior; species-specific differences in abundance; species-specific differences in carcass deposition rates, 

persistence rates, and detection probabilities; overall search effort and temporal and spatial variation in search 

effort; and carcass loss due to predation, habitat, weather, tides, and currents (Piatt et al., 1990a and 1990b; 

Ford et al., 1996; Piatt and Ford, 1996; Fowler and Flint, 1997; Flint and Fowler, 1998; Flint et al., 1999; 

Castege et al., 2007; Byrd et al., 2009; Flint et al., 2010). For example, Piatt and Ford (1996, Table 1) 

estimated a mean carcass recovery rate of only 17% for a number of previous oil-bird impact studies. Burger 

(1993) and Wiese and Jones (2001) estimated recovery rates of 20%, with the latter study based on a drift-block 

design to estimate carcass recovery rate from beached-bird surveys. NOTE: Spill volume tends to be a poor 

predictor of bird mortality associated with an oil spill (Burger, 1993), although it should be considered for 

inclusion in any models to estimate total bird mortality, preferably with some metric of species composition and 

abundance (preferably density) pre-spill (Wilhelm et al., 2007). For this table, the value obtained for passerines 

and raptors is almost certainly biased high due to the small sample sizes (several cases where only 1-2 

birds/species) for individual species and due to the influence of high estimates for oiling (100%). For the other 

Species Groups, e.g., shorebirds, the value obtained is likely biased low due the larger number of species with 

several instances where only one bird was collected and it did not meet the criteria to be designated as oiled. 

There was a significant difference (F = 20.80, df = 1, 12; P = 0.0006) in oiling rates among species. 

3 Oiling Rank: Reflects the relative rank of a given Species Group as a function of the mean Oiling Rate. As 

expected, diving birds and seabirds had the highest oiling rate of any of the Species Groups (King and Sanger, 

1979; Wiens et al., 1984; Piatt et al., 1990a; Williams et al., 1995) due to their reliance on offshore habitat for 

foraging and as a substrate for resting, preening, and other maintenance behaviors. 
Figures and Tables A-47 

Table 4-6 

 

Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa, b

Common Name Species Group*

Grand 

Total

Visibly 

Oiled Total

Not Visibly 

Oiled Total

Unknown 

Oiling Total

Oiling 

Rate1,2

Dead Alive Dead Alive Dead Alive 

American Coot Marsh/Wading 5 2 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.80

American 

Oystercatcher Shorebird 17 7 3 10 3 3 6 1 0 1 0.59

American Redstart Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

American White 

Pelican Seabird 17 2 0 2 2 6 8 7 0 7 0.12

Audubon's 

Shearwater Seabird 6 1 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0.33

Barn Owl Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Barn Swallow Passerine 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Belted Kingfisher Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Black-crowned 

Night Heron Marsh/Wading 22 6 3 9 7 5 12 1 0 1 0.41

Black Oystercatcher Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Black Skimmer Seabird 263 51 16 67 141 14 155 41 0 41 0.25

Black Tern Seabird 12 1 0 1 7 3 10 1 0 1 0.08

Black-bellied 

Whistling Duck Waterfowl 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0.00

Black-necked Stilt Shorebird 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

Blue-winged Teal Waterfowl 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

Boat-tailed Grackle Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Brown Pelican Seabird 911 136 210 346 225 146 371 194 0 194 0.38

Brown-headed 

Cowbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Bufflehead Waterfowl 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Canada Goose Waterfowl 4 0 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0.25

Caspian Tern Seabird 20 7 2 9 5 4 9 2 0 2 0.45

Cattle Egret Marsh/Wading 32 1 1 2 21 4 25 5 0 5 0.06

Clapper Rail Marsh/Wading 128 27 5 32 63 12 75 21 0 21 0.25

Common Loon Diving 106 33 27 60 22 20 42 4 0 4 0.57

Common Moorhen Marsh/Wading 4 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.25

Common Nighthawk Passerine 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Common Tern Seabird 32 13 9 22 8 1 9 1 0 1 0.69

Common 

Yellowthroat Passerine 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.00

Cooper's Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Cory's Shearwater Seabird 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Double-crested 

Cormorant Diving 25 2 1 3 13 7 20 2 0 2 0.12

Eastern Kingbird Passerine 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Eastern Meadowlark Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00
A-48 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-6. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa, b (continued). 

Common Name Species Group*

Grand 

Total

Visibly 

Oiled Total

Not Visibly 

Oiled Total

Unknown 

Oiling Total

Oiling 

Rate1,2

Dead Alive Dead Alive Dead Alive 

Eurasian CollaredDove Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

European Starling Passerine 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Forster's Tern Seabird 52 16 8 24 13 9 22 6 0 6 0.46

Fulvous Whistling 

Duck Waterfowl 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Glossy Ibis Marsh/Wading 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.00

Great Blue Heron Marsh/Wading 50 5 2 7 23 16 39 4 0 4 0.14

Great Egret Marsh/Wading 33 6 6 12 10 3 13 8 0 8 0.36

Great-horned Owl Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Greater Shearwater Seabird 28 7 4 11 12 4 16 1 0 1 0.39

Green Heron Marsh/Wading 18 2 0 2 9 6 15 1 0 1 0.11

Gull-billed Tern Seabird 8 0 0 0 2 4 6 2 0 2 0.00

Herring Gull Seabird 42 8 8 16 9 13 22 4 0 4 0.38

Horned Grebe Diving 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

House Sparrow Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Killdeer Shorebird 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

King Rail Marsh/Wading 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Laughing Gull Seabird 3,339 968 341 1,309 1,341 365 1,706 323 1 324 0.39

Least Bittern 

Marsh/ 

Wading 6 0 0 0 4 2 6 0 0 0 0.00

Least Tern Seabird 110 45 6 51 40 6 46 13 0 13 0.46

Lesser Black-backed 

Gull Seabird 5 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0.40

Lesser Scaup Waterfowl 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.00

Little Blue Heron Marsh/Wading 6 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 0 1 0.00

Long-billed 

Dowitcher Shorebird 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Magnificant 

Frigatebird Seabird 9 3 2 5 1 1 2 2 0 2 0.56

Mallard Waterfowl 31 5 4 9 15 7 22 0 0 0 0.29

Manx Shearwater Seabird 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Masked Booby Seabird 12 4 3 7 1 4 5 0 0 0 0.58

Mottled Duck Waterfowl 6 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 1 0.00

Mourning Dove Passerine 17 2 1 3 8 6 14 0 0 0 0.18

Neotropic 

Cormorant Diving 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.00

Northern Cardinal Passerine 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

Northern Gannet Seabird 632 221 187 408 89 103 192 31 1 32 0.65

Northern 

Mockingbird Passerine 4 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0.00

Osprey Raptor 11 2 1 3 5 3 8 0 0 0 0.27

Pied-billed Grebe Diving 47 14 24 38 5 3 8 1 0 1 0.81

Piping Plover Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Purple Gallinule Marsh/Wading 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00
Figures and Tables A-49 

Table 4-6. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa, b (continued). 

Common Name Species Group*

Grand 

Total

Visibly 

Oiled Total

Not Visibly 

Oiled Total

Unknown 

Oiling 

Oiling 

Rate1,2 Total

 Dead Alive Dead Alive Dead Alive 

Purple Martin Passerine 5 1 0 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 0.20

Red-breasted 

Merganser Waterfowl 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.50

Reddish Egret Marsh/Wading 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.50

Red-shouldered 

Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Red-tailed Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Red-winged 

Blackbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Ring-billed Gull Seabird 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Rock Dove (pigeon) Passerine 19 2 2 4 4 9 13 2 0 2 0.21

Roseate Spoonbill Marsh/Wading 18 7 2 9 3 1 4 5 0 5 0.50

Royal Tern Seabird 348 116 66 182 95 49 144 22 0 22 0.52

Ruddy Duck Waterfowl 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Ruddy Turnstone Shorebird 18 1 3 4 8 5 13 1 0 1 0.22

Sanderling Shorebird 32 4 2 6 17 6 23 3 0 3 0.19

Sandwich Tern Seabird 90 26 19 45 23 13 36 9 0 9 0.50

Seaside Sparrow Passerine 6 4 0 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.67

Semipalm. 

Sandpiper Shorebird 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.50

Short-billed 

Dowitcher Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Snowy Egret Marsh/Wading 30 10 8 18 7 3 10 2 0 2 0.60

Sooty Shearwater Seabird 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Sooty Tern Seabird 4 0 1 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0.25

Sora Marsh/Wading 6 2 1 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.50

Spotted Sandpiper Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Surf Scoter Waterfowl 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Tri-colored Heron Marsh/Wading 34 9 5 14 7 2 9 11 0 11 0.41

Virginia Rail Marsh/Wading 4 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0.00

White Ibis Marsh/Wading 11 1 1 2 4 3 7 2 0 2 0.18

White-winged Dove Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Willet Shorebird 15 2 1 3 7 3 10 2 0 2 0.20

Wilson's Plover Shorebird 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.00

Wilson's Storm 

Petrel Seabird 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo Passerine 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Yellow-crowned 

Night Heron Marsh/Wading 9 0 0 0 7 2 9 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Blackbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Cormorant Diving 14 3 0 3 10 0 10 1 0 1 0.21

Unid. Dowitcher Shorebird 5 2 0 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0.40

Unid. Duck Waterfowl 4 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 0.00

Unid. Egret Marsh/Wading 11 2 0 2 7 0 7 2 0 2 0.18
A-50 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-6. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa, b (continued). 

Common Name Species Group*

Grand 

Total

Visibly 

Oiled Total

Not Visibly 

Oiled Total

Unknown 

Oiling Total

Oiling 

Rate1,2

Dead Alive Dead Alive Dead Alive 

Unid. Flycatcher Passerine 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Unid. Grackle Passerine 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Unid. Grebe Diving 6 4 0 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.67

Unid. Gull Seabird 253 79 3 82 131 7 138 33 0 33 0.32

Unid. Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Heron Marsh/Wading 14 5 0 5 6 1 7 2 0 2 0.36

Unid. Loon Diving 9 2 2 4 4 1 5 0 0 0 0.44

Unid. Mockingbird Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Owl Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Passerine Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Pelican Seabird 26 5 1 6 15 1 16 4 0 4 0.23

Unid. Pigeon Passerine 17 2 1 3 6 7 13 1 0 1 0.18

Unid. Rail 

Marsh/ 

Wading 4 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.25

Unid. Raptor Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Sandpiper Shorebird 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Shearwater Seabird 4 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 0.00

Unid. Shorebird Shorebird 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.67

Unid. Skimmer Seabird 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Sparrow Passerine 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.00

Unid. Swallow Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Tern Seabird 129 37 1 38 72 1 73 18 0 18 0.29

Unknown spp. 561 51 2 53 420 3 423 85 0 85 0.09

Other 119 33 4 37 58 16 74 8 0 8 0.31

Column Totals 8,000 2,024 1,011 3,035 3,108 948 4,056 907 2 909 0.27

a Data obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as a summarized table dated November 30, 2010. 

The data used in this table are verified as per the FWS QA/QC processes. Disclaimer: All data should be 

considered provisional, incomplete, and subject to change. For more information, see USDOI, FWS, 2010. 

b As of November 30, 2010, 102 avian species had been identified through the Deepwater Horizon post-spill 

monitoring and collection process. Overall oiling rate across species including “others” and “unknowns” was 

0.27. Oiling rate for the Top 5 (see bold rows in table) most-impacted avian species was 0.44 and included 

representatives from only the seabird group. In descending order based on the number collected: laughing gull 

(3,339 collected, 0.39 oiling rate); brown pelican (911 collected, 0.38 oiling rate); northern gannet (632 collected, 

0.65 oiling rate); royal tern (348 collected, 0.52 oiling rate); and black skimmer (263 collected, 0.25 oiling rate). * Species Group: As defined in the text of this Supplemental EIS. 1 Oiling Rate: For each species, an oiling rate was calculated by dividing the “total” number of oiled individuals 

(∑ alive + dead) /∑ of individuals collected for a given species/row. In general, it has been well documented that 

the number of birds collected after a spill event represents a small fraction of the total oiled population (direct 

mortality) due to various factors: species-specific differences in vulnerability to spilled oil; species-specific 

differences in distribution, habitat use, and behavior; species-specific differences in abundance; species-specific 

differences in carcass deposition rates, persistence rates, and detection probabilities; overall search effort and 

temporal and spatial variation in search effort; and carcass loss due to predation, habitat, weather, tides, and 

currents (Piatt et al., 1990a and 1990b; Ford et al., 1996; Piatt and Ford, 1996; Fowler and Flint, 1997; Flint and 

Fowler, 1998; Flint et al., 1999; Castege et al., 2007; Byrd et al., 2009; Flint et al., 2010). For example, Piatt and 
Figures and Tables A-51 

Ford (1996, Table 1) estimated a mean carcass recovery rate of only 17% for a number of previous oil-bird 

impact studies. Burger (1993) and Wiese and Jones (2001) estimated recovery rates of 20%, with the latter study 

based on a drift-block design to estimate carcass recovery rate from beached-bird surveys. NOTE: Spill volume 

tends to be a poor predictor of bird mortality associated with an oil spill (Burger 1993), although it should be 

considered for inclusion in any models to estimate total bird mortality, preferably with some metric of species 

composition and abundance (preferably density) pre-spill (Wilhelm et al., 2007). 2 For additional information on oiling rates by Species Group and additional statistics, see Table 4-5. 

Table 4-7 

 

Economic Significance of Commercial Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico 

State Landings Revenue Sales Impacts Job Impacts CFQ 

Alabama 44,317 445,449 9,750 0.33 

Florida 169,711 5,657,246 108,695 0.99 

Louisiana 272,884 2,033,587 43,711 2.50 

Mississippi 43,696 390,702 8,575 1.96 

Texas 176,098 2,013,272 42,541 0.32 

Total 706,706 10,540,256 213,272 -- 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010c. 

Table 4-8 

 

Top Species Landed by Recreational Fishermen in Texas 

 Panel A: Total Landings Panel B: Landings in Bays 

Species 2007 2008 2009 Species 2007 2008 2009 

Atlantic Croaker 95 64 117 Atlantic Croaker 95 64 117

Black Drum 66 82 98 Black Drum 65 80 97

King Mackerel 11 8 16 King Mackerel -- -- --

Red Drum 289 267 285 Red Drum 286 262 277

Red Snapper 45 39 31 Red Snapper -- -- --

Sand Seatrout 95 152 111 Sand Seatrout 89 137 108

Sheepshead 46 46 34 Sheepshead 46 46 34

Southern Flounder 49 64 47 Southern Flounder 49 64 47

Spotted Seatrout 916 920 810 Spotted Seatrout 892 895 789

 Panel C: Landings in State Waters Panel D: Landings in EEZ 

Species 2007 2008 2009 Species 2007 2008 2009 

Atlantic Croaker -- -- -- Atlantic Croaker -- -- --

Black Drum 1 2 1 Black Drum -- -- --

King Mackerel 3 5 7 King Mackerel 8 4 9

Red Drum 3 4 8 Red Drum 0 0 1

Red Snapper 18 28 13 Red Snapper 27 13 19

Sand Seatrout 6 13 2 Sand Seatrout -- 1 1

Sheepshead -- -- -- Sheepshead -- -- --

Southern Flounder -- -- -- Southern Flounder -- -- --

Spotted Seatrout 23 18 14 Spotted Seatrout 1 5 8

Note: Data are presented in terms of thousands of fish. 

Source: Fisher, personal communication, 2011. 
A-52 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-9 

 

Angler Effort in 2009 in Texas 

Area Private Charter Total 

Bay 859,742 115,690 975,431

TTS* 32,773 2,825 35,598

EEZ** 21,128 3,336 24,464

Total 913,642 121,851 1,035,493

 *TTS – Texas Territorial State Waters 

**EEZ – Economic Exclusion Zone 

Source: Fisher, personal communication, 2011. 

Table 4-10 

 

Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico in 2008 

Expenditures* Sales* Value Added* Employment 

Alabama 480,587 455,093 235,481 4,719 

West Florida 6,332,287 5,650,068 3,075,710 54,589 

Mississippi 410,007 382,778 148,837 2,930 

Louisiana 2,727,225 2,297,078 1,156,796 25,590 

Texas 2,594,714 3,288,135 1,656,545 25,544 

Total 12,544,820 12,073,152 6,273,369 113,372 

*Data on expenditures, sales, and value added are presented in thousands of dollars 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010c. 
Figures and Tables A-53 

Table 4-11 

 

Top Species Landed by Recreational Fishermen in Texas — Seasonal 

Panel A: Total Landings Panel B: Landings in Bays 

2009 2010 2009 2010 

Species 

Season A Season B Season A Season B 

Species 

Season A Season B Season A Season B 

Atlantic Croaker 12 105 8 117 Atlantic Croaker 12 105 8 117 

Black Drum 38 59 36 128 Black Drum 38 59 36 127 

King Mackerel -- 16 -- 6 King Mackerel -- -- -- --

Red Drum 93 193 58 206 Red Drum 89 188 58 203 

Red Snapper 2 30 11 22 Red Snapper -- -- -- --

Sand Seatrout 21 90 16 112 Sand Seatrout 21 87 16 110 

Sheepshead 26 8 40 10 Sheepshead 26 8 40 10 

Southern Flounder 12 36 -- 25 Southern Flounder 12 36 -- 25 

Spotted Seatrout 179 631 124 607 Spotted Seatrout 179 610 124 597 

Panel C: Landings in State Waters Panel D: Landings in the Economic Exclusion Zone 

2009 2010 2009 2010 

Species 

Season A Season B Season A Season B 

Species 

Season A Season B Season A Season B 

Atlantic Croaker -- -- -- -- Atlantic Croaker -- -- -- -- 

Black Drum -- -- -- 1 Black Drum -- -- -- -- 

King Mackerel -- 7 -- 1 King Mackerel -- 9 -- 5 

Red Drum 4 4 -- 3 Red Drum -- 1 -- -- 

Red Snapper 2 11 10 11 Red Snapper -- 19 1 11 

Sand Seatrout -- 2 -- 1 Sand Seatrout -- 1 -- 1 

Sheepshead -- -- -- -- Sheepshead -- -- -- -- 

Southern Flounder -- -- -- -- Southern Flounder -- -- -- -- 

Spotted Seatrout -- 13 -- 10 Spotted Seatrout -- 8 -- -- 

Fish landings are measured in thousands of fish. 

Season A was November 21 through May 14. Season B was May 15 through November 20. 

Source: Fisher, personal communication, 2011, 
A-54 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-12 

 

Angler Effort in 2009 and 2010 

2009 

Season A Season B 

Area Private Charter Total Area Private Charter Total 

Bay 291,400 33,256 324,655 Bay 573,978 82,242 656,220 

TTS* 3,804 431 4,235 TTS* 29,060 2,394 31,454 

EEZ** 252 0 252 EEZ** 20,874 3,336 24,211 

Total 295,456 33,687 329,143 Total 623,912 87,972 711,885 

2010 

Season A Season B 

Area Private Charter Total Area Private Charter Total 

Bay 255,995 23,570 279,565 Bay 567,522 93,650 661,171 

TTS* 3,250 2,187 5,437 TTS* 22,837 2,052 24,888 

EEZ** 744 0 744 EEZ** 14,129 1,602 15,731 

Total 259,989 25,758 285,747 Total 604,487 97,303 701,791 

 *TTS – Texas Territorial State Waters 

**EEZ – Economic Exclusion Zone 

Season A was November 21 through May 14. Season B was May 15 through November 20. 

Source: Fisher, personal communication, 2011. 
Figures and Tables A-55 

Table 4-13 

 

Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in Selected Geographic Regions 

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Panel A — Economic Impact Area 

TX-1 45,553 46,979 48,490 49,165 50,446 53,281 54,654 54,551 53,691

TX-2 14,055 14,113 14,241 14,728 14,670 16,153 16,564 16,883 16,702

TX-3 195,214 203,090 207,245 214,025 219,203 231,840 241,110 240,231 240,366

LA-1 13,682 14,065 14,300 14,725 15,339 14,747 14,563 14,295 14,246

LA-2 17,653 17,451 18,560 19,817 20,787 21,072 21,517 21,364 20,588

LA-3 37,902 38,048 40,752 42,229 43,483 44,533 44,810 46,037 44,157

LA-4 80,990 80,677 81,243 85,093 47,641 64,812 68,531 68,605 67,438

MS-1 31,485 32,752 33,714 33,297 18,024 29,191 29,680 27,702 26,938

AL-1 23,785 23,937 24,488 24,464 25,481 26,463 26,850 26,516 26,034

FL-1 34,829 36,139 36,520 39,956 41,133 41,887 41,688 40,001 41,003

FL-2 17,934 19,733 18,860 21,588 21,861 22,478 22,913 22,502 21,699

FL-3 123,248 130,250 132,256 137,302 145,005 145,894 149,448 146,368 142,393

FL-4 238,090 251,658 256,472 268,487 274,635 280,874 283,748 283,359 280,380

TX EIA Total 254,822 264,182 269,976 277,918 284,319 301,274 312,328 311,665 310,759

LA EIA Total 150,227 150,241 154,855 161,864 127,250 145,164 149,421 150,301 146,429

MS EIA Total 31,485 32,752 33,714 33,297 18,024 29,191 29,680 27,702 26,938

AL EIA Total 23,785 23,937 24,488 24,464 25,481 26,463 26,850 26,516 26,034

FL EIA Total 414,101 437,780 444,108 467,333 482,634 491,133 497,797 492,230 485,475

EIA Total 874,420 908,892 927,141 964,876 937,708 993,225 1,016,076 1,008,414 995,635

Panel B — Coastal 

TX 57,637 59,250 60,873 61,983 63,069 67,625 68,195 67,388 68,025

LA 88,235 87,640 88,431 92,703 56,242 73,405 77,567 77,580 75,958

MS 30,052 31,295 32,172 31,625 16,152 26,926 27,444 25,575 25,080

AL 21,231 21,690 22,249 22,250 23,099 24,186 24,437 24,319 23,990

FL 377,323 399,122 404,048 423,855 437,761 445,948 450,414 445,164 441,068

Coastal Total 574,478 598,997 607,773 632,416 596,323 638,090 648,057 640,026 634,121

Panel C — Statewide 

TX 818,164 840,506 854,733 877,284 900,646 943,581 982,437 995,445 982,122

LA 191,394 192,342 198,195 206,298 171,674 189,822 194,614 194,905 189,527

MS 116,714 120,243 121,528 122,557 110,430 123,402 125,192 121,033 115,924

AL 148,989 149,172 154,287 158,390 163,390 168,558 171,697 168,413 166,237

FL 772,721 808,429 817,571 866,269 893,043 912,409 932,012 922,534 896,923

State Total 2,047,982 2,110,692 2,146,314 2,230,798 2,239,183 2,337,772 2,405,952 2,402,330 2,350,733

1) Economic Impact Areas are defined in Figure 2-2. 

2) The Coastal category refers to counties within EIA's that are directly along the coast of the U.S. 

3) The Statewide category refers to the number of employees within the borders of the entire state. 

4) The leisure/hospitality industry is defined according to the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). 

5) The employment figure for any given year corresponds to the total number of employees in December of that year. 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010. 
A-56 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-14 

 

Total Wages Earned by Employees in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in Selected Geographic Regions 

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Panel A — Economic Impact Area 

TX-1 516,185 544,244 566,896 586,252 627,083 685,028 739,142 746,670 766,750

TX-2 148,743 155,321 158,437 168,256 175,260 190,740 209,082 221,889 237,274

TX-3 3,018,006 3,184,819 3,269,332 3,482,253 3,711,467 4,067,402 4,341,536 4,559,854 4,635,997

LA-1 179,049 190,839 196,760 207,015 252,162 250,432 251,148 257,990 263,543

LA-2 176,741 186,845 195,892 219,352 243,347 280,120 295,347 308,107 314,147

LA-3 446,102 452,046 487,564 498,022 543,970 597,138 633,241 654,806 667,398

LA-4 1,318,417 1,378,771 1,429,488 1,493,019 1,409,983 1,246,477 1,505,206 1,633,224 1,595,567

MS-1 591,065 591,974 608,043 618,987 617,535 453,168 621,439 616,442 560,510

AL-1 281,331 287,381 300,006 305,922 321,934 347,512 371,712 388,644 390,968

FL-1 470,616 508,316 528,008 599,949 655,141 721,483 761,247 738,910 743,731

FL-2 182,944 209,213 210,758 232,143 249,152 270,339 294,144 293,528 291,417

FL-3 1,849,168 1,956,066 2,046,441 2,224,235 2,418,168 2,576,029 2,752,991 2,906,630 2,795,652

FL-4 4,219,638 4,391,881 4,669,982 5,131,115 5,650,225 5,981,862 6,304,312 6,493,402 6,344,752

TX EIA Total 3,682,934 3,884,384 3,994,665 4,236,761 4,513,810 4,943,170 5,289,760 5,528,413 5,640,021

LA EIA Total 2,120,309 2,208,501 2,309,704 2,417,408 2,449,462 2,374,167 2,684,942 2,854,127 2,840,655

MS EIA Total 591,065 591,974 608,043 618,987 617,535 453,168 621,439 616,442 560,510

AL EIA Total 281,331 287,381 300,006 305,922 321,934 347,512 371,712 388,644 390,968

FL EIA Total 6,722,366 7,065,476 7,455,189 8,187,442 8,972,686 9,549,713 10,112,694 10,432,470 10,175,552

EIA Total 13,398,005 14,037,716 14,667,607 15,766,520 16,875,427 17,667,730 19,080,547 19,820,096 19,607,706

Panel B — Coastal 

TX 706,679 737,035 761,880 790,346 834,820 927,109 986,605 994,817 1,027,931

LA 1,401,025 1,459,632 1,512,219 1,578,886 1,503,750 1,359,770 1,631,966 1,764,631 1,734,276

MS 579,122 579,914 595,776 605,542 602,391 433,995 600,226 594,626 539,240

AL 259,024 265,870 279,872 284,844 299,662 324,127 347,209 363,802 367,039

FL 6,309,393 6,624,756 6,991,895 7,687,112 8,410,661 8,955,648 9,456,949 9,762,721 9,522,041

Coastal Total 9,255,243 9,667,207 10,141,642 10,946,730 11,651,284 12,000,649 13,022,955 13,480,597 13,190,527

Panel C — Statewide 

TX 12,226,217 12,630,640 12,936,441 13,601,748 14,407,978 15,653,469 16,677,752 17,490,862 17,674,963

LA 2,674,740 2,762,055 2,886,189 3,028,338 3,069,485 3,013,979 3,336,193 3,530,708 3,511,171

MS 1,714,340 1,746,899 1,778,922 1,840,583 1,872,402 1,789,900 1,990,974 2,024,034 1,915,700

AL 1,682,365 1,730,048 1,800,093 1,882,015 1,998,089 2,124,157 2,244,583 2,344,058 2,345,332

FL 13,388,764 13,677,833 14,336,358 15,686,585 17,089,645 18,132,360 19,354,496 19,990,305 19,103,860

State Total 31,686,426 32,547,475 33,738,003 36,039,269 38,437,599 40,713,865 43,603,998 45,379,967 44,551,026

1) Economic Impact Areas are defined in Figure 2-2. 

2) The Coastal category refers to counties within EIA's that are directly along the coast of the U.S. 

3) The Statewide category refers to the number of employees within the borders of the entire state. 

4) The leisure/hospitality industry is defined according to the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 

5) Wages are presented in thousands of dollars. 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010. 
Figures and Tables A-57 

Table 4-15 

 

Total Tourism Spending in Gulf Coast States 

(millions of dollars) 

State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Texas 36,753 35,106 34,238 34,589 37,065 40,790 44,707 44,428 50,874 

Louisiana 9,227 9,266 9,262 9,418 9,964 8,248 6,718 9,021 9,642 

Mississippi 5,282 5,227 5,345 5,489 5,755 5,939 5,633 6,060 6,329 

Alabama 5,487 5,423 5,368 5,627 6,051 6,639 6,998 7,405 7,723 

Florida 60,296 56,166 54,544 56,265 61,118 64,544 66,165 68,820 70,521 

Source: U.S. Travel Association, 2010. 

Table 4-16 

 

Coastal Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Estimates in 2004 

State Employees Payroll Establishments 

Texas 13,712 $366,374 1,626 

Louisiana 4,362 $158,357 544 

Mississippi 12,188 $192,864 148 

Alabama 1,078 $35,407 212 

Florida 31,166 $721,440 2,398 

Gulf Total 62,506 $949,711 4,928 

Source: Kaplan and Whitman, unpublished. 

Table 4-17 

 

Categories of Tourism Spending in Texas 

(millions of dollars) 

Category 1994 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Accommodations 929 1,507 1,571 2,020 2,192 2,424 2,041 

Food Service 1,183 1,793 1,939 2,288 2,418 2,571 2,449 

Food Stores 272 387 422 480 510 545 521 

Local Tran. And Gas 1,224 1,763 2,291 3,295 3,610 4,126 2,831 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 803 1,184 1,252 1,426 1,464 1,501 1,399 

Retail Sales 1,152 1,631 1,631 1,813 1,844 1,847 1,745 

Visitor Air Transportation 476 697 761 864 888 869 701 

Other Travel Spending 1,725 2,541 2,629 2,971 2,996 3,145 2,819 

Total Tourist Spending 7,764 11,504 12,496 15,157 15,923 17,027 14,506 

Source: Dean Runyan Associates, 2010. 
A-58 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-18 

 

Tourism in Gulf Coast Regions of Texas in 2009 

Metro Area Visitors Spending 

Beaumont/Port Arthur 2.60 557 

Corpus Christi 6.61 1,030 

Houston/Baytown/Sugarland 29.85 12,431 

Victoria 1.51 190 

Brownsville/Harlingen 1.85 663 

Sources: Dean Runyan Associates, 2010. 

 D.K. Shifflet and Associates, 2010a and 2010b. 

Table 4-19 

 

Number of Beaches and Beach Participation in Gulf States 

State Number of Beaches1 Beach Visitation2, 3

Texas 168 4,929,000 

Louisiana 28 578,000 

Mississippi 20 956,000 

Alabama 25 1,527,000 

Florida 634 21,989,000 1

 USEPA, 2008. 

2

 U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. 

3

 Beach visitation only refers to visitors originating from within the U.S. 
Figures and Tables A-59 

Table 4-20 

 

Deepwater Horizon Damage Claims in Texas 

Panel A: Individual Claims 

Industry No. of Claims Amount Paid 

Fishing 892 $12,156,671.30 

Food, Beverage, and Lodging 247 $1,899,506.79 

Multiple Industry/Business Types 42 $523,540.00 

No Industry Designation 10 $114,579.00 

Rental Property 33 $278,900.00 

Retail, Sales, and Service 448 $8,130,329.92 

Seafood Processing and Distribution 541 $4,550,644.16 

Tourism and Recreation 9 $131,500.00 

Total 2,222 $27,785,671.17 

Panel B: Business Claims 

Industry No. of Claims Amount Paid 

Fishing 1,172 $40,528,508.88 

Food, Beverage, and Lodging 16 $1,707,100.00 

Multiple Industry/Business Types 4 $129,500.00 

No Industry Designation 30 $463,984.53 

Rental Property 350 $5,100,500.00 

Retail, Sales, and Service 55 $12,656,700.00 

Seafood Processing and Distribution 80 $30,296,300.00 

Tourism and Recreation 2 $31,200.00 

Total 1,709 $90,913,793.41 

Claims data are as of April 9, 2011. 

Source: Gulf Coast Claims Facility, 2011. 
A-60 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-21 

 

Monthly Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry during 2010 

Region Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep 

EIA 

TX-1 53,780 54,864 56,434 56,712 57,682 57,817 56,989 56,821 56,106

TX-2 16,372 16,535 16,879 17,357 17,488 17,953 17,744 17,668 17,234

TX-3 233,323 236,395 242,381 245,096 248,306 250,958 248,351 248,857 246,488

LA-1 14,195 14,203 14,435 14,500 14,698 14,774 14,632 14,402 14,487

LA-2 20,441 20,790 21,107 21,666 21,934 21,640 21,319 21,259 21,210

LA-3 42,988 43,485 44,710 44,925 45,606 45,695 45,320 45,556 45,492

LA-4 68,343 68,806 70,051 70,708 70,570 71,257 70,173 70,590 70,982

MS-1 26,404 26,645 27,211 27,583 27,879 28,290 28,052 27,981 27,570

AL-1 25,435 25,925 27,140 28,316 28,962 29,503 28,836 28,571 27,961

FL-1 40,374 42,431 46,703 48,351 49,119 50,806 49,889 48,372 46,160

FL-2 21,621 22,074 22,478 22,868 22,011 21,550 21,238 21,504 22,090

FL-3 142,690 145,777 149,670 150,654 149,325 148,017 145,285 145,267 145,346

FL-4 280,126 285,916 291,067 290,144 284,324 279,782 272,745 272,263 270,061

TX EIA Total 303,475 307,794 315,694 319,165 323,476 326,728 323,084 323,346 319,828

LA EIA Total 145,967 147,284 150,303 151,799 152,808 153,366 151,444 151,807 152,171

MS EIA Total 26,404 26,645 27,211 27,583 27,879 28,290 28,052 27,981 27,570

AL EIA Total 25,435 25,925 27,140 28,316 28,962 29,503 28,836 28,571 27,961

FL EIA Total 484,811 496,198 509,918 512,017 504,779 500,155 489,157 487,406 483,657

EIA Total 986,092 1,003,846 1,030,266 1,038,880 1,037,904 1,038,042 1,020,573 1,019,111 1,011,187

Coastal 

TX 66,575 67,809 70,159 71,833 72,737 73,916 72,832 72,110 70,337

LA 76,571 77,167 78,666 79,306 79,329 79,933 78,923 79,373 79,764

MS 24,585 24,803 25,313 25,675 25,972 26,376 26,249 26,153 25,750

AL 23,425 23,908 25,020 26,192 26,734 27,202 26,551 26,324 25,732

FL 440,714 451,034 464,086 465,718 460,000 456,131 445,905 443,901 438,708

Coastal Total 631,870 644,721 663,244 668,724 664,772 663,558 650,460 647,861 640,291

Statewide 

TX 955,907 971,203 993,927 1,007,287 1,025,007 1,035,662 1,024,465 1,026,375 1,017,550

LA 187,935 189,633 193,519 195,715 196,978 197,360 194,930 195,358 195,476

MS 113,199 114,644 117,222 119,567 120,425 121,213 119,571 120,795 119,569

AL 160,117 160,637 165,671 169,475 171,307 172,834 170,998 171,144 168,839

FL 893,174 915,016 937,711 942,916 934,556 926,893 910,396 907,547 901,179

State Total 2,310,332 2,351,133 2,408,050 2,434,960 2,448,273 2,453,962 2,420,360 2,421,219 2,402,613

Economic Impact Areas are defined in Figure 2-2. 

The “Coastal” category refers to the counties/parishes within EIA's that are directly along the coast of the U.S. 

The “Statewide” category refers to the number of employees within the borders of the entire state. 

The leisure/hospitality industry is defined according to the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011 
Figures and Tables A-61 

Table 4-22 

 

Quarterly Wages in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in 2009 and 2010 

2009 2010 Region Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 

EIA 

TX-1 186,485 190,705 196,907 189,011 200,118 202,891 

TX-2 55,947 59,888 60,406 56,807 62,136 62,005 

TX-3 1,101,383 1,156,040 1,172,061 1,101,259 1,182,646 1,205,761 

LA-1 66,498 62,427 68,772 67,858 63,177 69,412 

LA-2 76,903 79,958 78,659 74,803 82,036 82,804 

LA-3 146,758 147,760 151,476 146,165 155,619 157,535 

LA-4 399,037 375,763 372,045 422,006 393,554 389,661 

MS-1 139,067 139,486 144,690 137,586 138,553 144,858 

AL-1 90,350 101,085 102,964 90,985 105,881 107,282 

FL-1 165,362 199,059 208,098 161,938 201,780 203,336 

FL-2 72,448 73,443 71,806 68,942 72,564 72,652 

FL-3 704,036 685,052 661,734 683,879 706,460 704,891 

FL-4 1,644,155 1,582,097 1,455,292 1,614,884 1,639,368 1,543,834 

TX EIA Total 1,343,815 1,406,633 1,429,374 1,347,077 1,444,900 1,470,657 

LA EIA Total 689,196 665,908 670,952 710,832 694,386 699,412 

MS EIA Total 139,067 139,486 144,690 137,586 138,553 144,858 

AL EIA Total 90,350 101,085 102,964 90,985 105,881 107,282 

FL EIA Total 2,586,001 2,539,651 2,396,930 2,529,643 2,620,172 2,524,713 

EIA Total 4,848,429 4,852,763 4,744,910 4,816,123 5,003,892 4,946,922 

Coastal 

TX 242,514 258,365 266,840 245,102 271,683 274,253 

LA 413,709 389,122 386,512 439,668 412,408 408,835 

MS 133,736 134,172 139,231 132,549 133,384 139,556 

AL 84,665 95,019 96,792 85,260 99,780 100,742 

FL 2,423,701 2,377,078 2,234,861 2,371,990 2,454,904 2,360,412 

Coastal Total 3,298,325 3,253,756 3,124,236 3,274,569 3,372,159 3,283,798 

Statewide 

TX 4,309,905 4,381,324 4,412,854 4,261,565 4,470,937 4,596,176 

LA 864,759 851,017 856,394 884,745 883,392 890,067 

MS 466,911 482,749 482,404 456,300 486,254 495,765 

AL 548,550 592,439 600,567 549,179 608,297 608,426 

FL 4,816,481 4,795,973 4,515,640 4,769,647 4,895,534 4,791,884 

State Total 11,006,606 11,103,502 10,867,859 10,921,436 11,344,414 11,382,318 

Economic Impact Areas are defined in Figure 2-2. 

The “Coastal” category refers to the counties/parishes within EIA's that are directly along the coast of the U.S. 

The “Statewide” category refers to the number of employees within the borders of the entire state. 

The leisure/hospitality industry is defined according to the North American Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS). 

Wages are presented in thousands of dollars. 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011. 
A-62 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-23 

 

Shipwrecks in the Western Planning Area 

Map Area No. Recorded Wrecks Historic Wrecks (verified) 

Alaminos Canyon 1 0 

Brazos 62 0 

Corpus Christi 3 0 

East Breaks 6 0 

Galveston 119 1 

Garden Banks 1 0 

High Island 111 1 

Keathley Canyon 1 0 

Matagorda Island 45 1 

Mustang Island 72 0 

North Padre Island 39 0 

South Padre Island 53 0 

Sabine Pass (Texas) 2 0 

TOTAL 515 3 
Figures and Tables A-63 

Table 4-24 

 

OCS and Non-OCS Program Spill Rates 

OCS Program Spill Rates 

<1,000 bbl 

<1 bbl 3,357 spills/BBO handled 

>1 and < 50 bbl 91 spills/BBO handled 

>50 bbl and <1,000 bbl 7 spills/BBO handled 

>1,000 bbl 

Facility 0.13 spills/BBO handled 

Pipeline 1.38 spills/BBO handled 

Shuttle Tanker 0.72 spills/BBO handled 

At sea 0.29 spills/BBO handled 

In port 0.0.43 spills/BBO handled 

Barge 1.23 spills/BBO handled 

Non-OCS Program Spill Rates 

<1,000 bbl rate based on yearly occurrence information 

>1,000 bbl 

Tanker Worldwide 0.82 spills/BBO handled 

At sea 0.46 spills/BBO handled 

In port 0.36 spills/BBO handled 

Tanker in U.S. waters 0.72 spills/BBO handled 

At sea 0.29 spills/BBO handled 

In port 0.43 spills/BBO handled 

Barge in U.S. coastal, offshore and inland waters 1.23 spills/BBO handled 

Pipeline rate based on yearly occurrence information 

BBO = billion barrels of oil. 

Source: Anderson and LaBelle, 2000 (page 312 [Table 6], page 313 [Table 7], page 314 [Table 8], 

page 316 [Table 10], page 319 [Table 13]). 
Table 4-25 Classification of the Gulf Economic Impact Areas State Area Labor Market County/Parish State Area Labor Market County State Area Labor Mar

Alabama AL-1 Mobile Baldwin Texas TX-1 Brownsville Cameron Florida FL- 1 Panama Cit

Clarke Hidalgo Conecuh Starr Escambia Willacy Pensacola Mobile Corpus Christi Aransas Monroe Brooks Washington Duval Wilcox Jim Wells FL- 2 Tallahassee 

Kenedy 

Mississippi MS-1 Biloxi-Gulfport George Kleberg 

Greene Nueces Hancock Refugio Harrison San Patricio Jackson TX-2 Brazoria Brazoria Pearl River Matagorda Stone Wharton 

Victoria Calhoun Lake City 

Louisiana LA-1 Lake Charles Allen Colorado 

Beauregard Dewitt Calcasieu Fayette Cameron Goliad Jefferson Davis Gonzales Vernon Jackson Lavaca Victoria 
Table 4-25. Classification of the Gulf Economic Impact Areas (continued). State Area Labor Market County State Area Labor Market County State Area Labor Ma

FL-3 Ocala 

LA-2 Lafayette Acadia 

Evangeline Gainesville Iberia TX-3 Beaumont - Hardin Lafayette Port Arthur Jasper St. Landry Jefferson St. Martin Newton Vermillion Orange 

LA-3 Baton Rouge Ascension Polk Tampa-St. Petersburg 

East Baton Rouge Tyler Iberville Houston - Austin Livingston Galveston Chambers Tangipahoa Fort Band FL-4 Ft. Myers West Baton Rouge Galveston 

Houma Assumption Harris Miami 

Lafourche Liberty St. Mary Montgomery Terrebonne San Jacinto Sarasota 

LA-4 New Orleans Jefferson Waller 

Orleans Washington Plaquemines St. Bernard St. Charles St. James St. John the Baptist St. Tammany Washington 
Table 4-26 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 1,625.42 1,771.25 1,807.15 1,843.24 1,879.50 1,915.95 1,952.51 2,137.01 2,32

Age Under 19 Years 36.1% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.6% 3Age 20 to 34 21.0% 20.2% 20.0% 20.0% 19.9% 19.9% 19.8% 18.8% 1Age 35 to 49 18.7% 18.0% 17.8% 17.6% 17.4% 17.3% 17.1% 17.1% 1Age 50 to 64 13.5% 14.6% 14.8% 14.8% 14.9% 14.9% 14.8% 14.5% 1Age 65 and Over 10.7% 10.9% 11.0% 11.2% 11.4% 11.6% 11.9% 13.1% 1

Median Age of Population (years) 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 White Population (in thousands) 18.7% 16.8% 16.4% 16.1% 15.8% 15.5% 15.3% 14.1% 1Black Population (in thousands) 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% Native American Population (in thousands) 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 79.0% 80.9% 81.2% 81.5% 81.9% 82.1% 82.4% 83.7% 8Male Population (in thousands) 48.7% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 728.91 840.00 864.86 878.23 891.81 905.55 919.48 991.85 1,06

 Farm Employment 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%  Mining 1.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.1%  Utilities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%  Construction 7.2% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8%  Manufacturing 4.0% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7%  Wholesale Trade 2.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.1%  Retail Trade 12.0% 11.4% 11.4% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 11.2% 11.1% 1 Transportation and Warehousing 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%  Information Employment 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%  Finance and Insurance 3.1% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%  Professional and Technical Services 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4%  Management 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%  Administrative and Waste Services 5.4% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8% 5.8% 5.9% 6.1%  Educational Services 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%  Health Care and Social Assistance 15.6% 17.9% 18.0% 18.2% 18.4% 18.6% 18.7% 19.6% 2 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%  Accommodation and Food Services 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.5% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3%  Federal Civilian Government 1.7% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6%  Federal Military 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%  State and Local Government 15.1% 15.7% 15.6% 15.6% 15.6% 15.5% 15.5% 15.3% 1
Table 4-26. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 24,168.27 25,503.71 26,303.90 26,962.27 27,636.74 28,327.69 29,035.50 32,841.93 37,1

 Farm 1.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Mining 3.6% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3%  Utilities 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Construction 7.5% 6.2% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 5.9%  Manufacturing 5.9% 4.8% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% 4.3%  Wholesale Trade 4.2% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.8%  Retail Trade 8.8% 7.9% 8.0% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.8% 7.6%  Transportation and Warehousing 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5%  Information 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%  Finance and Insurance 3.4% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2%  Professional and Technical Services 4.6% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1%  Management 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.0% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5%  Educational Services 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Health Care and Social Assistance 14.9% 17.9% 18.0% 18.2% 18.4% 18.6% 18.8% 19.8% 2 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%  Accommodation and Food Services 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.5% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%  Federal Civilian Government 4.9% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.2%  Federal Military 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5%  State and Local Government 17.8% 18.8% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.8% 18.8% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 21,146 22,321 22,304 22,511 22,729 22,955 23,191 24,519 2Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 68.3 75.0 74.8 74.9 75.0 75.2 75.3 75.9 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 69,895 79,290 79,758 80,471 81,303 82,071 82,820 87,661 9Number of Households (in thousands) 499.93 548.88 560.61 573.81 586.98 600.13 613.23 677.74 7Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 15.6% 14.2% 13.9% 13.7% 13.5% 13.3% 13.1% 12.0% 1Income $10,000 to $19,999 17.6% 16.0% 15.7% 15.5% 15.2% 15.0% 14.8% 13.6% 1Income $20,000 to $29,999 15.0% 13.8% 13.6% 13.4% 13.2% 13.0% 12.8% 11.7% 1Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.8% 19.9% 20.0% 20.1% 20.2% 20.3% 20.4% 20.5% 1Income $45,000 to $59,999 12.5% 13.7% 14.0% 14.2% 14.4% 14.6% 14.8% 16.0% 1Income $60,000 to $74,999 7.7% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 9.1% 9.9% 1Income $75,000 to $99,999 6.6% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5% 7.7% 7.8% 8.4% Income $100,000 or more 6.1% 6.7% 6.8% 6.9% 7.1% 7.2% 7.3% 7.9% 

Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 13 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-27 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-2 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202

Total Population (in thousands) 579.99 626.33 634.39 642.51 650.70 658.94 667.23 709.17 75

Age Under 19 Years 29.7% 29.4% 29.3% 29.3% 29.2% 29.2% 29.1% 29.1% 28Age 20 to 34 18.6% 18.9% 19.2% 19.3% 19.4% 19.3% 19.2% 19.1% 19Age 35 to 49 22.5% 20.5% 20.0% 19.5% 19.1% 18.9% 18.7% 18.1% 17Age 50 to 64 16.8% 18.5% 18.8% 18.9% 19.1% 19.2% 19.2% 18.4% 17Age 65 and Over 12.3% 12.6% 12.7% 13.0% 13.2% 13.5% 13.7% 15.3% 17

Median Age of Population (in years) 39 40 40 39 39 39 39 39 White Population (in thousands) 58.9% 55.1% 54.5% 53.8% 53.2% 52.6% 51.9% 48.8% 45Black Population (in thousands) 9.1% 9.9% 10.0% 10.0% 10.1% 10.2% 10.3% 10.7% 11Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.3% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 29.4% 31.5% 32.0% 32.6% 33.1% 33.6% 34.1% 36.6% 39Male Population (in thousands) 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 287.61 309.97 317.96 321.85 325.78 329.76 333.78 354.48 37

 Farm Employment 7.4% 7.0% 6.9% 6.8% 6.7% 6.7% 6.6% 6.2% 5 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1 Mining 2.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3 Utilities 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0 Construction 9.6% 7.5% 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7.8% 8.0% 8 Manufacturing 9.7% 9.2% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.8% 8.7% 8.2% 7 Wholesale Trade 2.7% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2 Retail Trade 11.3% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 10.9% 10 Transportation and Warehousing 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3 Information Employment 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0 Finance and Insurance 3.4% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.4% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3 Professional and Technical Services 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.4% 4 Federal Civilian Government 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0 Federal Military 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0 State and Local Government 12.9% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 13 Management 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0 Administrative and Waste Services 4.6% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.7% 5 Educational Services 0.9% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1 Health Care and Social Assistance 7.7% 8.9% 8.9% 9.0% 9.1% 9.1% 9.2% 9.6% 10 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1 Accommodation and Food Services 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.6% 5 Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.5% 6.2% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6
Table 4-27. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-2 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 10,282.28 10,218.80 10,728.94 10,949.05 11,173.46 11,402.24 11,635.47 12,871.31 14,23

 Farm Employment 3.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0 Mining 4.3% 6.0% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 6.1% 6 Utilities 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1 Construction 11.7% 9.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.8% 9 Manufacturing 20.2% 19.4% 19.6% 19.4% 19.1% 18.9% 18.7% 17.7% 16 Wholesale Trade 3.5% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3 Retail Trade 8.1% 7.8% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.6% 7 Transportation and Warehousing 3.5% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3 Information Employment 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0 Finance and Insurance 3.0% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1 Professional and Technical Services 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.5% 4 Management 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0 Administrative and Waste Services 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.9% 3 Educational Services 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0 Health Care and Social Assistance 7.5% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.7% 8.8% 8.9% 9.2% 9 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0 Accommodation and Food Services 2.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2 Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.2% 4.9% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4 Federal Civilian Government 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1 Federal Military 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0 State and Local Government 13.9% 15.5% 15.1% 15.1% 15.2% 15.2% 15.2% 15.4% 15

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 29,643 30,101 30,571 30,892 31,211 31,533 31,862 33,626 35Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 79.0 80.7 81.0 81.2 81.4 81.6 81.8 82.8 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 71,979 73,706 75,027 75,915 76,840 77,800 78,796 84,429 91Total Number of Households (in thousands) 208.95 226.47 229.54 233.19 236.81 240.39 243.95 261.04 27Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 9.6% 8.8% 8.5% 8.4% 8.2% 8.1% 7.9% 7.1% 6Income $10,000 to $19,999 12.9% 11.8% 11.6% 11.4% 11.2% 11.0% 10.7% 9.7% 8Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.9% 11.9% 11.7% 11.5% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 9.8% 8Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.5% 16.9% 16.7% 16.5% 16.3% 16.1% 15.9% 14.5% 13Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.4% 15.0% 15.2% 15.3% 15.4% 15.6% 15.7% 16.1% 15Income $60,000 to $74,999 11.3% 12.1% 12.4% 12.6% 12.8% 13.0% 13.3% 14.6% 16Income $75,000 to $99,999 11.0% 11.9% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 12.8% 13.0% 14.4% 15Income $100,000 or More 10.6% 11.5% 11.8% 12.0% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 13.9% 15

Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 12 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-28 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-3 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 

Total Population (in thousands) 5,552.60 6,192.43 6,299.99 6,408.25 6,517.13 6,626.68 6,736.63 7,292.42 7,855.

Age Under 19 years 30.9% 30.8% 30.7% 30.6% 30.6% 30.5% 30.4% 30.2% 29.7Age 20 to 34 22.3% 21.8% 21.8% 21.7% 21.7% 21.6% 21.5% 21.2% 21.4Age 35 to 49 22.7% 21.2% 20.9% 20.6% 20.4% 20.3% 20.2% 19.7% 19.1Age 50 to 64 15.6% 17.1% 17.4% 17.4% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 16.9% 16.1Age 65 and over 8.6% 9.1% 9.3% 9.5% 9.8% 10.1% 10.4% 12.0% 13.7

Median Age of Population (in years) 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 White Population (in thousands) 46.5% 43.0% 42.3% 41.7% 41.1% 40.4% 39.8% 36.8% 33.9Black Population (in thousands) 17.4% 17.4% 17.3% 17.2% 17.0% 16.9% 16.8% 16.3% 15.7Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 5.4% 5.9% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 7.1% 7.6Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 30.4% 33.4% 34.0% 34.6% 35.2% 35.9% 36.5% 39.5% 42.4Male Population (in thousands) 50.0% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 49.9% 49.8Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 3,218.66 3,596.00 3,700.61 3,758.99 3,818.15 3,878.09 3,938.83 4,254.86 4,592.

 Farm Employment 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2 Mining 2.8% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.1% 2.9 Utilities 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5 Construction 8.0% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5% 7.6 Manufacturing 7.4% 7.4% 7.3% 7.2% 7.2% 7.1% 7.0% 6.6% 6.2 Wholesale Trade 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2 Retail Trade 10.2% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3 Transportation and Warehousing 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2 Information Employment 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2 Finance and Insurance 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.1% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9 Professional and Technical Services 7.8% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.1% 8.2% 8.5% 8.7 Management 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8 Administrative and Waste Services 7.4% 7.1% 7.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.6% 7.9 Educational Services 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9 Health Care and Social Assistance 8.2% 9.5% 9.5% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.7% 9.9% 10.1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5 Accommodation and Food Services 6.5% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7 Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.0% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 6.0% 6.1 Federal Civilian Government 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7 Federal Military 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3 State and Local Government 10.3% 10.5% 10.5% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.3% 10.1
Table 4-28. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-3 (continued) 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 186,536.19 200,395.27 208,221.43 213,342.61 218,582.25 223,942.87 229,427.07 258,795.84 291,672.

 Farm Employment 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1 Mining 12.3% 13.9% 13.7% 13.8% 13.8% 13.9% 13.9% 14.2% 14.4 Utilities 1.6% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1 Construction 8.2% 6.8% 7.3% 7.2% 7.2% 7.1% 7.1% 6.9% 6.6 Manufacturing 11.7% 11.5% 11.8% 11.7% 11.5% 11.4% 11.3% 10.6% 10.0 Wholesale Trade 6.2% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3 Retail Trade 5.2% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3 Transportation and Warehousing 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.3% 5.2 Information Employment 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2 Finance and Insurance 5.5% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6 Professional and Technical Services 10.8% 10.8% 10.7% 10.8% 10.8% 10.9% 11.0% 11.4% 11.8 Management 0.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5 Administrative and Waste Services 4.4% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.3% 4.6 Educational Services 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1 Health Care and Social Assistance 6.5% 7.2% 7.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6 Accommodation and Food Services 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1 Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 2.9 Federal Civilian Government 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5 Federal Military 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3 State and Local Government 8.3% 8.9% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 38,941 38,315 39,041 39,421 39,818 40,231 40,661 43,035 45,7Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 85.7 87.4 87.9 87.8 87.6 87.5 87.4 86.9 86Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 80,484 82,582 84,242 84,841 85,460 86,115 86,816 91,101 96,6Total Number of Households (in thousands) 1,988.28 2,215.36 2,252.62 2,295.55 2,338.22 2,380.57 2,422.51 2,625.44 2,817.Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 8.7% 8.2% 8.0% 7.9% 7.7% 7.6% 7.4% 6.7% 6.0Income $10,000 to $19,999 11.0% 10.4% 10.1% 10.0% 9.8% 9.7% 9.5% 8.6% 7.7Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.0% 11.4% 11.1% 11.0% 10.8% 10.6% 10.4% 9.4% 8.5Income $30,000 to $44,999 16.8% 16.1% 15.8% 15.6% 15.4% 15.1% 14.8% 13.5% 12.2Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.0% 14.4% 14.5% 14.5% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.2% 13.1Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.8% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.9% 12.1% 12.3% 13.4% 14.4Income $75,000 to $99,999 11.4% 12.0% 12.3% 12.4% 12.6% 12.9% 13.1% 14.4% 16.0Income $100,000 or more 15.4% 16.3% 16.7% 16.9% 17.2% 17.5% 17.9% 19.7% 22.0Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 17 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-29 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 334.22 334.72 336.53 338.39 340.27 342.20 344.15 354.20 3

Age Under 19 years 29.2% 28.5% 28.4% 28.3% 28.3% 28.2% 28.2% 28.1% 2Age 20 to 34 21.8% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9% 21.7% 21.4% 20.8% 19.6% 1Age 35 to 49 20.9% 18.9% 18.5% 18.3% 18.1% 18.1% 18.4% 18.6% 1Age 50 to 64 16.2% 18.1% 18.5% 18.6% 18.8% 18.9% 19.0% 18.4% 1Age 65 and over 11.9% 12.6% 12.6% 12.9% 13.2% 13.4% 13.6% 15.2% 1

Median Age of Population (in years) 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 38 White Population (in thousands) 74.6% 73.9% 73.8% 73.8% 73.7% 73.6% 73.6% 73.2% 7Black Population (in thousands) 20.8% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.6% 20.5% 2Native American Population (in thousands) 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 3.0% 3.5% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.3% Male Population (in thousands) 49.9% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 171.65 177.73 182.05 183.91 185.81 187.70 189.62 199.43 2

 Farm Employment 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%  Mining 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%  Utilities 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%  Construction 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.1% 9.1% 9.3%  Manufacturing 6.7% 6.7% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.4% 6.3% 5.9%  Wholesale Trade 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8%  Retail Trade 11.0% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.3% 1 Transportation and Warehousing 3.2% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8%  Information Employment 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%  Finance and Insurance 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%  Professional and Technical Services 4.7% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7% 4.9%  Management 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.8% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.3% 5.8%  Educational Services 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%  Health Care and Social Assistance 9.5% 10.7% 10.8% 10.9% 11.0% 11.1% 11.2% 11.8% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%  Accommodation and Food Services 7.9% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.2% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 6.0% 6.2%  Federal Civilian Government 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8%  Federal Military 5.7% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.2%  State and Local Government 14.0% 14.8% 14.8% 14.7% 14.6% 14.5% 14.4% 14.0% 1
Table 4-29. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 6,873.26 7,285.45 7,545.69 7,677.77 7,811.98 7,948.32 8,086.83 8,813.22 9,599

 Farm Employment 0.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0. Mining 1.7% 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2. Utilities 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0. Construction 7.6% 10.9% 11.8% 11.7% 11.7% 11.6% 11.6% 11.3% 11. Manufacturing 14.6% 12.5% 12.7% 12.6% 12.4% 12.3% 12.2% 11.5% 10. Wholesale Trade 2.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2. Retail Trade 6.3% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5. Transportation and Warehousing 3.6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2. Information Employment 2.6% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2. Finance and Insurance 2.3% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1. Professional and Technical Services 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% 6.0% 6. Management 1.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0. Administrative and Waste Services 2.2% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.7% 4. Educational Services 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0. Health Care and Social Assistance 8.7% 9.2% 9.2% 9.3% 9.4% 9.5% 9.7% 10.2% 10. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0. Accommodation and Food Services 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3. Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.7% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 3. Federal Civilian Government 3.8% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3. Federal Military 10.6% 11.4% 11.3% 11.3% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.0% 10. State and Local Government 13.8% 14.1% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.7% 13.6% 13.

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 27,573 29,916 30,288 30,714 31,145 31,584 32,032 34,415 37,Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 70.1 84.8 84.6 84.8 85.0 85.2 85.4 86.4 8Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 66,070 78,879 79,669 80,570 81,502 82,473 83,478 89,133 95,Total Number of Households (in thousands) 123.62 124.83 125.65 126.79 127.92 129.02 130.11 135.19 139Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 12.1% 10.9% 10.6% 10.5% 10.3% 10.1% 9.9% 8.7% 7.Income $10,000 to $19,999 14.8% 13.3% 13.0% 12.8% 12.6% 12.3% 12.1% 10.6% 9.Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.0% 11.6% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 10.7% 10.5% 9.2% 7.Income $30,000 to $44,999 19.5% 18.6% 18.4% 18.2% 17.9% 17.6% 17.4% 15.3% 13.Income $45,000 to $59,999 15.2% 17.0% 17.4% 17.7% 18.0% 18.3% 18.6% 20.1% 20.Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.6% 10.8% 11.1% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.9% 13.7% 16.Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.9% 9.9% 10.2% 10.3% 10.5% 10.7% 10.9% 12.5% 14.Income $100,000 or more 6.9% 7.8% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 8.4% 8.5% 9.7% 11.

Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 6 parishes in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-30 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-2 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 558.39 587.88 593.59 599.38 605.23 611.14 617.10 647.47 67

Age Under 19 years 29.9% 28.9% 28.8% 28.7% 28.5% 28.5% 28.4% 28.2% 2Age 20 to 34 21.0% 22.0% 22.1% 22.0% 21.8% 21.5% 21.0% 19.5% 1Age 35 to 49 21.6% 19.1% 18.7% 18.4% 18.3% 18.3% 18.5% 19.3% 2Age 50 to 64 15.9% 18.0% 18.4% 18.6% 18.8% 18.9% 18.9% 18.4% 1Age 65 and over 11.6% 12.0% 12.1% 12.3% 12.6% 12.8% 13.1% 14.7% 1

Median Age of Population (in years) 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 37 White Population (in thousands) 69.1% 68.3% 68.2% 68.1% 68.0% 67.9% 67.8% 67.2% 6Black Population (in thousands) 27.7% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.1% 28.1% 28.2% 28.4% 2Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.5% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 1.7% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.7% Male Population (in thousands) 48.6% 48.7% 48.7% 48.7% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.9% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 297.51 321.93 330.21 334.03 337.89 341.78 345.70 365.76 38

Farm Employment 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 

 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%  Mining 6.9% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.0%  Utilities 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%  Construction 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.5%  Manufacturing 6.1% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.1%  Wholesale Trade 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%  Retail Trade 11.5% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 10.9% 1 Transportation and Warehousing 3.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%  Information Employment 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%  Finance and Insurance 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3%  Professional and Technical Services 4.7% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5%  Management 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%  Administrative and Waste Services 4.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.2%  Educational Services 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%  Health Care and Social Assistance 11.2% 12.0% 12.1% 12.3% 12.5% 12.6% 12.8% 13.6% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5%  Accommodation and Food Services 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 7.0% 7.0% 7.1% 7.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.6%  Federal Civilian Government 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%  Federal Military 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  State and Local Government 10.8% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 9.9% 9.7% 
Table 4-30. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-2 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 11,484.00 12,782.07 13,132.04 13,420.62 13,715.20 14,015.87 14,322.73 15,953.99 17,75

Farm Employment 0.8% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 

 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%  Mining 13.7% 17.7% 17.7% 17.8% 17.9% 18.0% 18.1% 18.7% 1 Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%  Construction 7.1% 6.0% 6.3% 6.2% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.4%  Manufacturing 7.5% 7.6% 7.7% 7.6% 7.5% 7.4% 7.3% 6.8%  Wholesale Trade 4.7% 4.8% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9%  Retail Trade 7.9% 7.7% 7.8% 7.7% 7.7% 7.6% 7.5% 7.3%  Transportation and Warehousing 4.6% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6%  Information Employment 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%  Finance and Insurance 4.1% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%  Professional and Technical Services 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3%  Management 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.1% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1%  Educational Services 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%  Health Care and Social Assistance 11.3% 11.6% 11.7% 11.8% 12.0% 12.1% 12.2% 12.9% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%  Accommodation and Food Services 2.5% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.5% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.4%  Federal Civilian Government 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%  Federal Military 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6%  State and Local Government 11.3% 11.3% 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.0% 10.8% 1

Total Personal Income (in millions of 2005 dollars) Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 28,507 30,706 30,852 31,247 31,645 32,047 32,456 34,618 37Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 72.7 78.6 77.7 77.7 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 68,505 75,359 75,338 76,021 76,720 77,445 78,201 82,488 87Total Number of Households (in thousands) 208.17 220.47 222.77 225.63 228.48 231.29 234.07 247.40 25Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 15.9% 14.1% 13.9% 13.7% 13.4% 13.2% 13.0% 11.8% 1Income $10,000 to $19,999 15.2% 13.6% 13.3% 13.1% 12.9% 12.7% 12.6% 11.3% 1Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.9% 11.7% 11.5% 11.3% 11.2% 11.0% 10.8% 9.8% Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.2% 18.4% 18.3% 18.3% 18.2% 18.1% 18.0% 17.0% 1Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.1% 15.8% 16.1% 16.3% 16.5% 16.7% 17.0% 18.2% 1Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.1% 10.2% 10.4% 10.6% 10.7% 10.9% 11.0% 12.3% 1Income $75,000 to $99,999 7.4% 8.3% 8.5% 8.6% 8.8% 8.9% 9.0% 10.1% 1Income $100,000 or more 7.1% 7.9% 8.0% 8.2% 8.3% 8.4% 8.5% 9.6% 1Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 7 parishes in the EIA; income per capi

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-31 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-3 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 1,039.88 1,126.87 1,140.44 1,154.15 1,167.97 1,181.91 1,195.92 1,266.99 1,3

Age Under 19 years 29.7% 28.8% 28.6% 28.4% 28.3% 28.1% 28.1% 27.9% 2Age 20 to 34 22.4% 23.1% 23.4% 23.5% 23.5% 23.5% 23.1% 21.7% 2Age 35 to 49 21.4% 19.2% 18.7% 18.3% 18.0% 17.9% 17.9% 18.4% 1Age 50 to 64 16.2% 17.8% 18.1% 18.2% 18.3% 18.3% 18.3% 17.7% 1Age 65 and over 10.3% 11.1% 11.3% 11.6% 11.9% 12.2% 12.5% 14.3% 1

Median Age of Population (in years) 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 37 White Population (in thousands) 65.7% 64.0% 63.7% 63.5% 63.3% 63.1% 62.9% 61.8% 6Black Population (in thousands) 29.6% 30.6% 30.7% 30.8% 30.9% 31.0% 31.1% 31.6% 3Native American Population (in thousands) 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 2.3% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.9% Male Population (in thousands) 48.7% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 606.81 663.02 680.63 689.17 697.80 706.51 715.33 760.83 8

Farm Employment 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 

 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Mining 1.5% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7%  Utilities 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%  Construction 9.8% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.4% 9.4% 9.5% 9.6%  Manufacturing 6.8% 6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.3%  Wholesale Trade 3.2% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6%  Retail Trade 10.9% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.9%  Transportation and Warehousing 4.4% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4%  Information Employment 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%  Finance and Insurance 3.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8%  Professional and Technical Services 4.8% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8% 6.0%  Management 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%  Administrative and Waste Services 5.8% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 7.1%  Educational Services 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6%  Health Care and Social Assistance 8.8% 10.0% 10.1% 10.1% 10.2% 10.3% 10.3% 10.6% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%  Accommodation and Food Services 6.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.7% 6.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 7.0%  Federal Civilian Government 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Federal Military 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6%  State and Local Government 15.6% 15.0% 14.9% 14.8% 14.7% 14.5% 14.4% 13.8% 1
Table 4-31. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-3 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 24,055.56 27,529.09 28,679.63 29,248.86 29,828.55 30,418.91 31,020.09 34,194.93 37,6

Farm Employment 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 

 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%  Mining 2.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%  Utilities 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Construction 10.3% 11.0% 12.0% 11.9% 11.9% 11.8% 11.7% 11.4% 1 Manufacturing 12.4% 11.2% 11.3% 11.2% 11.1% 10.9% 10.8% 10.1%  Wholesale Trade 4.4% 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6%  Retail Trade 7.2% 6.4% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2%  Transportation and Warehousing 6.0% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6%  Information Employment 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%  Finance and Insurance 4.3% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.1% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%  Professional and Technical Services 6.0% 6.9% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7.0% 7.3%  Management 1.4% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.5% 3.9% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.7%  Educational Services 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Health Care and Social Assistance 9.2% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3% 9.4% 9.5% 9.6% 9.9% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%  Accommodation and Food Services 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7%  Federal Civilian Government 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%  Federal Military 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  State and Local Government 17.5% 17.8% 17.4% 17.3% 17.3% 17.2% 17.2% 16.9% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 30,731 32,203 32,690 33,093 33,505 33,924 34,352 36,628 3Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 79.2 85.3 85.7 85.7 85.8 85.9 86.0 86.4 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 77,923 83,219 84,664 85,438 86,256 87,115 88,016 93,155 9Total Number of Households (in thousands) 385.14 421.32 426.92 433.61 440.27 446.88 453.43 485.13 5Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 12.4% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 10.7% 10.6% 10.4% 9.3% Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.2% 12.1% 11.8% 11.7% 11.5% 11.3% 11.1% 10.0% Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.1% 11.1% 10.8% 10.7% 10.5% 10.4% 10.2% 9.2% Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.5% 16.6% 16.3% 16.1% 15.9% 15.7% 15.5% 14.1% 1Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.7% 16.0% 16.3% 16.5% 16.7% 16.9% 17.0% 17.3% 1Income $60,000 to $74,999 11.1% 12.1% 12.4% 12.7% 12.9% 13.1% 13.3% 15.0% 1Income $75,000 to $99,999 10.0% 10.9% 11.1% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.9% 13.3% 1Income $100,000 or more 9.1% 9.8% 10.0% 10.1% 10.3% 10.4% 10.6% 11.8% 1Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 10 parishes in the EIA; income per cap

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-32 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-4 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 

Total Population (in thousands) 1,378.12 1,267.52 1,278.34 1,289.31 1,300.40 1,311.64 1,322.96 1,380.77 1,439

Age Under 19 years 28.1% 26.3% 26.2% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.5% 26.Age 20 to 34 20.7% 20.7% 20.6% 20.5% 20.4% 20.1% 19.9% 18.1% 17.Age 35 to 49 22.0% 20.1% 19.7% 19.4% 19.2% 19.0% 18.8% 19.1% 19.Age 50 to 64 17.5% 20.5% 20.8% 20.9% 20.9% 21.0% 20.9% 19.8% 18.Age 65 and over 11.6% 12.5% 12.7% 13.1% 13.4% 13.8% 14.2% 16.5% 18.

Median Age of Population (in years) 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 38 White Population (in thousands) 54.4% 55.5% 55.3% 55.1% 54.9% 54.8% 54.6% 53.7% 52.Black Population (in thousands) 37.7% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.1% 35.1% 35.2% 35.Native American Population (in thousands) 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.4% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 3.Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 5.1% 6.4% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.9% 7.0% 7.5% 8.Male Population (in thousands) 48.0% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 740.50 728.32 745.53 752.64 759.77 766.93 774.11 810.24 846

 Farm Employment 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0. Mining 1.3% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1. Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0. Construction 6.2% 7.4% 7.4% 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 8.1% 8. Manufacturing 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 4.9% 4. Wholesale Trade 3.6% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 3. Retail Trade 10.0% 10.2% 10.2% 10.3% 10.3% 10.3% 10.3% 10.5% 10. Transportation and Warehousing 4.1% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3. Information Employment 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1. Finance and Insurance 3.9% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4. Professional and Technical Services 5.7% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6. Management 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1. Administrative and Waste Services 6.4% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.5% 6. Educational Services 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3. Health Care and Social Assistance 8.8% 9.6% 9.7% 9.7% 9.8% 9.8% 9.9% 10.1% 10. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2. Accommodation and Food Services 8.8% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.9% 8.8% 8.8% 8.4% 8. Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.5% 6.3% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.6% 6. Federal Civilian Government 2.1% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1. Federal Military 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1. State and Local Government 11.9% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.9% 11.
Table 4-32. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-4 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 33,666.07 33,632.01 34,709.10 35,337.46 35,974.63 36,620.67 37,275.64 40,686.08 44,326

 Farm Employment 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0. Mining 4.4% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4. Utilities 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1. Construction 6.5% 6.2% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6. Manufacturing 8.6% 9.0% 9.2% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.8% 8.2% 7. Wholesale Trade 5.3% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4. Retail Trade 6.2% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5. Transportation and Warehousing 5.1% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4. Information Employment 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1. Finance and Insurance 5.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.6% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1. Professional and Technical Services 8.0% 9.0% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8. Management 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1. Administrative and Waste Services 4.0% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.4% 4. Educational Services 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2. Health Care and Social Assistance 8.7% 9.8% 9.7% 9.8% 9.9% 9.9% 10.0% 10.3% 10. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2. Accommodation and Food Services 4.4% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.3% 4. Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3. Federal Civilian Government 4.2% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3. Federal Military 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1. State and Local Government 12.1% 13.0% 12.9% 12.9% 13.0% 13.0% 13.1% 13.4% 13.

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 32,677 35,414 35,829 36,225 36,628 37,038 37,456 39,644 42,0Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 79.1 91.9 91.0 90.8 90.7 90.5 90.4 89.9 8Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 77,994 87,207 87,276 87,772 88,333 88,946 89,614 93,616 98,5Total Number of Households (in thousands) 530.24 491.36 496.01 501.93 507.80 513.61 519.34 546.73 572Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 12.7% 10.8% 10.6% 10.5% 10.3% 10.1% 9.9% 9.2% 8.Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.5% 11.9% 11.7% 11.5% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 10.1% 9.Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.9% 11.4% 11.2% 11.1% 10.9% 10.8% 10.6% 9.7% 8.Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.6% 15.5% 15.3% 15.2% 15.0% 14.8% 14.6% 13.6% 12.Income $45,000 to $59,999 13.7% 15.1% 15.3% 15.4% 15.5% 15.6% 15.7% 15.5% 14.Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.1% 11.7% 11.9% 12.0% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 13.8% 15.Income $75,000 to $99,999 9.3% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.9% 12.1% 12.3% 13.6% 15.Income $100,000 or more 10.2% 12.3% 12.5% 12.6% 12.8% 13.1% 13.3% 14.5% 16.Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 9 parishes in the EIA; income per capi

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-33 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area MS-1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 476.88 470.61 474.64 478.72 482.85 487.02 491.23 512.71 53

Age Under 19 years 28.6% 28.0% 27.9% 27.8% 27.6% 27.6% 27.5% 27.5% 2Age 20 to 34 20.2% 20.3% 20.4% 20.5% 20.6% 20.5% 20.2% 19.6% 1Age 35 to 49 21.7% 19.8% 19.4% 19.1% 18.8% 18.5% 18.5% 18.3% 1Age 50 to 64 17.4% 19.0% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 19.4% 19.5% 18.9% 1Age 65 and over 12.1% 12.8% 13.0% 13.4% 13.7% 14.0% 14.3% 15.7% 1

Median Age of Population (in years) 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 White Population (in thousands) 75.5% 74.0% 73.8% 73.7% 73.5% 73.4% 73.2% 72.5% 7Black Population (in thousands) 19.2% 19.8% 19.8% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 20.0% 20.3% 2Native American Population (in thousands) 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 2.8% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.4% Male Population (in thousands) 49.6% 49.6% 49.6% 49.6% 49.6% 49.5% 49.5% 49.5% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 238.83 243.91 249.36 251.56 253.76 255.98 258.22 269.62 28

Farm Employment 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 

 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Mining 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%  Utilities 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Construction 7.5% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.4%  Manufacturing 9.5% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.0% 9.9% 9.8% 9.4%  Wholesale Trade 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3%  Retail Trade 10.9% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 9.9%  Transportation and Warehousing 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%  Information Employment 1.4% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%  Finance and Insurance 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.1% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.8%  Professional and Technical Services 3.8% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.5%  Management 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%  Administrative and Waste Services 5.4% 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.8%  Educational Services 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0%  Health Care and Social Assistance 6.2% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7.0% 7.1%  Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.2% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%  Accommodation and Food Services 12.1% 10.3% 10.3% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.0%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.9%  Federal Civilian Government 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7%  Federal Military 5.7% 5.3% 5.3% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 5.1% 4.8%  State and Local Government 12.3% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.3% 13.3% 1
Table 4-33. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area MS-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 9,318.99 9,816.16 10,180.77 10,354.51 10,530.94 10,710.09 10,892.03 11,844.59 12,87

Farm Employment 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 

 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%  Mining 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%  Utilities 2.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7%  Construction 6.0% 5.4% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7%  Manufacturing 15.4% 17.3% 17.7% 17.5% 17.4% 17.3% 17.1% 16.5% 1 Wholesale Trade 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5%  Retail Trade 7.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8%  Transportation and Warehousing 2.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%  Information Employment 1.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9%  Finance and Insurance 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9%  Professional and Technical Services 4.6% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.7%  Management 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.1% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.9%  Educational Services 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6%  Health Care and Social Assistance 6.7% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7.0% 7.1%  Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%  Accommodation and Food Services 8.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.6%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.4% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6%  Federal Civilian Government 8.4% 8.8% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6%  Federal Military 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.9% 9.8%  State and Local Government 13.2% 15.3% 15.0% 15.0% 15.1% 15.1% 15.2% 15.4% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 27,815 29,510 29,900 30,216 30,539 30,868 31,204 32,989 34Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 68.6 73.6 73.5 73.4 73.4 73.3 73.2 72.8 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 65,960 67,129 67,940 68,417 68,918 69,445 70,003 73,247 77Total Number of Households (in thousands) 180.00 179.76 181.51 183.72 185.92 188.09 190.24 200.49 2Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 10.8% 9.8% 9.7% 9.5% 9.4% 9.2% 9.1% 8.4% Income $10,000 to $19,999 122.2% 122.3% 122.3% 122.3% 122.3% 122.3% 122.3% 122.5% 12Income $20,000 to $29,999 103.6% 102.5% 102.4% 102.4% 102.4% 102.4% 102.4% 101.9% 10Income $30,000 to $44,999 148.8% 154.6% 155.9% 156.8% 157.6% 158.3% 158.9% 161.1% 16Income $45,000 to $59,999 79.1% 92.0% 94.5% 96.5% 98.6% 100.9% 103.3% 115.9% 13Income $60,000 to $74,999 65.2% 66.6% 66.8% 66.9% 67.1% 67.3% 67.4% 71.0% 8Income $75,000 to $99,999 83.1% 82.9% 82.9% 82.9% 82.9% 82.8% 82.8% 82.7% 8Income $100,000 or more 81.1% 81.1% 81.2% 81.2% 81.2% 81.2% 81.2% 81.2% 8Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 7 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-34 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area AL-1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202

Total Population (in thousands) 691.71 725.48 731.11 736.83 742.62 748.49 754.41 784.68 81

Age Under 19 years 28.1% 27.4% 27.2% 27.1% 26.9% 26.8% 26.7% 26.5% 2Age 20 to 34 19.2% 19.5% 19.6% 19.6% 19.5% 19.3% 19.1% 18.3% 17Age 35 to 49 21.1% 19.3% 18.9% 18.6% 18.5% 18.4% 18.4% 18.5% 1Age 50 to 64 18.0% 19.5% 19.7% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.0% 17Age 65 and over 13.6% 14.4% 14.6% 14.9% 15.3% 15.6% 16.0% 17.7% 19

Median Age of Population (in years) 38 39 39 40 40 40 40 41 White Population (in thousands) 66.6% 66.0% 65.9% 65.9% 65.8% 65.7% 65.7% 65.3% 64Black Population (in thousands) 29.6% 29.4% 29.4% 29.4% 29.3% 29.3% 29.3% 29.3% 29Native American Population (in thousands) 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 1.6% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 3Male Population (in thousands) 48.2% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.4% 48.4% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 363.84 353.63 362.59 366.69 370.81 374.97 379.15 400.55 42

Farm Employment 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0Mining 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0Utilities 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0Construction 8.5% 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7Manufacturing 8.7% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 7.4% 7.3% 7.2% 6.9% 6Wholesale Trade 3.5% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8% 2Retail Trade 12.4% 11.9% 11.8% 11.8% 11.7% 11.6% 11.5% 11.1% 10Transportation and Warehousing 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.6% Information Employment 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Finance and Insurance 3.4% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.4% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.9% Professional and Technical Services 4.4% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 5Management 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0Administrative and Waste Services 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.7% 7.0% Educational Services 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% Health Care and Social Assistance 8.5% 9.4% 9.4% 9.5% 9.6% 9.6% 9.7% 10.1% 10Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% Accommodation and Food Services 6.8% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.8% 8.0% Other Services, Except Public Administration 7.7% 7.9% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.1% 8.4% Federal Civilian Government 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0Federal Military 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0State and Local Government 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 11.9% 11.9% 11.9% 11.8% 11.6% 1
Table 4-34. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area AL-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 12,930.79 13,040.20 13,381.74 13,639.05 13,900.74 14,166.88 14,437.55 15,860.94 17,40

Farm Employment 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0Mining 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0Utilities 1.0% 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% Construction 8.9% 7.9% 8.6% 8.5% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.0% Manufacturing 13.6% 12.2% 12.6% 12.5% 12.4% 12.3% 12.2% 11.7% 1Wholesale Trade 5.1% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4Retail Trade 8.9% 8.4% 8.5% 8.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.2% 7.9% Transportation and Warehousing 4.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.3% Information Employment 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% Finance and Insurance 4.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.3% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 2Professional and Technical Services 5.5% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.7% 7Management 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0Administrative and Waste Services 3.7% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 4.1% 4Educational Services 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% Health Care and Social Assistance 9.8% 11.0% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% 11.9% 12Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Accommodation and Food Services 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.2% Federal Civilian Government 2.2% 2.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2Federal Military 1.8% 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% State and Local Government 13.8% 15.2% 15.1% 15.1% 15.1% 15.1% 15.2% 15.2% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 26,961 28,132 28,252 28,605 28,964 29,329 29,701 31,665 33Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 69.0 71.9 71.2 71.2 71.3 71.3 71.4 71.6 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 61,397 63,756 63,690 64,304 64,944 65,612 66,308 70,242 74Total Number of Households (in thousands) 267.98 283.15 285.62 288.82 292.00 295.14 298.23 312.96 32Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 13.3% 11.9% 11.7% 11.6% 11.4% 11.2% 11.0% 10.0% Income $10,000 to $19,999 14.5% 13.2% 13.0% 12.8% 12.7% 12.5% 12.3% 11.2% 9Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.0% 11.9% 11.8% 11.6% 11.5% 11.3% 11.2% 10.2% Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.8% 18.5% 18.4% 18.2% 18.1% 17.9% 17.8% 16.5% 14Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.8% 16.4% 16.6% 16.8% 17.0% 17.2% 17.4% 18.7% 19Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.6% 10.6% 10.7% 10.9% 11.0% 11.2% 11.3% 12.5% 14Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.4% 9.3% 9.4% 9.5% 9.7% 9.8% 9.9% 11.0% 12Income $100,000 or more 7.5% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 10.0% 1Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 8 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-35 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 865.12 896.10 911.70 927.40 943.19 959.08 975.02 1,055.59 1,13

Age Under 19 years 26.1% 25.0% 24.8% 24.7% 24.6% 24.5% 24.5% 24.9% 2Age 20 to 34 20.5% 21.5% 21.7% 21.8% 21.9% 21.9% 21.5% 19.9% 1Age 35 to 49 22.0% 19.5% 19.0% 18.5% 18.1% 17.7% 17.7% 18.2% 1Age 50 to 64 17.9% 19.4% 19.6% 19.7% 19.7% 19.8% 19.8% 18.8% 1Age 65 and over 13.4% 14.6% 14.8% 15.3% 15.7% 16.1% 16.4% 18.2% 2

Median Age of Population (in years) 39 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 White Population (in thousands) 79.2% 77.6% 77.4% 77.2% 77.1% 76.9% 76.7% 75.8% 7Black Population (in thousands) 13.8% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 14.6% 1Native American Population (in thousands) 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.4% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 3.7% 4.6% 4.7% 4.8% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.9% Male Population (in thousands) 49.8% 50.0% 50.1% 50.1% 50.2% 50.2% 50.2% 50.4% 5Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 487.45 489.82 504.24 512.13 520.13 528.26 536.52 579.78 62

Farm Employment 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Mining 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Utilities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Construction 9.0% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% Manufacturing 3.4% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8% Wholesale Trade 2.6% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% Retail Trade 12.0% 11.8% 11.8% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.5% 1Transportation and Warehousing 1.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Information Employment 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% Finance and Insurance 3.6% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.0% Real Estate / Rental and Lease 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% Professional and Technical Services 5.2% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 6.0% 6.4% Management 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Administrative and Waste Services 7.0% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.9% Educational Services 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% Health Care and Social Assistance 8.9% 10.8% 10.9% 11.0% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 11.8% 1Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Accommodation and Food Services 8.8% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.1% Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.2% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% Federal Civilian Government 3.5% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.3% Federal Military 6.9% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 7.0% 6.9% 6.8% 6.2% State and Local Government 9.1% 9.7% 9.7% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.5% 9.3% 
Table 4-35. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 19,144.97 18,366.21 19,090.88 19,571.64 20,064.69 20,570.39 21,089.01 23,888.71 27,06

Farm Employment 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Mining 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Utilities 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Construction 8.1% 4.4% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4.4% Manufacturing 4.8% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% Wholesale Trade 3.0% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% Retail Trade 7.9% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.0% Transportation and Warehousing 1.8% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% Information Employment 2.4% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% Finance and Insurance 3.9% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 4.0% Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% Professional and Technical Services 6.6% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9% 7.0% 7.1% 7.2% 7.7% Management 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Administrative and Waste Services 4.5% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.2% Educational Services 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% Health Care and Social Assistance 10.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.2% 12.3% 12.5% 12.6% 13.3% 1Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Accommodation and Food Services 4.6% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.4% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% Federal Civilian Government 6.8% 7.8% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5% 7.4% 7.1% Federal Military 14.5% 18.2% 18.0% 17.8% 17.6% 17.4% 17.2% 16.3% 1State and Local Government 10.5% 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 30,955 31,238 31,611 31,972 32,345 32,728 33,123 35,252 37Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 86.0 86.1 85.9 86.0 86.0 86.1 86.2 86.6 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 70,630 68,775 69,464 70,092 70,758 71,474 72,225 76,569 81Total Number of Households (in thousands) 339.50 355.60 362.19 369.74 377.31 384.77 392.23 428.80 46Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 8.7% 8.1% 7.9% 7.8% 7.7% 7.5% 7.4% 6.6% Income $10,000 to $19,999 12.4% 11.6% 11.3% 11.1% 11.0% 10.8% 10.6% 9.4% Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.8% 12.9% 12.6% 12.4% 12.2% 12.0% 11.8% 10.4% Income $30,000 to $44,999 19.7% 18.9% 18.6% 18.3% 18.1% 17.8% 17.5% 15.6% 1Income $45,000 to $59,999 16.5% 17.4% 17.8% 18.0% 18.2% 18.3% 18.5% 19.1% 1Income $60,000 to $74,999 11.2% 12.0% 12.3% 12.5% 12.7% 13.0% 13.2% 15.0% 1Income $75,000 to $99,999 9.2% 9.8% 10.1% 10.2% 10.4% 10.6% 10.8% 12.3% 1Income $100,000 or more 8.6% 9.2% 9.5% 9.6% 9.8% 10.0% 10.2% 11.6% 1Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 7 counties in the EIA; income per capi

income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-36 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-2 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202

Total Population (in thousands) 613.83 657.40 666.76 676.21 685.71 695.29 704.90 753.56 80

Age Under 19 years 25.8% 24.6% 24.3% 24.2% 24.0% 23.9% 24.0% 24.2% 24Age 20 to 34 24.5% 25.3% 25.6% 25.8% 25.9% 25.9% 25.5% 22.8% 20Age 35 to 49 20.7% 18.9% 18.5% 18.1% 17.8% 17.5% 17.4% 18.7% 20Age 50 to 64 17.1% 18.2% 18.4% 18.3% 18.3% 18.3% 18.3% 17.6% 16Age 65 and over 11.9% 12.9% 13.2% 13.6% 14.0% 14.4% 14.8% 16.7% 18

Median Age of Population (in years) 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 White Population (in thousands) 66.6% 65.2% 65.0% 64.8% 64.6% 64.4% 64.2% 63.2% 62Black Population (in thousands) 27.1% 27.5% 27.6% 27.6% 27.7% 27.7% 27.8% 28.2% 28Native American Population (in thousands) 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 4.5% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5% 5.6% 5.8% 5.9% 6.4% 6Male Population (in thousands) 50.3% 50.8% 50.8% 50.9% 50.9% 51.0% 51.0% 51.2% 51Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 322.62 330.09 338.56 342.74 346.98 351.28 355.62 378.16 40

Farm Employment 2.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.7% 2Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1Mining 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0Construction 6.5% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.9% 5Manufacturing 4.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3Wholesale Trade 2.1% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1Retail Trade 11.0% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.0% 9Transportation and Warehousing 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1Information Employment 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1Finance and Insurance 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3Professional and Technical Services 5.8% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 7.1% 7Management 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0Administrative and Waste Services 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 5Educational Services 1.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% 2Health Care and Social Assistance 8.6% 10.3% 10.4% 10.5% 10.7% 10.8% 10.9% 11.4% 12Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1Accommodation and Food Services 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.2% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3% 6Federal Civilian Government 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1Federal Military 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0State and Local Government 25.3% 25.0% 24.8% 24.6% 24.4% 24.2% 24.0% 23.0% 22
Table 4-36. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-2 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 11,927.62 11,506.58 11,863.49 12,113.72 12,369.19 12,629.96 12,896.15 14,312.49 15,88

Farm Employment 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1Mining 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0Utilities 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0Construction 6.4% 4.2% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.2% 4Manufacturing 5.9% 5.3% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.2% 5Wholesale Trade 2.7% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2Retail Trade 7.2% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.7% 6Transportation and Warehousing 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1Information Employment 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2Finance and Insurance 4.2% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 5.0% 5Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0Professional and Technical Services 7.9% 8.1% 8.1% 8.2% 8.3% 8.4% 8.6% 9.2% 9Management 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0Administrative and Waste Services 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 3Educational Services 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 1Health Care and Social Assistance 9.6% 11.6% 11.7% 11.8% 12.0% 12.1% 12.2% 12.9% 13Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0Accommodation and Food Services 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.2% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5Federal Civilian Government 2.7% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 2Federal Military 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0State and Local Government 32.3% 32.2% 31.6% 31.4% 31.2% 31.0% 30.8% 29.9% 28

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 27,200 26,656 26,811 27,063 27,321 27,585 27,856 29,328 31Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 67.0 66.8 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.4 66.3 65.9 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 57,688 56,795 57,352 57,724 58,116 58,529 58,970 61,586 64Total Number of Households (in thousands) 236.50 255.39 259.32 263.92 268.49 273.05 277.56 299.51 32Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 13.6% 12.8% 12.6% 12.4% 12.2% 12.1% 11.9% 11.0% 10Income $10,000 to $19,999 14.3% 13.6% 13.4% 13.2% 13.0% 12.8% 12.6% 11.7% 10Income $20,000 to $29,999 14.0% 13.3% 13.1% 12.9% 12.7% 12.5% 12.4% 11.5% 10Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.7% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.7% 18.6% 18.5% 17.9% 16Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.2% 14.9% 15.2% 15.4% 15.6% 15.8% 16.1% 17.2% 18Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.4% 9.9% 10.0% 10.2% 10.3% 10.5% 10.6% 11.5% 12Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.2% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8% 8.9% 9.1% 9.2% 9.9% 10Income $100,000 or more 7.8% 8.1% 8.3% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 9.4% 10Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 15 counties in the EIA; income p

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-37 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-3 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202

Total Population (in thousands) 3,416.04 3,624.88 3,675.05 3,725.64 3,776.58 3,827.91 3,879.47 4,140.64 4,40

Age Under 19 years 24.0% 23.4% 23.3% 23.2% 23.2% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23Age 20 to 34 18.9% 19.4% 19.7% 19.8% 19.9% 19.9% 19.8% 19.2% 18Age 35 to 49 21.2% 19.6% 19.2% 18.8% 18.5% 18.2% 18.1% 17.9% 18Age 50 to 64 18.1% 19.5% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.9% 19.9% 19.1% 17Age 65 and over 17.8% 18.0% 18.1% 18.4% 18.6% 18.9% 19.1% 20.6% 22

Median Age of Population (in years) 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 43 White Population (in thousands) 74.5% 71.2% 70.7% 70.1% 69.6% 69.1% 68.5% 65.9% 63Black Population (in thousands) 11.3% 11.8% 11.9% 12.0% 12.0% 12.1% 12.1% 12.3% 12Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.5% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 3.6% 4Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 11.4% 13.7% 14.1% 14.5% 14.9% 15.3% 15.8% 17.8% 19Male Population (in thousands) 48.7% 48.9% 49.0% 49.0% 49.1% 49.2% 49.2% 49.4% 49Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 1,944.16 1,868.77 1,922.79 1,951.29 1,980.12 2,009.31 2,038.85 2,192.00 2,35

 Farm Employment 1.0% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0 Mining 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0 Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0 Construction 7.3% 4.8% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5 Manufacturing 5.0% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0% 3.7% 3 Wholesale Trade 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3 Retail Trade 11.4% 11.1% 11.1% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 10.8% 10 Transportation and Warehousing 2.3% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2 Information Employment 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1 Finance and Insurance 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.5% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4 Professional and Technical Services 6.4% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7 Management 0.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1 Administrative and Waste Services 10.8% 7.8% 7.9% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 8.2% 8.7% 9 Educational Services 1.3% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 2 Health Care and Social Assistance 10.3% 13.0% 13.1% 13.2% 13.4% 13.5% 13.6% 14.2% 14 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.0% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2 Accommodation and Food Services 6.8% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.6% 6 Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.9% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.1% 6 Federal Civilian Government 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1 Federal Military 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0 State and Local Government 9.9% 10.3% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 9.9% 9
Table 4-37. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-3 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 79,115.35 72,699.32 75,523.98 77,335.32 79,187.57 81,081.56 83,018.17 93,371.74 104,929

 Farm Employment 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0 Mining 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0 Utilities 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0 Construction 7.5% 4.4% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.5% 4 Manufacturing 6.8% 6.0% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.3% 4 Wholesale Trade 4.9% 4.8% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4 Retail Trade 8.3% 7.7% 7.7% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5% 7.3% 7 Transportation and Warehousing 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2 Information Employment 3.3% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2 Finance and Insurance 8.0% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.4% 7 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1 Professional and Technical Services 8.1% 9.2% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9 Management 1.6% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.8% 3 Administrative and Waste Services 7.1% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.4% 5 Educational Services 0.8% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1 Health Care and Social Assistance 12.1% 15.5% 15.4% 15.6% 15.7% 15.9% 16.0% 16.7% 17 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1 Accommodation and Food Services 3.9% 4.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.8% 3 Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.0% 4.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4 Federal Civilian Government 2.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3 Federal Military 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1 State and Local Government 11.8% 12.8% 12.6% 12.6% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.3% 12

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 33,224 31,323 31,639 32,001 32,373 32,754 33,144 35,240 37,Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 79.5 77.2 77.2 77.2 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.0 7Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 64,512 62,252 63,029 63,502 63,992 64,509 65,058 68,279 72,Total Number of Households (in thousands) 1,449.40 1,546.55 1,568.95 1,595.36 1,621.62 1,647.70 1,673.53 1,798.54 1,917Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 9.1% 8.7% 8.6% 8.4% 8.3% 8.1% 8.0% 7.2% 6Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.8% 13.4% 13.1% 12.9% 12.6% 12.4% 12.1% 11.0% 9Income $20,000 to $29,999 14.7% 14.2% 13.9% 13.7% 13.5% 13.2% 12.9% 11.7% 10Income $30,000 to $44,999 19.6% 19.5% 19.3% 19.2% 19.0% 18.7% 18.5% 17.1% 15Income $45,000 to $59,999 15.1% 15.7% 16.0% 16.3% 16.6% 16.8% 17.1% 18.0% 18Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.7% 10.1% 10.3% 10.5% 10.7% 10.9% 11.1% 12.4% 14Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.4% 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 9.4% 9.6% 10.7% 12Income $100,000 or more 9.4% 9.7% 9.9% 10.1% 10.2% 10.4% 10.7% 11.9% 13Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 12 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-38 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-4 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 

Total Population (in thousands) 5,960.39 6,210.44 6,294.73 6,379.76 6,465.42 6,551.79 6,638.56 7,078.51 7,525

Age Under 19 years 24.7% 24.0% 23.9% 23.7% 23.6% 23.6% 23.5% 23.5% 23.Age 20 to 34 18.5% 18.6% 18.6% 18.7% 18.7% 18.8% 18.8% 18.2% 17.Age 35 to 49 22.1% 20.8% 20.4% 20.1% 19.7% 19.3% 19.0% 18.3% 18.Age 50 to 64 17.5% 18.9% 19.1% 19.3% 19.4% 19.6% 19.7% 19.3% 18.Age 65 and over 17.2% 17.8% 18.0% 18.2% 18.5% 18.8% 19.1% 20.7% 22.

Median Age of Population (in years) 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 White Population (in thousands) 46.6% 43.3% 42.7% 42.1% 41.5% 40.9% 40.4% 37.7% 35.Black Population (in thousands) 16.5% 16.5% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.7% 16.7% 16.8% 16.Native American Population (in thousands) 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.9% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.5% 2.Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 34.8% 37.9% 38.5% 39.0% 39.5% 40.0% 40.5% 42.8% 45.Male Population (in thousands) 48.8% 49.0% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.2% 49.Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 3,395.35 3,329.05 3,426.96 3,479.99 3,533.68 3,588.03 3,643.04 3,928.30 4,230

 Farm Employment 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0. Mining 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0. Utilities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0. Construction 8.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.3% 5. Manufacturing 3.6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2. Wholesale Trade 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 3.9% 3. Retail Trade 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 11.0% 11.0% 10.9% 10.9% 10.7% 10. Transportation and Warehousing 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3. Information Employment 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1. Finance and Insurance 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6. Professional and Technical Services 6.5% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7. Management 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0. Administrative and Waste Services 9.0% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 8.2% 8.6% 9. Educational Services 1.8% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.6% 2. Health Care and Social Assistance 9.1% 11.4% 11.5% 11.6% 11.7% 11.8% 11.8% 12.3% 12. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2. Accommodation and Food Services 7.2% 7.4% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 7. Other Services, Except Public Administration 7.7% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8. Federal Civilian Government 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1. Federal Military 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0. State and Local Government 9.0% 9.6% 9.6% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.
Table 4-38. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-4 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 146,349.28 133,109.32 138,104.63 141,438.36 144,845.84 148,328.48 151,887.81 170,888.07 192,042

 Farm Employment 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0. Mining 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0. Utilities 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0. Construction 9.4% 5.2% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5. Manufacturing 4.4% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.3% 3. Wholesale Trade 6.8% 6.7% 6.9% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.7% 6.4% 6. Retail Trade 8.5% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.2% 8.2% 7.9% 7. Transportation and Warehousing 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7% 3. Information Employment 3.6% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3. Finance and Insurance 6.9% 6.2% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2. Professional and Technical Services 8.3% 9.2% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.2% 9.2% 9.4% 9. Management 1.3% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.3% 2. Administrative and Waste Services 6.2% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.4% 5. Educational Services 1.5% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2. Health Care and Social Assistance 9.5% 12.2% 12.1% 12.2% 12.3% 12.4% 12.5% 13.0% 13. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.6% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1. Accommodation and Food Services 4.3% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3% 4. Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.2% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4. Federal Civilian Government 2.2% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2. Federal Military 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0. State and Local Government 11.8% 14.0% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 37,332 35,529 35,954 36,438 36,933 37,438 37,957 40,740 43,8Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 119.1 113.4 113.6 113.8 114.0 114.2 114.5 115.7 11Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 92,182 86,404 87,645 88,598 89,600 90,651 91,754 98,070 105,6Total Number of Households (in thousands) 2,337.90 2,434.13 2,469.25 2,510.68 2,551.90 2,592.85 2,633.43 2,830.25 3,017Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 9.2% 8.8% 8.7% 8.5% 8.4% 8.2% 8.1% 7.2% 6.Income $10,000 to $19,999 12.1% 11.7% 11.5% 11.4% 11.2% 11.0% 10.7% 9.6% 8.Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.6% 12.3% 12.1% 11.9% 11.7% 11.5% 11.2% 10.0% 8.Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.3% 17.0% 16.8% 16.5% 16.3% 16.0% 15.7% 14.0% 12.Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.9% 15.3% 15.5% 15.6% 15.8% 15.9% 16.0% 16.2% 15.Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.6% 11.0% 11.2% 11.4% 11.6% 11.8% 12.0% 13.5% 15.Income $75,000 to $99,999 10.0% 10.3% 10.5% 10.7% 10.9% 11.1% 11.3% 12.8% 14.Income $100,000 or more 13.1% 13.5% 13.8% 14.0% 14.3% 14.5% 14.8% 16.7% 18.Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 9 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-39 Baseline Population Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area M od ndar el Cale Year Year AL-1 MS-1 LA-1 LA-2 LA-3 LA-4 TX-1 TX-2 TX-3 FL-1 FL-2 

2010 725.48 470.61 334.72 587.88 1,126.87 1,267.52 1,771.25 626.33 6,192.43 896.10 657.42011 731.11 474.64 336.53 593.59 1,140.44 1,278.34 1,807.15 634.39 6,299.99 911.70 666.

1 2012 736.83 478.72 338.39 599.38 1,154.15 1,289.31 1,843.24 642.51 6,408.25 927.40 676.2 2013 742.62 482.85 340.27 605.23 1,167.97 1,300.40 1,879.50 650.70 6,517.13 943.19 685.3 2014 748.49 487.02 342.20 611.14 1,181.91 1,311.64 1,915.95 658.94 6,626.68 959.08 695.4 2015 754.41 491.23 344.15 617.10 1,195.92 1,322.96 1,952.51 667.23 6,736.63 975.02 704.5 2016 760.38 495.47 346.12 623.10 1,210.00 1,334.37 1,989.19 675.55 6,847.01 991.02 714.6 2017 766.41 499.75 348.12 629.15 1,224.17 1,345.89 2,026.02 683.92 6,957.91 1,007.10 724.7 2018 772.47 504.05 350.13 635.22 1,238.39 1,357.45 2,062.92 692.31 7,069.08 1,023.22 734.8 2019 778.57 508.38 352.16 641.34 1,252.68 1,369.10 2,099.94 700.73 7,180.66 1,039.39 743.9 2020 784.68 512.71 354.20 647.47 1,266.99 1,380.77 2,137.01 709.17 7,292.42 1,055.59 753.

10 2021 790.89 517.11 356.28 653.68 1,281.45 1,392.61 2,174.35 717.69 7,405.11 1,071.93 763.411 2022 797.15 521.54 358.38 659.95 1,296.07 1,404.55 2,212.34 726.31 7,519.54 1,088.51 773.412 2023 803.46 526.02 360.48 666.29 1,310.86 1,416.60 2,251.00 735.03 7,635.74 1,105.36 783.13 2024 809.82 530.53 362.60 672.68 1,325.83 1,428.75 2,290.33 743.85 7,753.73 1,122.46 793.14 2025 815.74 534.70 364.61 678.54 1,339.29 1,439.98 2,323.71 751.75 7,855.87 1,137.26 802.15 2026 821.98 539.11 366.70 684.79 1,353.80 1,451.87 2,361.17 760.29 7,968.97 1,153.65 812.16 2027 828.26 543.56 368.81 691.09 1,368.46 1,463.87 2,399.24 768.92 8,083.69 1,170.28 822.17 2028 834.60 548.05 370.92 697.46 1,383.29 1,475.96 2,437.91 777.65 8,200.07 1,187.15 833.18 2029 840.98 552.58 373.05 703.88 1,398.27 1,488.16 2,477.21 786.48 8,318.13 1,204.26 843.19 2030 846.94 556.77 375.07 709.79 1,411.83 1,499.47 2,511.01 794.43 8,421.37 1,219.22 852.420 2031 853.17 561.19 377.17 716.05 1,426.34 1,511.37 2,548.50 802.95 8,534.58 1,235.62 862.21 2032 859.46 565.63 379.27 722.36 1,440.99 1,523.36 2,586.55 811.57 8,649.31 1,252.25 872.422 2033 865.79 570.12 381.39 728.73 1,455.80 1,535.45 2,625.17 820.28 8,765.59 1,269.10 882.23 2034 872.17 574.64 383.51 735.16 1,470.76 1,547.64 2,664.37 829.09 8,883.43 1,286.17 892.24 2035 878.13 578.84 385.53 741.09 1,484.37 1,558.97 2,698.47 837.06 8,987.43 1,301.24 902.25 2036 884.41 583.28 387.64 747.40 1,498.95 1,570.96 2,736.13 845.63 9,101.21 1,317.72 911.26 2037 890.74 587.76 389.77 753.76 1,513.68 1,583.03 2,774.31 854.28 9,216.42 1,334.42 922.27 2038 897.11 592.27 391.90 760.17 1,528.55 1,595.20 2,813.03 863.02 9,333.09 1,351.32 932.28 2039 903.53 596.82 394.04 766.64 1,543.57 1,607.46 2,852.29 871.85 9,451.24 1,368.44 942.429 2040 909.54 601.05 396.08 772.62 1,557.29 1,618.89 2,886.77 879.89 9,556.30 1,383.66 951.30 2041 916.04 605.67 398.25 779.20 1,572.59 1,631.33 2,927.06 888.89 9,677.28 1,401.19 962.31 2042 922.60 610.31 400.43 785.83 1,588.03 1,643.87 2,967.91 897.99 9,799.78 1,418.94 972.32 2043 929.20 615.00 402.62 792.52 1,603.64 1,656.50 3,009.33 907.18 9,923.84 1,436.92 983.33 2044 935.84 619.72 404.83 799.26 1,619.39 1,669.23 3,051.33 916.46 10,049.47 1,455.12 994.434 2045 942.54 624.47 407.04 806.06 1,635.30 1,682.06 3,093.91 925.84 10,176.68 1,473.56 1,005.35 2046 949.28 629.27 409.27 812.92 1,651.37 1,694.99 3,137.09 935.31 10,305.51 1,492.22 1,016.36 2047 956.07 634.09 411.51 819.84 1,667.59 1,708.02 3,180.87 944.88 10,435.97 1,511.13 1,027.37 2048 962.91 638.96 413.76 826.82 1,683.97 1,721.15 3,225.27 954.55 10,568.08 1,530.27 1,039.38 2049 969.80 643.86 416.03 833.86 1,700.52 1,734.37 3,270.28 964.32 10,701.87 1,549.66 1,050.39 2050 976.73 648.81 418.30 840.95 1,717.22 1,747.70 3,315.92 974.19 10,837.34 1,569.29 1,062.40 2051 983.72 653.78 420.59 848.11 1,734.09 1,761.14 3,362.20 984.16 10,974.54 1,589.17 1,073.

Notes: Actual Woods & Poole data for 2010 through 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040. Missing estimates through 2040 calculated using average annual growt

projections after 2040 calculated using the average annual growth rate from 2035 to 2040. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-40 Baseline Employment Projections (in Thousands) by Coastal Subarea Mode e l Cal ndar Year Year AL-1 MS-1 LA-1 LA-2 LA-4 TX-2 LA-3 TX-1 TX-3 FL-1 FL-2 

20 10 353.63 243.91 177.73 321.93 663.02 728.32 840.00 309.97 3,596.00 489.82 330.

 20 59 11 362. 249.36 182.05 330.21 680.63 745.53 864.86 317.96 3,700.61 504.24 338.

1 20 69 12 366. 251.56 183.91 334.03 689.17 752.64 878.23 321.85 3,758.99 512.13 342.2 20 81 13 370. 253.76 185.81 337.89 697.80 759.77 891.81 325.78 3,818.15 520.13 346.3 20 97 14 374. 255.98 187.70 341.78 706.51 766.93 905.55 329.76 3,878.09 528.26 351.24 20 15 15 379. 258.22 189.62 345.70 715.33 774.11 919.48 333.78 3,938.83 536.52 355.5 20 37 16 383. 260.47 191.54 349.65 724.23 781.30 933.58 337.82 4,000.39 544.90 360.6 20 62 17 387. 262.73 193.50 353.63 733.24 788.52 947.87 341.92 4,062.77 553.43 364.47 20 90 18 391. 265.01 195.46 357.65 742.34 795.74 962.34 346.07 4,125.95 562.07 368.8 20 21 19 396. 267.30 197.44 361.69 751.53 802.98 977.00 350.24 4,189.99 570.86 373.9 20 55 20 400. 269.62 199.43 365.76 760.83 810.24 991.85 354.48 4,254.86 579.78 378.

10 20 99 21 404. 271.97 201.47 369.93 770.43 817.53 1,007.28 358.83 4,322.32 589.12 382.11 20 48 22 409. 274.34 203.54 374.15 780.14 824.89 1,022.95 363.24 4,390.84 598.61 387.12 20 02 23 414. 276.74 205.62 378.41 789.98 832.32 1,038.87 367.71 4,460.45 608.25 392.13 20 61 24 418. 279.15 207.73 382.73 799.95 839.81 1,055.03 372.22 4,531.17 618.06 397.14 20 75 25 422. 281.38 209.65 386.61 808.81 846.71 1,069.01 376.26 4,592.14 626.48 402.15 20 35 26 427. 283.81 211.77 390.93 818.92 854.06 1,085.44 380.83 4,664.06 636.56 407.216 20 99 27 431. 286.26 213.92 395.30 829.16 861.46 1,102.12 385.46 4,737.10 646.80 412.17 20 69 28 436. 288.73 216.09 399.71 839.52 868.93 1,119.07 390.14 4,811.29 657.21 417.18 20 43 29 441. 291.22 218.28 404.18 850.02 876.47 1,136.27 394.88 4,886.64 667.78 422.19 20 72 30 445. 293.52 220.27 408.21 859.36 883.43 1,151.17 399.12 4,951.73 676.88 427.20 20 47 31 450. 296.02 222.48 412.68 870.01 890.79 1,168.65 403.92 5,028.34 687.75 433.21 20 27 32 455. 298.55 224.71 417.21 880.78 898.22 1,186.39 408.78 5,106.13 698.79 438.22 20 12 33 460. 301.09 226.97 421.78 891.69 905.70 1,204.41 413.70 5,185.13 710.01 444.23 20 02 34 465. 303.66 229.25 426.41 902.73 913.25 1,222.69 418.67 5,265.35 721.41 449.24 20 47 35 469. 306.03 231.32 430.59 912.57 920.25 1,238.56 423.13 5,334.78 731.22 454.25 20 37 36 474. 308.61 233.62 435.21 923.76 927.61 1,257.14 428.15 5,416.31 742.93 460.426 20 32 37 479. 311.21 235.94 439.89 935.09 935.02 1,275.99 433.24 5,499.10 754.83 466.27 20 33 38 484. 313.83 238.28 444.61 946.56 942.50 1,295.13 438.38 5,583.14 766.92 472.228 20 39 39 489. 316.47 240.64 449.38 958.16 950.04 1,314.56 443.59 5,668.48 779.21 478.229 20 98 40 493. 318.92 242.80 453.71 968.53 957.04 1,331.45 448.26 5,742.46 789.79 483.30 20 14 41 499. 321.61 245.21 458.58 980.40 964.70 1,351.41 453.58 5,830.23 802.44 489.31 20 35 42 504. 324.31 247.64 463.51 992.42 972.41 1,371.68 458.97 5,919.33 815.29 495.32 20 62 43 509. 327.05 250.10 468.48 1,004.59 980.19 1,392.26 464.42 6,009.81 828.36 502.33 20 94 44 514. 329.80 252.58 473.52 1,016.91 988.02 1,413.14 469.94 6,101.66 841.63 508.34 20 32 45 520. 332.58 255.09 478.60 1,029.38 995.93 1,434.33 475.52 6,194.92 855.11 514.35 20 76 46 525. 335.38 257.62 483.74 1,042.00 1,003.89 1,455.85 481.17 6,289.60 868.81 521.36 20 25 47 531. 338.20 260.17 488.94 1,054.78 1,011.92 1,477.68 486.88 6,385.73 882.72 528.37 20 80 48 536. 341.05 262.75 494.19 1,067.71 1,020.01 1,499.84 492.66 6,483.33 896.87 534.38 20 40 49 542. 343.92 265.36 499.49 1,080.81 1,028.17 1,522.34 498.52 6,582.42 911.23 541.39 20 07 50 548. 346.82 267.99 504.86 1,094.06 1,036.39 1,545.17 504.44 6,683.02 925.83 548.440 20 79 51 553. 349.74 270.65 510.28 1,107.48 1,044.68 1,568.35 510.43 6,785.16 940.66 555.4

Notes: Actual Woods & Poole data for 2010 through 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040. Missing estimates through 2040 calculated using average annual growth rate for the 5 yea

calculated using the average annual growth rate from 2035 to 2040. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
A-94 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-41 

 

Liquid Waste Collected from the Deepwater Horizon Event 

Landfill Name and Location Percentage 

Newpark Environmental Services — Fourchon Site Code 2913 29.67% 

River Birch Industries Landfill 17.60% 

Apex Environmental Services 17.44% 

Liquid Environmental Solutions 13.07% 

Tidewater Landfill LLC (Environmental Operations) Coast Guard Road Sanitary Landfill 11.08% 

Newpark Environmental Mud Facility — Venice 11.08% 

MBO LLC (Lacassine Oilfield Services) 3.20% 

Newpark Environmental Services — Morgan City Site Code 5102 2.84% 

Chemical Waste Management 1.04% 

Aaron Oil 0.89% 

Waste Water 0.83% 

Intergulf 0.58% 

Cliff Berry, Inc. — Tampa/ Miami 0.55% 

Clearview Landfill 0.46% 

Newpark Environmental Intercoastal City 0.27% 

Vacco Marine 0.16% 

Oil Recovery Company 0.08% 

Vacco Marine/River Birch 0.03% 

City of Tampa Treatment Plant 0.01% 

Bealine 0.00% 

SWS 0.00% 

Gulf Coast Water Authority 0.00% 

M.A. Norden Company 0.00% 

WH Chastang Landfill 0.00% 

Geocycle/Holcim 0.00% 

Sunbelt Crushing 0.00% 

Baldwin County Magnolia Landfill 0.00% 

Tarpon Recycling 0.00% 

Covanta-Huntsville 0.00% 

WM Springhill Regional Landfill 0.00% 

Fort Walton Transfer 0.00% 

Gulf West Landfill (Texas) 0.00% 

Allied Waste/BFI Colonial Landfill 0.00% 

Jefferson Parish Waste Management 0.00% 

Allied Waste Jefferson Davis Parish 0.00% 

Allied Waste Recycling Center 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Services — Cameron Site Code 1205 0.00% 

Advanced Disposal Services 0.00% 

WM Pecan Grove 0.00% 

Coastal Plains — Waste Management 0.00% 
Figures and Tables A-95 

Table 4-42 

 

Solid Waste Collected from the Deepwater Horizon Event 

Landfill Name and Location Percentage 

WM Springhill Regional Landfill 26.11% 

Allied Waste/BFI Colonial Landfill 25.12% 

Baldwin County Magnolia Landfill 11.31% 

Clearview Landfill 8.66% 

Newpark Environmental Services — Fourchon Site Code 2913 7.99% 

River Birch Industries Landfill 7.70% 

WH Chastang Landfill 6.81% 

Jefferson Parish Waste Management 6.56% 

Newpark Environmental Services — Cameron Site Code 1205 4.60% 

WM Pecan Grove 3.82% 

Covanta-Huntsville 0.78% 

Tidewater Landfill LLC (Environmental Operations) Coast Guard Road Sanitary Landfill 0.50% 

Sunbelt Crushing 0.34% 

M.A. Norden Company 0.17% 

Tarpon Recycling 0.07% 

Coastal Plains — Waste Management 0.06% 

Allied Waste Recycling Center 0.03% 

Gulf West Landfill (Texas) 0.03% 

Fort Walton Transfer 0.02% 

Advanced Disposal Services 0.00% 

Intergulf 0.00% 

Aaron Oil 0.00% 

Geocycle/Holcim 0.00% 

Apex Environmental Services 0.00% 

Liquid Environmental Solutions 0.00% 

Chemical Waste Management 0.00% 

Oil Recovery Company 0.00% 

City of Tampa Treatment Plant 0.00% 

Cliff Berry, Inc. — Tampa/ Miami 0.00% 

Vacco Marine 0.00% 

Vacco Marine/River Birch 0.00% 

Gulf Coast Water Authority 0.00% 

Waste Water 0.00% 

Allied Waste Jefferson Davis Parish 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Mud Facility — Venice 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Services — Morgan City Site Code 5102 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Intercoastal City 0.00% 

MBO LLC (Lacassine Oilfield Services) 0.00% 

Bealine 0.00% 

SWS 0.00% 
A-96 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-43 

 

Deepwater Horizon Waste Destination Communities 

Landfill Name and Location 

Percent 

Minority 

living 

within 

1-Mile 

Radius 

of Site 

Total 

Population 

living within 

1-Mile Radius 

of Site 

(2000 Census) 

Percentage 

of Total 

DWH 

Liquid 

Waste 

Collected 

Percentage 

of Total 

DWH Solid 

Waste 

Collected 

Liquid Environmental Solutions, Mobile, AL 95.80% 4,257 13.17% 0.00% 

Oil Recovery Company, Mobile, AL 93.90% 3,238 0.08% 0.00% 

Cliff Berry, Inc. – Miami, FL 92.80% 24,768 >0.58% 0.00% 

River Birch Industries Landfill Avondale, LA 92.20% 167 16.99% 8.67% 

Jefferson Parish Waste Management, Avondale, LA 91.40% 120 0.00% 0.02% 

Sunbelt Crushing, Mobile, AL 76.80% 3,173 0.00% 0.29% 

Chemical Waste Management, Emelle, LA 75.20% 33 1.02% 0.00% 

WM Springhill Regional Landfill, Campbelton, FL 74.30% 109 0.00% 23.67% 

Allied Waste/BFI Colonial Landfill, Sorrento, LA 74.10% 153 0.00% 21.98% 

Allied Waste Recycling Center, Metairie, LA 63.50% 14,420 0.00% 0.06% 

WH Chastang Landfill, Mount Vernon, AL 62.50% 123 0.00% 8.93% 

Clearview Landfill Lake, MS 50.90% 55 0.44% 14.92% 

Cliff Berry, Inc. – Tampa, FL 50.50% 1,817 >0.58% 0.00% 

Apex Environmental Services, Theodore, AL 50.40% 383 17.44% 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Services Site Code 5102 

Morgan City, LA 35.90% 4,237 2.74% 0.00% 

Landfill Name and Location 

Percent 

Below 

Poverty 

Living 

within a 

1-Mile 

Radius 

of Site 

Total Population 

Living within a 

1-Mile Radius 

of Site 

(2000 Census) 

Percentage of 

Total DWH 

Event Liquid 

Waste 

Collected 

Percentage of 

Total DWH 

Event Solid 

Waste 

Collected 

Liquid Environmental Solutions, Mobile, AL 63.30% 4,257 13.17% 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Mud Facility - Venice, LA 50.00% 2 10.90% 0.00% 

Oil Recovery Company, Mobile, AL 41.70% 3,238 0.08% 0.00% 

Chemical Waste Management, Emelle, LA 36.40% 33 1.02% 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Services Site Code 2913, 

Fourchon, LA 33.30% 3 30.14% 0.00% 

Vacco Marine, Houma, LA 29.20% 525 0.16% 0.00% 

River Birch Industries Landfill, Avondale, LA 28.10% 167 16.99% 8.67% 

Jefferson Parish Waste Management, Avondale, LA 26.70% 120 0.00% 0.02% 

Apex Environmental Services, Theodore, AL 26.20% 383 17.44% 0.00% 

Allied Waste/BFI Colonial Landfill, Sorrento, LA 25.00% 153 0.00% 21.98% 

WM Pecan Grove, Pass Christian, MS 14.40% 290 0.00% 3.28% 

Baldwin County Magnolia Landfill 13.70% 446 0.00% 11.18% 

MBO LLC (Lacassine Oilfield Services) 12.90% 85 3.82% 0.00% 

Coast Guard Rd Sanitary Landfill 0.00% 0 0.00% 8.05% 
Figures and Tables A-97 

Table 4-44 

 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility — Deepwater Horizon Claimant Data by State 

Alabama Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

TOTAL GCCF Claimants to Date (Claimants may have one or more Claim Type) 66,129 

1. Claimants Paid and Approved for Payment 26,815 

2. Claimants Requiring Additional Information or Documentation (Claimants providing no 

documentation: 7,503) 10,913 

3. Claimants Referred to Government, Moratorium and Real Estate Funds 1 

4. Denied Claimants 22,080 

5. Claimants Under Review (Emergency Advance Payment) 4,561 

6. Claimants Under Review (for Final Claim Only) 1,759 

State 

Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes Individual and Business)

Claims 

Submitted 

Number of Claims 

Paid Amount Paid 

Alabama 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 394 0 $0 

 2. Real or Personal Property 1,201 35 $364,463 

 3. Lost Earnings or Profits 65,655 26,380 $426,205,265 

 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 4,119 3 $9,000 

 5. Physical Injury/Death 745 5 $1,300 

Alabama 

Total Total to Date 72,114 55,166 $426,580,028 

Florida Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

TOTAL GCCF Claimants to Date (Claimants may have one or more Claim Type) 151,760 

1. Claimants Paid and Approved for Payment 63,578 

2. Claimants Requiring Additional Information or Documentation (Claimants providing no 

documentation: 7,503) 20,557 

3. Claimants Referred to Government, Moratorium and Real Estate Funds 0 

4. Denied Claimants 50,858 

5. Claimants Under Review (Emergency Advance Payment) 12,093 

6. Claimants Under Review (for Final Claim Only) 4,674 

State 

Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes Individual and Business)

Claims 

Submitted 

Number of Claims 

Paid Amount Paid 

Florida 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 573 0 $0 

 2. Real or Personal Property 2,319 23 $71,400 

 3. Lost Earnings or Profits 153,118 62,362 $848,846,576 

 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 2,473 0 $0 

 5. Physical Injury/Death 552 0 $0 

Florida 

Total Total to Date 159,035 62,385 $848,917,976 
A-98 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-44. Gulf Coast Claims Facility — Deepwater Horizon Claimant Data by State (continued). 

Louisiana Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

TOTAL GCCF Claimants to Date (Claimants may have one or more Claim Type) 187,476 

1. Claimants Paid and Approved for Payment 56,308 

2. Claimants Requiring Additional Information or Documentation (Claimants providing no 

documentation: 7,503) 38,906 

3. Claimants Referred to Government, Moratorium and Real Estate Funds 8 

4. Denied Claimants 75,495 

5. Claimants Under Review (Emergency Advance Payment) 12,136 

6. Claimants Under Review (for Final Claim Only) 4,623 

State 

Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes Individual and Business)

Claims 

Submitted 

Number of Claims 

Paid Amount Paid 

Louisiana 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 1,155 0 $0 

 2. Real or Personal Property 2,876 39 $421,400 

 3. Lost Earnings or Profits 173,632 55,120 $817,551,315 

 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 16,553 1 $3,000 

 5. Physical Injury/Death 6,043 6 $7,800 

Louisiana 

Total Total to Date 200,259 55,166 $817,983,515 

Mississippi Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

TOTAL GCCF Claimants to Date (Claimants may have one or more Claim Type) 49,879 

1. Claimants Paid and Approved for Payment 14,218 

2. Claimants Requiring Additional Information or Documentation (Claimants providing no 

documentation: 7,503) 6,963 

3. Claimants Referred to Government, Moratorium and Real Estate Funds 5 

4. Denied Claimants 24,143 

5. Claimants Under Review (Emergency Advance Payment) 3,155 

6. Claimants Under Review (for Final Claim Only) 1,395 

State 

Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes Individual and Business)

Claims 

Submitted 

Number of Claims 

Paid Amount Paid 

Mississippi 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 282 0 $0 

 2. Real or Personal Property 1,040 13 $63,500 

 3. Lost Earnings or Profits 44,793 13,978 $202,514,200 

 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 6,299 1 $1,000 

 5. Physical Injury/Death 844 4 $4,737 

Mississippi 

Total Total to Date 53,258 13,996 $202,583,437 
Figures and Tables A-99 

Table 4-44. Gulf Coast Claims Facility — Deepwater Horizon Claimant Data by State (continued). 

Texas Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

TOTAL GCCF Claimants to Date (Claimants may have one or more Claim Type) 9,583 

1. Claimants Paid and Approved for Payment 2,657 

2. Claimants Requiring Additional Information or Documentation (Claimants providing no 

documentation: 7,503) 587 

3. Claimants Referred to Government, Moratorium and Real Estate Funds 0 

4. Denied Claimants 5,412 

5. Claimants Under Review (Emergency Advance Payment) 537 

6. Claimants Under Review (for Final Claim Only) 390 

State 

Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes Individual and Business)

Claims 

Submitted 

Number of Claims 

Paid Amount Paid 

Texas 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 79 0 $0 

2. Real or Personal Property 167 4 $50,000 

3. Lost Earnings or Profits 9,371 2,618 $81,394,000 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 301 0 $0 

5. Physical Injury/Death 277 1 $100 

Texas 

Total Total to Date 10,195 2,623 $81,444,100 

Sources: Gulf Coast Claims Facility, 2010a and 2010b. 
A-100 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 5-1 

 

Scoping Comments 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Washington, DC 

 Ensure the reanalysis of baseline conditions is woven into the Agency’s decisionmaking process. 

 The Supplemental EIS should include impacts to threatened and endangered 

species, target and nontarget fish species, water quality, seafloor conditions, and 

any other natural resources affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill. 

 The BOEMRE must closely examine the types of basic information about the Gulf 

marine environment that were not analyzed prior to the spill. 

 The reassessment of risk for future oil spills has two primary components. First, 

BOEMRE must reexamine the risk of oil spills in general. Second, BOEMRE 

must reexamine the risk of oil spills in the particular locations and conditions at 

issue in a particular NEPA analysis. 

 As BOEMRE examines the risk of future oil spills occurring, BOEMRE also must 

look closely at the likely impact of such spills. 

 The BOEMRE must ensure that its use of categorical exclusions and 

environmental assessments that tier to the Multisale EIS are on solid footing by 

taking a precautionary approach that reexamines the environmental impacts of a 

range of oil and gas activities that have not been analyzed adequately, or in some 

cases analyzed at all. 

 In examining ways to maximize avoidance and minimize impacts to 

environmental resources, BOEMRE should begin with analyzing additional 

measures to address safety and well control issues for both deep and shallowwater operations. 

 The Supplemental EIS also should examine options for improving offshore 

inspections and safety procedures, enforcing stronger cementing and well control 

protocols, and requiring improvements in the reliability factor of blowout 

prevention technology in any water depth. 

 Defenders of Wildlife further recommends that BOEMRE enact a hiatus in future 

permits and approvals for floating offshore storage and processing vessels due to 

the spill threat posed by these facilities and the demonstrated lack of effective 

response capabilities for large oil releases evidenced during the Deepwater 

Horizon event, and we request that this limitation on future permitting be analyzed 

in the Supplemental EIS. 

 In addition to the regulatory suggestions listed above, the Supplemental EIS 

should also assess the impact of requiring the following measures to increase 

worker safety, protect sensitive ecosystems and marine and intertidal habitats, and 

ensure a more adequate, rapid response to future OCS disasters: (1) research, 

development, and implementation of a new type of fail-safe backup valve, shut-in 

device that would reliably preclude loss of well control in the event of the failure 

of the blowout preventer in any water depth; measures beyond a future 

requirement of a second blind shear ram will likely be necessary; (2) 

predeployment of a rig capable of drilling a relief well at the appropriate water 

depth in a location within a certain reasonable response time of every drilling site; 

(3) strict requirements that oil spill contingency plans be certified by the U.S. 

Government as capable of immediate response in the event of a “worst case” well 

blowout, riser break, damaged floating storage vessel, tankship spill, or other 

cause of a major hydrocarbon release into the marine environment; (4) research 

and development of new types of biodegradable dispersants, their comprehensive 

testing and certification by USEPA for use in mass quantities under predefined 
Figures and Tables A-101 

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Washington, DC 

appropriate conditions, their manufacture in commercial quantities, and their 

predeployment at locations of possible future need; (5) engineering and development 

of large ship-scaled oil skimmers for use in realistic wind, wave, and ocean current 

conditions, to be certified by the U.S. Coast Guard and built and operated by the 

petroleum industry; (6) immediate development and manufacture of more effective 

oil spill containment technologies and sorbent booms, and their predeployment in 

storage facilities in geographic areas of likely future need; (7) required testing of spill 

response technology in real world conditions and mandatory certification as to the 

measurable response impact of response equipment and plans; (8) a minimum 

requirement for response capacity onsite or within reasonable distance such that 

operators have capacity to recover a certain minimum percentage of oil spilled; and 

(9) bonding requirements sufficient to cover the cost of response and cleanup in the 

event of a blowout or other spill are necessary. 

 The No Action alternative of canceling the remaining lease sales should receive 

robust consideration in order to guarantee maximum protection for the resources that 

have been damaged by the Deepwater Horizon event. 

 The Defenders of Wildlife further reiterate that no activities in reliance on the 

previous inadequate Gulf Multisale EIS should move forward until the Supplemental 

EIS is complete, including all analyses that tier to the previous EIS to justify use of 

an environmental assessment or categorical exclusion. 

 The Supplemental EIS should also strongly consider exclusion of sensitive areas and 

possible recommendations for Gulf marine protected areas. 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

San Francisco, CA 

 In determining the scope of the environmental impacts of OCS drilling in the GOM, 

BOEMRE should take into account the fact that many of the species move in and 

throughout the GOM. 

 It should also take into account all aspects of drilling including spills – both large and 

small, seismic activities – both noise impacts and vessel strikes, impacts to fisheries, 

tourism, and other industries that rely on the health of the GOM. 

 It is unclear at this time, and may be for some time, the entire impact of the spill on 

the flora and fauna of the GOM; therefore, BOEMRE should employ precautionary 

principles in its estimates of the harm as well as its assumptions about future spills. 

 The BOEMRE must also take into account the already degraded status of the Gulf of 

Mexico in its assessment of the environmental baseline, as well as the effect of these 

persistent stressors. 

 The BOEMRE should include detailed assessments of (1) areas of high seismic risk 

or seismicity, relatively untested deep water, or remote areas; or (2) activities within 

the boundary of a proposed or established marine sanctuary, and/or within or near the 

boundary of a proposed or established wildlife refuge or areas of high biological 

sensitivity; or (3) activities in areas of hazardous natural bottom conditions; or (4) 

utilizing new or unusual technology. 

 The BOEMRE should analyze and review areas and activities in the GOM OCS 

program that (a) have significant impacts on public health or safety; (b) have 

significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics 

as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; 

wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national 

monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas;
A-102 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

San Francisco, CA 

(c) have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA Section 102(2)(E)]; (d) 

have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve 

unique or unknown environmental risks; . . . . (h) have significant impacts on species 

listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species or 

have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species; (i) violate a 

Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection 

of the environment. 

 The BOEMRE should also address the following significant issues in its 

Supplemental EIS: (1) environmental impacts or worst-case scenario oil spills and 

cumulative oil spills, including response activities and the use of dispersants; (2) the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative climate change impacts of the action, including the 

greenhouse gas emissions from the produced oil and gas, and the influence of those 

climate change impacts on the affected environment; (3) the impacts of the action on 

special status species such as those protected under the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and sensitive habitat areas, including but not limited 

to critical habitat, essential fish habitat, marine protected areas; (4) a reasonable 

range of alternatives that would avoid or minimize environmental impacts; (5) 

broader cumulative impacts analysis which take into consideration the incremental 

impacts of the action when considered in conjunction with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Gulf; (6) at lease sale and exploration 

stages, each EIS should contain site-specific analyses, smaller in scale than a typical 

multisale EIS, though not so narrowly focused as to result in impermissible 

segmentation of the project; (7) at exploration and drilling stages, specific focus on 

time and place of activity, keeping in mind seasonal shifts in migratory patterns and 

habitat composition. 

Chevron North 

America Exploration 

and Production 

Company 

Houston, TX 

 The Supplemental EIS should be confined to truly new information and focus on 

impacts of accidental events and to a lesser extent, cumulative impacts. 

 The BOEMRE must heed its own finding that a catastrophic spill remains a very low 

probability. 

 The planned Supplemental EIS must proceed with the supplemental analyses based 

upon information available at a certain date and cannot rely on speculative 

information and not await a series of new GOM studies. 

 When there are gaps in data and knowledge, BOEMRE must identify the information 

that is not known in the Supplemental EIS. 

 The BOEMRE must carefully review all new information and ensure its reliability 

before inclusion in the Supplemental EIS. 

 The BOEMRE must consider recent, significant improvements in safety and response 

capacity in the Supplemental EIS. 

 Chevron encourages BOEMRE to consider a reasonable range of clearly defined 

proposed alternatives and each alternative should be concise with no ambiguity. 

 Future NEPA analysis should tier to this Supplemental EIS. 

 The BOEMRE must review any suggestions for new and additional mitigation 

measures very carefully and have sufficient information to support their adoption. 

 There is no evidence that certain activities at a particular water depth are inherently 

more dangerous than others. 
Figures and Tables A-103 

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

Dean Peeler 

Alabama Petroleum 

Council (APC) 

Mobile, AL 

 It is prudent to update the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of 

oil and natural gas leasing. 

 The BOEMRE should use any currently new information that helps evaluate the 

defined impacts of the lease sales. 

 Proposed Lease Sales 216, 218, and 222 should be held with no reduction in the 

acreage traditionally offered in areawide lease sales. 

 The Supplemental EIS development should complement other environmental 

analyses by BOEMRE on the 2012-2017 5-Year Program. 

Andy Radford 

American Petroleum 

Institute (API) 

 Lease Sales 216, 218, and 222 should be held with no reduction in the acreage 

traditionally offered in areawide lease sales. 

 The scope of the Supplemental EIS should be focused specifically on new 

information that is readily available during the drafting of the Supplemental EIS and 

should limit the Supplemental EIS to an analysis of this new information as it exists 

at this time. 

 The BOEMRE must consider the extensive safety improvements implemented since 

the Deepwater Horizon event and consider the possibility of a catastrophic oil spill 

remains a very low probability. 

 The implementation of new drilling and environmental safeguards by industry since 

the Deepwater Horizon event should be considered and analyzed in the Supplemental 

EIS. 

 The possibility of another catastrophic spill will be reduced even further since 

implementation of the extensive safety improvements. 

 The Supplemental EIS should be designed specifically to be used as a reference for 

tiering in the future. 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

Bethesda, MD 

 The BOEMRE should develop a set of standards for baseline information needed to 

assess the effects of oil and gas operations on marine mammals and their 

environment, initiate research on these topics prior to the resumption of lease sales in 

the Gulf of Mexico, and consider ways to improve oil-spill prevention and response 

capabilities. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Lafayette, LA 

 The Supplemental EIS should evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative oil spill 

impacts from MC 252 to wetlands, migratory birds, endangered and threatened 

species, and designated critical habitat, as well as any impacts to those FWS trust 

resources from potential future spills. 

 Any possible correlations of the MC 252 spill and potential future spills to climate 

change should also be discussed. 

 The Supplemental EIS should include an assessment of potential direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts (including global climate change) to FWS trust resources from 

oil and gas industry exploration, development and response activities. 

 The FWS requests that BOEMRE discuss the relative risk of exploration and 

production wells leaking oil on the continental shelf versus those located on the 

continental slope and deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The BOEMRE should revise spill 

probabilities and model different sized spills, including catastrophic or multiday 

spills for the Gulf of Mexico for sources of spills in offshore and nearshore 

environments. 

 Any new safety regulations or revised permit review processes should be evaluated in 

the proposed Supplemental EIS for their impact to FWS trust resources. Changes to 

spill contingency planning, spill response, and restoration actions should also be 

described and their effects on FWS trust resources assessed. 
A-104 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

International 

Association of 

Geophysical 

Contractors (IAGC) 

Houston, TX 

 Any analysis of alternatives should recognize and take into account the improved 

regulatory management, oversight, and enforcement enacted since the blowout of the 

Macondo well and the resulting oil spill. 

 The BOEMRE should analyze an alternative that includes the holding of all 

remaining scheduled lease sales for the entire Western and Central Planning Areas. 

 The IAGC believes that there should be no discrimination between areas within the 

Western and Central Planning Areas in regard to geophysical, leasing, drilling, and 

production activities based upon popular political goals or environmental opinions 

that cannot be substantiated. 

 The IAGC strongly recommends that the final Supplemental EIS clearly provide for 

and facilitate new geophysical data acquisition and subsequent analysis of the 

hydrocarbon production of the Western and Central Planning Areas. 

 In developing the Supplemental EIS, BOEMRE should only rely on the best 

available scientific information and knowledge. 

 The IAGC also encourages BOEMRE to consider the environmental and 

socioeconomic information gathered and analyzed, and the conclusions made as part 

of this process to be utilized in the Supplemental EIS to be developed for the next 5-

Year OCS Program. 

Stone Energy 

Lafayette, LA 

 Stone Energy recommends that BOEMRE incorporate consideration of all new 

regulations and requirements put in place post-Macondo. 

Consumer Energy 

Alliance 

Houston, TX 

 The BOEMRE should proceed with the Supplemental EIS in an expedited and 

efficient manner, and consider thoroughly the socioeconomic impacts of oil and gas 

development on coastal communities. 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, 

National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

St. Petersburg, FL 

 The BOEMRE should consider the understatement of frequency and magnitude of oil 

spills, understatement of potential environmental impacts of oil spills, the need to 

better evaluate the potential adverse impacts that a spill could have on the seafood 

industry and markets, the need to better evaluate modeling of spills, and the need to 

address cumulative impacts on wetlands. 

 The Supplemental EIS should provide an analysis of the potential social, economic, 

and environmental impacts of a major oil event to fish stocks and to commercial and 

recreational fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the Supplemental EIS 

should include an analysis of the potential effects of a major spill event to seafood, 

including wild-caught finfish and shellfish and aquaculture products that are 

important components of the Nation’s food supply. These analyses should consider 

fishery closures, impacts to food safety, and contamination by hydrocarbon 

compounds and dispersants. 

 The Environmental Sensitivity Index used in past programs does not consider the 

sensitivity of marine habitats in the OCS to oil spills or other activities associated 

with oil and gas exploration, development, or production. The NOAA suggests that 

BOEMRE broaden the scope of its analysis to consider the impacts of all activities, 

including potential oil-spills and the use of chemical dispersants in any oil spill 

response efforts, to EFH and other vulnerable deepwater habitats such as deep-sea 

corals. The NOAA also suggests that BOEMRE evaluate the potential impacts to 

EFH for each life stage of each managed species, as well as impacts to other 

vulnerable habitats, from a worst-case scenario spill, including impacts to benthic 

and pelagic coastal and offshore habitats and prepare proposed mitigation 

requirements for such a spill. 

 The NOAA provided a list of 14 habitat areas of particular concern, which are 

designated within the Western and Central Planning Areas. 
Figures and Tables A-105 

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, 

National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

St. Petersburg, FL 

 The EFH section of the Supplemental EIS should reflect the current EFH 

identifications and descriptions by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

in 2005 for Council-managed species and by NMFS for highly migratory species in 

2009. 

 The NOAA recommends a recalculation of the likelihood of a major oil-spill event 

and an analysis of the effects from oil spills that utilize the flow rates and quantities 

identified in the “Oil Budget Calculator Deepwater Horizon Technical 

Documentation.” Additionally, the Supplemental EIS should reanalyze the effects of 

dispersant application and in-situ burning. 

 If the proposed activity may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, 

BOEMRE must initiate consultation with NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. 

 The NMFS would like to work with BOEMRE to enhance, refine, or develop new 

oil-spill analyses to improve the understanding of the effects of oil spills on listed 

species and to improve the Section 7 consultation. The NMFS recommends that spill 

probabilities and modeling of different sized spills, including catastrophic spills, be 

provided for sources of spills in offshore and nearshore environment and for surface 

and deepwater sources. The NMFS also asks BOEMRE to provide additional 

information regarding the relative risk of exploration and production wells leaking oil 

on the continental shelf versus those located on the continental slope and deepwater 

Gulf of Mexico. 

 The NOAA recommends that revised spill probabilities and modeling of different 

sized spills, including catastrophic spills for the Gulf of Mexico for sources of spills 

in offshore and nearshore environments be conducted. These models must include 

both surface and deepwater sources, as well as the effects of oil-spill response plans 

(e.g., dispersants) on the fate of the oil in the models. The Supplemental EIS should 

consider the variety and magnitude of effects associated with the chance of an oil 

spill taking listed species and adversely modifying or destroying critical habitat. 

 Please describe any changes to the proposed action resulting from the Deepwater 

Horizon event, including safety, spill contingency planning, spill response, and 

restoration actions. Also include any new programs and safeguards to reduce the 

likelihood of spills occurring in the future and provide an analysis of any new 

information and the potential for impacts to occur on listed species and critical 

habitat. 

 The Supplemental EIS should define the proposed lease sale areas, air permit 

requirements, and types of operations that fall under the jurisdictions of both 

BOEMRE and USEPA. The USEPA may be included as a co-agency in the 

biological opinion for air emissions for lease areas under their jurisdiction and should 

be included in any such request for ESA consultation. 

 The NMFS recommends that BOEMRE conduct a study to better understand the 

cumulative effects of noise from oil and gas construction and development activities 

on the OCS. This recommendation includes characterizing all aspects of noiseproducing construction and operation activities such as pile driving during well 

construction and platform installation, and other common OCS activities. Major 

noise-producing activities (>120 dB re 1 μParms) should be identified, and 

measurements of noise from these activities should be reported in appropriate units of 

measurement to estimate the acoustic footprint on the environment, duration, 

frequency, and relative contribution to ambient noise levels in the Gulf of Mexico. 

 The BOEMRE should consider a data collection program for the protected species 

observer program in coordination with NMFS, and include the program in the 

Supplemental EIS as appropriate. 
A-106 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, 

National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

St. Petersburg, FL 

 Pipeline construction may affect habitats important to listed species and should be 

considered in the Supplemental EIS. 

 The BOEMRE should continue to work with NMFS and the Offshore Operators 

Committee to provide informational materials to the offshore oil and gas workers, 

require annual training, and continue to develop best management practices to reduce 

the release of debris into the marine environment. The BOEMRE should work with 

NMFS to update the Marine Debris Notice to Lessees (NTL) 2003-G11 and apply 

this to other geographic areas/regions as appropriate. 

 The NOAA recommends that the Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Reporting 

for Mariners be applied throughout approved lease areas. 

 The Supplemental EIS should characterize all noise sources with source levels above 

120 dB re 1 μParms as the potential to affect marine mammals and other listed species. 

 Many general impacts associated with the construction and operation of oil and gas 

structures should be considered in the Supplemental EIS. Habitat alterations to water 

quality may result from accidental spills, turbidity during terminal an pipeline 

construction, wastewater discharges, and warming water outflow. Habitat effects 

may also occur from propeller wash, benthic impacts from pipeline and terminal 

construction, and discharges of marine debris. 

 In the event that any aspect of a proposed oil and gas operation will result in a “take,” 

the oil and gas applicant, or the lead agency acting on behalf of the applicant, would 

be required to obtain an incidental take authorization from NOAA. 

 The NOAA had two primary comments on the Supplemental EIS related to national 

marine sanctuaries: (1) NOAA requests that BOEMRE review the designation of all 

No-Activity Zones associated with all of the topographic features in the Central and 

Western Planning Area, and re-establish these areas based on current bathymetric and 

biological data; and (2) NOAA requests that BOEMRE require the shunting of 

material from all wells drilled within the specified buffer zones around the NoActivity Zones. 

 As BOEMRE considers scoping for the Supplemental EIS, BOEMRE should 

consider the following issues: (1) potential and cumulative impacts on the 

mesophotic and deep-sea communities during the development of oil and gas 

resources; (2) potential and cumulative impacts on mesophotic and deep-sea coral 

communities in the siting of undersea pipelines; (3) potential and cumulative impacts 

on mesophotic and deep-sea coral communities in the event of a major spill; recent 

findings from research conducted to assess impacts from the Deepwater Horizon spill 

on deep-sea coral communities should be helpful in considering these impacts; (4) 

potential and cumulative impacts on shallow coral reef, mesophotic and deep-sea 

coral communities connected by prevailing ocean currents to the lease sites; and (5) 

potential and cumulative socioeconomic impacts to communities dependent on 

recreational and commercial fishing in the lease areas, as well as communities 

dependent on coastal and ocean tourism and fishing in places connected by prevailing 

ocean currents. 
Figures and Tables A-107 

REFERENCES 

Alonso-Alvarez, C., I. Munilla, M. Lờpez-Alonso, and A. Velando. 2007. Sublethal toxicity of the 

Prestige oil spill on yellow-legged gulls. Environment International 33:773-781. 

Anderson, C.M. and R.P. LaBelle. 2000. Update of comparative occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. 

Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 6(5/6):302-321. 

Atkins, M., T. Edward, D. Johnson, and M. Dance. 2007. Pipeline damage assessment from Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Herndon, VA. TA&R 581. 

Banks, A.N., W.G. Sanderson, B. Hughes, P.A. Cranswick, L.E. Smith, S. Whitehead, A.J. Musgrove, 

B. Haycock, and N.P. Fairney. 2008. The Sea Empress oil spill (Wales, UK): Effects on common 

scoter Melanitta nigra in Carmarthen Bay and status ten years later. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

56:895-902. 

British Petroleum. 2011a. Waste disposal and recoverable facilities (current and potential locations). 

Internet website: http://usresponse.bp.com/external/content/document/2911/995083/1/

Waste_Disposal_Locations%20%2012511.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2011. 

British Petroleum. 2011b. MC 252 weekly waste tracking cumulative report by disposal facility: Report 

for the weeks of 04/04/2011 to 04/10/11; consolidated report. 22 pp. Internet website: http://

usresponse.bp.com/external/content/document/2911/1066495/1/

Consolidated_Weekly_Report_04102011_Disposal_Facility.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2011. 

Burger, A.E. 1993. Estimating the mortality of seabirds following oil spills: Effects of spill volume. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 26:140-143. 

Byrd, G.V., J.H. Reynolds, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of bird 

carcasses on beaches of Unalaska Island, Alaska, following the wreck of the M/V Selendang Ayu. 

Marine Ornithology 37:197-204. 

Cadiou, B., L. Riffaut, K.D. McCoy, J. Cabelguen, M. Fortin, G. Gélinaud, A. Le Roch, C. Tirard, and 

T. Boulinier. 2004. Ecological impact of the “Erika” oil spill: Determination of the geographic 

origin of the affected common guillemots. Aquatic Living Resources 17:369-377. 

Camphuysen, K., M. Heubeck, S.L. Cox, R. Bao, D. Humple, C. Abraham, and A. Sandoval. 2002. The 

Prestige oil spill in Spain. Atlantic Birds 4:131-140. 

Canadian Center for Energy Information. 2010. What are oil sands and heavy oil? Internet website: 

http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/ONG/OilsandsHeavyOil/Overview.asp?page=1. 

Accessed September 27, 2010. 

Castège, I., G. Hèmery, N. Roux, J. D’Elbèe, Y. Lalanne, F. D’Amico, and C. Mouchès. 2004. Changes 

in abundance and at-sea distribution of seabirds in the Bay of Biscay prior to, and following the 

“Erika” oil spill. Aquatic Living Resources 17:369-377. 

Castège, I., Y. Lalanne, V. Gouriou, G. Hèmery, M. Girin, F. D’Amico, C. Mouchès, J. D’Elbèe, 

L. Soulier, J. Pensu, D. Lafitte, and F. Pautrizel. 2007. Estimating the actual seabirds mortality at sea 

and relationship with oil spills: Lesson from the “Prestige” oil spill in Aquitaine (France). Ardeola 

54:289-307. 

Chapman, B.R. 1981. Effects of Ixtoc I oil spill on Texas shorebird populations. In: Proceedings of the 

7th International Oil Spill Conference, Atlanta, GA. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Pp. 461-465. 

Chapman, B.R. 1984. Seasonal abundance and habitat-use patterns of coastal bird populations on Padre 

and Mustang Island barrier beaches (following the Ixtoc I oil spill). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-83/31. 73 pp. Internet website: http://

www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3850.pdf. 
A-108 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Dean Runyan Associates. 2010. The economic impact of travel on Texas. Prepared for Texas Tourism, 

Office of the Governor, Texas Economic Development and Tourism. 141 pp. 

Dickey, D. 2006. Personal communication. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Coast Guard. Headquarters 

Office of Compliance and Analysis, Washington DC. June 28, 2006. 

Dickey, D. 2010. Personal communication. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Coast Guard. Headquarters 

Office of Compliance and Analysis, Washington DC. April 26, 2010. 

Dismukes, D.E. In preparation. Fact book: OCS-related energy infrastructure and post-hurricane impact 

assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

D.K. Shifflet and Associates. 2010a. Texas destinations 2006-2009. Prepared for the Office of the 

Governor, Economic Development Tourism Division, McLean, VA. 124 pp. 

D.K. Shifflet and Associates. 2010b. 2009-2010 destination attractions. Prepared for the Office of the 

Governor, Economic Development Tourism Division, McLean, VA. 21 pp. 

Energo Engineering. 2010. Assessment of damage and failure mechanisms for offshore structures and 

pipelines in Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Herndon, VA. TA&R 642. 

Federal Register. 2010. Increased safety measures for energy development on the outer continental 

shelf. 75 FR 198, 63346-63377. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-14/

pdf/2010-25256.pdf. 

Fisher, M. 2011. Personal communication. Top species landed and angler effort in Texas. Texas Parks 

and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. 

Flint, P.L. and A.C. Fowler. 1998. A drift experiment to assess the influence of wind on recovery of 

oiled seabird on St. Paul Island, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36:165-166. 

Flint, P.L., A.C. Fowler, and R.F. Rockwell. 1999. Modeling bird mortality associated with the M/V 

Citrus oil spill off St. Paul Island, Alaska. Ecological Modelling 117:261-267. 

Flint, P.L., E.W. Lance, K.M. Sowl, and T.F. Donnelly. 2010. Estimating carcass persistence and 

scavenging bias in a human-influenced landscape in western Alaska. Journal of Field Ornithology 

81:206-214. 

Ford, R.G., M.L. Bonnell, D.H. Varoujean, G.W. Page, H.R. Carter, B.E. Sharp, D. Heinemann, and 

J.L. Casey. 1996. Total direct mortality of seabirds from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 18:684-711. 

Fowler, A.C. and P.L. Flint. 1997. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of oiled king eider 

carcasses on St. Paul Island, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34:522-526. 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2010. Frequently asked questions. Internet website: http://

gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/faq#Q11. Accessed January 23, 2011. 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2011. Statistics and overall summary, and state status reports (April 27, 

2011). Internet website: http://www.gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/reports. Accessed April 28, 2011. 

Helm, R.C., R.G. Ford, and H.R. Carter. 2006. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Natural Resources 

Damage Assessment. Marine Ornithology 34:99-108. 

Helm, R.C., R.G. Ford, and H.R. Carter. 2008. Oil spills, seabirds, and NRDA: Differences between 

U.S. West, East, and Gulf Coasts. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Oil Spill Conference, 

Savannah, GA, USA. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 1131-1139. Internet 

website: http://www.iosc.org/papers/2008%20193.pdf. 

Jernelöv, A. 2010. The threats from oil spills: Now, then, and in the future. Ambio 39:353-366. 

Internet website: http://www.springerlink.com/content/303223683645l54u/fulltext.pdf.
Figures and Tables A-109 

Kaplan, M.F. and C. Whitman. Unpublished. Measuring the economic impact of tourism and recreation 

industries on Gulf Coast communities—Relationship between OCS development and coastal 

resources (2008). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 1435-01-99-CA-30951-18261. x + 164 pp. 

King, J.G. and G.A. Sanger. 1979. Oil vulnerability index for marine oriented birds. In: Bartonek, J.C. 

and D.N. Nettleship, eds. Conservation of marine birds in North America. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Wildlife Research Report Number 11. Pp. 227-239. 

Internet website: http://www.archive.org/stream/conservationofma00naturich#page/n3/mode/2up. 

Accessed March 25, 2011. 

Law, R.J. and C. Kelley. 2004. The impact of the “Sea Impress” oil spill. Aquatic Living Resources 

17:389-394. 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources. 2010. Production information. SONRIS lite: Internet database. 

Internet website: http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/www_root/sonris_portal_1.htm. Accessed 

October 6, 2010. 

Michel, J. 1992. Chapter 2. Oil behavior and toxicity. In: Introduction to coastal habitats and 

biological resources for spill response. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. NOAA Report No. HMRAD 92-4. Internet 

website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/type_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%

28entry_subtopic_type%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,type_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_type)=

275&subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_type)=8&type_id(entry_subtopic_type)=2. Accessed March 22, 

2011. 

Munilla, I. and A. Velando. 2010. Oiling of live gulls as a tool to monitor acute oil spill effects on 

seabirds. Ibis 152:405-409. 

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council (NRC). 2011. Blowout 

prevention: Analysis of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, fire, and oil spill. Internet website: 

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BlowoutPrevention/index.htm. Accessed March 15, 2011. 

National Archives and Records Administration. 2010. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Internet 

website: http://www.archives.gov/. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

National Ocean Economics Program. 2006. Oil & gas production. Internet website: http://

noep.csumb.edu/Minerals/oil_gas.asp. Accessed September 11, 2006. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2010. The amount and fate of the oil. Staff Working Paper No. 3. National 

Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. 29 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Working%20Paper.Amount%20and

%20Fate.For%20Release.pdf. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2011. Deep water: The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling report 

to the President’s National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 

Drilling. 398 pp. Internet website: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/final-report. Accessed 

March 15, 2011. 

Piatt, J.F. and R.G. Ford. 1996. How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 18:712-719. 

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990a. Immediate impact of 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill on seabirds. Auk 107:387-397. 

Piatt, J.F., H.R. Carter, and D.N. Nettleship. 1990b. Effects of oil pollution in marine bird populations. 

In: White, J., ed. The effects of oil on wildlife: Research, rehabilitation and general concerns. 

Proceedings of the Oil Symposium, Herndon, VA, October 16-18, 1990. Hanover, PA: Sheridan 

Press. Pp. 125-141. 
A-110 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Railroad Commission of Texas. 2010. Texas crude oil production - offshore State waters. Internet 

website: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/data/production/offshoreoil/index.php. Updated September 24, 

2010. Accessed October 12, 2010. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2011. Transcripts and docs. Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/

news/transcripts-docs. Accessed March 11, 2011. 

Tan, L., M. Belanger, and C. Wittnich. 2010. Revisiting the correlation between estimated seabird 

mortality and oil spill size. Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology 3:20-26. 

U.S. Dept of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2010. National survey on recreation and the environment, 

2005-2009. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Census Bureau. 2010. State and county quick facts. Internet website: http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html. Last revised November 4, 2010. Accessed April 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010a. Deepwater 

Horizon oil: Characteristics and concerns. National Ocean Service. 2 pp. Internet website: http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/deepwater_horizon/OilCharacteristics.pdf. Last revised May 15, 2010. 

Accessed August 27, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010b. National 

Hurricane Center, Miami, FL. Internet website: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov. Accessed November 16, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010c. Fisheries 

economics table. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/

fisheries_economics_2008.html. Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010d. Recreational 

fisheries statistics queries. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/

index.html. Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. Deepwater Horizon

MC 252 waste management sites. Internet website: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/

globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/

wastemgnt_7282010.pdf . Accessed May 16, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Petroleum and other liquids. Internet 

website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html. Accessed 

September 11, 2006. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. Quarterly census of employment and wages. 

Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm. Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Quarterly census of employment and wages. 

Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm. Accessed April 20, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2011a. Amount of dredged material ocean disposed by 

year in cubic yards by single district. Internet website: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd/. Stated as 

current through 2008. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2011b. United States of America ocean dumping report for 

calendar year 2008 dredged material. Headquarters, Washington, DC. Internet website: http://

el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd/file.htm. Stated as current through 2008. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010a. Increased safety measures for energy development on the outer 

continental shelf, May 27, 2010. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. 44 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=

33598. Accessed March 13, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010b. Outer Continental Shelf Safety Oversight Board, report to Secretary of 

the Interior Ken Salazar. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. September 1, 2010. 37 pp. 
Figures and Tables A-111 

Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/

getfile&PageID=43677. Accessed March 13, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Bird impact data from DOI-ERDC database 

download 30 Nov. 2010: Weekly bird impact data and consolidated wildlife reports. 3 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%20

11302010.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Office of the Inspector General. 2010. A new horizon: Looking to the future 

of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. No. CR-EV-MMS-0015-

2010. Washington, DC. 82 pp. Internet website: http://www.doioig.gov/images/stories/reports/pdf/

A%20New%20Horizon%20Public.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Coast Guard. 2001. Polluting incident compendium: Cumulative data and 

graphics for oil spills, 1973-2000. Internet website: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/response/stats/

summary.htm. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2009. Vessel calls snapshot, 2009. 

10 pp. Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/

Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. National list of beaches. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water. EPA-823-R-08-004. 160 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. 8-hour ozone nonattainment area/state/county report. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gnca.html. Accessed April 28, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and British Petroleum. 2010. Unified Area Command Plan—

Deepwater Horizon MC252: Waste and material tracking system and reporting plan. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste/bp_waste_tracking_plan.pdf. Issued August 20, 2010. 

Accessed October 8, 2010. 

U.S. Travel Association. 2010. Economic impact of travel and tourism. The Power of Travel Data 

Center. Internet website: http://poweroftravel.org/statistics. Accessed December 14, 2010. 

Velando, A., D. Álvarez, J. Mouriño, F. Arcos, and Á. Barros. 2005a. Population trends and 

reproductive success of the European shag Phalocrocorax aristotelis on the Iberian Peninsula 

following the Prestige oil spill. Journal of Ornithology 146:116-120. 

Velando, A., I. Munilla, and P.M. Leyenda. 2005b. Short-term indirect effects of the Prestige oil spill on 

European shags: Changes in availability of prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302:263-274. 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, eds. 2010. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico marine mammal stock assessments -- 2011. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 219. 598 pp. 

Wiens, J.A., R.G. Ford, and D. Heinemann. 1984. Information needs and priorities for assessing the 

sensitivity of marine birds to oil spills. Biological Conservation 28:21-49. 

Wiese, F.K. and I.L. Jones. 2001. Experimental support for a new drift block design to assess seabird 

mortality from oil pollution. Auk 118:1062-1068. 

Wilhelm, S.I., G.J. Robertson, P.C. Ryan, and D.C. Schneider. 2007. Comparing an estimate of seabirds 

at risk to a mortality estimate from the November 2004 Terra Nova FPSO oil spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 54:537-544. 

Williams, J.M., M.L. Tasker, I.C. Carter, and A. Webb. 1995. A method of assessing seabird 

vulnerability to surface pollutants. Ibis 137:S147-S152. 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2010. The 2011 complete economic and demographic data source 

(CEDDS) on CD-ROM. 
APPENDIX B 

 

CATASTROPHIC SPILL EVENT ANALYSIS
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-iii 

CATASTROPHIC SPILL EVENT ANALYSIS: 

HIGH-VOLUME, EXTENDED-DURATION OIL SPILL RESULTING 

FROM LOSS OF WELL CONTROL 

ON THE GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................B-1

1.1. What is a Catastrophic Event? ................................................................................................ B-1

1.2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... B-2

1.2.1. Geographic Scope .................................................................................................... B-2

1.2.2. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario................................................................... B-2

1.2.3. Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts ............................................................ B-2

1.3. How to Use This Analysis ...................................................................................................... B-3

2. INITIAL EVENT (PHASE 1).............................................................................................................B-3

2.1. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario ................................................................................. B-3

2.2. Most Likely and Most Significant Impacts............................................................................. B-4

2.2.1. Physical Resources................................................................................................... B-4

2.2.1.1. Air Quality ..............................................................................................B-4

2.2.1.2. Offshore Water Quality...........................................................................B-5

2.2.2. Biological Resources................................................................................................ B-6

2.2.2.1. Marine and Migratory Birds....................................................................B-6

2.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat..............................................B-6

2.2.2.3. Marine Mammals ....................................................................................B-6

2.2.2.4. Sea Turtles...............................................................................................B-7

2.2.2.5. Offshore Benthic Habitats.......................................................................B-7

2.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources...................................................................................... B-10

2.2.3.1. Offshore Archaeological Resources......................................................B-10

2.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing..............................................................................B-10

2.2.3.3. Recreational Resources and Fishing .....................................................B-10

2.2.3.4. Human Resources, Land Use, and Environmental Justice....................B-11

3. OFFSHORE SPILL (PHASE 2) .......................................................................................................B-11

3.1. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario ............................................................................... B-11

3.1.1. Duration of Spill..................................................................................................... B-11

3.1.1.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-11

3.1.1.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-11

3.1.2. Area of Spill ........................................................................................................... B-11

3.1.3. Volume of Spill ...................................................................................................... B-11

3.1.3.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-12

3.1.3.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-12

3.1.4. Oil in the Environment: Properties and Persistence .............................................. B-12

3.1.5. Release of Natural Gas........................................................................................... B-13
B-iv Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

3.1.6. Offshore Cleanup Activities................................................................................... B-14

3.1.6.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-14

3.1.6.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-14

3.1.6.3. Vessel Decontamination Stations..........................................................B-15

3.1.7. Severe Weather ...................................................................................................... B-15

3.2. Most Likely and Most Significant Impacts........................................................................... B-15

3.2.1. Physical Resources................................................................................................. B-15

3.2.1.1. Air Quality ............................................................................................B-15

3.2.1.2. Offshore Water Quality.........................................................................B-16

3.2.2. Biological Resources.............................................................................................. B-17

3.2.2.1. Marine and Migratory Birds..................................................................B-17

3.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat............................................B-17

3.2.2.3. Marine Mammals ..................................................................................B-18

3.2.2.4. Sea Turtles.............................................................................................B-19

3.2.2.5. Offshore Habitats ..................................................................................B-19

3.2.2.6. Continental Shelf Benthic Resources....................................................B-20

3.2.2.7. Deepwater Benthic Communities .........................................................B-23

3.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources...................................................................................... B-25

3.2.3.1. Offshore Archaeological Resources......................................................B-25

3.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing..............................................................................B-26

3.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing..............................................................................B-26

3.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources....................................................B-26

3.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics...........................................................B-26

3.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure.....................................................B-27

3.2.3.7. Environmental Justice ...........................................................................B-27

4. ONSHORE CONTACT (PHASE 3).................................................................................................B-28

4.1. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario ............................................................................... B-28

4.1.1. Duration.................................................................................................................. B-28

4.1.1.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-28

4.1.1.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-28

4.1.2. Volume of Oil......................................................................................................... B-28

4.1.3. Length of Shoreline Contacted............................................................................... B-29

4.1.3.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-29

4.1.3.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-29

4.1.4. Severe Weather ...................................................................................................... B-29

4.1.5. Onshore Cleanup Activities.................................................................................... B-29

4.1.5.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-30

4.1.5.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-30

4.2. Most Likely and Most Significant Impacts........................................................................... B-30

4.2.1. Physical Resources................................................................................................. B-30

4.2.1.1. Air Quality ............................................................................................B-30

4.2.1.2. Coastal Water Quality...........................................................................B-30

4.2.2. Biological Resources.............................................................................................. B-31

4.2.2.1. Coastal and Marine Birds......................................................................B-31

4.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat............................................B-32

4.2.2.3. Marine Mammals ..................................................................................B-32

4.2.2.4. Sea Turtles.............................................................................................B-33

4.2.2.5. Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles ........................................................B-34

4.2.2.6. Coastal Habitats ....................................................................................B-34
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-v 

4.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources...................................................................................... B-37

4.2.3.1. Onshore Archaeological Resources ......................................................B-37

4.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing..............................................................................B-37

4.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing..............................................................................B-37

4.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources....................................................B-38

4.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics...........................................................B-38

4.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure.....................................................B-38

4.2.3.7. Environmental Justice ...........................................................................B-39

5. POST-SPILL, LONG-TERM RECOVERY (PHASE 4)..................................................................B-39

5.1. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario ............................................................................... B-39

5.2. Most Likely and Most Significant Impacts........................................................................... B-40

5.2.1. Physical Resources................................................................................................. B-40

5.2.1.1. Air Quality ............................................................................................B-40

5.2.1.2. Coastal and Offshore Water Quality .....................................................B-40

5.2.2. Biological Resources.............................................................................................. B-40

5.2.2.1. Coastal and Marine Birds......................................................................B-41

5.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat............................................B-41

5.2.2.3. Marine Mammals ..................................................................................B-41

5.2.2.4. Sea Turtles.............................................................................................B-41

5.2.2.5. Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles ........................................................B-42

5.2.2.6. Coastal Habitats ....................................................................................B-42

5.2.2.7. Open-Water Habitats.............................................................................B-43

5.2.2.8. Benthic Habitats....................................................................................B-44

5.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources...................................................................................... B-44

5.2.3.1. Offshore and Onshore Archaeological Resources ................................B-44

5.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing..............................................................................B-45

5.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing..............................................................................B-45

5.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources....................................................B-45

5.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics...........................................................B-46

5.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure.....................................................B-46

5.2.3.7. Environmental Justice ...........................................................................B-46

6. CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT.................................B-48

7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS .............................................................................................................B-48

7.1. Summary of Impacts from Phase 1 (Initial Event)................................................................ B-48

7.2. Summary of Impacts from Phase 2 (Offshore Spill)............................................................. B-49

7.3. Summary of Impacts from Phase 3 (Onshore Contact)......................................................... B-49

7.4. Summary of Impacts from Phase 4 (Long-Term Impacts) ................................................... B-50

8. PREPARERS ....................................................................................................................................B-50

9. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................B-51
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-1 

1. INTRODUCTION 

In 1986, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations were amended to rescind the 

requirement to prepare a “worst-case analysis” for an environmental impact statement (EIS) (see 

40 CFR 1502.22(b)(4)). The regulation, as amended, states that catastrophic, low-probability impacts 

must be analyzed if the analysis is “supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure 

conjecture, and is within the rule of reason.” 

The August 16, 2010, CEQ report, prepared following the Deepwater Horizon event and spill in the 

Gulf of Mexico (CEQ, 2010), recommended that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation 

and Enforcement (BOEMRE), formerly the Minerals Management Service (MMS), should “ensure that 

NEPA documents provide decisionmakers with a robust analysis of reasonably foreseeable impacts, 

including an analysis of reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with low probability catastrophic spills 

for oil and gas activities on the Outer Continental Shelf” (CEQ, 2010). This analysis provides that robust 

analysis of the impacts of low-probability catastrophic spills for all applicable decisionmakers including, 

but not limited to, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (USDOI) for the National 5-Year 

Program, the Assistant Secretary of Land Management for an oil and gas lease sale, or the Regional 

Supervisor of the Office of Field Operations for an exploration or development plan. 

It should be noted that the analysis presented here is intended to be a general overview of potential 

effects of a catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The analysis does not include detailed sale-specific 

or site-specific analyses nor is it intended to replace such analyses for individual resources in the 

Supplemental EIS. As such, the Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis should be read with the understanding 

that further detail about accidental oil impacts on a particular resource may be found in the Supplemental 

EIS analysis or previous relevant National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses (e.g., Multisale 

EIS). 

1.1. WHAT IS A CATASTROPHIC EVENT? 

As applicable to NEPA, Eccleston (2008) defines a catastrophic event as “large-scale damage 

involving destruction of species, ecosystems, infrastructure, or property with long-term effects, and/or 

major loss of human life.” For oil and gas activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), a catastrophic 

event is a high-volume, long-duration oil spill regardless of the cause, whether natural disaster (i.e., 

hurricane) or manmade (i.e., human error and terrorism). This high-volume, long-duration oil spill, or 

catastrophic spill, has been further defined by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan as a “spill of national significance” or “a spill which due to its severity, size, location, 

actual or potential impact on the public health and welfare or the environment, or the necessary response 

effort, is so complex that it requires extraordinary coordination of federal, state, local, and responsible 

party resources to contain and cleanup the discharge” (40 CFR 300, Appendix E). 

Each oil-spill event is unique; its outcome depends on several factors, including time of year and 

location of release relative to winds, currents, land, and sensitive resources, specifics of the well (i.e., 

flow rates, hydrocarbon characteristics, and infrastructure damage), and response (i.e., speed and 

effectiveness). For this reason, the severity of impacts from of an oil spill cannot be predicted based on 

volume alone, although a minimum volume of oil must be spilled to reach catastrophic impacts. 

Though large spills may result from a pipeline rupture, such events will not result in a catastrophic 

spill because the ability to detect leaks and shut off pipelines limits the amount of the spill to the contents 

of the pipeline. The largest, non-blowout-related spill on the Gulf of Mexico OCS occurred in 1967, a 

result of internal pipeline corrosion following initial damage by an anchor. In 13 days, 160,638 barrels of 

oil leaked (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010a); however, no significant environmental impacts were recorded as a 

result of this spill. 

Incidents such as the loss of well control create the volume and duration that produces a catastrophic 

oil spill. Although loss of well control is defined as the uncontrolled flow of reservoir fluid that may 

result in the release of gas, condensate, oil, drilling fluids, sand, or water, it is a broad term that includes 

very minor well control incidents as well as the most severe well control incidents. Historically, loss of 

well control incidents occurred during development drilling operations, but loss of well control incidents 
B-2 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

can occur during exploratory drilling, production, well completions, or workover operations. These loss 

of well control incidents may occur between zones in the wellbore or at the seafloor. 

Blowouts are a more severe loss of well control incident that creates a great risk of a large oil spill 

and serious human injury. Two blowouts that resulted in catastrophic spills have occurred in U.S. and 

Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1979, the Ixtoc blowout in shallow water (164 feet [ft] 

50 miles [mi] [50 meters [m] 80 kilometers [km]] offshore in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico) spilled 

3.5 million barrels of oil in 10 months (USDOC, NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, 2010a; 

USDOC, NOAA, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, 1992; ERCO, 1982). On 

April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon event, in deep water (4,992 ft; 1,522 m) 48 mi (77 km) offshore in 

Mississippi Canyon Block 252, spilled an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil until it was capped almost 

3 months later. 

Prior to the Deepwater Horizon event, the two largest spills resulting from a loss of well control in 

U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico occurred in 1970 and released 30,000 and 53,000 barrels of oil 

(USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010a). These incidents resulted in four human fatalities. Although these incidents 

occurred only 8-14 mi (13-26 km) from shore, there was minor shoreline contact (USDOC, NOAA, 

Office of Response and Restoration, 2010b and 2010c). In 1987, a blowout of the Mexican exploratory 

oil well, YUM II, resulted in a spill of 58,640 barrels and 75 mi of impacted shoreline (USDOC, NOAA, 

Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, 1992). None of these spills met the definition 

of a catastrophic event or spill. For this reason, only the Ixtoc and Deepwater Horizon blowouts and 

spills are analyzed below. 

1.2. METHODOLOGY

Two general approaches are utilized to analyze a catastrophic event under NEPA. The first approach 

is a bounding analysis for each individual resource category (e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, etc.). A 

bounding analysis involves selecting and evaluating a different set of factors and scenarios for each 

resource in the context of a worst-case analysis. The second approach involves the selection of a single 

set of key circumstances that, when combined, result in catastrophic consequences. The second approach 

is used for a site-specific analysis and, consequently, its possible application is more limited. 

Accordingly, this analysis combines the two approaches, relying on a generalized scenario while 

identifying site-specific severity factors for individual resources. This combined approach allows for the 

scientific investigation of a range of possible, although not necessarily probable, consequences of a 

catastrophic blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

1.2.1. Geographic Scope 

The Gulf of Mexico is a semi-enclosed basin with an extensive history of oil and gas activities and 

with unique environmental conditions and hydrocarbon reservoir properties; consequently, this analysis is 

only applicable to the Gulf of Mexico OCS and is not intended for other OCS regions. 

When possible, this analysis distinguishes between shallow water (<1,000 ft; 305 m) and deep water 

(1,000 ft; 305 m). 

1.2.2. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 

A hypothetical, yet feasible, scenario was developed to provide a framework for identifying the 

impacts of an extended oil spill from an uncontrolled blowout in both shallow and deep water. Unless 

noted, this scenario is based on the larger magnitude, blowout-related oil spills that have occurred in the 

Gulf of Mexico (discussed in Section 1.1). As noted above, because each spill event is unique, its 

outcome depends on many factors. Therefore, the impacts from present or future spills cannot be 

predicted based on this scenario. 

1.2.3. Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 

This analysis evaluates the impacts to the Gulf of Mexico’s coastal, marine, environmental, and 

socioeconomic resources from a catastrophic blowout, oil spill, and associated cleanup activities. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-3 

Although the most recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of 

Mexico analyze the potential impacts from smaller oil spills that are more reasonably foreseeable 

(USDOI, MMS, 2007 and 2008), the analysis below focuses on the most likely and most significant 

impacts created by a high-volume, extended-duration spill. Because catastrophic consequences may not 

occur for all resources, factors affecting the severity of impacts are identified by individual resource. 

1.3. HOW TO USE THIS ANALYSIS

The purpose of this technical analysis is to assist BOEMRE in meeting CEQ requirements. The CEQ 

regulations address impacts with catastrophic consequences in the context of evaluating reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse effects in an EIS when they address the issue of incomplete or unavailable 

information (40 CFR 1502.22). “‘Reasonably foreseeable’ impacts include impacts which have 

catastrophic consequences even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the 

impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule 

of reason” (40 CFR 1502.22(b)(4)). Therefore, this analysis, based on credible scientific evidence, 

identifies the most likely and most significant impacts from a high-volume blowout and oil spill that 

continues for an extended period of time. The scenario and impacts discussed in this analysis should not 

be confused with the scenario and impacts anticipated to result from routine activities or more reasonably 

foreseeable accidental events of a proposed action. 

This technical analysis is designed to be incorporated by reference in future NEPA documents and 

consultations. Therefore, factors that affect the severity of impacts of a high-volume, extended-duration 

spill are highlighted throughout the analysis for use in subsequent site-specific analyses. 

To analyze a hypothetical catastrophic event in an area such as the Gulf of Mexico, several 

assumptions and generalizations were made. However, future project-specific analyses should also 

consider specific details such as potential flow rates for the specific proposed activity, the properties of 

the targeted reservoir, and distance to shore of the proposed activities. 

The life cycle of a catastrophic blowout and spill is divided into four geographic areas and/or time 

periods, some of which may overlap: 

 Phase 1: Initial event (Section 2) 

 Phase 2: Offshore spill (Section 3) 

 Phase 3: Onshore contact (Section 4) 

 Phase 4: Post-spill, long-term recovery (Section 5) 

Each phase of a catastrophic oil spill is addressed in this analysis. For each phase, the scenario is 

described, factors that could produce environmental impacts are listed, and the most likely and most 

significant impacts are discussed. 

2. INITIAL EVENT (PHASE 1) 

While most of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of a catastrophic blowout would occur 

during the ensuing high-volume, extended-duration spill (see Sections 3, 4, and 5), it is important to 

acknowledge the deadly events that could occur in the initial phase of a catastrophic blowout. The 

following scenario was developed to provide a framework for identifying the most likely and most 

significant impacts during the initial phase. 

2.1. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

Phase 1 of the scenario is the initiation of a catastrophic blowout incident. Impacts, response, and 

intervention depend on the spatial location of the blowout and leak. While there are several points where 

a blowout could occur, four major distinctions that are important to the analysis of impacts are described 

in Table 1 below. 
B-4 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

For this analysis, an explosion and subsequent fire are assumed to occur. If a blowout associated with 

the drilling of a single exploratory well occurs, this could result in a fire that would burn for 1 or 2 days. 

If a blowout occurs on a production platform, other wells could feed the fire, allowing it to burn for over a 

month (USDOC, NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, 2010c). The drilling rig or platform may 

sink. If the blowout occurs in shallow water, the sinking rig or platform may land in the immediate 

vicinity; if the blowout occurs in deep water, the rig or platform could land a great distance away, beyond 

avoidance zones. For example, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank, landing 1,500 ft (457 m) away 

on the seafloor. Regardless of water depth, the immediate response would be from search and rescue 

vessels and aircraft, such as United States Coast Guard (USCG) cutters, helicopters, and rescue planes, 

and firefighting vessels. 

Table 1 

 

Blowout Scenarios and Key Differences in Impacts, Response, and/or Intervention 

Location of Blowout and Leak Key Differences in Impacts, Response, and/or Intervention 

Blowout occurs at the sea surface 

(i.e., at the rig) 

Offers the least chance for oil recovery due to the restricted access to the 

release point; therefore, greater impacts to coastal ecosystems. In addition to 

relief wells, there is potential for other intervention measures such as capping 

and possible manual activation of blowout-preventer (BOP) rams. 

Blowout occurs along the riser 

anywhere from the seafloor to the 

sea surface. However, a severed 

riser would likely collapse, 

resulting in a leak at the seafloor. 

In deep water, the use of subsea dispersants may reduce impacts to coastal 

ecosystems; however, their use may increase exposure of marine resources to 

oil. There is a possibility for limited recovery of oil at the source. In addition 

to relief wells, there is potential for other intervention measures, such as 

capping and possible manual activation of BOP rams. 

At the seafloor, through leak paths 

on the BOP/wellhead 

In deep water, the use of subsea dispersants may reduce impacts to coastal 

ecosystems; however, their use may increase exposure of deepwater marine 

resources to dispersed oil. 

With an intact subsea BOP, intervention may involve the use of drilling mud to 

kill the well. If the BOP and well stack are heavily compromised, the only 

intervention method may be relief wells. Greatest possibility for recovery of oil 

at the source, until the well is capped or killed. 

Below the seafloor, outside the 

wellbore (i.e., broached) 

Disturbance of a large amount of sediments resulting in the burial of benthic 

resources in the immediate vicinity of the blowout. The use of subsea 

dispersants would likely be more difficult (PCCI, 1999). Stopping this kind of 

blowout would probably involve relief wells. Any recovery of oil at the seabed 

would be very difficult. 

2.2. MOST LIKELY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

Impacts during Phase 1 would be limited to environmental resources in the immediate vicinity of the 

blowout. The most recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 

detail the potential impacts from reasonably foreseeable blowouts (USDOI, MMS, 2007 and 2008). In 

addition to the impacts described in those documents, the most likely and most significant impacts 

resulting from a catastrophic blowout outside the wellbore are described below. 

2.2.1. Physical Resources 

2.2.1.1. Air Quality 

A catastrophic blowout close to the water surface would initially emit large amounts of methane and 

other gases into the atmosphere. If high concentrations of sulfur are present in the produced gas, 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) could present a hazard to personnel. The natural gas H2S concentrations in the 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-5 

Gulf of Mexico OCS are generally low; however, there are areas such as the Norphlet formation in the 

northeastern Gulf of Mexico, for example, that contain levels of H2S up to 9 percent. Ignition of the 

blowout gas and subsequent fire would result in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), 

carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), particulate matter (PM10), and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). The fire could also produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s), which 

are known to be hazardous to human health. The pollutant concentrations would decrease with downwind 

distance. A large plume of black smoke would be visible at the source and may extend a considerable 

distance downwind. However, with increasing distance from the fire, the gaseous pollutants would 

undergo chemical reactions, resulting in the formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that includes 

nitrates, sulfates, and organic matter. The PM2.5 concentrations in the plume would have the potential to 

temporarily degrade visibility in any affected Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas 

(i.e., National Wilderness Areas and National Parks) and other areas where visibility is of significant 

value.

2.2.1.2. Offshore Water Quality 

During the initial phase of a catastrophic blowout, water quality impacts include disturbance of 

sediments and release and suspension of oil and natural gas (methane) into the water column. These 

potential impacts are discussed below. As this section deals with the immediate effects of a blowout that 

would be located at least 3 nautical miles from shore, it is assumed that there would be no impacts on 

coastal water quality during this initial stage. 

Disturbance of Sediments 

A catastrophic blowout below the seafloor, outside the wellbore (Table 1) has the potential to 

resuspend sediments and disperse potentially large quantities of bottom sediments. Some sediment could 

travel several kilometers, depending on particle size and subsea current patterns. In the deep Gulf of 

Mexico, surficial sediments are mostly composed of silt and clay, and, if resuspended, could stay in the 

water column for several hours to even days. Bottom currents in the deep Gulf of Mexico have been 

measured to reach 30 centimeters/second (cm/sec) (12 inches/second [in/sec]) with mean flows of 1.5-2.5 

cm/sec (0.6-0.9 in/sec) (Hamilton, 1990). At these mean flow rates, resuspended sediment could be 

transported 1.3-2.1 kilometers/day (0.8-1.3 miles/day). Sediment resuspension can lead to a temporary 

change in the oxidation-reduction chemistry in the water column, including a localized and temporal 

release of any formally sorbed metals, as well as nutrient recycling (Caetano et al., 2003; Fanning et al., 

1982). Sediments also have the potential to become contaminated with oil components. 

A subsea release also has the potential to destabilize the sediments and create slumping or larger scale 

sediment movements along depth gradients. These types of events would have the potential to move 

and/or damage any infrastructure in the affected area. 

Release and Suspension of Oil into the Water Column 

As the Deepwater Horizon event showed, a subsea release of hydrocarbons at a high flow rate has the 

potential to disperse and suspend plumes of oil droplets (chemically dispersed or otherwise) within the 

water column and to induce large patches of sheen and oil on the surface. These dispersed hydrocarbons 

may adsorb onto marine detritus (marine snow) or may be mixed with drilling mud and deposited near the 

source. Mitigation efforts such as burning may introduce hydrocarbon byproducts into the marine 

environment, which would be distributed by surface currents. The acute and chronic sublethal effects of 

these dilute suspended “plumes” are not well understood and require future research efforts. 

Large quantities of oil put into offshore water may alter the chemistry of the sea with unforeseeable 

results. The VOC’s, including benzene, can have acutely toxic effects. The components of crude oil that 

are water soluble are more available than some of the heavier components to exert a toxic effect on 

marine life. The PAH’s are present in crude oil and include carcinogenic compounds and compounds that 

pose various risks to marine organisms and possibly to the higher trophic level species, including humans 

that feed on these organisms. The PAH’s are also persistent in the environment. Impacts from the 

subsequent extended oil spill on offshore water quality are discussed further in Section 3.2.1.2. 
B-6 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Release of Natural Gas (Methane) into the Water Column 

A catastrophic blowout could release natural gas into the water column; the amount of gas released is 

dependent upon the water depth, the natural gas content of the formation being drilled, and its pressure. 

Methane is the primary component of natural gas (NaturalGas.org, 2010). Methane may stay in the 

marine environment for long periods of time (Patin, 1999; p. 237), as methane is highly soluble in 

seawater at the high pressures and cold temperatures found in deepwater environments (NRC, 2003; 

p. 108). However, methane diffusing through the water column would likely be oxidized in the aerobic 

zone and would rarely reach the air-water interface (Mechalas, 1974; p. 23). In addition to methane, 

natural gas contains smaller percentages of other gases such as ethane and propane. It may also contain 

VOC’s (including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) and H2S, which have individual toxic 

characteristics. Methane and other natural gas constituents are carbon sources, and their introduction into 

the marine environment could result in reducing the dissolved oxygen levels due to microbial degradation 

of the methane potentially creating hypoxic or “dead” zones. Depletion of dissolved oxygen in the Gulf 

of Mexico due to the release of natural gas from the Macondo well (Deepwater Horizon event) is 

currently being examined as a result of the Deepwater Horizon event (Schenkman, 2010). Unfortunately, 

little is known about methane toxicity in the marine environment, but there is concern as to how methane 

in the water column might affect fish (see Section 3.2.2.2). 

2.2.2. Biological Resources 

Impacts during the initial event would be limited to environmental resources in the immediate vicinity 

of the blowout as described below. 

2.2.2.1. Marine and Migratory Birds 

Many migratory birds use offshore platforms or rigs as rest sites during migration (Russell, 2005). In 

addition, seabirds are attracted to offshore platforms and rigs (Tasker et al., 1986; Weise et al., 2001). 

The numbers of birds present at a platform or rig are greater when platforms or rigs are closer to shore 

during drilling operations (Baird, 1990). Birds resting on the drilling rig or platform during a catastrophic 

blowout are likely to be killed by an explosion. While it is assumed that most birds in trans-Gulf 

migration would likely avoid the fire and smoke plume during the day, it is conceivable that the light 

from the fire could interfere with nocturnal migration, especially during poor visibility conditions. It has 

been documented that seabirds are attracted to natural gas flares at rigs and platforms (Russell, 2005; 

Wiese et al., 2001); therefore, additional bird fatalities could result from the fire following the blowout. 

Though different species migrate throughout the year, the largest number of species migrates from March 

through November. A blowout during this time would cause a greater number of bird fatalities. While 

the number and species of birds killed depends on the blowout location and time of year, these initial 

fatalities would likely not result in population-level impacts for species present at the time of the blowout 

and resulting fire (Russell, 2005, Table 6.12). 

2.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat 

Depending on the type of blowout and the proximity of marine life to it (Table 1), an eruption of 

gases and fluids may generate not only a toxic effect but also pressure waves and noise significant enough 

to injure or kill local biota. Within a few thousand meters of the blowout, resuspended sediments may 

clog fish gills and interfere with respiration. Settlement of resuspended sediments may, in turn, smother 

invertebrates or interfere with their respiration. Offshore benthic habitats that support fisheries could also 

be impacted, as discussed below. 

2.2.2.3. Marine Mammals 

Depending on the type of blowout, the pressure waves and noise generated by the eruption of gases 

and fluids would likely be significant enough to harass, injure, or kill marine mammals, depending on the 

proximity of the animal to the blowout. A high concentration of response vessels could result in 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-7 

harassment or displacement of individuals and could place marine mammals at a greater risk of vessel 

collisions, which would likely cause fatal injuries. 

2.2.2.4. Sea Turtles 

Five species of sea turtles are found in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico: green, leatherback, 

hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and loggerhead. All species are protected under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), and all are listed as endangered except the loggerhead turtle, which is listed as threatened. 

Depending on the type of blowout (Table 1), an eruption of gases and fluids may generate significant 

pressure waves and noise that may harass, injure, or kill sea turtles, depending on their proximity to the 

accident. A high concentration of response vessels could place sea turtles at a greater risk of fatal injuries 

from vessel collisions. 

Further, mitigation by burning puts turtles at risk because they tend to be gathered up in the corralling 

process necessary to concentrate the oil in preparation for the burning. Trained observers should be 

required during any mitigation efforts that include burning. 

2.2.2.5. Offshore Benthic Habitats 

Gulf of Mexico benthic resources are divided into shelf habitats and deepwater habitats. Shelf 

habitats of the Gulf of Mexico include soft-bottom habitats (sandy and muddy substrate) and hard-bottom 

habitats (rock or salt outcroppings that provide habitat for encrusting organisms). Deepwater benthic 

communities of the Gulf of Mexico include soft-bottom, coral, and chemosynthetic habitats. The impacts 

to these benthic communities depend on the location and the type of catastrophic blowout that occurs. 

Introduction 

Sediment disturbance as a result of the blowout above the seafloor would not occur. A catastrophic 

blowout that occurs above the seabed (at the rig, along the riser between the seafloor and sea surface, or 

through leak paths on the BOP/wellhead) would result in released oil rising to the sea surface. However, 

if the leak is deep in the water column and the oil is ejected under pressure, oil droplets may become 

entrained deep in the water column. The upward movement of the oil may be reduced if methane in the 

oil is dissolved at the high underwater pressures, reducing the oil’s buoyancy (Adcroft et al., 2010). The 

large oil droplets will rise to the sea surface, but the smaller droplets, formed by vigorous turbulence in 

the plume or the injection of dispersants, may remain neutrally buoyant in the water column, creating a 

subsurface plume (Adcroft et al., 2010). Oil droplets less than 100 micrometers in diameter may remain 

in the water column for several months (Joint Analysis Group, 2010), where they will not be in contact 

with benthic habitats; similarly, large oil drops on the sea surface will not be in contact with benthos. 

However, oil in the water column or at the sea surface may sometimes sink, contact benthos, and have 

impacts, as discussed below. 

As discussed below, a catastrophic blowout outside the well casing and below the seafloor or at the 

seafloor water interface could resuspend large quantities of bottom sediments and create a large crater, 

destroying many organisms within a few hundred meters of the wellhead. Some of the sediment could 

travel up to a few thousand meters before redeposition, negatively impacting a localized area of benthic 

communities. 

The use of subsea dispersants would increase the exposure of offshore benthic habitats to dispersed 

oil droplets in the water column, as well as the chemicals used in the dispersants. The use of subsea 

dispersants is not likely to occur for seafloor blowouts outside the well casing. 

Soft-Bottom Shelf Habitats 

The vast majority of the Gulf of Mexico seabed is comprised of soft sediments. Microbes to 

metazoans (e.g., polychaete worms and crabs) inhabit the soft-bottom benthos, many forming the base of 

the food chain for several species. When soft-bottom infaunal communities are physically impacted by a 

blowout (either lost to the crater formation or smothered by sediment), recolonization by populations 

from neighboring soft-bottom substrate is expected within a relatively short period of time. Many of the 

organisms on soft bottoms live within the sediment and have the ability to migrate upward in response to 
B-8 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

burial by sedimentation. A blowout that occurs outside the well casing can rapidly deposit 30 cm (12 in) 

or more of sediment within a few hundred meters and may smother much of the soft-bottom community 

in a localized area. In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively impacted, 

recolonization by populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a relatively 

short period of time for all size ranges of organisms, in a matter of days for bacteria, and probably less 

than 1 year for most macrofauna and megafauna species. Recolonization could take longer for areas 

affected by direct contact of concentrated oil. Initial repopulation from nearby stocks of pioneering 

species, such as tube-dwelling polychaetes or oligochaetes, may begin with the next recruitment event 

(Rhodes and Germano, 1982). Full recovery would follow as later stages of successional communities 

overtake the pioneering species (Rhodes and Germano, 1982). The time it takes to reach a climax 

community may vary depending on the species and degree of impact. Full benthic community recovery 

may take years to decades if the benthic habitat is heavily oiled (Gesteira and Dauvin, 2000; Sanders et 

al., 1980; Conan, 1982). A slow recovery rate will result in a community with reduced biological 

diversity and possibly a lesser food value for predatory species. 

Hard-Bottom Shelf Habitats 

The Gulf of Mexico shelf has several hard-bottom features upon which encrusting and epibenthic 

organisms attach. Though there are varying degrees of relief on the hard bottom, the impacts from a 

catastrophic blowout are similar for the banks of varying relief because similar organisms occur on these 

features. Thus, they are discussed as a single grouping under “hard-bottom communities,” with 

references to specific communities where impacts may differ. 

Topographic features are isolated areas of moderate to high relief that provide habitat for hard-bottom 

communities of high biomass and moderate diversity. These features provide shelter and food for large 

numbers of commercially and recreationally important fish. There are 37 named topographic features in 

the Gulf of Mexico with specific BOEMRE protections, including the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary. The BOEMRE has created “No Activity Zones” around topographic features in order 

to protect these habitats from disruption due to oil and gas activities. A “No Activity Zone” is a 

protective perimeter drawn around each feature that is associated with a specific isobath (depth contour) 

surrounding the feature in which structures, drilling rigs, pipelines, and anchoring are not allowed. These 

“No Activity Zones” are areas where activity is prohibited based on BOEMRE policy. Notice to Lessees 

and Operators (NTL) 2009-G39 recommends that drilling should not occur within 152 m (500 ft) of a 

“No Activity Zone” of a topographic feature. 

The northeastern portion of the central Gulf of Mexico is a region of low to moderate relief known as 

the “Pinnacle Trend” at the outer edge of the Mississippi-Alabama shelf between the Mississippi River 

and De Soto Canyon. These outcrops provide hard substrate for sessile invertebrate attachment that 

attracts fish. The NTL 2009-G39 recommends that no bottom-disturbing activities occur within 30 m 

(100 ft) of any hard bottoms/pinnacles with a relief of 8 ft (2 m) or greater. 

Potentially sensitive biological features are features that have moderate to high relief (8 ft [2 m] or 

higher), provide hard surface for sessile invertebrates, attract fish, but are not located within Pinnacledesignated blocks or the “No Activity Zone” of topographic features. No bottom-disturbing activities that 

may cause impact to these features are permitted. 

Impacts that occur to hard-bottom shelf habitats as a result of a blowout would depend on the type of 

blowout, distance from the blowout, relief of the biological feature, and surrounding physical 

characteristics of the environment (e.g., turbidity). The NTL 2009-G39 recommends the use of buffers to 

prevent blowouts in the immediate vicinity of a hard-bottom habitat or its associated biota. Much of the 

oil released from a blowout would rise to the sea surface, therefore minimizing the impact to benthic 

communities by direct oil exposure. However, small droplets of oil that are entrained in the water column 

for extended periods of time may migrate into “No Activity Zones.” Although these small oil droplets 

will not sink themselves, they may attach to suspended particles in the water column and then be 

deposited on the seafloor (McAuliffe et al., 1975). These long-term impacts, such as reduced recruitment 

success, reduced growth, and reduced coral cover, as a result of impaired recruitment, are discussed in 

Section 3.2.2.6. Also, if the blowout were to occur beneath the seabed, suspension and subsequent 

deposition of disturbed sediment may smother localized areas of benthic communities, possibly including 

organisms within No Activity Zones or other hard-bottom substrate. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-9 

Benthic communities on a hard-bottom feature exposed to large amounts of resuspended and 

deposited sediments following a catastrophic, subsurface blowout could be subject to sediment 

suffocation, exposure to resuspended toxic contaminants, and reduced light availability. Impacts to corals 

as a result of sedimentation would vary based on coral species, the height to which the coral grows, 

degree of sedimentation, length of exposure, burial depth, and the coral’s ability to clear the sediment. 

Impacts may range from sublethal effects such as reduced growth, alteration in form, and reduced 

recruitment and productivity to slower growth to death (Rogers, 1990). 

The initial blowout impact would be greatest to communities located in clear waters that experience 

heavy sedimentation. Reef-building corals are sensitive to turbidity and may be killed by heavy 

sedimentation (Rogers, 1990; Rice and Hunter, 1992). However, it is unlikely that reef-building corals 

would experience heavy sedimentation as a result of a blowout because drilling activity would not be 

allowed near sensitive organisms in the “No Activity Zones,” based on the lease stipulations as described 

in NTL 2009-G39. The most sensitive organisms are also typically elevated above soft sediments, 

making them less likely to be buried. It is possible, however, for potentially sensitive biological features 

outside of “No Activity Zones” or Pinnacle-designated blocks to experience some turbidity or 

sedimentation impacts. Corals may also experience discoloration or bleaching as a result of sediment 

exposure, although recovery from such exposure may occur within 1 month (Wesseling et al., 1999). 

Initial impacts would be much less extreme in a turbid environment (Rogers, 1990). For example, the 

Pinnacle Trend community exists in a relatively turbid environment, starting just 65 km (40 mi) east of 

the mouth of the Mississippi River and trending to the northeast. Sediment from a blowout, if it occurred 

nearby, may have a reduced impact on these communities compared with an open-water reef community, 

as these organisms are more tolerant of suspended sediment (Gittings et al., 1992). Many of the 

organisms that predominate in this community also grow tall enough to withstand the sedimentation that 

results from their turbid environment or they have flexible structures that enable the passive removal of 

sediments (Gittings et al., 1992). 

A portion or the entire rig may sink to the seafloor as a result of a blowout. The benthic communities 

(hard- or soft-bottom communities) on the seafloor upon which the rig settles would be destroyed or 

smothered. A settling rig may suspend sediments, which may smother nearby benthic communities as the 

sediment is redeposited on the seafloor. The habitats beneath the rig may be permanently lost; however, 

the rig itself may become an artificial reef upon which epibenthic organisms may settle. The surrounding 

benthic communities that were smothered by sediment would repopulate from nearby stocks through 

spawning recruitment and immigration. 

Deepwater Habitats 

The effects of a catastrophic blowout event on Gulf of Mexico benthic resources in deep water 

(>1,000 ft; 300 m) are similar to those on the shelf communities. The main factors are the type of 

blowout and the proximity to the habitat. Known deepwater communities include soft bottoms and two 

types of hard-bottom communities: chemosynthetic communities and deep coral communities. Many of 

the organisms on soft bottoms live within the sediment and have the ability to migrate upward in response 

to burial by sedimentation. A blowout that occurs outside the well casing can rapidly deposit 30 cm 

(12 in) or more of sediment within a few hundred meters and may smother much of the soft-bottom 

community in a localized area. In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively 

impacted, recolonization by populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a 

relatively short period of time for all size ranges of organisms, in a matter of days for bacteria, and 

probably less than 1 year for most macrofauna and megafauna species. Recolonization could take longer 

for areas affected by direct contact of concentrated oil. 

The BOEMRE’s restrictions applicable to work near deepwater hard-bottom areas (as described in 

NTL 2009-G40) would prevent direct negative effects from a seafloor blowout. The established policy 

prohibits location of wells within 2,000 ft (610 m) of a suspected hard-bottom habitat. Geophysical 

analyses have achieved a high degree of reliability in detecting the potential presence of hard-bottom 

communities in the Gulf of Mexico. In rare instances, the subtle geophysical signatures of hydrocarbon 

seepage, conducive to the development of a chemosynthetic deepwater community development at the 

seabed that are a probable indicator of a community are not discovered during routine environmental 
B-10 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

analysis. Therefore, it is possible that a well could be drilled close enough for a hard-bottom community 

to be damaged in the event of a catastrophic blowout. 

Blowouts at points above the seafloor (in the riser or on the drill platform) would have little 

immediate effect on deepwater seafloor communities unless the structure sinks and physically impacts the 

seafloor. If a structure sank directly on a hard-bottom community, at least 2,000 ft (610 m) from the well, 

organisms could be crushed and smothered. 

2.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources 

2.2.3.1. Offshore Archaeological Resources 

The BOEMRE protects all known, discovered, and potentially historic and prehistoric archaeological 

resources on the OCS by requiring appropriate avoidance criteria as well as directives to investigate these 

resources. 

Onshore archaeological resources, prehistoric and historic sites, would not be immediately impacted 

during the initial phase of a catastrophic blowout because the distance of a blowout site from shore is at 

least 3 nautical miles. However, offshore catastrophic blowouts, when compared with spills of lesser 

magnitude, may initially impact multiple archaeological resources. Resources adjacent to a catastrophic 

blowout could be damaged by the high volume of escaping gas, buried by large amounts of dispersed 

sediments, crushed by the sinking of the rig or platform, destroyed during emergency relief well drilling, 

or contaminated by the hydrocarbons. 

Based on historical information, over 2,100 potential shipwreck locations have been identified in the 

Gulf of Mexico OCS (USDOI, MMS, 2007). This number is a conservative estimate and is heavily 

weighted toward post-19th century, nearshore shipwrecks, where historic records documenting the loss of 

the vessels were generated more consistently. Of the 2,100 recorded wrecks, only 233 records were 

determined to have associated spatial data possessing sufficient accuracy for BOEMRE’s needs. 

The inadequacy of data related to these historic ship losses creates uncertainty in determining how 

many shipwrecks might be located near existing or planned oil and gas wells. If undiscovered shipwrecks 

are adjacent to a catastrophic blowout, the potential for impacting these nonrenewable resources is high. 

However, the potential of a well being drilled close enough to damage or bury a known prehistoric or 

historic resource, such as a shipwreck, is low when archaeological surveys are required prior to any 

exploration or development activities. 

2.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing 

The initial explosion and fire could endanger commercial fishermen in the immediate vicinity of the 

blowout. Although commercial fishing vessels in the area would likely aid in initial search-and-rescue 

operations, the subsequent fire could burn for over a month, during which time commercial vessels would 

be expected to avoid the area so as to not interfere with response activities. This could impact the 

livelihood and income of these commercial fishermen. 

2.2.3.3. Recreational Resources and Fishing 

A substantial amount of recreational activity is associated in the immediate area around shallow water 

oil and gas structures because these structures function as artificial reefs, promote coral growth, and 

attract fish. About 20 percent of the recreational fishing activity and 90 percent of the recreational diving 

activity in the Gulf of Mexico occurs within 300 ft (91 m) of oil and gas structures (Hiett and Milon, 

2002). Therefore, an explosion and fire within 100 mi (161 km) of shore could endanger recreational 

fishermen and divers in the immediate vicinity of the blowout, especially if the blowout is located 

between water depths of 100 and 200 ft (30 and 61 m). Recreational vessels in the area would likely aid 

in initial search-and-rescue operations but would also be in danger during the explosion and subsequent 

fire. The subsequent fire could burn for more than a month, during which recreational vessels would be 

expected to avoid the area and not interfere with response activities. This will impact the income of 

recreational fishing and diving businesses. Also, if the fire and smoke is visible from recreational 

beaches, their recreational use may be impacted. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-11 

2.2.3.4. Human Resources, Land Use, and Environmental Justice 

Fatalities and serious injuries would likely occur during the initial explosion and/or fire. Due to the 

large number of people (>100) working on a deepwater drilling rig or platform, dozens of fatalities and 

serious injuries could occur. 

With the explosion >3 nautical miles from the shore and the likelihood that the resulting fire will burn 

for a short duration, the initial fire and/or explosion is not expected to impact land use, demographics, or 

economics, although some recreational beach use may be impacted (Section 2.2.2.3). Thus, the initial fire 

and explosion should not disproportionately affect low-income persons or minorities, and therefore, will 

not raise environmental justice concerns. 

3. OFFSHORE SPILL (PHASE 2) 

3.1. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

Phase 2 of the analysis focuses on the spill and response in Federal and State offshore waters. 

3.1.1. Duration of Spill 

The duration of the offshore spill from a blowout depends on the time needed for intervention and the 

time the remaining oil persists offshore. If a blowout occurs and the damaged surface facilities preclude 

well reentry operations, a relief well may be needed to regain control. The time required to drill the relief 

well depends on the complexity of the intervention, the location of a suitable rig, the type of operation 

that must be terminated to release the rig (e.g., casing may need to be run before releasing the rig), and 

problems mobilizing personnel and equipment to the location. A blown-out well may also be 

successfully capped prior to completion of relief wells, as occurred in the Deepwater Horizon event. 

Assuming the duration of previous spills including the Deepwater Horizon and the type of oil and water 

temperatures found in the Gulf of Mexico, the majority of visibly spilled oil on the surface of the water 

would not persist more than 30 days after the oil flow stopped (Inter-agency, 2010a). 

3.1.1.1. Shallow Water 

If a blowout occurs in shallow water, the entire intervention effort including drilling relief wells could 

take 1-3 months. This includes 1-3 weeks to transport the drilling rig to the well site. Spilled surface oil 

is not expected to persist more than 1 month after the flow is stopped. Therefore, the estimated spill 

duration resulting from a shallow water blowout is 2-4 months. 

3.1.1.2. Deep Water 

If a blowout occurs in deep water, the entire intervention effort including drilling relief wells could 

take 3-4 months (USDOI, MMS, 2000; Regg, 2000). This includes 2-4 weeks to transport the drilling rig 

to the well site. Spilled surface oil is not expected to persist more than 1 month after the flow is stopped. 

Therefore, the estimated spill duration from a deep water blowout is 4-5 months. 

3.1.2. Area of Spill 

When oil reaches the sea surface, it spreads. The speed and extent of spreading depends on the type 

and volume that is spilled. However, a catastrophic spill would likely spread hundreds of square miles. 

Also, the oil slick may break into several smaller slicks, depending on local wind patterns that drive the 

surface currents in the spill area. 

3.1.3. Volume of Spill 

For this analysis, a higher flow rate is assumed for a blowout in deep water for the following reasons. 

After 50 years of Gulf of Mexico development, most, if not all, of the largest shallow-water prospects 

have been developed. As a result, reservoir pressures in shallow water are generally reduced. Although 
B-12 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

under certain conditions oil may be present with the natural gas, deeper shelf wells target natural gas. 

Also, because deepwater development is costly, only larger prospects with higher flow rates are currently 

targeted for exploration. 

3.1.3.1. Shallow Water 

For this analysis, an uncontrolled flow rate of 30,000 barrels per day is assumed for a catastrophic 

blowout in shallow water. This assumption is based upon the results of well tests in shallow water (see 

Section 3.1.3 above) and the maximum flow rate from the 1979 Ixtoc blowout, which occurred in shallow 

water. Using this flow rate, the total volume of oil spilled from a catastrophic blowout in shallow water is 

estimated at 900,000 to 3 million barrels for a spill lasting 1-3 months. In addition to the flow rate, it is 

assumed that any remaining diesel fuel from a sunken drilling rig would also leak. 

3.1.3.2. Deep Water 

For the purposes of this analysis, an uncontrolled flow rate of 30,000-60,000 barrels per day is 

assumed for a catastrophic blowout in deep water. This flow rate is based on the assumption in Section 

3.1.3 above, well test results, and the maximum expected flow rate of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon event, 

which occurred in deep water. Therefore, total volume of oil spilled is estimated to be 2.7-7.2 million 

barrels over 3-4 months. In addition, deepwater drilling rigs hold a large amount of diesel fuel (10,000-

20,000 barrels). Therefore, it is assumed that any remaining diesel fuel from a sunken drilling rig would 

also leak and add to the spill. 

3.1.4. Oil in the Environment: Properties and Persistence 

The fate of oil in the environment depends on many factors, such as the source and composition of the 

oil, as well as its persistence (NRC, 2003). Persistence can be defined and measured in different ways 

(Davis et al., 2004), but the National Research Council (NRC) generally defines persistence as how long 

oil remains in the environment (NRC, 2003; p. 89). Once oil enters the environment, it begins to change 

through physical, chemical, and biological weathering processes (NRC, 2003). These processes may 

interact and affect the properties and persistence of the oil through 

 evaporation (volatilization), 

 emulsification (the formation of a mousse), 

 dissolution, 

 oxidation, and 

 transport processes (NRC, 2003; Scholz et al., 1999). 

Horizontal transport takes place via spreading, advection, dispersion, and entrainment while vertical 

transport takes place via dispersion, entrainment, Langmuir circulation, sinking, overwashing, 

partitioning, and sedimentation (NRC, 2003). The persistence of an oil slick is influenced by the 

effectiveness of oil-spill response efforts and affects the resources needed for oil recovery (Davis et al., 

2004). The persistence of an oil slick may also affect the severity of environmental impacts as a result of 

the spilled oil. 

Crude oils are not a single chemical, but instead are complex mixtures with varied compositions. 

Thus, the behavior of the oil and the risk the oil poses to natural resources depends on the composition of 

the specific oil encountered (Michel, 1992). Generally, oils can be divided into three groups of 

compounds: (1) light-weight; (2) medium-weight; and (3) heavy-weight components. On average, these 

groups are characterized as outlined below in Table 2. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-13 

Table 2 

 

Properties and Persistence by Oil Component Group 

Properties and 

Persistence Light-Weight Medium-Weight Heavy-Weight 

Hydrocarbon 

compounds 

Up to 10 carbon atoms 10-22 carbon atoms >20 carbon atoms 

API o >31.1 o 31.1o-22.3 o <22.3 o 

Evaporation rate Rapid (within 1 day) 

and complete 

Up to several days; not 

complete at ambient 

temperatures 

Negligible 

Solubility in water High Low (at most a few mg/L) Negligible 

Acute toxicity High due to 

monoaromatic 

hydrocarbons (BTEX) 

Moderate due to diaromatic 

hydrocarbons (naphthalenes 

– 2 ring PAH’s) 

Low except due to 

smothering (i.e., heavier oils 

may sink) 

Chronic toxicity None, does not persist 

due to evaporation 

PAH components (e.g., 

naphthalenes – 2 ring 

PAH’s) 

PAH components (e.g., 

phenanthrene, anthracene – 

3 ring PAH’s) 

Bioaccumulation 

potential 

None, does not persist 

due to evaporation 

Moderate Low, may bioaccumulate 

through sediment sorption 

Compositional 

majority 

Alkanes and 

cycloalkanes 

Alkanes that are readily 

degraded (specify, as done 

for others) 

Waxes, asphaltenes, and 

polar compounds (not 

significantly bioavailable or 

toxic) 

Persistence Low due to evaporation Alkanes readily degrade, but 

the diaromatic hydrocarbons 

are more persistent 

High; very low degradation 

rates and can persist in 

sediments as tarballs or 

asphalt pavements 

Sources: Michel, 1992; Canadian Center for Energy Information, 2010. 

Of the oil reservoirs sampled in the Gulf of Mexico OCS, the majority fall within the light-weight 

category, while less than one quarter are considered medium-weight and a small portion are considered 

heavy-weight. Oil with an API gravity of 10.0 or less would sink and has not been encountered in the 

Gulf of Mexico OCS and, therefore, it is not analyzed in this paper (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010c).

Heavy-weight oil may persist in the environment longer than the other two types of oil, but the 

medium-weight components within oil present the greatest risks to organisms because, with the exception 

of the alkanes, these medium-weight components are persistent, bioavailable, and toxic (Michel, 1992). 

Previous studies (e.g., Johansen et al., 2001) supported the theory that most, if not all, released oil 

would reach the surface of the water column. However, data and observations from the Deepwater 

Horizon event challenge that theory. While analyses are in their preliminary stages, it appears that 

measurable amounts of hydrocarbons (dispersed or otherwise) are being detected in the water column as 

subsurface “plumes” and on the seafloor in the vicinity of the release. While not all of these 

hydrocarbons have been definitively traced back to releases from the Macondo well (Deepwater Horizon

event), these early measurements and results warrant a reassessment of previous theories of the ultimate 

fate of hydrocarbons from unintended subsurface releases. It is important to note that the North Sea 

experiment (Johansen et al., 2001) did not include the use of dispersants at or near the source of the 

subsea oil discharge. 

3.1.5. Release of Natural Gas 

The quality and quantity of components in natural gas vary widely by the field, reservoir, or location 

from which the natural gas is produced. Although there is not a “typical” makeup of natural gas, it is 

primarily composed of methane (NaturalGas.org, 2010). 
B-14 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

3.1.6. Offshore Cleanup Activities 

As demonstrated by the Ixtoc and Deepwater Horizon spill responses, a large-scale response effort is 

certain to follow a catastrophic blowout. The number of vessels and responders would increase 

exponentially as the spill continued. 

3.1.6.1. Shallow Water 

Within the first week of an oil spill originating in shallow water, 25 vessels are estimated to respond, 

which would steadily increase to over 3,000 by the end of the spill. This includes about 25 skimmers in 

the vicinity of the well at a time. In addition, recovered oil may be barged to shore from recovery vessels. 

Within the first week, over 500 responders are estimated to be deployed to a spill originating in 

shallow water, which would steadily increase up to 25,000 before the well is capped or killed within 2-4 

months. 

Response to an oil spill in shallow water is expected to involve over 10,000 ft (3,048 m) of boom 

within the first week and would steadily increase up to 5 million feet (950 mi; 1,520 km) for use offshore 

and nearshore, the amount dependent upon the location of the potentially impacted shoreline, 

environmental considerations, and agreed upon protection strategies involving the local potentially 

impacted communities. 

Up to 25 planes and 50 helicopters are estimated to respond per day by the end of a shallow-water 

spill. 

Along the Gulf Coast, dispersants are preapproved for use greater than 3 nautical miles from shore 

and in water depths greater than 33 ft (10 m), with the exception of Florida where the water depth must be 

65 ft (20 m) (USDOT, CG, 2010). However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is 

presently examining these preapprovals, and restrictions are anticipated regarding the future use of 

dispersants for ongoing spills as a result. Changes to the dispersant use preapprovals would be expected 

to limit this use in the future. Under the preapprovals, it is estimated that up to a total of 35,000 barrels of 

dispersant would be used.1

 Aerial dispersants would likely be applied from airplanes as a mist, which 

settles on the oil on the water’s surface. In addition to dispersants, controlled burns may also occur. 

3.1.6.2. Deep Water 

Within the first week of oil spill originating in deep water, 50 vessels are estimated to respond, which 

would steadily increase to over 7,000 by the end of the spill. This includes about 25 skimmers in the 

vicinity of the well at a time. In addition, recovered oil may be shuttle tankered to shore from recovery 

vessels. 

For an oil spill in deep water, over 1,000 responders are estimated to be deployed within the first 

week, which would steadily increase up to 50,000 before capping or killing the well within 4-5 months. 

Over 20,000 ft (6,096 m) of boom is estimated to be deployed within the first week of a deepwater 

spill, which would steadily increase up to 11 million feet (2,100 mi; 3,350 km) offshore and nearshore, 

the amount dependent upon the location of the potentially impacted shoreline, environmental 

considerations, and agreed upon protection strategies involving the local potentially impacted 

communities. 

Up to 50 planes and 100 helicopters are estimated to respond per day by the end of a deepwater spill. 

With the exception of special Federal management areas or designated exclusion areas, dispersants 

have been preapproved in the vicinity of a deepwater blowout (USDOT, CG, 2010). ). However, USEPA 

is presently examining these preapprovals, and restrictions are anticipated regarding the future use of 

dispersants as a result. Under preexisting preapprovals, it is estimated that up to 50,000 barrels of 

dispersant could be applied (2/3 on the water surface and 1/3 subsurface, if possible). Changes to the 

dispersant use preapprovals would be expected to limit this use. No preapproval presently exists for the 

use of subsea dispersants, and approval must be obtained before each use of this technology. The use of 

subsea dispersants depends on the location of the blowout, as discussed in Table 1. Aerial dispersants are 

 

1 At the Ixtoc-I well blowout in 1979, between 1 million and 2.5 million gallons of mostly Corexit dispersant 

products were applied over a 5-month period on the oil discharge. However, this scenario assumes a spill from a 

blowout in shallow water would last up to 3 months. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-15 

applied from airplanes as a mist, which settles on the oil on the water’s surface. In addition to 

dispersants, it is estimated that 5-10 controlled burns would be conducted per day in suitable weather. 

About 500 burns in all would remove 5-10 percent of the oil. 

3.1.6.3. Vessel Decontamination Stations 

To avoid contaminating inland waterways, multiple vessel decontamination stations may be 

established offshore in Federal and State waters. Vessels responding to the spill and commercial and 

recreational vessels passing through the spill would anchor, awaiting inspection. If decontamination is 

required, work boats would use fire hoses to clean oil from the sides of the vessels. This could result in 

some oiling of otherwise uncontaminated waters. While these anchorage areas would be surveyed for 

buried pipelines that could be ruptured by ship anchors, they may not be surveyed adequately for benthic 

communities or archaeological sites. Therefore, some damage to benthic communities or archaeological 

sites may occur due to vessel decontamination activities associated with an oil spill in deep water 

(Alabama State Port Authority, 2010; State of Florida, Office of the Governor, 2010; Nodar, 2010; 

Unified Incident Command, 2010a-c; USDOC, NOAA, 2010a; USEPA, 2010a).

3.1.7. Severe Weather 

A hurricane could accelerate biodegradation, increase the area affected by the spill, and/or slow the 

response effort. The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1st through November 30th, peaking in 

September. In an average Atlantic season, there are 11 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 Category 3 or 

higher storms (USDOC, NOAA, National Weather Service, 2010a). As a result of a hurricane, high 

winds and seas would mix and “weather” the oil from an oil spill. This can help accelerate the 

biodegradation process (USDOC, NOAA, National Weather Service, 2010b). The high winds may 

distribute oil over a wider area (USDOC, NOAA, National Weather Center, 2010b). In the event of a 

hurricane, vessels would evacuate the area, delaying response efforts, including the drilling of relief wells 

and any well capping or collection efforts. 

3.2. MOST LIKELY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The most recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 

identify in detail the potential impacts from reasonably foreseeable oil spills (USDOI, MMS, 2007 and 

2008). In addition to the impacts described in those documents, the most likely and most significant 

impacts due to the magnitude of shoreline oil as a result of a catastrophic spill are described below. 

3.2.1. Physical Resources 

3.2.1.1. Air Quality 

In the Gulf of Mexico, evaporation from the oil spill would result in concentrations of VOC’s in the 

atmosphere, including chemicals that are classified as being hazardous. The VOC concentrations would 

occur anywhere where there is an oil slick, but they would be highest at the source of the spill because the 

rate of evaporation depends on the volume of oil present at the surface. The VOC concentrations would 

decrease with distance as the layer of oil gets thinner. The lighter fractions of VOC’s would be most 

abundant in the immediate vicinity of the spill site. The heavier compounds would be emitted over a 

longer period of time and over a larger area. Some of the compounds emitted could be hazardous to 

workers in close vicinity of the spill site. The hazard to workers can be reduced by monitoring and using 

protective gear, including respirators, as well as limiting exposure through limited work shifts, rotating 

workers out of high exposure areas, and pointing vessels into the wind. During the Deepwater Horizon

event, air samples collected by individual offshore workers of British Petroleum (BP), the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and U.S. Coast Guard showed levels of benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene, and xylene that were mostly under detection levels. All samples had concentrations below 

the OSHA Occupational permissible exposure limits and the more stringent ACGIH (American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists) threshold limit values (U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, 

2010a). 
B-16 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

The VOC emissions that result from the evaporation of oil contribute to the formation of particulate 

matter (PM2.5) in the atmosphere. In addition, VOC’s could cause an increase in ozone levels, especially 

if the release were to occur on a hot, sunny day with sufficient concentrations of NOx present in the lower 

atmosphere. However, due to the distance from shore, the oil slick would not normally have any effects 

on onshore ozone concentrations. 

It is assumed that response efforts would include hundreds of in-situ or controlled burns, which would 

remove an estimated 5-10 percent of the volume of oil spilled. This could be as much as 720,000 barrels 

of oil for a spill of 60,000 barrels per day for 120 days. In-situ burning would result in ambient 

concentrations of CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 very near the site of the burn and would generate a 

plume of black smoke. The levels of PM2.5 could be a hazard to personnel working in the area, but this 

could be effectively mitigated through monitoring and relocating vessels to avoid areas of highest 

concentrations. In an experiment of an in-situ burn off Newfoundland, it was found that CO, SO2, and 

NO2 were measured only at background levels and were frequently below detection levels (Fingas et al., 

1995). Limited amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were measured, but concentrations were 

close to background levels. Measured values of dioxins and dibenzofurans were at background levels. 

Measurements of PAH in the crude oil, the residues, and the air indicated that the PAH in the crude oil are 

largely destroyed during combustion (Fingas et al., 1995). 

While containment operations may be successful in capturing some of the escaping oil and gas, 

recovery vessels may not be capable of storing the crude oil or may not have sufficient storage capacity. 

In this case, excess oil would be burned; captured gas cannot be stored or piped to shore so it would be 

flared. For example, in the Deepwater Horizon event, gas was flared at the rate of 100-200 million cubic 

feet per day and oil burned at the rate of 10,000-15,000 barrels per day. The estimated NOx emissions are 

about 13 tons per day. The SO2 emissions would be dependent on the sulfur content of the crude oil. For 

crude oil with a sulfur content of 0.5 percent, the estimated SO2 emissions are about 16 tons per day. 

Particulate matter in the plume would also affect visibility. Flaring or burning activities upwind of a PSD 

Class I area, e.g., the Breton National Wilderness Area, could be adversely affected due to SO2

concentrations and reduced visibility. 

3.2.1.2. Offshore Water Quality 

The water offshore of the Gulf’s coasts can be divided into two regions: the continental shelf and 

slope (<1,000 ft; 305 m) and deep water (>1,000 ft; 305 m). Waters on the continental shelf and slope are 

heavily influenced by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers, the primary sources of freshwater, 

sediment, nutrients, and pollutants from a huge drainage basin encompassing 55 percent of the continental 

U.S. (Murray, 1998). Lower salinities are characteristic nearshore where freshwater from the rivers mix 

with Gulf waters. The presence or extent of a nepheloid layer, a body of suspended sediment at the sea 

bottom (Kennett, 1982; p. 524), affects water quality on the shelf and slope. Deep waters east of the 

Mississippi River are affected by the Loop Current and associated warm-core (anti-cyclonic) eddies, 

which flush the area with clear, low-nutrient water (Muller-Karger et al., 2001). However, cold-core 

cyclonic eddies (counter-clockwise rotating) also form at the edge of the Loop Current and are associated 

with upwelling and nutrient-rich, high-productivity waters, although the extent of this flushing can vary 

seasonally. 

While response efforts would decrease the fraction of oil remaining in Gulf waters, significant 

amounts of oil would remain (Inter-agency, 2010c). Natural processes will physically, chemically, and 

biologically aid the degradation of oil (NRC, 2003). The physical processes involved include 

evaporation, emulsification, and dissolution, while the primary chemical and biological degradation 

processes include photooxidation and biodegradation (i.e., microbial oxidation). Water quality would not 

only be impacted by the oil, gas, and their respective components but also to some degree from cleanup 

and mitigation efforts, such as from increased vessel traffic and the addition of dispersants and methanol 

to the marine environment. 

In the case of a catastrophic subsea blowout in deep water, it is assumed that large quantities of 

subsea dispersants would be used. As a result, clouds or plumes of dispersed oil may occur near the 

blowout site. Reports thus far from the Deepwater Horizon event have found such plumes and have 

shown that the concentrations of these clouds decrease to undetectable levels within a few miles of the 

source (USDOC, NOAA, 2010b). Additional reporting in the coming months will enhance the 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-17 

understanding of the effects of subsurface plumes. Dissolved oxygen levels are a concern with any 

release of a carbon source, and these levels became a particular concern during the Deepwater Horizon

event, since dispersants were used in deep waters for the first time. Thus, USEPA required monitoring 

protocols in order to use subsea dispersants (USDOC, NOAA, 2010c). In areas where plumes of 

dispersed oil were previously found, dissolved oxygen levels decreased by about 20 percent from longterm average values in the Gulf of Mexico; however, scientists reported that these levels have stabilized 

and are not low enough to be considered hypoxic (USDOC, NOAA, 2010d). The temporary decrease in 

oxygen content has been attributed to microbial degradation of the oil. Over time, as the oil continues to 

be degraded and diffuses, hypoxia becomes less of a concern. As reported for the Deepwater Horizon

event, dissolved oxygen levels would likely remain above levels of immediate concern, but there would 

still be a need to monitor dissolved oxygen levels over time. 

Toxicity of dispersed oil in the environment would depend on many factors, including the 

effectiveness of the dispersion, temperature, salinity, degree of weathering, type of dispersant, and degree 

of light penetration in the water column (NRC, 2005). The toxicity of dispersed oil is primarily due to the 

toxic components of the oil itself (Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2010). 

3.2.2. Biological Resources 

The most recent EIS prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico detail 

potential localized impacts to specific species from reasonably foreseeable oil spills. However, a 

catastrophic event, such as a high-volume, extended-duration spill resulting from a blowout, has the 

potential to cause population-level impacts. Multiple Federal and State-listed, threatened and endangered 

species could be impacted from an extended offshore spill (USDOI, FWS, 2010a and 2010b). 

3.2.2.1. Marine and Migratory Birds 

During Phase 2 of a catastrophic spill, the primary concern for marine and migratory birds would be 

their vulnerability to oiling or ingesting oil, which is related to their behavior. Wading birds (e.g., herons, 

egrets, etc.) and species that feed by plunge-diving into the water to catch small fish (e.g., pelicans, 

gannets, terns, gulls, and pelagic birds) and those that use water as a primary means of locomotion, 

foraging, or resting and preening (e.g., diving ducks, cormorants, pelicans, etc.) are highly vulnerable to 

becoming oiled and also to ingesting oil, as are black skimmers. These birds tend to feed and concentrate 

in convergence zones, places in the ocean where strong opposing currents meet. In addition to 

concentrating prey, these zones also aggregate oil (Unified Incident Command, 2010d). Oiling interferes 

with the birds’ ability to fly (thus to obtain food) and compromises the insulative characteristics of down 

and contour feathers making it difficult to maintain body heat. Attempts by the birds to remove the oil by 

preening causes oiled birds to ingest oil and may result in mortality. 

3.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat 

Early life stages of animals are usually more sensitive to oil than adults (Boesch and Rabalais, 1987; 

NRC, 2005). Weathered crude oil has been shown in laboratory experiments to cause malformation, 

genetic damage, and even mortality at low levels in fish embryos of Pacific herring (Carls et al., 1999). 

There is a high probability of mortality for the eggs and larvae of Gulf fishes that come in contact with 

spilled oil. 

Adult fish may be less at risk than earlier life stages in part because they are less likely to concentrate 

at the surface and may avoid contact with floating oil. There were, however, sightings of whale sharks 

(which are defined as “threatened” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature) swimming 

among slicks from the Deepwater Horizon spill. They were not visibly oiled, but there was concern that 

they could be affected because they are surface feeders (Howell, 2010). Effects of oil on organisms can 

include direct lethal toxicity, sublethal disruption of physiological processes (internal lesions), effects of 

direct coating by oil (suffocation by coating gills), incorporation of hydrocarbons in organisms causing 

tainting or accumulation in the food chain, and changes in biological habitat (decreased dissolved oxygen) 

(Moore and Dwyer, 1974). 

Because natural crude oil found in the Gulf of Mexico would generally float on the surface, fish 

species whose eggs and larvae are found at or near the water surface are most at risk from an offshore 
B-18 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

spill. Species whose spawning periods coincide with the timing of the highest oil concentrations would 

be at greatest risk. If there is a subsea catastrophic blowout, it is assumed dispersants would be used. 

Then there could be effects on multiple life history stages and trophic levels. There is limited knowledge 

of the toxicity of dispersants mixed with oil to specific species or life stages of ichthyoplankton, and the 

likely extent of mortality due to the combination of factors is difficult to determine. The combined toxic 

effects of the oil and any dispersants that may be used may not be apparent unless a significant portion of 

a year-class is absent from next year’s fishery (e.g., shrimps, crabs, snapper, and tuna). 

Recent studies by USEPA using representative species provide some indication of the relative toxicity 

of Louisiana sweet crude oil, dispersants, and oil/dispersant mixes. Bioassays were conducted using two 

Gulf species—a mysid shrimp (Amercamysis bahia) and a small estuarine fish, the inland silverside 

(Menidia beryllinina)—to evaluate the acute toxic effects of oil, eight dispersants, and oil/dispersant 

mixtures. In addition, USEPA used standard in vitro techniques using the same dispersants to (1) 

evaluate acute toxicity on three cell lines over a range of concentrations and (2) evaluate effects of these 

dispersants on androgen and estrogen function using human cell lines (to see if they are likely to disrupt 

hormonal systems). All dispersants showed cytotoxicity in at least one cell type at concentrations 

between 10 and 110 parts per million (ppm). Results of the in vitro toxicity tests were similar to the 

whole animal tests, showing generally low dispersant toxicity. Lethal concentration (LC50) values (the 

concentration at which half of the test subjects die) were lower than the cell-based assays. For all eight 

dispersants, for both species, the dispersants alone were less toxic than the dispersant/oil mixture. 

Louisiana sweet crude oil alone was determined to be more toxic to both the silverside fish and the mysid 

shrimp than the dispersants alone. The results of the testing for disruption of androgen and estrogen 

function indicate that the dispersants do not show biologically significant endocrine activity via androgen 

or estrogen pathways (USEPA, Office of Research and Development, 2010a and 2010b). 

The North Atlantic bluefin tuna is an example of a fish/fishery in the Gulf of Mexico that could be at 

risk to lose a year-class. It has a relatively narrow peak spawning period in April and May and floating 

eggs. A catastrophic blowout during the spring season could cause a negative effect to this population. 

The Gulf of Mexico is one of only two documented spawning grounds for the Atlantic bluefin tuna; the 

other is in the Mediterranean Sea. Spawning is clustered in a specific type of habitat along the continental 

slope. Bluefin tuna are among the most valuable fish in global markets. The International Commission 

for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ScienceDaily, 2010) currently manages the Atlantic bluefin tuna 

as two distinct populations, with western Atlantic spawners of the Gulf of Mexico forming a population 

genetically distinct from the eastern spawners of the Mediterranean Sea. The western Atlantic stock has 

suffered, and a significant and a long-term rebuilding plan has failed to revive the population or the 

fishery. The failure of the Gulf of Mexico spawning population to rebuild and the scope of illegal and 

under-reported catches are of such concern that the species was considered for Appendix 1 listing (most 

endangered status) by the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in March 

2010. However, NOAA recently (May 27, 2011) declared that Atlantic bluefin tuna do not warrant 

species protection under the ESA. 

A catastrophic deepwater spill could release natural gases with methane as the primary component 

(NaturalGas.org, 2010) into the water column, but little is known about the effects of elevated methane 

levels on fish. Patin (1999) studied the elevated concentrations of methane resulting from a gas blowout 

from drilling platforms in the Sea of Asov on fish. The pathological changes reported were species 

specific and included damages to cell membranes, organs, and tissues; modifications of protein synthesis; 

and other anomalies typical for acute poisoning of fish. These impacts, however, were observed at levels 

of 4-6 milligrams/liter of methane near the accident well. The full effect of elevated methane levels on 

Gulf of Mexico fishes is currently unknown. 

3.2.2.3. Marine Mammals 

An oil spill and related spill-response activities can impact marine mammals that come into contact 

with oil and remediation efforts. The marine mammals’ exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea 

may result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, longevity, and increased 

vulnerability to disease), some soft tissue irritation, respiratory stress from inhalation of toxic fumes, food 

reduction or contamination, direct ingestion of oil and/or tar, and temporary displacement from preferred 

habitats or migration routes. More detail on the potential range of effects to marine mammals from 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-19 

contact with spilled oil can be found in Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). The best available information does 

not provide a complete understanding of the effects of the spilled oil and active response/cleanup 

activities on marine mammals. For example, it is expected that the large amount of chemical dispersants 

being used on the oil may act as an irritant on the marine mammals’ tissues and sensitive membranes. 

The increased human presence after an oil spill (e.g., vessels) would likely add to changes in behavior 

and/or distribution, thereby potentially stressing marine mammals further and perhaps making them more 

vulnerable to various physiologic and toxic effects. In addition, the large number of response vessels 

could place marine mammals at a greater risk of vessel collisions, which could cause fatal injuries. 

The potential biological removal (PBR) level is defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population. However, in the Gulf of Mexico, many marine mammal species have either entirely unknown 

PBR’s or population size estimates that are more than 8 years old and therefore considered unknown. The 

biological significance of any injury or mortality would depend, in part, on the size and reproductive rates 

of the affected stocks, as well as the number, age, and size of the marine mammals affected. 

According to the Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection Reports from the Deepwater Horizon

event, 170 marine mammals have been collected (13 alive, 157 deceased as of April 20, 2011). Due to 

known low detection rates of carcasses, it is possible that the number of deaths of marine mammals is 

underestimated (Williams et al., 2011). The mortality estimates from the Deepwater Horizon event are 

just an example of the potential losses due to a high-volume oil spill. It is also important to note that 

evaluations have not yet confirmed the cause of death, and it is possible that not all carcasses were related 

to the Deepwater Horizon event. Thus, a high-volume oil spill lasting 120 days could directly impact as 

many individuals or more. The majority would likely be coastal or estuarine bottlenose dolphins, as was 

the case with the Deepwater Horizon event. This number represents only those marine mammals 

collected (either dead or alive) and does not address all potential impacts to the population. Based on 

these data, it is reasonable to assume that a catastrophic oil spill lasting up to 120 days could have 

population-level effects on many species of marine mammals (e.g., sperm whales, Bryde’s whales, etc.). 

3.2.2.4. Sea Turtles 

Sea turtles are more likely to be affected by a catastrophic spill in shallow water than in deep water 

because not all sea turtles occupy a deepwater habitat. For example, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are 

unlikely to be in water depths of 160 ft (49 m) or greater. Hawksbill sea turtles are commonly associated 

with coral reefs, ledges, caves, rocky outcrops, and high energy shoals. Green sea turtles are commonly 

found in coastal benthic feeding grounds, although they may also be found in the convergence zones of 

the open ocean. Convergence zones are areas that also may collect oil. Leatherback sea turtles are 

commonly pelagic and are the sea turtle species most likely to be affected by a deepwater oil spill. As the 

spilled oil moves toward land, additional species of sea turtles are more likely to be affected. 

Based on the Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection Reports from the Deepwater Horizon event, 

a few to over two dozen sea turtles could be impacted daily through oiling and/or collection. According 

to the Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection Report, after the Deepwater Horizon event, 1,149 sea 

turtles have been collected (536 alive, 613 deceased as of April 20, 2011). These mortality estimates 

from the Deepwater Horizon event are just an example of the potential losses due to a high-volume oil 

spill. It is also important to note that evaluations have not yet confirmed the cause of death, and it is 

possible that not all carcasses were related to the Deepwater Horizon event. A high-volume oil spill 

lasting 120 days could impact greater than 1,000 sea turtles, and the majority could be Kemp’s ridley 

turtles, which are listed as endangered under the ESA (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010a; Unified Incident 

Command, 2010e). In addition, the large number of response vessels could place sea turtles at a greater 

risk of vessel collisions, which could cause fatal injuries. 

3.2.2.5. Offshore Habitats 

Sargassum mats, which are mats made from a free-floating seaweed, provide habitat for juvenile sea 

turtles and developing invertebrates, spawning sites for hundreds of fish species, and feeding sources for 

manatees. “In offshore waters, both free-floating patches of Sargassum seaweed and spilled oil tend to 

accumulate in convergence zones, places in the ocean where strong opposing currents meet. Sea turtles, 
B-20 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

especially juveniles, use these areas for food and cover. Burn operations sometime occur there because of 

the aggregated oil” (Unified Incident Command, 2010d). Benthic resources are discussed below. 

Open-water organisms, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton, are essential to the marine food web. 

They play an important role in regulating climate, contribute to marine snow, and are an important source 

of nutrients for mesopelagic and benthic habitats. An offshore oil spill would not only have an impact on 

these populations but also on the species that depend on them. The microbial community can also be 

affected by an offshore oil spill. The microbial loop is an essential part of the marine ecosystem. 

Changes in the microbial community due to an oil spill could have significant impacts on the rest of the 

marine ecosystem. 

However, several laboratory and field experiments and observations have shown that impacts to 

planktonic and marine microbial populations are generally short lived and do not affect all groups evenly, 

and in some cases stimulate growth of important species (Gonzalez et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2010; 

Hing et al., 2011). A study by Widger et al. (2011) does not support an argument of lasting effects due to 

the Deepwater Horizon spill on coastal microbial communities and pathogens. The study had only one 

pre-spill and one during-spill-time point each, with no post-spill component to monitor trends. Further, 

the pathogens noted are commonly found in coastal waters after significant rain events and occur as a 

result of untreated freshwater reaching the coast (Stumpf et al., 2010; Wetz et al., 2008; Hsieh et al., 

2007). The study does not address the potential that the increase in microbial pathogens are a result of 

storm-water runoff, and it does not address if there was a significant rain event upstream, which could 

have carried these terrestrial derived pathogens to the coastal zone. 

3.2.2.6. Continental Shelf Benthic Resources 

A spill from a shallow-water blowout could impact benthic communities on the continental shelf due 

to the blowout’s proximity to these habitats. A spill from a deepwater blowout could also impact shelf 

communities if oil that was chemically dispersed at the seafloor is transported to these areas. 

Soft-Bottom Benthic Communities 

Soft-bottom infaunal communities that come into direct contact with oil or dispersed oil may 

experience sublethal and/or lethal effects. Localized areas of lethal effects would be recolonized by 

populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate once the oil in the sediment has been sufficiently 

reduced to a level able to support marine life (Sanders et al., 1980). This initial recolonization process 

may be fairly rapid, but full recovery may take up to 10 years depending on the species present, substrate 

in the area, toxicity of oil spilled, concentration and dispersion of oil spilled, and other localized 

environmental factors that may affect recruitment (Kingston et al., 1995; Gesteira and Dauvin, 2000; 

Sanders et al., 1980; Conan, 1982). Opportunistic species would take advantage of the barren sediment, 

repopulating impacted areas first. These species may occur within the first recruitment cycle of the 

surrounding populations or from species immigration from surrounding stocks and may maintain a 

stronghold in the area until community succession begins (Rhodes and Germano, 1982; Sanders et al., 

1980). 

Long-term or low-level exposure may occur to benthic infauna as a result of oil adhering to sediment. 

Mesocosm experiments using long-term, low-level concentrations of No. 2 fuel oil indicate acute toxicity 

to meiofauna due to direct oil contact and sublethal effects from sedimented oil and byproducts of the 

decomposition of the sedimented oil (Frithsen et al., 1985). Long-term exposure to low levels of fuel oil 

was shown to affect recruitment success; meiofaunal population recovery took between 2 and 7 months 

(Frithsen et al., 1985). Oil entrained within sediments at the seafloor could create a layer toxic to infaunal 

species. This layer will persist through burial unless it is sufficiently degraded over time. Continued 

deposition of pelagic material could bury the layer, but it will remain intact over some timeframe as a 

potentially toxic or lethal horizon. 

Continued localized disturbance of soft-bottom communities may occur during oil-spill response 

efforts. Anchors used to set booms to contain oil or vessel anchors in decontamination zones may affect 

infaunal communities in the response activity zone. Infaunal communities may be altered in the anchor 

scar, and deposition of suspended sediment may result from the setting and resetting of anchors. The 

disturbed benthic community should begin to repopulate from the surrounding communities during their 

next recruitment event and through immigration of organisms from surrounding stocks. Any 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-21 

decontamination activities, such as cleaning vessel hulls of oil, may also contaminate the sediments of the 

decontamination zone, as some oil may settle to the seabed, impacting the underlying benthic community. 

If a blowout occurs at the seafloor, drilling muds (primarily barite) may be pumped into a well in 

order to “kill” it. If a kill is not successful, the mud (possibly tens of thousands of barrels) may be forced 

out of the well and deposited on the seafloor near the well site. Any organisms beneath heavy layers of 

the extruded drilling mud would be buried. Base fluids of drilling muds are designed to be low in toxicity 

and biodegradable in offshore marine sediments (Neff et al., 2000). However, as bacteria and fungi break 

down the drilling fluids, the sediments may be come anoxic (Neff et al., 2000). Benthic macrofaunal 

recovery would occur when drilling mud concentrations are reduced to levels that enable the sediment to 

become re-oxygenated (Neff et al., 2000). Complete community recovery from drilling mud exposure 

may take 3-5 years, although microbial degradation of drilling fluids, followed by an influx of tolerant 

opportunistic species, is anticipated to begin almost immediately (Neff et al., 2000). In addition, the 

extruded mud may bury hydrocarbons from the well, making them a hazard to the infaunal species and 

difficult to remove. 

Hard-Bottom Benthic Communities 

Sensitive reef communities flourish wherever hard bottoms occur in the Gulf of Mexico. Several 

categories of hard bottom communities are protected by BOEMRE. The eastern Gulf of Mexico contains 

scattered, low-relief live bottoms including areas of flat limestone shelf rock. Potentially sensitive 

biological features are 8 ft (2 m) or more above the seafloor. The Pinnacle Trend area includes low- and 

high-relief features and is 60-120 m (200-400 ft) below the sea surface, and topographic features are high 

relief and generally 15 m (49 ft) or more below the sea surface. Their depth below the sea surface 

protects all of these habitats from a surface oil spill. 

Although hard-bottom benthic communities are initially buffered from surface oil slicks by their 

depth below the sea surface, surface oil may be brought to depth through physical processes. Rough seas 

may mix the oil into subsurface water layers, where it may impact sessile biota. The total time during 

which seas are rough would help affect the amount of oil from a surface slick that would be mixed into 

the water column. Measurable amounts of oil have been documented down to a 10-m (33-ft) depth, 

although modeling exercises have indicated such oil may reach a depth of 20 m (66 ft). At this depth, 

however, the oil is found at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to 

have an effect on corals (Lange, 1985; McAuliffe et al., 1975 and 1981; Knap et al., 1985). 

The presence of a subsurface oil plume may affect hard-bottom communities. A majority of the oil 

released is expected to rise rapidly to the sea surface. However, upward movement of the oil may be 

reduced if methane in the oil is dissolved under high pressures, and oil droplets may become entrained 

deep in the water column (Adcroft et al., 2010). Subsurface plumes generated by high-pressure 

dissolution of oil may come in contact with hard-bottom features. A sustained spill would continuously 

create surface slicks and possibly subsurface spill plumes. Some of the oil in the water column will 

become diluted or evaporated over time, reducing any localized transport to the seafloor (Vandermeulen, 

1982). In addition, microbial degradation of the oil occurs in the water column so that the oil would be 

less toxic when it contacts the seafloor (Hazen et al., 2010). However, a sustained spill may result in 

elevated exposure concentrations to hard-bottom features if the plume reaches them. The longer the spill 

takes to stop, the longer the exposure time and concentration may be. 

Low-level exposures of corals to oil from a subsea plume may result in chronic or temporary impacts. 

For example, feeding activity or reproductive ability may be reduced when coral is exposed to low levels 

of oil; however, impacts may be temporary or unable to be measured over time. Experiments indicated 

that normal feeding activity of Porites porites and Madracis asperula were reduced when exposed to 

50 ppm oil (Lewis, 1971). Reefs of Siderastrea sidereal that were oiled in a spill produced smaller 

gonads than unoiled reefs, resulting in reproductive stress (Guzmán and Holst, 1993). 

Elevated concentrations of oil may be necessary to measure reduced photosynthesis or growth in 

corals. Photosynthesis of the zooxanthellae in Diplora strigosa exposed to approximately 18-20 ppm 

crude oil for 8 hours was not measurably affected, although other experiments indicate that 

photosynthesis may be impaired at higher concentrations (Cook and Knap, 1983). Measurable growth of 

Diploria strigosa exposed to oil concentrations up to 50 ppm for 6-24 hours did not show any reduced 

growth after 1 year (Dodge et al., 1984). 
B-22 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Corals exposed to subsea oil plumes may incorporate petroleum hydrocarbons into their tissue. 

Records indicate that Siderastrea siderea, Diploria strigosa, and Montastrea annularis accumulate oil 

from the water column and incorporate petroleum hydrocarbons into their tissues (Burns and Knap, 1989; 

Knap et al., 1982; Kennedy et al., 1992). Most of the petroleum hydrocarbons are incorporated into the 

coral tissues, not their mucus (Knap et al., 1982). However, hydrocarbon uptake may also modify lipid 

ratios of coral (Burns and Knap, 1989). If lipid ratios are modified, mucus synthesis may be impacted, 

adversely affecting the coral’s ability to protect itself from oil through mucus production (Burns and 

Knap, 1989). 

If dispersants are used on the seafloor or at the surface, oil may mix into the water column, and if they 

are applied subsea, they, can travel with currents through the water, and may contact settle on hard 

bottoms. If near the source, the dispersed oil could be concentrated enough to harm the community. If 

the oil remains suspended for a longer period of time, it would be more dispersed and present at lower 

concentrations. Reports on dispersant usage on surface plumes indicate that a majority of the dispersed 

oil remains in the top 10 m (33 ft) of the water column, with 60 percent of the oil in the top 2 m (6 ft) 

(McAuliffe et al., 1981). Dispersant usage also reduces the oil’s ability to stick to particles in the water 

column, minimizing sedimented oil traveling to the seafloor (McAuliffe et al., 1981). There is very little 

information on the behavior of subsea dispersants. 

Dispersed oil reaching the benthic hard-bottom communities in the Gulf of Mexico would be 

expected to be at very low concentrations (less than 1 ppm) (McAuliffe et al., 1981). Such concentrations 

would not be life threatening to larval or adult stages at depth based on experiments conducted with coral. 

Any dispersed oil in the water column that comes in contact with corals may evoke short-term negative 

responses by the organisms (Wyers et al., 1986; Cook and Knap, 1983; Dodge et al., 1984). 

Reductions in feeding and photosynthesis are some impacts that may occur to coral exposed to 

dispersed oil. Short-term, sublethal responses of Diploria strigosa were reported after exposure to 

dispersed oil at a concentration of 20 ppm for 24 hours. Although concentrations in this experiment were 

higher than what is anticipated for dispersed oil at depth, effects exhibited included mesenterial filament 

extrusion, extreme tissue contraction, tentacle retraction, and localized tissue rupture (Wyers et al., 1986). 

Normal behavior resumed within 2 hours to 4 days after exposure (Wyers et al., 1986). Diploria strigosa

exposed to dispersed oil (20:1, oil:dispersant) showed an 85 percent reduction in zooxanthellae 

photosynthesis after 8 hours of exposure to the mixture (Cook and Knap, 1983). However, the response 

was short term, as recovery occurred between 5 and 24 hours after exposure and return to clean seawater. 

Investigations 1 year after Diploria strigosa was exposed to concentrations of dispersed oil between 1 and 

50 ppm for periods between 6 and 24 hours did not reveal any impacts to growth (Dodge et al., 1984). 

Historical studies indicate dispersed oil to be more toxic to coral species than oil or dispersant alone. 

The greater toxicity may be a result of an increased number of oil droplets caused by the use of 

dispersant, resulting in greater contact area between oil, dispersant, and water (Elgershuizen and Kruijf, 

1976). The dispersant causes a higher water-soluble amount of oil to contact the cell membranes of the 

coral (Elgershuizen and Kruijf, 1976). The mucus produced by coral, however, can protect the organism 

from oil. Both hard and soft corals have the ability to produce mucus, and mucus production has been 

shown to increase when corals are exposed to crude oil (Mitchell and Chet, 1975; Ducklow and Mitchell, 

1979). Dispersed oil, however, which has very small oil droplets, does not appear to adhere to coral 

mucus, and larger untreated oil droplets may become trapped by the mucus barrier (Knap, 1987; Wyers et 

al., 1986). However, entrapment of the larger oil droplets may increase the coral’s long-term exposure to 

oil if the mucus is not shed in a timely manner (Knap, 1987; Bak and Elgershuizen, 1976). Additionally, 

more recent field studies, using more realistic concentrations of dispersants did not result in the toxicity 

historically reported. 

Although historical studies indicated dispersed oil may be more toxic than untreated oil to corals 

during exposure experiments, untreated oil may remain in the ecosystem for long periods of time, while 

dispersed oil does not (Baca et al., 2005; Ward et al., 2003). Twenty years after an experimental oil spill 

in Panama, oil and impacts from untreated oil were still observed at oil treatment sites, but no oil or 

impacts were observed at dispersed oil or reference sites (Baca et al., 2005). Long-term recovery of the 

coral at the dispersed oil site had already occurred as reported in a 10-year monitoring update, and the site 

was not significantly different from the reference site (Ward et al., 2003). 

The BOEMRE’s policy prevents wells from being placed immediately adjacent to sensitive 

communities. In the event of a seafloor blowout, however, some oil could be carried to hard bottoms as a 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-23 

result of oil droplets, sedimenting to suspended particles in the water column. Oiled sediment that settles 

to the seafloor may affect organisms attached to hard-bottom substrates. Impacts may include reduced 

recruitment success, reduced growth, and reduced coral cover as a result of impaired recruitment. 

Experiments have shown that the presence of oil on available substrate for larval coral settlement has 

inhibited larval metamorphosis and larval settlement in the area. There was also an increased number of 

deformed polyps after metamorphosis due to oil exposure (Kushmaro et al., 1997). 

The majority of organisms exposed to sedimented oil, however, are anticipated to experience lowlevel concentrations because as the oiled sediments settle to the seafloor they are widely dispersed. Coral 

may also be able to protect itself from low concentrations of sedimented oil that settles from the water 

column. Coral mucus may not only act as a barrier to protect coral from the oil in the water column but it 

has also been shown to aid in the removal of oiled sediment on coral surfaces (Bak and Elgershuizen, 

1976). Coral may use a combination of increased mucus production and ciliary action to rid themselves 

of oiled sediment (Bak and Elgershuizen, 1976). 

Oil-spill response activity may also impact sessile benthic features. Booms anchored to the seafloor 

are sometimes used to control the movement of oil at the water surface. Boom anchors can physically 

impact corals and other sessile benthic organisms, especially when booms are moved around by waves 

(Tokotch, 2010). Vessel anchorage and decontamination stations set up during response efforts may also 

break or kill hard-bottom features as a result of setting anchors. Injury to coral reefs as a result of anchor 

impact may result in long-lasting damage or failed recovery (Rogers and Garrison, 2001). Effort should 

be made to keep vessel anchorage areas as far from sensitive benthic features as possible to minimize 

impact. 

Drilling muds comprised primarily of barite may be pumped into a well to stop a blowout. If a “kill” 

is not successful, the mud (possibly tens of thousands of barrels) may be forced out of the well and 

deposited on the seafloor near the well site. Any organisms beneath the extruded drilling mud would be 

buried. Based on stipulations as described in NTL 2009-G39, a well should be far enough away from a 

hard-bottom community to prevent extruded drilling muds from smothering benthic communities. 

However, if drilling muds were to travel far enough or high enough in the water column to contact a hardbottom community, the fluid would smother the existing community. Experiments indicate that corals 

perish faster when buried beneath drilling mud than when buried beneath carbonate sediments 

(Thompson, 1980). As discussed earlier, as the drilling fluids biodegrade, an anoxic zone surrounding the 

activity may occur. Recolonization would occur from the surrounding community once the area has 

enough oxygen to support new growth, which may take 3-5 years (Neff et al., 2000). 

3.2.2.7. Deepwater Benthic Communities 

It is not likely that deepwater benthic communities would be impacted by a spill from a shallow-water 

blowout. However, a spill resulting from a catastrophic blowout in deep water has the potential to impact 

offshore benthic communities due to the blowout’s proximity to these habitats and the use of subsea 

dispersants. 

Much of the oil is expected to be treated with dispersants at the sea surface and possibly subsea at the 

source in the event of a deepwater blowout. The dispersed oil is mixed with the water, and its movement 

is then dictated by local currents and the physical, chemical, and biological degradation pathways. The 

oil would become more dispersed, less concentrated, and more biodegraded the longer it remains 

suspended in the water column. Depending on how long it remained suspended in the water column, it 

may be thoroughly degraded by biological action before contact with the seafloor and its sensitive 

resources occurs (Hazen et al., 2010; Valentine et al., 2010). Biodegradation rates in colder, deepwater 

environments are not well understood at this time. Oil may reach the seafloor in the following ways: as 

microbes begin to consume the oil particles; when the dispersed oil particles may flocculate (flocculation 

is suspended particles collecting into larger suspended flakes), thus increasing the density of the particles 

such that they are no longer in isostatic balance with the surrounding water and, thus, sink to the seafloor; 

when larger plankton consume the bacteria-rich oil particles and their fecal pellets are excreted and 

distributed over the seafloor; when water currents carry a plume to contact the seafloor directly; or most 

likely, where the dispersed oil to adhere to other particles and sink to the seafloor. This last scenario 

would result in a wide distribution of small amounts of oil. This oil could be in the process of 

biodegradation from bacterial action that would continue on the seafloor, resulting in scattered 
B-24 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

microhabitats with an enriched carbon environment. Biodegradation processes, both on the bottom and in 

the water column, would be expected to cause at least some reduction of normal ambient dissolved 

oxygen levels; however, this has yet to be observed at a level that would be detrimental to animal 

respiration (Hazen et al., 2010). 

Deepwater Soft-Bottom Benthic Communities 

Soft bottoms are the overwhelming majority of the deep-sea environment. Large amounts of oil 

would only affect these deep environments if dispersants are used. As described above, the toxic effects 

of dispersed oil would continue to decrease as the concentration of oil is reduced via dispersion, localized 

mixing, and biodegradation. As with shelf habitats, the only soft bottom that is expected to suffer 

significant effects would be soft bottoms in the immediate vicinity of a seafloor blowout in which some 

oil is mixed into the sediment. In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively 

impacted, recolonization by populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a 

relatively short period of time for all size ranges of organisms—a matter of days for bacteria and probably 

less than 1 year for most macrofauna and megafauna species. This could take longer for areas affected by 

direct oil contact in higher concentrations. 

Deepwater Coral Benthic Communities 

There have been no experiments showing the response of deepwater corals to oil exposure. 

Experiments with shallow tropical corals indicate that corals have a high tolerance to oil exposure. The 

mucus layers on coral resist penetration of oil and slough off the contaminant. Longer exposure times and 

areas of tissue where oil adheres to the coral are more likely to result in tissue damage and death of 

polyps. Corals with branching growth forms appear to be more susceptible to damage from oil exposure 

(Shigenaka, 2001). The most common deepwater coral, Lophelia pertusa, is a branching species. Tests 

with shallow tropical gorgonians indicate relatively low toxic effects to the coral (Cohen et al., 1977), 

suggesting deepwater gorgonians may have a similar response. Response of deepwater coral to oil 

exposure from a catastrophic spill would vary, depending on the level of exposure. Exposure to widely 

dispersed oil adhering to organic detritus and partially degraded by bacteria may be expected to result in 

little effect. Direct contact with plumes of relatively fresh dispersed oil droplets in the vicinity of the 

incident could cause death of affected coral polyps through exposure and potential feeding on oil droplets 

by polyps. Median levels of exposure to dispersed oil in a partly degraded condition may result in effects 

similar to those of shallow tropical corals, with often no discernable effects other than temporary 

contraction and some sloughing. The health of corals may be degraded by the necessary expenditure of 

energy as the corals respond to oiling (Shigenaka, 2001). Communities exposed to more concentrated oil 

may experience detrimental effects, including death of affected organisms, tissue damage, lack of growth, 

interruption of reproductive cycles, and loss of gametes. Many invertebrates associated with deepwater 

coral communities, particularly the crustaceans, would likely be more susceptible to damage from oil 

exposure. The recolonization of severely damaged or destroyed communities could take years or decades. 

However, because of the scarcity of deepwater hard bottoms and the comparatively low surface area, it is 

unlikely that a sensitive habitat would be located near a seafloor blowout, or if near, that concentrated oil 

would contact the site. 

Deepwater Chemosynthetic Benthic Communities 

Chemosynthetic communities are adapted to gas seeps that sometimes release oil also. These 

communities may be exposed to low quantities of well-dispersed oil undergoing biodegradation. 

Exposure may be similar to normal conditions for these communities and may be within the normal 

variation of habitat conditions. However, oil contact could cause some fluctuation in organism health, 

resulting in slower growth or delayed spawning. Since these organisms grow slowly, sublethal effects 

could eliminate a year or more of normal growth. Communities exposed to more concentrated oil may 

experience detrimental effects, including death of affected organisms, tissue damage, lack of growth, 

interruption of reproductive cycles, and loss of gametes. Other invertebrates associated with 

chemosynthetic communities, particularly the crustaceans, would likely be more susceptible to damage 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-25 

from oil exposure. Recolonization of severely damaged or destroyed communities could take years or 

decades. 

3.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources 

3.2.3.1. Offshore Archaeological Resources 

Due the response methods (i.e., subsea dispersants) and magnitude of the response (i.e., thousands of 

vessels), a catastrophic blowout and spill have a greater potential to impact offshore archaeological 

resources than other accidental events. 

Deep Water 

In contrast to smaller spills or spills in shallow water, the use of large quantities of subsea dispersants 

could be used for a catastrophic subsea blowout in deep water. This could result in currently unknown 

effects from dispersed oil droplets settling to the seafloor. Though information on the actual impacts to 

submerged cultural resources is inconclusive at this time, oil settling to the seafloor could come in contact 

with archaeological resources. At present, there is no evidence of this having occurred. A recent 

experimental study has suggested that, while the degradation of wood in terrestrial environments is 

initially retarded by contamination with crude oil, at later stages, the biodeterioration of wood was 

accelerated (Ejechi, 2003). While there are different environmental constraints that affect the degradation 

of wood in terrestrial and waterlogged environments, soft-rot fungal activity, one of the primary wood 

degrading organisms in submerged environments, was shown to be increased in the presence of crude oil. 

There is a possibility that oil from a catastrophic blowout could come in contact with wooden shipwrecks 

and artifacts on the seafloor and accelerate their deterioration. 

Ancillary damages from vessels associated with oil-spill response activities (e.g., anchoring) in deep 

water are unlikely due to the use of dynamically positioned vessels responding to a deepwater blowout. If 

response and support vessels were to anchor near a deepwater blowout site, the potential to damage 

undiscovered vessels in the area would be high due to the required number and the size of anchors and the 

length of mooring chains needed to safely secure vessels. Additionally, multiple offshore vessel 

decontamination stations would likely be established in shallow water outside of ports or entrances to 

inland waterways, as seen for the Deepwater Horizon event. The anchoring of vessels could result in 

damage to both known and undiscovered archaeological sites; the potential to impact archaeological 

resources increases as the density of anchoring activities in these areas increases. 

Shallow Water 

The potential for damaging archaeological resources increases as the oil spill and related response 

activities progress landward. In shallower waters, most of the damage would be associated with oil 

cleanup and response activities. Thousands of vessels would respond to a shallow-water blowout and 

would likely anchor, potentially damaging both known and undiscovered archaeological sites. Additional 

anchoring would be associated with offshore vessel decontamination stations, as described above. As the 

spill moves into the intertidal zone, the chance of direct contact between the oil and archaeological 

resources increases. As discussed above, this could result in increased degradation of wooden shipwrecks 

and artifacts. 

Additionally, in shallower waters, shipwrecks often act as a substrate to corals and other organisms, 

becoming an essential component of the marine ecosystem. These organisms often form a protective 

layer over the shipwreck, virtually encasing the artifacts and hull remains. If these fragile ecosystems 

were destroyed as a result of the oil spill and the protective layer removed, the shipwreck would then be 

exposed to increased degradation until it reaches a new level of stasis with its surroundings. 

Regardless of water depth, because oil is a hydrocarbon, heavy oiling could contaminate organic 

materials associated with archaeological sites, resulting in erroneous dates from standard radiometric 

dating techniques (e.g., 14C-dating). Interference with the accuracy of 14C-dating would result in the loss 

of valuable data necessary to understand and interpret the sites. 
B-26 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

3.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing 

In 2008, the Gulf of Mexico provided over 33 percent of the commercial fishery landings in the 

continental U.S. (excluding Alaska), with nearly 1.3 billion pounds valued at nearly $660 million 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2010). 

Even though sensory and chemical testing may show no detectable oil or dispersant odors or flavors 

and the results could be well below the levels of concern, NOAA Fisheries would be expected to close 

large portions of the Gulf of Mexico during a high-volume spill as a precautionary measure to ensure 

public safety and to assure consumer confidence in Gulf seafood (USDOC, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries 

Service, 2010a). Up to 30-40 percent of the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) could be 

closed to commercial fishing as the spill continues and expands (USDOC, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries 

Service, 2010b). This area could represent 50-75 percent of the Gulf seafood production (Flynn, 2010). 

The size of the closure area may peak about 50 days into the spill and persist another 2-3 months until the 

well is killed or capped and the remaining oil is recovered or dissipates. During this period, portions or 

all of individual State waters would also be closed to commercial fishing. 

The economic impacts of closures on commercial fishing are difficult to predict because they are 

dependent on the season and would vary by fishery. If fishers cannot make up losses throughout the 

remainder of the season, a substantial part of their annual income would be lost. In some cases, 

commercial fishers will move to areas still open to fishing, but at a greater cost due to longer transit times. 

Marketing issues are also possible; even if the catch is uncontaminated, the public may lack confidence in 

the product. 

3.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing 

Up to 30-40 percent of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ could be closed to recreational fishing as the spill 

continues and expands (USDOC, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries, 2010b). The size of the closure area could 

peak about 50 days into the spill and continue for another 2-3 months until the well is killed or capped 

and the remaining oil is recovered or dissipates. During this period, portions or all of individual State 

waters would also be closed to recreational fishing. 

In 2008, over 24 million recreational fishing trips were taken; these trips generated about $12 billion 

in sales, over $6 billion in value-added impacts, and over 100,000 jobs (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010b). 

About 33 percent of the total Gulf catch came on trips that fished primarily in Federal and State waters 

(Pritchard, 2009). Recreational fishing is focused in the summer months. During this time, scheduled 

tournaments would be hard to reschedule. If the spill affected that time of year, normal direct income and 

indirect income to the communities that host these tournaments would be lost for that year. If a 

catastrophic spill occurs in the summer, a substantial number of recreational fishing trips would not occur 

and the economic benefits they generate would be lost for that year. 

3.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources 

While the spill is still offshore, there could be some ocean-dependent recreation that is affected (e.g., 

fishing, diving), as discussed above. In addition, there may be some effects due either to perceived 

damage to onshore recreational resources that has not yet materialized or to general hesitation on the part 

of travelers to visit the overall region due to the spill. For example, studies during the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill show that perceptions can influence recreational activity, even if an oil spill has not yet 

damaged physical resources in an area (The Knowland Group, 2010; Market Dynamics Research Group, 

2010). However, the majority of the impacts of a catastrophic spill would occur once the spill has 

contacted shore, as discussed in Section 4.2.3.4. 

3.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics 

In contrast to a less severe accidental event, suspension of some oil and gas activities would be likely 

following a catastrophic event. Depending on the duration and magnitude, this could impact hundreds of 

oil-service companies that supply the steel tubing, engineering services, drilling crews, and marine supply 

boats critical to offshore exploration. An interagency economic report estimated that the 6-month 

suspension, as a result of the Deepwater Horizon event, may have directly and indirectly resulted in up to 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-27 

8,000-12,000 fewer jobs along the Gulf Coast (Inter-agency, 2010b). Most of these jobs were not 

permanently lost as a result of the suspension and returned following the resumption of deepwater drilling 

in the Gulf of Mexico. These estimates are lower than earlier estimates of 15,000-60,000 rig and 

associated service jobs being at risk (Hargreaves, 2010; Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas 

Association, 2010; Zeller, 2010; Jindal, 2010). 

Whatever the number, much of the employment loss would be concentrated in coastal oil-service 

parishes in Louisiana (St. Mary, Terrebonne, Lafourche, Iberia, and Plaquemines) and counties/parishes 

where drilling-related employment is most concentrated (Harris County, Texas, in which Houston is 

located, and Lafayette Parish, Louisiana) (Nolan and Good, 2010; U.S. Dept. of Labor, BLS, 2010). 

There would be additional economic impacts to commercial and recreational fishing, as discussed in 

Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3. This impact is also expected to be more heavily concentrated in smaller 

businesses than in the larger companies (Inter-agency, 2010b). 

Demographic impacts are unlikely from temporary job losses. 

3.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure 

Impacts to tourism and recreational resources are addressed in Section 3.2.3.4. Possible fisheries 

closures are addressed in Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3. While still offshore, a catastrophic oil spill would 

not impact other land use or coastal infrastructure. 

3.2.3.7. Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice policy, based on Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, directs 

agencies to incorporate into NEPA documents an analysis of potentially disproportionate and detrimental 

environmental and health effects of their proposed actions on minorities and low-income populations and 

communities. While the spill is still offshore, the primary environmental justice concern would be large 

commercial fishing closures disproportionately impacting minority fishers. In the event of a catastrophic 

spill, Federal and State agencies would be expected to close substantial portions of the Gulf to 

commercial and recreational fishing (USDOC, NOAA, 2010g). While oystering occurs “onshore,” oyster 

beds are also likely to be closed to harvests during Phase 2 of a catastrophic spill due to concerns about 

oil contamination and increased freshwater diversions to mitigate oil intrusion into the marshes (see 

Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3). These closures would directly impact commercial fishermen and 

oystermen, and indirectly impact such downstream activities as shrimp processing facilities and oyster 

shucking houses. The mostly African-American communities of Phoenix, Davant, and Point a la Hache 

in Plaquemines Parish are home to families with some of the few black-owned oyster leases, which 

because of freshwater diversion projects for coastal restoration have already been threatened (Mock, 

2010). 

The Gulf Coast hosts multiple minority and low-income groups whose use of natural resources of the 

offshore and coastal environments make them vulnerable to fishing closures. While not intended as an 

inventory of the area’s diversity, we have identified several Gulf Coast populations of particular concern. 

An estimated 20,000 Vietnamese fishermen and shrimpers live along the Gulf Coast; by 1990, over 1 in 

20 Louisiana fishers and shrimpers had roots in Southeast Asia even though they comprised less than half 

a percent of the State’s workforce (Bankston and Zhou, 1996). Vietnamese account for about one-third of 

all the fishermen in the central Gulf of Mexico (Ravitz, 2010). Islaños, African Americans, and Native 

American groups are also engaged in commercial fishing and oystering. Historically, Vietnamese and 

African Americans have worked in the fish processing and oyster shucking industries. Shucking houses 

particularly, have provided an avenue into the mainstream economy for minority groups. 

Therefore, fishing closures during Phase 2 of a catastrophic spill impacting the central Gulf of 

Mexico would disproportionately affect such minority groups as the Vietnamese, Native Americans, 

African Americans, and Islaños (Hemmerling and Colten, 2003). 
B-28 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

4. ONSHORE CONTACT (PHASE 3) 

4.1. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

4.1.1. Duration 

The duration of the shoreline oiling is measured from initial shoreline contact until the well is capped 

or killed and the remaining oil dissipates offshore. The time needed to cap or kill a well may vary, 

depending on the well’s water depth. Depending on the spill’s location in relation to winds and currents 

and the well’s distance to shore, oil could reach the coast within 1 week to 1 month, based on evidence 

from previous spills in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. While it is assumed that the majority of spilled oil 

would dissipate offshore within 30 days of stopping the flow, some oil may remain in coastal areas until 

cleaned, as seen in Louisiana following the Deepwater Horizon event (The State of Louisiana, 2010b-d). 

4.1.1.1. Shallow Water 

Due to the distance from shore, oil spilled as a result of a blowout in shallow water could reach shore 

within 1-3 weeks and could continue until the well is killed or capped (1-3 months) and the oil dissipates 

offshore (1 month). Therefore, it is estimated that shoreline oiling would likely occur for 1-4 months 

following a catastrophic blowout. 

4.1.1.2. Deep Water 

As discussed in Section 3.1.1, intervention is more difficult and would take longer in deeper water. In 

general, most of the deep water in the Gulf of Mexico is located far from shore and, therefore, it is 

assumed that oil would reach shore within 2-4 weeks. While most deep water is located far from shore, 

some areas of deep water are located relatively nearshore so that oil could reach shore earlier. 

The length of shoreline oiled would continue to increase until the well is killed or capped (3-4 

months) and the oil dissipates offshore (1 month). Therefore, shoreline oiling could occur for 3 to more 

than 4 months following a catastrophic blowout. 

4.1.2. Volume of Oil 

In the event of a catastrophic spill, not all of the oil spilled would contact shore. The amount of oil 

recovered and chemically or naturally dispersed would vary. For example, the following are recovery and 

cleanup rates from previous high-volume, extended spills: 

 10-40 percent of oil recovered or cleaned up (including burned, chemically dispersed, 

and skimmed); 

 25-40 percent of oil naturally dispersed, evaporated, or dissolved; and 

 20-65 percent of the oil remains available for biodegradation offshore or inshore 

contact. 

In the case of the Deepwater Horizon event, the “Expected” scenario, developed by the Oil Budget 

Calculator Science and Engineering Team of the Federal Interagency Solutions Group, suggests that more 

than one quarter (29%) was naturally or chemically dispersed into Gulf waters, while burning, skimming, 

and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter (25%) of the oil released. Less than one 

quarter (23%) of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved. The residual amount, just under one 

quarter (23%), remained in the Gulf of Mexico as a light sheen, as tarballs that have washed ashore or are 

buried in sand and other sediments (Inter-agency, 2010c). 

For planning purposes, USCG estimates that 5-30 percent of oil will reach shore in the event of an 

offshore spill (33 CFR 154, Appendix C, Table 2). Using the USCG assumptions, a catastrophic spill 

could still result in a large amount of oil reaching shore. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-29 

4.1.3. Length of Shoreline Contacted 

While larger spill volumes increase the chance of oil reaching the coast, other factors that influence 

the length and location of shoreline contacted include the duration of the spill and the well’s location in 

relation to winds, currents, and the shoreline. As seen with the Deepwater Horizon spill, as the spill 

continued, the length of oiled shoreline at any one time increased exponentially as follows: 

Duration of Spill Length of Shoreline Oiled1

30 days 0-50 miles 

60 days 50-100 miles 

90 days 100-1,000 miles 

120 days >1,000 miles2

1

 Not cumulative. 

2

 Length was extrapolated. 

Source: Operational Science Advisory Team, 2011. 

Dependent upon winds and currents throughout the spill event, already impacted areas could be reoiled. 

4.1.3.1. Shallow Water 

While a catastrophic spill from a shallow-water blowout is expected to be lower in volume than a 

deepwater blowout, as explained in Section 3.1, the site would be closer to shore, allowing less time for 

oil to be weathered, dispersed, and recovered. This could result in a more concentrated and toxic oiling of 

the shoreline. 

4.1.3.2. Deep Water 

While a catastrophic spill from a deepwater blowout is expected to have a much greater volume than 

a shallow-water blowout (see Section 3.1), the site would be farther from shore, allowing more time for 

oil to be weathered, dispersed, and recovered. This could result in a broader, patchier oiling of the 

shoreline. 

Translocation of the spilled oil via winds and currents is also a factor in the length of shoreline 

contacted. For example, oil could enter the Loop Current and then the Gulf Stream. However, the longer 

it takes oil to travel, the more it would degrade, disperse, lose toxicity, and break into streamers and 

tarballs (USDOC, NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, 2010d). 

4.1.4. Severe Weather 

The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1st through November 30th, peaking in September. In 

an average Atlantic season, there are 11 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 Category 3 or higher storms 

(USDOC, NOAA, National Weather Service, 2010a). In the event of a hurricane, vessels would evacuate 

the area, delaying response efforts, including the drilling of relief wells. The storm surge may push oil to 

the coastline and inland as far as the surge reaches, or the storm surge may remove the majority of oil 

from shore, as seen in some of the previous spills reviewed. 

Movement of oil during a hurricane would depend greatly on the track of the hurricane in relation to 

the slick. A hurricane’s winds rotate counter-clockwise. In general, a hurricane passing to the west of the 

slick could drive oil to the coast, while a hurricane passing to the east of the slick could drive the oil away 

from the coast. 

4.1.5. Onshore Cleanup Activities 

As described in Section 3.1, a large-scale response effort would be expected for a catastrophic 

blowout. The number of vessels and responders would increase exponentially as the spill continued. In 

addition to the response described in Section 3.1.6, the following response is also estimated to occur once 

the spill contacts the shore. 
B-30 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

An exponential increase in the length of shoreline impacted would likely overwhelm response efforts. 

4.1.5.1. Shallow Water 

 There would be 5-10 staging areas established. 

 Weathering permitting, about 200-300 skimmers could be deployed near shore to 

protect coastlines. 

4.1.5.2. Deep Water 

 There would be 10-20 staging areas established. 

 Weather permitting, about 500-600 skimmers could be deployed near shore to protect 

coastlines. As seen in Louisiana following the Deepwater Horizon event, a few 

hundred coastal skimmers could still be in operation a few months after the well is 

capped or killed (The State of Louisiana, 2010e). 

4.2. MOST LIKELY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The most recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 

identify in detail the potential impacts from reasonably foreseeable oil spills (USDOI MMS, 2007 and 

2008). The most likely and significant onshore impacts caused by a catastrophic spill are described 

below. 

4.2.1. Physical Resources 

4.2.1.1. Air Quality 

As the spill nears shore, there would be low-level concentrations of odor-causing pollutants 

associated with evaporative emissions from the oil spill. These may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat 

irritation, nausea, or headaches, but the doses are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term harm 

(USEPA, 2010b). However, responders could be exposed to levels higher than OSHA permissible 

exposure levels (U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 2010b). During the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 

USEPA took air samples at various onshore locations along the length of the Gulf coastline. All except 

three measurements of benzene were below 3 parts per billion (ppb). The highest level was 91 ppb. 

During the Deepwater Horizon event, air samples collected by BP, OSHA, and USCG near shore showed 

levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene that were mostly under detection levels. Among the 

15,000 samples taken by BP, there was only one sample where benzene exceeded the OSHA 

Occupational permissible exposure limits. All other sample concentrations were below the more stringent 

ACGIH threshold limit values (U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 2010a). All measured concentrations 

of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were well within the OSHA permissible exposure levels and ACGIH 

threshold limit values. 

4.2.1.2. Coastal Water Quality 

Water quality governs the suitability of waters for plant, animal, and human use. Water quality is 

important in the bays, estuaries, and nearshore coastal waters of the Gulf because these waters provide 

feeding, breeding, and/or nursery habitat for many commercially significant invertebrates and fishes, as 

well as sea turtles, birds, and marine mammals. A catastrophic spill would significantly impact coastal 

water quality in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf of Mexico, water quality prior to the Deepwater Horizon

event was rated as fair while sediment quality was rated as poor (USEPA, 2008). In addition, the coastal 

habit index, a rating of wetlands habitat loss, was also rated as poor. Both the sediment quality and the 

coastal habitat index affect water quality. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-31 

Though response efforts would decrease the amount of oil remaining in Gulf waters and reduce the 

amount of oil contacting the coastline, significant amounts of oil would remain. Coastal water quality 

would be impacted not only by the oil, gas, and their respective components but also to some degree from 

cleanup and mitigation efforts. Increased vessel traffic, hydromodification, and the addition of 

dispersants and methanol in an effort to contain, mitigate, or clean up the oil may also tax the 

environment. 

The use of dispersants as a response tool involves a tradeoff. The purpose of chemical dispersants is 

to facilitate the movement of oil into the water column in order to encourage weathering and biological 

breakdown of the oil (i.e., biodegradation) (NRC, 2005; Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2010). 

Thus, the tradeoff is generally considered to be between the shoreline and surface of the water versus the 

water column and benthic resources (NRC, 2005). If the oil moves into the water column and is not on 

the surface of the water, it is less likely to reach sensitive shore areas (USEPA, 2010c). Since sea birds 

are often on the surface of the water or in shore areas, dispersants are also considered to be very effective 

in reducing the exposure of sea birds to oil (Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2010). In addition to 

dispersion being enhanced by artificial processes, oil may also be dispersed from natural processes. For 

instance, microbial metabolism of crude oil results in the dispersion of oil (Bartha and Atlas, 1983). 

Dispersion has both positive and negative effects. The positive effect is that the oil, once dispersed, is 

more available to be degraded. The negative effect is that the oil, once dispersed, is more available to 

microorganisms, which temporarily increases the toxicity (Bartha and Atlas, 1983). Toxicity of dispersed 

oil in the environment will depend on many factors, including the effectiveness of the dispersion, 

temperature, salinity, the degree of weathering, type of dispersant, and degree of light penetration in the 

water column (NRC, 2005). The toxicity of dispersed oil is primarily due to the toxic components of the 

oil itself (Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2010). 

Oxygen and nutrient concentrations in coastal waters vary seasonally. The zone of hypoxia (depleted 

oxygen) on the Louisiana-Texas shelf occurs seasonally and is affected by the timing of freshwater 

discharges from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers, which carry nutrients to the surface waters. The 

hypoxic conditions continue until local wind-driven circulation mixes the water again. The 2010 hypoxic 

zone could not be linked to the Deepwater Horizon event in either a positive or a negative manner 

(LUMCON, 2010). Nutrients from the Mississippi River fueled enhanced phytoplankton and attributed to 

the formation of the hypoxic zone. 

4.2.2. Biological Resources 

Recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico detail the 

potential localized impacts to individuals from reasonably foreseeable oil spills. However, a catastrophic 

event, such as a high-volume, extended-duration spill resulting from a blowout, has the potential to cause 

population level impacts, as described below. 

Dozens of Federal and State-listed threatened and endangered species, including marine mammals, 

sea turtles, fish, and birds, could continue to be impacted during Phase 3 of a catastrophic oil spill as oil 

and response activities persist. Additional species could be impacted in extreme conditions (i.e., oil is 

pushed onto beaches or into rivers or marshes due to a hurricane) (USDOI, FWS, 2010a and 2010b). 

4.2.2.1. Coastal and Marine Birds 

Gulf coastal habitats are essential to the annual cycles of many species of breeding, wintering, and 

migrating waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and songbirds. For example, the northern Gulf Coast 

supports a disproportionately high number of beach-nesting bird species (USDOI, FWS, 2010c). Once oil 

contacts shore, a few dozen to over a hundred birds could be impacted daily by oiling and/or collection. 

By extrapolating the number of birds impacted as a result of the Deepwater Horizon event, a spill lasting 

120 days could result in direct mortality of over 7,000 birds (USDOI, FWS, 2010d). This number does 

not reflect total realized mortality but rather only the actual number of birds recovered as of October 

2010. This number represents a small fraction of total bird mortality due to carcasses sinking, being 

scavenged, drifting outside the search zone, or simply going undetected due to wind, current, weather, and 

habitat factors (Ford et al., 1987; Piatt et al., 1990; Fowler and Flint, 1997; Flint et al., 1999; Wiese and 

Robertson, 2004; Byrd et al., 2009). In an early review of oil-related mortality for seabirds, Dunnett et al. 

(1982) provided an estimate of 10 percent, and 60 percent of the dead birds may be recovered under 
B-32 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

typical field conditions. Piatt and Ford (1996,Table 1) summarized recovery rates from 17 carcass-drift 

experiments, indicating a range of 0-59 percent of carcasses being recovered. Using data from the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill, Piatt and Ford (1996) estimated recovery rates from joint probability and Monte Carlos 

simulations of only 8.0 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively. 

The timing and location of the spill are the two primary factors for determining the severity of 

impacts on birds. The worst impacts to oiled birds or to those birds that have ingested oil with their prey 

would be if the oil spill occurs during the nesting season. An oil spill during nesting season could result 

in the loss of entire colonies of breeding birds on barrier islands surrounded by oil, along with the 

potential loss of all eggs and nestlings. Losses of shorebirds could occur through direct oiling of beaches 

on which nests are located, by oil covering the feeding sites near the nesting locations, or by the deaths of 

oiled parents, leaving eggs or hatchlings unprotected and unfed. 

Endangered and Threatened Birds 

Two species listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that could be 

impacted by a catastrophic oil spill are the whooping crane (Grus americana) and the endangered wood 

stork (Mycteria americana). Both are wading birds; the whooping crane is found in Texas, Louisiana, 

and Florida, and the wood stork is found in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Both species 

use marsh habitats and eat small fish, frogs, mollusks, snails, insects, crustaceans, and aquatic 

invertebrates. Thus, they could both become oiled directly if oil reaches the marshes. They could also 

ingest oil along with their primary prey items, and their prey could be substantially reduced due to oil, 

resulting in a decline in health and reproduction in both species of wading birds. 

4.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat 

The life history of estuarine–dependent species involves spawning on the continental shelf, 

transportation of eggs, larvae or juveniles back to the estuary nursery grounds and migration of the adults 

back to the sea for spawning (Deegan, 1989; Beck et al., 2001). Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico are 

extremely important nursery areas and are considered essential fish habitat for fish and aquatic life (Beck 

et al., 2001). Oiling of these areas, depending on the severity, can destroy nutrient-rich marshes and 

erode coastlines that have been significantly damaged by recent hurricanes. 

The Gulf of Mexico supports a wide variety of finfish, and most of the commercial finfish resources 

are linked either directly or indirectly to the estuaries that ring the Gulf of Mexico. Darnell et al. (1983) 

observed that the density distribution of fish resources in the Gulf was highest nearshore off of the central 

Gulf Coast. For all seasons, the greatest abundance occurred between Galveston Bay and the mouth of 

the Mississippi River. Monthly ichthyoplankton collections over the years 2004-2006 offshore of 

Alabama have confirmed that peak seasons for ichthyoplankton concentrations on the shelf are spring and 

summer (Hernandez et al., 2010). Therefore, if a catastrophic blowout occurs in the spring and summer 

seasons, it could cause greater harm to fish populations, not just individual fish. 

Oyster beds could be damaged by freshwater diversions that release tens of thousands of cubic feet of 

freshwater per second for months in an effort to keep oil out of the marshes. Adult oysters survive well 

physiologically in salinities from those of estuarine waters (about 7.5 parts per thousand sustained) to full 

strength seawater (Davis, 1958). While oysters may tolerate small changes in salinity for a few weeks, a 

rapid decrease in salinity over months would kill oysters. In the event of a catastrophic oil spill, the 

year’s oyster production would be lost because of exposure to freshwater and/or oil. Depending on the 

severity, oyster beds could take 2-5 years to recover (Burdeau, 2010). 

4.2.2.3. Marine Mammals 

Section 3.2.2 discusses the most likely and most significant impacts to the offshore marine mammal 

community. A high-volume oil spill lasting 120 days could directly impact over 20 species of marine 

mammals. As the spill enters coastal waters, manatees and coastal and estuarine dolphins would be the 

most likely to be impacted. 

Manatees primarily inhabit open coastal (shallow nearshore) areas and estuaries, and they are also 

found far up in freshwater tributaries. During warmer months, manatees are common along the Gulf 

Coast of Florida from the Everglades National Park northward to the Suwannee River in northwestern 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-33 

Florida, and they are less common farther westward. In winter, the Gulf of Mexico subpopulations move 

southward to warmer waters. The winter range is restricted to waters at the southern tip of Florida and to 

waters near localized warm-water sources, such as power plant outfalls and natural springs in west-central 

Florida. Manatees are infrequently found as far west as Texas (Powell and Rathbun, 1984; Rathbun et al., 

1990; Schiro et al., 1998). If a catastrophic oil spill reached the Florida coast when manatees were in or 

near coastal waters, the spill could have population-level effects. 

It is possible that manatees could occur in coastal areas where vessels traveling to and from the spill 

site could affect them. A manatee present where there is vessel traffic could be injured or killed by a 

vessel strike (Wright et al., 1995). Due to the large number of vessels responding to a catastrophic spill 

both in coastal waters and traveling through coastal waters to the offshore site, manatees would have an 

increased risk of collisions with boats. Vessel strikes are the primary cause of death of manatees. 

There have been no experimental studies and only a few observations suggesting that oil impacts have 

harmed any manatees (St. Aubin and Lounsbury, 1990). Types of impacts to manatees and dugongs from 

contact with oil include (1) asphyxiation due to inhalation of hydrocarbons, (2) acute poisoning due to 

contact with fresh oil, (3) lowering of tolerance to other stress due to the incorporation of sublethal 

amounts of petroleum components into body tissues, (4) nutritional stress through damage to food 

sources, and (5) inflammation or infection and difficulty eating due to oil sticking to the sensory hairs 

around their mouths (Preen, 1989, in Sadiq and McCain, 1993; Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 

2003). For a population whose environment is already under great pressure, even a localized incident 

could be significant (St. Aubin and Lounsbury, 1990). Spilled oil might affect the quality or availability 

of aquatic vegetation, including seagrasses, upon which manatees feed. The 2009 Stock Assessment 

Report (USDOI, FWS, 2009) for the Florida stock of West Indian manatees estimates that there is a 

minimum population estimate of 3,802 individuals based on a single synoptic survey of warm-water 

refuges in January 2009. The manatee’s potential biological removal is the maximum number of animals, 

not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from the population or stock while allowing that 

stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population and is approximately 12 individuals. 

Therefore, if a catastrophic spill and response vessel traffic occurred near manatee habitats in the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico, population level impacts could occur because the possibility exists for the number of 

mortalities to exceed the potential biological removal. 

Bottlenose dolphins were the most affected species of marine mammals from the Deepwater Horizon

event. There were 171 marine mammals collected as of April 20, 2010 (the majority of which were 

deceased). This includes 155 bottlenose dolphins, 2 Kogia spp., 2 melon-headed whales, 6 spinner 

dolphins, 2 sperm whales, and 4 unknown species (USDOC, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries, 2011). It is also 

important to note that evaluations have not yet confirmed the cause of death, and it is possible that not all 

carcasses were related to the Deepwater Horizon event. Bottlenose dolphins can be found throughout 

coastal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Like manatees, dolphins could be affected, possibly to population 

level, by a catastrophic oil spill if it reaches the coast (as well as affecting them in the open ocean), 

through direct contact, inhalation, ingestion, and stress, as well as through collisions with cleanup vessels. 

4.2.2.4. Sea Turtles 

Out of the five species of sea turtle that occur in the Gulf of Mexico, only three nest in this area. The 

largest nesting location for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is in Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, but they also nest in 

Texas. Loggerhead sea turtles nest in all states around the Gulf of Mexico. There are also records of 

nesting colonies of hawksbill sea turtles in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico (Plotkin et al., 1995; OBISSEAMAP, 2009). Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, and hawksbill sea turtles are therefore most likely to be 

affected by a catastrophic oil spill when there is onshore contact. 

Female sea turtles seasonally emerge during the warmer summer months to nest on beaches. 

Thousands of sea turtles nest along the Gulf Coast, and turtles could build nests on oiled beaches. Nests 

could also be disturbed or destroyed by cleanup efforts. Untended booms could wash ashore and become 

a barrier to sea turtle adults and hatchlings (USDOC, NOAA, 2010e). Hatchlings, with a naturally high 

mortality rate, could traverse the beach through oiled sand and swim through oiled water to reach 

preferred habitats of Sargassum floats. Response efforts could include mass movement of eggs from 

hundreds of nests or thousands of hatchlings from Gulf Coast beaches to the east coast of Florida or to the 

open ocean to prevent hatchlings entering oiled waters (Jernelöv and Lindén, 1981; USDOI, FWS, 
B-34 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

2010e). Due to poorly understood mechanisms that guide female sea turtles back to the beaches where 

they hatched, it is uncertain if relocated hatchlings would eventually return to the Gulf Coast to nest 

(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2010). Therefore, shoreline oiling and response 

efforts may affect future population levels and reproduction (USDOI, NPS, 2010). Sea turtle hatchling 

exposure to, fouling by, or consumption of tarballs persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil 

slick would likely be fatal. 

4.2.2.5. Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles 

Beach Mice 

Seven subspecies of the field mouse, collectively known as beach mice, live along the Gulf Coast. 

Five subspecies of beach mice (Alabama, Perdido Key, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Anastasia 

Island) are listed as State and federally endangered; the southeastern beach mouse is listed as federally 

threatened; and the Santa Rosa beach mouse is a Federal species of concern. Beach mice are restricted to 

the coastal barrier sand dunes along the Gulf Coast of Alabama and Florida. Erosion caused by the loss 

of vegetation due to oiling would likely cause more damage than the direct oiling of beach mice, due to 

degradation or loss of habitat. In addition, vehicular traffic and activity associated with cleanup can 

trample or bury beach mice nests and burrows or cause displacement from preferred habitat. Improperly 

trained personnel and vehicle and foot traffic during shoreline cleanup of a catastrophic spill would 

disturb beach mouse populations and would degrade or destroy habitat. 

The Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice are already designated as 

protected species under the Endangered Species Act because of the loss of coastal habitat (USDOI, MMS, 

2007). The species’ coastal habitat is designated as their critical habitat. For example, the endangered 

Alabama beach mouse’s (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) habitat is 1,211 acres (490 hectares) of 

frontal dunes covering just 10 mi (16 km) of shoreline designated as critical habitat (USDOI, FWS, 

2007). Critical habitat is the specific geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a 

threatened or endangered species. With the potential oiling of over 1,000 mi (1,609 km) of shoreline, the 

entire critical habitat for a subspecies of beach mice could be completely oiled. Thus, destruction of the 

remaining habitat due to a catastrophic spill and cleanup activities would increase the threat of extinction 

of several subspecies of beach mice.

Diamondback Terrapin 

The Texas diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) and the Mississippi diamondback 

terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pileata) are two subspecies of terrapin that occur in the Gulf of Mexico, 

and they are Federal species of concern. The former’s range runs from Louisiana through Texas, while 

the latter’s includes Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (USDOI, FWS, 2010f). Terrapins 

inhabit brackish waters including coastal marshes, tidal flats, creeks, and lagoons behind barrier beaches 

(Hogan, 2003). Their diet consists of fish, snails, worms, clams, crabs, and marsh plants (Cagle, 1952). 

Spending most of their lives at the aquatic-terrestrial boundary in estuaries, terrapins are susceptible to 

habitat destruction from oil-spill cleanup efforts as well as direct contact with oil. However, most impacts 

cannot be quantified at this time. Even after the oil is no longer visible, terrapins may still be exposed 

while they forage in the salt marshes lining the edges of estuaries, where oil may have accumulated under 

the sediments and within the food chain. Terrapin nests can also be disturbed or destroyed by cleanup 

efforts. The range of the possible chronic effects from oil and dispersants contact including lethal or 

sublethal oil-related injuries may include skin irritation from the oil or dispersants, respiratory problems 

from the inhalation of volatile petroleum compounds or dispersants, gastrointestinal problems caused by 

the ingestion of oil or dispersants, and damage to other organs due to the ingestion or inhalation of these 

chemicals. 

4.2.2.6. Coastal Habitats 

A spill from a catastrophic blowout lasting up to 120 days could impact over 1,000 mi (1,609 km) of 

shoreline. Shoreline oiling would vary between heavy, moderate, light, and occasional tarballs. Due to 

the length of shoreline that could potentially be oiled and the sensitivity of the Gulf Coast, a high-volume, 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-35 

extended-duration spill could cause extensive habitat degradation. Loss of vegetation could lead to 

erosion and permanent landloss. 

In some previous spills reviewed, a strong storm removed the majority of oil from shore. However, 

storm surges may carry oil into the coastline and inland as far as the surge reaches. In addition, four 

significant hurricanes (Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike) have made landfall along the Texas/Louisiana coast 

in the last 6 years, greatly degrading the coastal beaches, marshes, and barrier islands, making them more 

susceptible to a catastrophic spill. 

Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes 

Barrier islands make up more than two-thirds of the northern Gulf of Mexico shore. Each of the 

barrier islands is either high profile or low profile, depending on the elevations and morphology of the 

island (Morton et al., 2004). The distinguishing characteristics of the high- and low-profile barriers relate 

to the width of the islands along with the continuity of the frontal dunes. Low-profile barriers are narrow 

with discontinuous frontal dunes easily overtopped by storm surge, which makes the island susceptible to 

over wash and secondarily to erosion. This over wash can create channels to bring sand onto the island or 

into lagoons formed on these islands. High-profile barrier islands are generally wider than the low-profile 

islands and have continuous, vegetated, frontal dunes with elevations high enough to prevent over wash 

from major storm surge and, therefore, are less susceptible to erosion. The sand stored in these highprofile dunes allows the island to withstand prolonged erosion and therefore prevents breaching, which 

could result in damaging the island core. 

As a result of a catastrophic spill, many of the barrier islands and beaches would receive varying 

degrees of oiling. Oil disposal on sand and vegetated sand dunes would have little deleterious effects on 

the existing vegetation or on the recolonization of the oiled sands by plants (Webb, 1988). The depth of 

oiling would be variable, based on the wave environment and sediment source at a particular beach head. 

Layering of oil and sand could occur if it was not cleaned before another tidal cycle. However, most 

areas of oiling are expected to be light, and sand removal during cleanup activities should be minimized. 

In areas designated as natural wilderness areas (e.g., Breton National Wildlife National Refuge and Gulf 

Islands National Seashore), land managers may require little to no disruption of the natural system. In 

these environments it is preferred to let the oil degrade naturally without aggressive and intrusive cleanup 

procedures. Manual rather than mechanized removal techniques will be used in these areas and only if 

heavy oiling has occurred. Thus, these areas may not be treated as thoroughly as other shorelines. 

Once oil has reached the beaches and barrier islands and becomes buried or sequestered, it becomes 

difficult to treat. During wave events when the islands and beaches erode, the oil can become 

remobilized and transported. Thus, the fate of oil is not as simple as either reaching land, becoming 

sequestered, or being treated; but must be considered in terms of a continuing process of sequestration, 

remobilization, and transport. 

For spilled oil to move onto beaches or across dunes, strong southerly winds must persist for an 

extended time prior to or immediately after the spill to elevate water levels. Strong winds, however, 

would reduce the impact severity at a landfall site because they would accelerate the processes of oil-slick 

dispersal, spill spreading, and oil weathering. 

Due to the distance of beaches from deepwater blowout and the combination of weathering and 

dispersant treatment of the oil offshore, the toxicity of the oil reaching shore should be greatly reduced, 

thereby minimizing the chances of irreversible damage to the impacted areas. A blowout in shallower 

waters near shore may have equal or greater impacts due to a shorter period of weathering and dispersion 

prior to shoreline contact, even though a smaller volume of spilled oil is expected. 

Vessel traffic in close proximity to barrier islands has been shown to move considerably more bottom 

sediment than tidal currents, thus increasing coastal and barrier island erosion rates. If staging areas are 

in close proximity to these islands, recovery time of the barrier islands could be greatly extended due to 

the magnitude of vessels responding to a catastrophic spill. 

Wetlands 

Coastal wetland habitats in the Gulf of Mexico occur as bands around waterways; broad expanses of 

saline, brackish, and freshwater marshes; mud and sand flats; and forested wetlands of cypress-tupelo 

swamps and bottomland hardwoods. A spill from a catastrophic blowout could oil a few to several 
B-36 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

hundreds of acres of wetlands depending on the depth of inland penetration (Burdeau and Collins, 2010). 

This would vary from moderate to heavy oiling. 

The NOAA Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) ranks shorelines according to their sensitivity to 

oil, the natural persistence of oil, and the expected ease of cleanup after an oil spill. These factors cause 

oil to persist in coastal and estuarine areas (USDOI, MMS, 2010). According to the ESI, the most 

sensitive shoreline types (i.e., sheltered tidal flats, vegetated low banks, salt/brackish-water marshes, 

freshwater marshes/swamps, and scrub-shrub wetlands) tend to accumulate oil and are difficult to clean, 

thus causing oil to persist in these coastal and estuarine areas (USDOI, MMS, 2010). 

Precautions such as oil booms, skimmer ships, and barge barriers would be deployed to protect the 

beaches and the wetlands behind them or on the beach fringe from oil. However, if not maintained, these 

booms can cause significant harm to fragile wetlands. In most cases, the beach face would take the most 

oil; however, in areas where the marsh is immediately adjacent to the beach face or embayments, or in the 

case of small to severe storms, marshes would be oiled. For example, in Alabama, Mississippi, and 

Florida, severe weather could push oil into the tidal pools and back beach areas that support tidal marsh 

vegetation. 

Previous studies of other large spills have shown that, when oil has a short residence time in the 

marsh and it is not incorporated into the sediments, the marsh vegetation has a good chance of survival, 

even though aboveground die-off of marsh vegetation may occur (Mendelssohn et al., 2002). However, if 

reoiling occurs after the new shoots from an initial oiling are produced, such that the new shoots are 

killed, then the marsh plants may not have enough stored energy to produce a second round of new 

shoots. Longer term damage may result from continued reoiling than from a temporally continuous oiling 

(Lin et al, 2002; Lin and Mendelssohn, 2009). Other studies noted the utilization of dispersants in the 

proper dosages results in a reduction in marsh damage from oiling (Lin and Mendelssohn, 2009). The 

works of several investigators (Webb et al., 1981 and 1985; Alexander and Webb, 1983 and 1987; Lytle, 

1975; Delaune et al., 1979; Fischel et al., 1989) evaluated the effects of potential spills to area wetlands. 

For wetlands along the central Louisiana coast, the critical oil concentration is assumed to be 

0.025 gallons per ft2

 (1.0 liter per m2) of marsh. Concentrations less than this may cause diebacks for one 

growing season or less, depending upon the concentration and the season during which contact occurs. 

The duration and magnitude of a spill resulting from a catastrophic blowout could result in concentrations 

above this critical level and would result in longer term effects to wetland vegetation, including some 

plant mortality and loss of land. 

Due to the distance of deep water from shore, the possibility of a spill from a deepwater blowout 

reaching coastal wetlands with the toxicity to significantly impact the coastal wetlands is low due to the 

response procedures implemented during a catastrophic spill. The utilization of nearshore booming 

protection for beaches and wetlands, in combination with offshore skimming, burning, and dispersal 

treatments for the oil near the spill site, would result in capture and detoxification of the majority of oil 

reaching shore. Therefore, a spill from a shallow-water blowout is more likely to contribute to wetland 

damage. 

The impact of oil cleanup can result in additional impacts to wetlands, if not done properly. 

Aggressive onshore and marsh cleanup methods have not yet been utilized and probably would not be 

initiated until the oil spill has been stopped. Depending on the marsh remediation methods used, further 

impacts to the wetlands may occur from cleanup activities. 

Submerged Vegetation 

Approximately 500,000 hectares (1.25 million acres) of submerged seagrass beds are estimated to 

exist in exposed, shallow coastal waters and embayments of the northern Gulf of Mexico, and over 

80 percent of this area is in Florida Bay and Florida coastal waters (Beck et al., 2006; Carlson and 

Madley, 2006). Submerged vegetation distribution depends on an interrelationship between a number of 

environmental factors that include temperature, water depth, turbidity, salinity, turbulence, and substrate 

suitability (Sheridan and Minello, 2003). Marine seagrass beds generally occur in shallow, relatively 

clear, protected waters with predominantly sand bottoms (Short et al., 2001). Freshwater submerged 

aquatic vegetation (SAV) species occur in the low-salinity waters of coastal estuaries (Castellanos and 

Rozas, 2001). Seagrasses and freshwater SAV’s provide important habitat for immature shrimp, black 

drum, spotted sea trout, juvenile southern flounder, and several other fish species and provide a food 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-37 

source for species of wintering waterfowl (Castellanos and Rozas, 2001; Short et al., 2001; Caldwell, 

2003). These areas would have considerable impact from various cleanup efforts, such as increased 

vessel traffic. Although many of the beds are protected by extensive barrier islands, severe storms can 

cause inundation and overwashing of these islands, resulting in oiling of the seagrass beds if the storm 

occurred during an oil spill. In addition, boom anchors could damage seagrass beds (USDOC, NOAA, 

2010e). It is assumed that there would be a decrease in submerged vegetation and a negative impact on 

the bed communities in a highly affected area. If bays and estuaries accrue oil, there is an assumption that 

there would be a decrease in seagrass cover and negative community impacts. Depending on the species 

and environmental factors, seagrasses may exhibit minimal impacts from a spill; however, communities 

within the beds could accrue greater negative outcomes (Jackson et al., 1989; Taylor et al., 2006). 

Community effects could range from direct mortality due to smothering or indirect mortality from loss of 

food sources and loss of habitat due to a decrease in ecological performance of the entire system (Zieman 

et al., 1984). 

4.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources 

4.2.3.1. Onshore Archaeological Resources 

Regardless of the water depth in which the catastrophic blowout occurs, it is assumed that more than 

1,000 mi (1,609 km) of shoreline could be oiled to some degree. Onshore prehistoric and historic sites 

would be impacted to some extent by a high-volume spill from a catastrophic blowout that reaches shore. 

Sites on barrier islands could suffer the heaviest impact (McGimsey, personal communication, 2010). A 

few prehistoric sites in Louisiana, located inland from the coastline in the marsh and along bayous, could 

experience some light oiling. As discussed above, impacts would include the loss of ability to accurately 

date organic material from archaeological sites due to contamination. Efforts to prevent coastal cultural 

resources from becoming contaminated by oil would likely be overwhelmed in the event of a hurricane 

and by the magnitude of shoreline impacted. The most significant damage to archaeological sites could 

be related to cleanup and response efforts. Fortunately, important lessons were learned from the Exxon 

Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989, in which the greatest damage to archaeological sites was related to cleanup 

activities and looting by cleanup crews rather than from the oil itself (Bittner, 1996). As a result, cultural 

resources were recognized as significant early in the response, and archaeologists are, at present, 

embedded in Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Teams (SCAT) and are consulting with cleanup crews. 

Historic preservation representatives are present at both the Joint Incident Command as well as each Area 

Command under the general oversight of the National Park Service to coordinate response efforts (Odess, 

personal communication, 2010). Despite these efforts, some archaeological sites suffered damage from 

looting or from spill cleanup activities (most notably the parade ground at Fort Morgan, Alabama) 

(Odess, personal communication, 2011). 

4.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing 

In addition to closures in Federal waters, portions of individual State waters would also be closed to 

commercial fishing. The economic impacts of closures on commercial fishing are complicated to predict 

because it is dependent on season and would vary by fishery. If fishers cannot make up losses in the 

remainder of the season, a substantial part of their annual income will be lost. In some cases, commercial 

fishers may move to areas still open to fishing, but at a greater cost due to longer transits. 

4.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing 

In addition to closures in Federal waters, portions to of individual State waters would also be closed 

to recreational fishing. More than 67 percent of the total Gulf catch came on trips that fished primarily in 

inland waters (Pritchard, 2009). In 2008, over 24 million recreational fishing trips were taken, which 

generated about $12 billion in sales, over $6 billion in value added impacts, and over 100,000 jobs 

(USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010b). The majority of recreational fishing occurs in the summer months. 

During this time, scheduled fishing tournaments are held and would be hard to reschedule. If the spill 

affected the summer months, normal direct income and indirect income to the communities that host these 
B-38 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

tournaments would be lost for that year. If a catastrophic spill occurs in the summer, the majority of 

recreational fishing trips would not occur and economic benefits they generate would be lost for that year. 

4.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources 

Tourism and recreation are integral components of the economy of the Gulf of Mexico. Visitors to 

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida spent approximately $145 billion in 2008 (U.S. 

Travel Association (2008). This spending helped to support approximately 2.4 million jobs in recreationbased industries statewide (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010a). Roughly 600,000 of these jobs are in counties 

and parishes that are directly along the coast, making them particularly vulnerable to a catastrophic event 

and the likely associated decrease in tourism. Recreation jobs account for 14.8 percent of Gulf Coast 

employment, greater than the national average of 12.4 percent (QCEW Fact Sheet). The coastal counties 

and parishes that have the highest concentration of recreation workers (over 10,000 workers) in each state 

are as follows: Cameron, Nueces, and Galveston Counties (Texas); Jefferson and Orleans Parishes 

(Louisiana); Harrison County (Mississippi); Mobile and Baldwin Counties (Alabama); and Escambia, 

Okaloosa, Bay, Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, Sarasota, Lee, Collier, Broward, and MiamiDade Counties (Florida). Gulf Coast recreational employment is reasonably cyclical, with the peak 

months during the past few years occurring between March and June (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010b). 

A catastrophic spill has the potential to significantly impact the Gulf Coast recreation and tourism 

industries. The water-dependent and beach-dependent components of these industries would be 

particularly vulnerable. This is particularly true for some of the nature parks and island resources directly 

along the coast, such as Padre Island National Seashore (Texas), Dauphin Island (Alabama), and the Gulf 

Islands National Seashore (Mississippi/Florida). Kaplan and Whitman (unpublished) attempt to isolate 

the economic significance of the recreational resources in the Gulf of Mexico that are particularly relevant 

to OCS oil and gas activities. They found roughly 60,000 jobs that were dependent on these activities in 

2005, although there is uncertainty with this estimate, due to measurement issues and due to events that 

have occurred since their data collection period (most notably Hurricane Katrina). 

In analyzing the potential impacts of a catastrophic spill, one must also consider the range of activities 

that depend on the base resources that may be affected. For example, the restaurant and lodging 

industries are particularly important to the Gulf economy. They are also sensitive to general tourism 

trends in any particular area. However, the economic impacts on these sectors from a spill may be 

partially offset due to an influx of cleanup and relief workers. Finally, one should consider the economic 

context in which a catastrophic event occurs. The Deepwater Horizon event occurred in the context of an 

economy that was only beginning to recover from a very deep recession. In difficult economic times, 

recreation workers may be more prone to being laid off in response to a catastrophic event. Workers may 

also find it more difficult to transition between jobs, which can increase the severity of the economic 

effects. In a recession, tourism also may be more sensitive both to actual damage and to perceptions of 

economic problems within a region. 

4.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics 

By the end of a catastrophic spill, up to 50,000 personnel would be expected to have responded to 

protect the shoreline and wildlife and to cleanup vital coastlines. The degree to which new cleanup jobs 

offset job losses would vary greatly from county to county (or parish to parish). However, these new jobs 

would not make up for lost jobs, in terms of dollar revenue. In most cases, cleanup personnel are paid 

less (e.g., $15-$18 per hour compared with roughly $45 per hour on a drilling rig), resulting in consumers 

in the region having reduced incomes overall and thus, investing less money in the economy (Aversa, 

2010). Permanent demographic impacts are unlikely from these temporary jobs. 

There would be additional economic impacts to tourism and both recreational and commercial 

fishing, as discussed in Sections 4.2.3.2 through 4.2.3.4 above. 

4.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure 

In the event of a catastrophic spill, impacts on land use and infrastructure would be temporary and 

variable in nature. These impacts include land use in staging areas, waste disposal locations and 

capacities, and potential delays due to vessel decontamination stations near ports, as described below. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-39 

Up to 20 staging areas and as many as 50,000 responders would likely result in increased traffic 

congestion and some possible competing land-use issues near the staging areas, depending on the real 

estate market at the time of the event. Some infrastructure categories, such as vessels, ports, docks and 

wharves, would likely become very engaged in response activities and this could result in a shortage of 

space and functionality at infrastructure facilities if ongoing drilling activities were simultaneously 

occurring. However, if a drilling suspension was enacted, like the one related to the Deepwater Horizon

event, conflicting demands on infrastructure facilities would likely fail to materialize (Dismukes, personal 

communication, 2010a). 

In the category of waste disposal, the impacts would be more visible as thousands of tons of oily 

liquid and solid wastes from the oil-spill cleanup are disposed of in onshore landfills. The USEPA, in 

consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard, would likely issue solid-waste management directives to address 

the issue of contaminated materials and solid or liquid wastes that are recovered as a result of cleanup 

operations (USEPA, 2010d and 2010e). 

For navigation and port use, there is also the potential for delays in cargo handling and slow vessel 

traffic due to decontamination operations at various sites along the marine transportation system 

(USDOT, 2010). However, most cleanup activities would be complete within a year of the event, so 

impacts would be expected to be limited in duration (Dismukes, personal communication, 2010b). 

4.2.3.7. Environmental Justice 

While most coastal populations along the Gulf of Mexico coast are not generally minority or low 

income, several communities on the coasts of St. Mary, Lafourche, Terrebonne, St. Bernard, and 

Plaquemines Parishes have minority or low-income population percentages that are higher than their state 

average. These minorities populations are predominately Native American, Islaños, or African American. 

For example, a few counties or parishes along the Gulf Coast have more than a 2-percent Native 

American population (USDOI, MMS, 2007); about 2,250 Houma Indians (a State of Louisiana 

recognized tribe) are concentrated in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, comprising 2.4 percent of the parish’s 

population, and about 800 Chitimacha (a federally recognized tribe) make up 1.6 percent of St. Mary 

Parish’s population. While these are not significant numbers on their own, viewed in the context of 

Louisiana’s overall 0.6 percent Native American average, these communities take on greater 

environmental justice importance. 

Gulf Coast minority and low-income groups are particularly vulnerable to the coastal impacts of a 

catastrophic oil spill due to their greater than average dependence on the natural resources in the offshore 

and coastal environments. Besides their economic reliance on commercial fishing and oystering, coastal 

low-income and minority groups rely heavily on these fisheries and other traditional subsistence fishing, 

hunting, trapping, and gathering activities to augment their diets and household incomes (see Hemmerling 

and Colton, 2003, for an evaluation of environmental justice considerations for south Lafourche Parish). 

Regular commuting has continued this reliance on the natural resources of the coastal environments even 

when populations have been forced to relocate because of landloss and the destruction from recent 

hurricane events. 

State fishery closures due to a catastrophic oil spill would disproportionately affect minority and lowincome groups. Shoreline impacts would generate additional subsistence-related effects. Therefore, these 

minority groups would be disproportionately affected if these coastal areas were impacted by a 

catastrophic spill and the resulting response. 

5. POST-SPILL, LONG-TERM RECOVERY (PHASE 4) 

5.1. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

During the final phase a catastrophic blowout and spill, it is presumed that the well has been capped 

or killed and cleanup activities are concluding. While it is assumed that the majority of spilled oil would 

be dissipated within 30 days of stopping the flow (Inter-agency, 2010a), oil has the potential to persist in 

the environment long after a spill event and has been detected in sediment 30 years after a spill (USDOI, 

FWS, 2004). On sandy beaches, oil can sink deep into the sediments. In tidal flats and salt marshes, oil 

may seep into the muddy bottoms (USDOI, FWS, 2010g). 
B-40 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

5.2. MOST LIKELY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

At this point in the scenario, the spill has been stopped and long-term recovery begins. There is a 

great deal of uncertainty regarding the long-term impacts of a catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The most likely and most significant impacts, as described below, will likely relate to the continued 

exposure of organisms to the spilled oil, oil components, and dispersants remaining in the air, water, and 

sediments, as well as the effects of continued cleanup efforts. 

A catastrophic spill can have long-term impacts on Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. An ecosystem is a 

geographically specified system of organisms, including humans, their environment, and the processes 

that control their dynamics. Ecosystems involve complex connections between organisms, their 

environment, and the processes that drive the system (USDOC, NOAA, 2010f). In some cases, marine 

ecosystems may take decades to fully recover or may recover to alternative states (Ragen, 2010). 

5.2.1. Physical Resources 

5.2.1.1. Air Quality 

There would be some residual air quality impacts after the well is capped or “killed.” As most of the 

oil would have been burned, evaporated, or weathered over time, air quality would return to pre-oil spill 

conditions. While impacts to air quality are expected to be localized and temporary, as discussed in 

Sections 2.2.1.1, 3.2.1.1, and 4.2.1.1, adverse effects that may occur from the exposure of humans and 

wildlife to air pollutants could have long-term consequences. 

5.2.1.2. Coastal and Offshore Water Quality 

The leading source of contaminants that impairs coastal water quality in the Gulf of Mexico is urban 

runoff. Urban runoff can include suspended solids, heavy metals, pesticides, oil, grease, and nutrients 

(such as from lawn fertilizer). Urban runoff increases with population growth, and the Gulf Coast region 

has experienced a 103 percent population growth since 1970 (USDOC, NOAA, NOS, 2008). Other 

pollutant source categories include (1) agricultural runoff, (2) municipal point sources, (3) industrial 

sources, (4) hydromodification (e.g., dredging), and (5) vessel sources (e.g., shipping, fishing, and 

recreational boating). The NRC (2003, Table I-4, p. 237) estimated that, on average, approximately 

26,324 barrels of oil per year entered Gulf waters from petrochemical and oil refinery industries in 

Louisiana and Texas. The Mississippi River introduced approximately 3,680,938 barrels/year (NRC, 

2003, Table I-9, p. 242) into the waters of the Gulf. Hydrocarbons also enter the Gulf of Mexico through 

the result of natural seeps in the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of approximately 980,392 barrels per year (a 

range of approximately 560,224-1,400,560 barrels/year) (NRC, 2003, p. 191). Produced water (formation 

water) is, by volume, the largest waste stream from the oil and gas industry that enters Gulf waters. The 

NRC has estimated the quantity of oil in produced water entering the Gulf per year to be 473,000 bbl 

(NRC, 2003, p. 200, Table D-8).2

 These sources total about 5.5 million barrels of oil per year that 

routinely enters Gulf of Mexico waters. In comparison, a catastrophic spill of 30,000-60,000 barrels per 

day for 90-120 days would spill a total of 2.7-7.2 million barrels of oil. When added to the other sources 

of oil listed above, this would result in a 48- to 129-percent increase in the volume of oil entering the 

water during the year of the spill. In addition, the oil from a spill will be much more concentrated in 

some locations than the large number of other activities that release oil into the Gulf of Mexico. 

Section 3.1.4 discusses the properties and persistence of oil in the environment. 

5.2.2. Biological Resources 

As described below, long-term consequences on biological resources can include impaired 

reproduction, which can potentially impact population levels. Oil has the potential to persist in the 

environment long after a spill event and has been detected in sediment 30 years after a spill (USDOI, 

FWS, 2004). On sandy beaches, oil can sink deep into the sediments. In tidal flats and salt marshes, oil 

 

2 These numbers were generated from converting the units reported in the noted reference and do not imply any 

level of significance. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-41 

may seep into the muddy bottoms. Oil in these systems has the potential to have long-term impacts on 

fish and wildlife populations. 

Some animals may survive initial exposure to spilled oil but may accumulate high levels of 

contaminants in their bodies that can be passed on to predators, in a process known as bioaccumulation 

(USDOI, FWS, 2010g). 

5.2.2.1. Coastal and Marine Birds 

There is a high probability of underestimating the impacts of oil spills on avian species potentially 

encountering oil, particularly seabirds. Despite being oiled, some birds are able to fly and may later be 

killed by the oil, far from the spill location. Often overlooked and understudied are the long-term, 

sublethal, chronic effects due to sublethal exposure to oil. These effects may persist for years after 

exposure, reducing the capacity of affected individuals within the population to recover, due to effects 

that may range from minor physiological disorders through damage to vital organs (i.e., liver and kidney) 

(Alonso-Alvarez et al., 2007). The long-term impacts of potential food stress for bird species from an 

altered ecosystem are unknown, but disturbances to the ecosystem can cause long-term sublethal impacts, 

including malnourishment and decreased reproductive success. Sublethal effects of oil could ultimately 

result in reductions in long-term survival or lower reproductive success for some species of birds (Fry et 

al., 1986; Leighton, 1993; Esler et al., 2000; Golet et al., 2003; Velando et al., 2010). In addition, even 

light oiling of avian eggs transferred via contact with contaminated breast feathers from an incubating 

female can be toxic to developing embryos (Albers, 1980; Albers and Heinz, 1983). Effects such as 

delayed sexual maturity of most seabird species, loss of breeding-age individuals, particularly females, 

may have long-term, population-level effects. Long-term, sublethal, chronic effects may exceed 

immediate losses due to direct mortality (i.e., oiled birds) if such residual effects influence a significant 

proportion of the population or disproportionately impact an important population segment (Newton, 

1998; Peterson et al., 2003; Alonso-Alvarez et al., 2007). Depending on the effects, some populations 

could take years or decades before reaching a full recovery, and some may never recover. 

5.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat 

In addition to possible small fish kills due to direct impacts (as described under Phases 2 and 3), a 

catastrophic spill could affect fish populations in the long term. Due to a catastrophic spill, a significant 

portion of a year class of fish could be absent from the following year’s fishery, reducing overall 

population numbers. However, sublethal impacts, especially for long-lived species (e.g., snapper and 

grouper), could be masked by reduced fishing pressure due to closures. In addition, healthy fish resources 

and fishery stocks depend on ideal habitat (essential fish habitat) for spawning, breeding, feeding, and 

growth to maturity. Thus, a catastrophic spill that affects these areas could result in long-term impacts, 

including destruction to a portion of their habitats. 

5.2.2.3. Marine Mammals 

Even after the spill is stopped, oilings or deaths of marine mammals would still likely occur due to oil 

and dispersants persisting in the water, past marine mammal/oil or dispersant interactions, and ingestion 

of contaminated prey. The animals’ exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea may result in 

sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity; and increased vulnerability 

to disease) and some soft tissue irritation, respiratory stress from inhalation of toxic fumes, food reduction 

or contamination, direct ingestion of oil and/or tar, and temporary displacement from preferred habitats or 

migration routes. A catastrophic oil spill could lead to increased mortalities, resulting in potential 

population-level effects for some species/populations (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010c). 

5.2.2.4. Sea Turtles 

Sea turtles take many years to reach sexual maturity. Green sea turtles reach maturity between 20 and 

50 years of age; loggerheads may be 35 years old before they are able to reproduce; and hawksbill sea 

turtles typically reach lengths of 27 inches for males and 31 inches for females before they can reproduce 

(USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010d). Declines in the food supply for sea turtles, which include 
B-42 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

invertebrates and sponge populations, could also affect sea turtle populations. While all of the pathways 

that an oil spill or the use of dispersants can affect sea turtles is poorly understood, some pathways may 

include the following: (1) oil or dispersants on the sea turtle’s skin and body can cause skin irritation, 

chemical burns, and infections; (2) inhalation of volatile petroleum compounds or dispersants can damage 

the respiratory tract and lead to diseases; (3) ingesting oil or dispersants may cause injury to the 

gastrointestinal tract; and (4) chemicals that are inhaled or ingested may damage internal organs. In most 

foreseeable cases, exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil slick 

would result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity and increased 

vulnerability to disease) to sea turtles. Other possible internal impacts might include harm to the liver, 

kidney, and brain function, as well as cause anemia and immune suppression, or could lead to 

reproductive failure or death. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, shoreline oiling and response efforts may 

affect future population levels and reproduction (USDOI, NPS, 2010). The deaths of subadult and adult 

sea turtles may also drastically reduce the population. 

5.2.2.5. Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles 

Beach Mice 

Within the last 20-30 years, the combination of habitat loss due to beachfront development, isolation 

of remaining beach mouse habitat areas and populations, and destruction of remaining habitat by tropical 

storms and hurricanes has increased the threat of extinction of several subspecies of beach mice. 

Destruction of the remaining habitat due to a catastrophic spill and cleanup activities would increase the 

threat of extinction. 

Diamondback Terrapin 

Habitat destruction, road construction, and drowning in crab traps are the most recent threats to 

diamondback terrapins. Tropical storms, hurricanes, and beach erosion threaten their preferred nesting 

habitats. Destruction of the remaining habitat due to a catastrophic spill and response efforts could 

drastically affect future population levels and reproduction. 

5.2.2.6. Coastal Habitats 

Coastal habitats serve important ecological functions, and the loss of vegetation in coastal areas could 

lead to erosion and permanent landloss. 

Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes 

Oil or its components that remain in the sand after cleanup may be (1) released periodically when 

storms and high tides resuspend or flush beach sediments, (2) decomposed by biological activity, or (3) 

volatilized and dispersed. 

The protection once afforded to inland marshes by coastal barrier beaches has been greatly reduced 

due to decreased elevations and the continued effect of subsidence, sea-level rise, and saltwater intrusion. 

A catastrophic spill has the potential to contribute to this reduction. 

The cleanup impacts of a catastrophic spill could result in short-term (up to 2 years) adjustments in 

beach profiles and configurations as a result of sand removal and disturbance during cleanup operations. 

Some oil contact to lower areas of sand dunes is expected. These contacts would not result in significant 

destabilization of the dunes. The long-term stressors to barrier beach communities caused by the physical 

effects and chemical toxicity of an oil spill may lead to decreased primary production, plant dieback, and 

hence further erosion. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands serve a number of important ecological functions. For example, Louisiana’s coastal 

wetlands support more than two-thirds of the wintering waterfowl population of the Mississippi Flyway, 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-43 

including 20-25 percent of North America’s puddle duck population. Therefore, loss of wetlands would 

also impact a significant portion of the waterfowl population. 

The duration and magnitude of a spill resulting from a catastrophic blowout could result in high 

concentrations of oil that would result in long-term effects to wetland vegetation, including some plant 

mortality and loss of land. This would add to continuing impacts of other factors, such as hurricanes, 

subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and sea-level rise. The wetlands along the Gulf Coast have already been 

severely damaged by the 2005 and 2008 hurricane seasons, leaving the mainland less protected. It was 

estimated in 2000 that coastal Louisiana would continue to lose land at a rate of approximately 

2,672 ha/yr (10 mi2

/yr) over the next 50 years. Further, it was estimated that an additional net loss of 

132,794 ha (512 mi2

) may occur by 2050, which is almost 10 percent of Louisiana’s remaining coastal 

wetlands (Barras et al., 2003). Barras (2006) indicated an additional 217 mi2

 (562 km2) of land lost 

during the 2005 hurricane season. A catastrophic spill occurring nearshore would contribute further to 

this landloss. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, another series of hurricanes (Gustav and Ike) made 

landfall along the Louisiana and Texas coasts in September 2008. Hurricane Gustav made landfall as a 

Category 2 storm near Cocodrie, Louisiana, pushing large surges of saline water into the fresh marshes 

and coastal swamps of Louisiana from Grand Isle westward. While Hurricane Gustav did not impact the 

quantity of wetlands that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita impacted, it did have a severe and continuing effect 

on the coastal barrier islands and the wetlands associated with backshore (back of the island) and 

foreshore (front of the island). While Hurricane Gustav affected the eastern portion of the Louisiana 

coast closer to Grand Isle and Houma, Hurricane Ike concentrated on Louisiana’s western coast. The 

Texas coast received the brunt of Hurricane Ike where it made landfall slightly east of Galveston. The 

storm surge basically removed the dune systems and significantly lowered the beach elevations along the 

eastern portion of the Texas coast near Galveston and the Bolivar Peninsula. The erosion and wash-over 

associated with Hurricane Ike’s tidal surge breeched beach ridges and opened the inland freshwater ponds 

and their associated wetlands to the sea. As a result of the four successive storms, the Louisiana and 

Texas coasts have lost protective elevations, barrier islands, and wetlands, and they now have the 

potential for transitioning to a less productive salt-marsh system in areas where fresh-marsh systems once 

existed. 

In addition, a poorly executed oil cleanup can result in additional impacts. Aggressive onshore and 

marsh cleanup methods have not yet been utilized and probably would not be initiated until the oil spill 

has been stopped. Depending on the marsh remediation methods used, further impacts to the wetlands 

may occur from cleanup activities. Boat traffic in marsh areas from the thousands of response vessels 

associated with a catastrophic spill would produce an incremental increase in erosion rates, sediment 

resuspension, and turbidity (i.e., an adverse but not significant impact to coastal wetland and seagrass 

habitats.) 

5.2.2.7. Open-Water Habitats 

Submerged Vegetation 

If bays and estuaries accrue oil, there is an assumption that there would be a decrease in seagrass 

cover and negative community impacts. Submerged vegetation serves important ecological functions. 

For example, seagrasses and freshwater SAV’s provide important habitat for immature shrimp, black 

drum, spotted sea trout, juvenile southern flounder, and several other fish species, and they provide a food 

source for species of wintering waterfowl (Castellanos and Rozas, 2001; Short and Coles, 2001; Caldwell, 

2003). Therefore, loss of submerged vegetation would impact these species. 

Sargassum 

Oceanographic processes that concentrate Sargassum into mats and rafts would also concentrate toxic 

substances. Therefore, it may be assumed that Sargassum would be found in areas where oil, dispersants, 

and other chemicals have accumulated following a catastrophic spill. The ultimate effects of toxins to 

Sargassum are unclear; however, it is evident that the accumulation provides a toxic environment for 

associated species, especially those that use the Sargassum as areas of refuge for larvae or other 

developmental stages (Unified Incident Command, 2010d). There would be noticeable effects on species 

that eat the plant material, such as sea turtles, and the death rate of Sargassum may be increased due to 
B-44 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

toxic substances, which would contribute to a major decline in its biomass. This would decrease available 

habitat for associated organisms and indirectly affect the survival rate and recruitment for associated fish 

species. The severity and duration of any toxic effects would be dependent on both the physical 

properties of the toxic components and their biological effects, such as how long it might take them to 

degrade, their solubility in water, and the degree that they accumulate in biological tissue.

5.2.2.8. Benthic Habitats 

Shelf Habitats 

In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively impacted, recolonization by 

populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a relatively short period. 

Recolonization would begin with recruitment and immigration of opportunistic species from surrounding 

stocks. More complex communities would follow with time. Repopulation could take longer for areas 

affected by direct oil contact in higher concentrations. 

Hard-bottom communities exposed to large amounts of resuspended sediments following a 

catastrophic, subsurface blowout could be subject to sediment suffocation, exposure to resuspended toxic 

contaminants, and reduced light penetration. The greatest impacts would occur to communities that exist 

in clear water with very low turbidity. The consequences of a blowout along, directly on, or near one of 

these features could be long lasting, although the occurrence of a blowout near such sensitive 

communities is unlikely because of stipulations described in NTL 2009-G39 prevents drilling activity 

near sensitive hard-bottom habitats. Impacts would more likely be from low-level or long-term exposure. 

This type of exposure has the potential to greatly impact coral reef communities, resulting in impaired 

reef health. Impacts to a community in more turbid waters would be greatly reduced, as the species are 

tolerant of suspended sediments, and recovery would occur quicker. 

Deepwater Soft-Bottom Benthic Communities 

In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively impacted, recolonization by 

populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a relatively short period of 

time for all organisms ranging from a matter of days for bacteria and probably less than 1 year for most 

macrofauna and megafauna species. This could take longer for areas affected by direct oil contact in 

higher concentrations. 

Deepwater Coral Benthic Communities 

Deepwater corals are expected to be resistant to oiling, with little effect from low exposure. Many 

invertebrates associated with deepwater coral communities, particularly the crustaceans, would likely be 

more susceptible to damage from oil exposure. Recolonization of severely damaged or destroyed 

communities could take years to decades. 

Deepwater Chemosynthetic Benthic Communities 

While chemosynthetic communities that receive low quantities of well-dispersed oil undergoing 

biodegradation would likely experience little negative effect, recolonization of severely damaged or 

destroyed communities could take years to decades. 

5.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources 

5.2.3.1. Offshore and Onshore Archaeological Resources 

While it is unlikely (Section 2.2.3.1), a known shipwreck could be impacted by the blowout itself or 

the subsequent oil spill; impacts (i.e., contamination) from the release of large quantities of dispersants 

associated with a deepwater, catastrophic blowout are possible. Because a site cannot be avoided unless 

its location in known, undiscovered shipwrecks are at a much higher risk as a result of a blowout. Longterm effects of oiling of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources are poorly understood; however, 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-45 

damage to the protective layer of corals and other organisms on shipwreck sites by oiling could alter the 

surrounding site dynamics and increase their degradation. In addition, onshore habitat degradation could 

lead to erosion, which would increase exposure to and subsidence of prehistoric and historic sites. Unlike 

biological resources that have the potential to recover, damage to archaeological resources from the spill 

or cleanup activities would be irreversible, leading to loss of important archaeological data needed for 

proper study and interpretation. Archaeological sites also provide recreational opportunities both offshore 

and onshore; therefore, the loss of a site would also have impacts on recreation. 

5.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing 

The Gulf is an important biologic and economic area in terms of seafood production and recreational 

fishing. According to NOAA, there are 3.2 million recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region 

who took 24 million fishing trips in 2008. Commercial fishermen in the Gulf harvested more than 

1 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish in 2008 (USDOC, NOAA, 2010g). The economic impacts of 

closures on commercial fishing are complicated to predict because the economic effects are dependent on 

season and would vary by fishery. If fishers cannot make up losses in the remainder of the season, a 

substantial part of their annual income could be lost. While the commercial fishing industry of Texas did 

not sustain measurable direct or indirect economic effects following the 1979 Ixtoc blowout and spill 

(Restrepo et al., 1982), there is a documented phenomenon that, long after an incident, the perception of 

tainted fish and shellfish from the impacted area persists (Keithly and Diop, 2001). It is reasonable to 

assume that a negative perception could impact the value of commercial fish resources for several 

seasons. 

5.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing 

In 2008, over 24 million recreational fishing trips were taken in the Gulf of Mexico, which generated 

about $12 billion in sales, over $6 billion in value-added impacts, and over 100,000 jobs (USDOC, 

NOAA, NMFS, 2010b). Unlike commercial fishing, recreational fishing is concentrated during the 

summer months. Therefore, a catastrophic spill occurring at the beginning of the recreational fishing 

season and continuing through the season would result in the loss of millions of recreational fishing trips 

and billions in subsequent sales. For example, during the summer months, scheduled fishing tournaments 

are held that would be hard to reschedule. Normal direct income and indirect income to the communities 

that host these tournaments would be lost for that year. 

5.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources 

The longer-term implications of a catastrophic event on tourism would depend on the extent to which 

any structural/ecological damage can be repaired, as well as on the extent to which public confidence in 

the tourism industry can be restored. For example, a catastrophic oil spill would likely affect the fish 

populations in the affected waters to some extent. The most direct impact of this would be decreased 

recreational fishing activity in a region to the extent that the fish population has decreased. However, a 

region would not fully recover from the event until confidence in fishing is restored and the remaining 

fish population recovers. In addition, restaurants in the region would be impacted to the extent to which 

they are perceived to use seafood products caught or raised in contaminated waters. Similarly, although 

beaches can be decontaminated not long after a spill has been stopped, lingering perceptions can be 

expected to negatively impact tourism. 

Oxford Economics (2010) conducted a study of recent catastrophic events in order to estimate the 

longer-term economic implications of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They estimate that the long-term 

economic damage from the spill could be between $7.6 and $22.7 billion. Analyzing previous oil spills 

and other catastrophic events, they also suggest that it could take 15-36 months for the tourism industry to 

recover to pre-spill levels. Given Florida’s dependence on fishing and beach activities (as well as the 

overall size of its economy), this study suggests that the State would bear the majority of the economic 

damage from the spill. This study also points out the complicated set of economic and psychological 

forces that ultimately determine the extent to which the tourism and recreation industries would recover 

from a catastrophic oil spill. 
B-46 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

5.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics 

While a catastrophic spill could immediately impact several Gulf States for several months through 

fishing closures, loss of tourism, and any suspension of oil and gas activities, anticipating the long-term 

economic and employment impacts in the Gulf of Mexico is a difficult task. Many of the potentially 

affected jobs, like fishing charters, are self-employed. Thus, they would not necessarily file for 

unemployment and will not be included in business establishment surveys used to estimate State 

unemployment levels. In addition, unemployment numbers in states are based on nonagricultural jobs, 

and the fishing industry is considered within the agriculture category. On the other side, it is also a 

challenge to estimate how many of these displaced workers have been hired to clean up the spill. For 

example, while thousands of vessels of opportunity would be active in the spill response, not all of these 

would be displaced commercial fishermen from the affected areas. The positive employment impacts 

related to response activities are likely to be shorter term than the negative impacts discussed above. 

Catastrophic spills have a huge regional economic impact, as seen recently in the Deepwater Horizon

event. It is estimated that the total economic consequences of the Deepwater Horizon event will lead to a 

net loss of just under $20 billion for the U.S. economy in 2010, which would lower U.S. economic growth 

in 2010 by roughly 0.1 percent and would reduce growth to a greater extent in the four states most 

affected. 

5.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure 

Based on the rapid recovery of infrastructure that was heavily damaged by the catastrophic 2005 

hurricane season, there are not expected to be any long-term impacts to land use and coastal infrastructure 

as a result of a catastrophic oil-spill event. However, BOEMRE would continue to monitor the post-spill, 

long-term recovery phase of the Deepwater Horizon event for any changes that indicate otherwise. A 

catastrophic spill could generate up to 60,000 tons of oil-impacted solid materials disposed in landfills 

along the Gulf Coast. This waste may contain debris, beach or marsh material (sand/silt/clay), vegetation, 

and personal protection equipment collected during cleanup activities. This would be equivalent to 2-6 

years of waste produced from OCS oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico (Dismukes et al., 2007). 

However, landfill capacity is not expected to be an issue at any phase of the oil-spill event or the longterm recovery. According to USEPA, existing landfills that are receiving oil-spill waste from the 

Deepwater Horizon event have plenty of capacity to handle the expected waste volumes. The oil-spill 

waste that is being disposed of in landfills represents less than 7 percent of the total daily waste normally 

accepted at these landfills (USEPA, 2010a). 

It is not expected that any long-term, land-use impacts would arise from properties that are utilized 

for restoration activities and would somehow have their future economic use compromised. The rise or 

fall of property values would not be solely a function of some kind of economic impact from a 

catastrophic oil-spill event. There are many other factors that influence the value of property and its best 

economic use. It is not clear from past experiences whether vegetation loss or erosion created by a spill 

could result in changes in land use. The amount and location of erosion and vegetation loss can be 

influenced by the time of year the spill occurs, its location, and weather patterns, including hurricane 

landfalls (Dismukes, personal communication, 2010a). 

5.2.3.7. Environmental Justice 

After the spill is stopped, the primary environmental justice concerns relate to possible long-term 

health impacts to cleanup workers, a predominately minority population, and to possible disposal of oilimpacted solid waste in predominantly minority areas. 

Suspension of Oil and Gas Activities 

An analysis of socioeconomic characteristics shows that people of Cajun ethnicity in the Gulf States, 

often found to be of a comparatively low socioeconomic status and to work jobs in the textile and oil 

industries (Henry and Bankston, 1999). Past studies suggest that a healthy offshore petroleum industry 

also indirectly benefits low-income and minority populations (Tolbert, 1995). One BOEMRE study in 

Louisiana found income inequality decreased during the oil boom of the 1980’s and increased with the 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-47 

decline (Tolbert, 1995). Although we know that many oil- and gas-related service industries are cutting 

costs and putting off maintenance to defer massive layoffs in response to the oil-spill-caused deepwater 

drilling suspension and the slowed schedule for shallow-water drilling permits, we do not fully 

understand their long-term impacts. 

Onshore and Offshore Cleanup Workers 

By the end of a catastrophic spill, up to 50,000 personnel would be expected to be responding to the 

spill. The majority of these are field responders (United Incident Command, 2010f). As seen with the 

Deepwater Horizon event, the racial composition of cleanup crews was so conspicuous that Ben Jealous, 

the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), sent a public 

letter to BP Chief Operations Officer Tony Hayward on July 9, 2010, demanding to know why African 

Americans were over-represented in “the most physically difficult, lowest paying jobs, with the most 

significant exposure to toxins” (NAACP, 2010). While regulations require the wearing of protective gear 

and only a small percentage of cleanup workers suffer immediate illness and injuries (Center for Disease 

Control, 2010), exposure could have long-term health impacts (e.g., increased rates of some types of 

cancer) (Savitz and Engel, 2010; Kirkeleit et al., 2008). Of the 38 accidents involving supertankers and 

resulting in large oil spills throughout the world, only seven studies on the repercussions of the exposure 

of spilled oils on human health have been completed. Aguilera et al. (2010) compiled and reviewed these 

studies for patterns of health effects and found evidence of the relationship between exposure and “acute 

physical, psychological, genotoxic, and endocrine effects in the exposed individuals.” Acute symptoms 

from exposure to oil, dispersants, and degreasers include headaches, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sore 

eyes, runny nose, sore throat, cough, nose bleeds, rash, blisters, shortness of breath, and dizziness 

(Sathiakumar, 2010). The USEPA’s monitoring data have so far shown that the use of dispersants during 

the Deepwater Horizon event did not result in a presence of chemicals that surpassed human health 

benchmarks (Trapido, 2010). Longitudinal epidemiological studies of possible long-term health effects 

from exposure to either the Deepwater Horizon event oil or dispersants, such as the possible 

bioaccumulation of toxins in tissues and organs, are lacking and the potential for the long-term human 

health effects are largely unknown (although the National Institutes of Health has proposed such a study). 

Prior research on post-spill cleanup efforts found that the duration of cleaning work was a risk factor 

for acute toxic symptoms and that seamen had the highest occurrence of toxic symptoms compared with 

volunteers or paid workers. Therefore, participants in the Deepwater Horizon’s “Vessels of Opportunity” 

program, which recruited local boat owners (including Cajun, Houma Indian, and Vietnamese fishermen) 

to assist in cleanup efforts, would likely be one of the most exposed groups. African Americans are 

thought to have made up a high percentage of the cleanup workforce. The OSHA released two matrices 

of gear requirements for onshore and offshore Gulf operations that are organized by task (OSHA). Of 

past oil-spill workers, uninformed and poorly informed workers were at more risk of exposure and 

symptoms, demonstrating the importance of education and proper training of workers (Sathiakumar, 

2010). Therefore, a catastrophic spill could disproportionately affect seamen and onshore workers such 

as Cajuns, Vietnamese, Houma Indian, and African Americans. 

During a recent National Institute of Environmental Sciences workshop regarding the health effects of 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Chairperson Nancy E. Adler pointed to the uncertainty regarding health 

effects and these types of events, “While studies of previous oil spills provide some basis for identifying 

and mitigating the human health effects of these exposures, the existing data are insufficient to fully 

understand and predict the overall impact of hazards from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the health 

of individuals—including workers, volunteers, residents, visitors, and special populations” (Institute of 

Medicine, 2010). In order to address these data gaps, the National Institute of Environmental Sciences 

plans to begin a prospective study of the mental and physical health of about 50,000 workers who helped 

battle the spill. 

Solid-Waste Disposal 

Following a catastrophic spill, environmental justice concerns arise related to the disposal of cleanuprelated wastes near minority and/or low-income communities (Schleifstein, 2010). It is estimated a 

catastrophic spill could generate up to 60,000 tons of oil-impacted solid materials that would be disposed 

in landfills along the Gulf Coast. While no new landfills would be built due to a catastrophic spill, the 
B-48 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

use of existing landfills might exacerbate existing environmental justice issues. For example, Mobile, 

Alabama, and Miami, Florida, are majority minority urban centers with a majority of minority residents 

living within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius of chosen landfills or liquid processing centers. While only a small 

percentage of Deepwater Horizon waste was sent to these facilities—13 percent of the liquid waste to 

Liquid Environmental Solutions in Mobile and only 0.28 percent of the total liquid waste to Cliff Berry in 

Miami—they could potentially receive more for future spills. For example, of the nine landfills approved 

by USEPA for oil-impacted solid materials, more than half of the waste was disposed of in four landfills 

that were located in areas where minority groups comprised the majority of the population (Hernandez, 

2010). Disposal procedures for the Deepwater Horizon event involved sorting waste materials into 

standard “waste stream types” at small, temporary stations, and then sending each type to existing 

facilities that were licensed to dispose of them. The location of temporary sorting stations was linked to 

the location of containment and cleanup operations. Hence, future locations of any sorting stations are 

not predictable since they would be determined by the needs of cleanup operations. However, waste 

disposal locations were determined by the specializations of existing facilities and by contractual 

relationships between them and the cleanup and containment firms. Louisiana received about 82 percent 

of the Deepwater Horizon liquid waste recovered; of this, 56 percent was manifested to mud facilities 

located in Venice, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, and Port Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, and 

then transferred to a processing facility in Port Arthur, Texas. The waste remaining after processing was 

sent to deep well injection landfills located in Fannett and Big Hill, Texas. The sites located in Venice 

and Port Fourchon, Louisiana, and Port Arthur, Fannett, and Big Hill, Texas, have low-minority 

populations but a few of these areas have substantial poverty rates relative to State and county means. 

Although, in the case of the Deepwater Horizon event, most of the cleanup occurred in the CPA and 

disposal occurred in both the CPA and WPA; this would likely happen should a future event occur. 

6. CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC 

IMPACT 

Like the recent, devastating hurricane seasons of 2005 and 2008, the Deepwater Horizon event has 

changed the environmental baseline of the Gulf of Mexico. Another catastrophic oil spill would make the 

resources of the Gulf even more susceptible to further impacts, adding to the cumulative effects of an 

already sensitive ecosystem. 

The Gulf Coast has survived major natural and manmade disasters (i.e., hurricanes and oil spills), 

through which the people and environmental resources of the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf Coast have 

repeatedly demonstrated their resiliency. While environmental and socioeconomic resources may recover 

from a natural or manmade disaster if given enough time between disasters, disasters happening in unison 

or within short periods of each other would make recovery more difficult. 

The magnitude of OCS and non-OCS activity in the Gulf of Mexico is so immense that routine 

activities associated with a single OCS oil and gas activity (e.g., single lease sale, single well) have a 

minor to no incremental contribution to the impacts of cumulative activities. However, a catastrophic 

blowout and spill would have a major contribution to cumulative impacts. 

7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

7.1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM PHASE 1 (INITIAL EVENT) 

The initial phase of the catastrophic event analyzed in the Gulf of Mexico is a blowout causing an 

explosion and fire, possibly resulting in the sinking of the drilling rig or platform. Impacts during Phase 1 

would be limited to workers on the platform and environmental resources offshore in the immediate 

vicinity of the blowout. Air quality impacts include the emission of pollutants from the oil and the fire 

that are hazardous to human health and that can possibly be fatal. Water quality impacts include localized 

water quality effects, which could include the release of a large amount of methane gas and the 

disturbance of a large amount of sediments over an extended area, if the blowout occurs outside the 

wellbore, below the seafloor. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-49 

An explosion would kill any birds resting on the platform, including birds protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Eruption of gases and fluids may generate significant pressure waves and 

noise to injure or kill individual animals in the vicinity, including federally listed threatened and 

endangered species under the ESA or MMPA. A shock wave underwater may also impact commercial 

and recreational fisheries in the area. Benthic communities beyond avoidance zones could be smothered. 

In addition to a large number of fatalities and injuries of people on the drilling rig or platform itself, 

commercial and recreational fishers and divers near the blowout could be injured or killed. The blowout 

could also damage any unidentified archaeological sites nearby.

7.2. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM PHASE 2 (OFFSHORE SPILL) 

The second phase of the catastrophic event analyzed is an extended, offshore spill estimated to last 

1-4 months for a blowout in shallow water and 3-5 months for a blowout in deep water, due to more 

difficult intervention. A large-scale response effort would be expected for a catastrophic spill, including 

tens of thousands of responders, several thousand vessels, and the release of a large amount of 

dispersants. 

A catastrophic spill has the potential to cause population level impacts to offshore biological 

resources. Multiple Federal and State-listed, threatened and endangered species could be impacted in the 

water column or at the sea surface. In addition, natural processes (e.g., flocculation) and human 

intervention (i.e., subsea dispersants) could expose benthic communities and archaeological sites to oil. 

Additionally, known and previously undiscovered archaeological sites and benthic habitats could be 

damaged by bottom-disturbing activities associated with the response effort, including the anchoring of 

vessels. Pollutants in the spilled oil that are hazardous to response workers without protective equipment 

would be emitted into the air through evaporation and through in-situ or controlled burns of oil slicks. 

Socioeconomic impacts would begin while the spill is still offshore. A large portion of the Gulf of 

Mexico EEZ and most of State waters could be closed to commercial and recreational fishing for several 

months, possibly causing the loss of revenue for an entire season or year. These closures may 

predominately affect minority or ethnic groups. Tourism may also be impacted due to either perceived 

damage to recreational resources that has not yet materialized or to general hesitation on the part of 

travelers to visit the overall region due to the spill. Suspension of some oil and gas activities would 

possibly follow a catastrophic event, temporarily affecting jobs in the oil and gas industry. 

7.3. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM PHASE 3 (ONSHORE CONTACT) 

The third phase of the catastrophic event analyzed is oiling of the shoreline. Exponential increase of 

the length of impacted shoreline is expected as the spill would continue over several months, which 

would likely overwhelm response efforts. Due to longer intervention times, a deepwater blowout and 

spill could impact over 1,000 mi (1,609 km) of shoreline. While a catastrophic spill from a shallow-water 

blowout is expected to be a lower volume than a deepwater blowout, the site would generally be located 

closer to shore, allowing less time for oil to be weathered, dispersed, and recovered. This could result in 

more concentrated and toxic oiling of several hundred miles of shoreline for more than 2 months. 

The severity of oiling would vary between heavy, moderate, light, and occasional tarballs. However, 

due to the length of shoreline that could be potentially oiled and the sensitivity of the Gulf Coast, a 

catastrophic spill could cause extensive habitat degradation. Loss of vegetation could lead to erosion and 

permanent landloss. Though response efforts (including the use of skimmers and booms) would decrease 

the amount of oil contacting the coastline, significant amounts of oil would remain to impact coastal 

water quality. Gulf of Mexico water quality is already rated as fair to poor, according to USEPA. 

Depending on timing and location, a catastrophic spill has the potential to cause population-level impacts 

on biological resources. Dozens of Federal and State-listed, threatened and endangered species could be 

impacted. Impacts on air quality may have adverse effects on oil-spill responders. 

While cultural resources were recognized as significant early in the response and archaeologists are at 

present embedded in SCAT teams and consulting with cleanup crews, efforts to prevent coastal cultural 

resources from becoming contaminated by oil would likely be overwhelmed by the magnitude of 

shoreline impacted and/or in the event of a hurricane during the spill cleanup efforts. In addition to 

closures in Federal waters, portions to all of individual State waters would also be closed to commercial 
B-50 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

and recreational fishing. The economic impact of these closures would have a disproportional effect on 

minority and low-income groups, and shoreline impacts would generate additional subsistence-related 

effects. A catastrophic spill also has the potential to significantly impact the Gulf Coast recreation and 

tourism industries, particularly water-dependent and beach-dependent components of these industries. An 

influx of cleanup and relief workers would not fully offset economic impacts. The influx a large number 

of responders and the creation of staging areas due to a catastrophic spill would have temporary impacts 

(e.g., increased traffic congestion and some possible competing land-use issues) on land use and 

infrastructure. In addition, there is a potential for delays in cargo handling and slow vessel traffic due to 

decontamination operations at various sites along the marine transportation system. 

7.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM PHASE 4 (LONG-TERM IMPACTS) 

Phase 4 focuses on the long-term impacts of a catastrophic oil spill. While impacts to air and water 

quality may be shorter term, a catastrophic spill can have impacts on Gulf of Mexico ecosystems long 

after the well is capped or killed and cleanup activities have concluded. In some cases, marine 

ecosystems may take decades to fully recover or may recover to alternative states. 

Coastal and offshore habitats serve important ecological functions. Onshore, the loss of vegetation 

could lead to erosion and permanent landloss. Offshore, repopulation of benthic communities could take 

longer for areas affected by direct oil contact in higher concentrations. For birds, fish, marine mammals 

and sea turtles, damage of habitats, loss of reproductively capable adults as well as juveniles, and 

sublethal impacts from oil exposure can lead to impaired reproduction. This can potentially reduce 

population levels. For example, a catastrophic spill could decrease available habitat for associated 

organisms and indirectly affect the survival rate and recruitment for associated fish species. In the case of 

birds, long-term, sublethal, chronic effects may exceed immediate losses due to direct mortality (i.e., oiled 

birds) if such residual effects influence a significant proportion of the population or disproportionately 

impact an important population segment. A catastrophic spill could cause the destruction of the 

remaining habitat of certain onshore species, such as the diamondback terrapin or beach mice. 

A catastrophic spill can also have long-term impacts on socioeconomic resources. Positive 

employment impacts related to response activities are likely to be shorter term than the negative impacts. 

Catastrophic spills have a huge regional economic impact (billions of dollars), as recently seen with the 

Deepwater Horizon event. The longer-term implications for commercial and recreational fishing and 

tourism depend on the extent and perception of environmental damage. After the spill is stopped, the 

primary environmental justice concerns would be long-term health impacts of predominately minority 

workers and the disposal of oil-impacted solid waste in predominantly minority areas. Long-term impacts 

to land use and coastal infrastructure are not expected. Unlike biological or other socioeconomic 

resources that have the potential to recover, damage to archaeological resources from the spill or cleanup 

activities would be irreversible, leading to the loss of important archaeological data needed for proper 

study and interpretation.

8. PREPARERS 

James F. Bennett, Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch 

Brad J. Blythe, Oceanographer 

Gregory S. Boland, Biological Oceanographer 

Darice Breeding, Physical Scientist 

Sindey Chaky, Social Scientist 

Deborah Epperson, Biologist 

Jeff Gleason, Biologist 

Donald (Tre) W. Glenn III, Protected Species Biologist 

Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section 

Larry M. Hartzog, Biologist 

Dirk Herkhof, Meteorologist 

Chester Huang, Meteorologist 

Chris Horrell, Marine Archeologist 

Tim Holder, Socioeconomic Specialist 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-51 

Jack Irion, Supervisor, Marine Archaeologist, Social Sciences Unit 

Mark D. Jensen, Economist 

Brian Jordan, Archaeologist 

Arie R. Kaller, Biologist 

Greg Kozlowski, Environmental Scientist 

Daniel (Herb) Leedy, Supervisor, Biological Sciences Unit 

Harry Luton, Social Scientist 

Lissa Lyncker, Environmental Scientist 

Robert Martinson, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Margaret Metcalf, Supervisor, Physical Scientist, Physical Science Unit 

Deborah H. Miller, Technical Editor 

David P. Moran, Biologist 

Michelle V. Morin, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Maureen Mulino, Biologist 

Constance E. Murphy, Editor 

Michelle K Nannen, Biologist 

Erin O’Reilly, Physical Scientist 

James Sinclair, Biologist 

Kimberly A. Skrupky, Marine Biologist 

Kristen L. Strellec, Economist 

Sally Valdes, Fisheries Biologist 

James R. Woehr, Avian Biologist 

9. REFERENCES 

Adcroft, A., R. Hallberg, J.P. Dunne, B.L. Samuels, J.A. Galt, C.H. Barker, and B. Payton. 2010. 

Simulations of underwater plumes of dissolved oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Geophysical Research 

Letters. Vol. 37. 5 pp. 

Aguilera, F., J. Méndez, E. Pásaro, and B. Laffon. 2010. Review on the effects of exposure to spilled 

oils on human health. Journal of Applied Toxicology 30:291–301. doi:10.1002/jat.1521. 

Alabama State Port Authority. 2010. Spill continues to impact Gulf Coastal States, Port of Mobile will 

remain open. Media Update, July 2, 2010. Internet website: http://www.asdd.com/pdf/

ASPA_PortofMobile_OilSpillUpdate_07022010.pdf. 

Albers, P.H. 1980. Transfer of crude oil from contaminated water to bird eggs. Environmental Research 

22:307-314. 

Albers, P.H. and G.H. Heinz. 1983. FLIT-MLO and No. 2 fuel oil: Effects of aerosol applications to 

mallard eggs on hatchability and behavior of ducklings. Environmental Research 30:381-388. 

Alexander, S.K. and J.W. Webb. 1983. Effects of oil on growth and decomposition of Spartina 

alterniflora. In: Proceedings, 1983 Oil Spill Conference. . .February 28-March 3, 1983, San 

Antonio, TX. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 529-532. 

Alexander, S.K. and J.W. Webb. 1987. Relationship of Spartina alterniflora growth to sediment oil 

content following an oil spill. In: Proceedings, 1987 Oil Spill Conference. . .April 6-9, 1988, 

Baltimore, MD. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 445-450. 

Alonso-Alvarez, C., I. Munilla, M. López-Alonso, and A. Veland. 2007. Sublethal toxicity of the 

Prestige oil spill on yellow-legged gulls. Environ. Int. 54:773-781. 

Australian Maritime Safety Authority. 2010. Oil spill dispersants: Top 20 frequently asked questions 

(FAQs). Internet website: http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Protection/National_plan/

General_Information/Dispersants_Information/FAQ_Oil_Spills_Dispersants.asp. Accessed June 29, 

2010. 
B-52 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Aversa, J. 2010. Oil spill’s economic damage may not go beyond Gulf. Internet website: http://

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062800624.html. Accessed 

June 30, 2010. 

Baca, B., G.A. Ward, C.H. Lane, and P.A. Schuler. 2005. Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) of 

dispersed oil on nearshore tropical ecosystems derived from the 20 year “TROPICS” field study. In: 

Proceedings 2005 International Oil Spill Conference. May 15-19, 2005, Miami Beach, FL. 

Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Baird, P.H. 1990. Concentrations of seabirds at oil-drilling rigs. Condor 92:768-771. 

Bak, R.P.M. and J.H.B.W. Elgershuizen. 1976. Patterns of oil-sediment rejection in corals. Marine 

Biology 37:105-113. 

Bankston, C.L. and M. Zhou. 1996. Go fish: The Louisiana Vietnamese and ethnic entrepreneurship in 

an extractive industry. National Journal of Sociology 10(1): 37-55. 

Barras, J.A. 2006. Land area change in coastal Louisiana after the 2005 hurricanes: A series of three 

maps. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File Report 06-1274. 

Barras, J.A., S. Beville, D. Britsch, S. Hartley, S. Hawes, J. Johnston, P. Kemp, Q. Kinler, A. Martucci, 

J. Porthouse, D. Reed, K. Roy, S. Sapkota, and J. Suhayda. 2003. Historical and projected coastal 

Louisiana land changes: 1978-2050. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File 

Report 03-334. 

Bartha, R. and R.M. Atlas. 1983. Transport and transformations of petroleum: Biological processes. In: 

Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds). Long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas 

development. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon. 

Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck, Jr., K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, 

C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, and M.P. Weinstein. 2001. The 

identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and 

invertebrates. BioScience 51(8):633-641. 

Beck, W.W., W.L. Kruczynski, and P.F. Sheridan. 2006. Conclusion. In: Handley, D.A, D. Altsman, 

and R. DeMay, eds. 2006. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002. 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. 

Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. Accessed October 28, 2010. 

Bittner, J.E. 1996. Cultural resources and the Exxon-Valdez oil spill: An overview. Proceedings of the 

Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18:814-818. 

Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. 1987. Long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas 

development. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers. 696 pp. 

Burdeau, C. 2010. Widespread oyster deaths found on Louisiana reefs. The Associated Press. July 17, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/

widespread_oyster_deaths_found.html. 

Burdeau C. and J. Collins. 2010. Marshes fouled by Gulf of Mexico oil spill show signs of regrowth. 

The Associated Press. August 12, 2010. Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/

index.ssf/2010/08/marshes_fouled_by_gulf_of_mexi.html. 

Burns, K.A. and A.H. Knap. 1989. The Bahía Las Minas oil spill: Hydrocarbon uptake by reef building 

corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 20(8):391-398. 

Byrd, G.V., J.H. Reynolds, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of bird 

carcasses on beaches of Unalaska Island, Alaska, following the wreck of the M/V Selendang Ayu. 

Marine Ornithology 37:197-204. 

Caetano, M., M.J. Madureira, and C. Vale. 2003. Metal remobilization during resuspension of anoxic 

contaminated sediment: Short-term laboratory study. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 143:23-40. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-53 

Cagle, F.R. 1952. A Louisiana terrapin population (Malaclemys). Copeia 1952:74-76. 

Caldwell, A.B. 2003. Do terraces and coconut mats affect seeds and submerges aquatic vegetation at 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge? Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 

41 pp. Internet website: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0625103-110131/unrestricted/

Caldwell_thesis.pdf. 

Canadian Center for Energy Information. 2010. What are oil sands and heavy oil? Internet website: 

http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/ONG/OilsandsHeavyOil/Overview.asp?page=1. 

Accessed on September 27, 2010. 

Carls, M.G., S.D. Rice, and J. Hose. 1999. Sensitivity of fish embryos to weathered crude oil: Part 1. 

Low-level exposure during incubation causes malformations, genetic damage and mortality in larval 

Pacific herring (Clupea pallashi). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(3):481-493. 

Carlson, P.R., Jr. and K. Madley. 2006. Statewide summary for Florida. In: Handley, D.A, D. Altsman, 

and R. DeMay, eds. 2006. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002. 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. 

Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. 

Castellanos, D.L. and L.P. Rozas. 2001. Nekton use of submerged aquatic vegetation, marsh, and 

shallow unvegetated bottom in the Atchafalaya River Delta, a Louisiana tidal freshwater ecosystem. 

Estuaries 24(2):184-197. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. NIOSH report of BP illness and injury data (April 23 

– June 6, 2010). Internet website: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/pdfs/

NIOSHRept-BPInjuryandIllnessDataApril23-June6.pdf. 

Clark Atlanta University. Environmental Justice Resource Center. 2010. BP waste oil spill waste 

disposal correction. Internet website: http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/GulfCorrection8-24-2010.html. 

Cook, B.B. and A.H. Knap. 1983. The effects of crude oil and chemical dispersant on photosynthesis in 

the brain coral, Diploria strigosa. Marine Biology 78:21-27. 

Conan, G. 1982. The long-term effects of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill. Philosophical Transactions of the 

Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 297(1087). 

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Report regarding the Minerals Management Service’s 

National Environmental Policy Act policies, practices, and procedures as they relate to Outer 

Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration and development. 41 pp. Internet website: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100816-ceq-mms-ocs-nepa.pdf. 

Darnell, R.M., R.E. Defenbaugh, and D. Moore. 1983. Atlas of biological resources of the continental 

shelf, northwestern Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New 

Orleans, LA. BLM Open File Report No. 82-04. 

Davis, H.C. 1958. Survival and growth of clam and oyster larvae at different salinities. Biological 

Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory 114(3):296-307. 

Davis, B., D.S. Etkin, M. Landry, and K. Watts. 2004. Determination of oil persistence: A historical 

perspective. Proc. Fifth Biennial Freshwater Spills Symposium. Internet website: http://

www.environmental-research.com/erc_papers/ERC_paper_19.pdf. 

Deegan, L.A. 1989. Nekton, the free-swimming consumers. In: Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, 

W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia, eds. Estuarine ecology. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons, 

Inc. 400 pp. 

Delaune, R.D., W.H. Patrick, and R.J. Bureh. 1979. Effect of crude oil on a Louisiana Spartina 

alterniflora salt marsh. Environ. Poll. 20:21-31. 

Dismukes, D. 2010a. Personal communication. Associate Director, LSU Center for Energy Studies, 

Baton Rouge, LA. September 1, 2010. 
B-54 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Dismukes, D. 2010b. Personal communication. Associate Director, LSU Center for Energy Studies, 

Baton Rouge, LA. August 30, 2010. 

Dismukes, D.E., M. Barnett, D. Vitrano, and K. Strellec. 2007. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas scenario 

examination: Onshore waste disposal. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2007-051. 5 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2007/2007-051.pdf. 

Dodge, R.E., S.C. Wyers, A.H. Knap, H.R. Frith, T.D. Sleeter, and S.R. Smith. 1984. The effects of oil 

and oil dispersants on hermatypic coral skeletal growth (extension rate). Coral Reefs 3:191-198. 

Ducklow, H.W. and R. Mitchell. 1979. Composition of mucus released by coral reef Coelenterates. 

Limnology and Oceanography 24(4):706-714. 

Dunnet, G.M.. D.J. Crisp, G. Conan, and W.R.P. Bourne. 1982. The long-term effects of oil pollution on 

marine populations, communities and ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 

of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 297(1087):413-427. Internet website: http://www.jstor.org/

stable/2396584. Accessed October 28, 2010. 

Dunstan, W. M., L.P. Atkinson, J. Natoli. 1975. Stimulation and inhibition of phytoplankton growth by 

low molecular weight hydrocarbons. Marine Biology, 08-01. 

Eccleston, C.H. 2008. NEPA and environmental planning: Tools, techniques, and approaches for 

practitioners. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 447 pp. 

Ejechi, B.O. 2003. Biodegradation of wood in crude oil-polluted soil. World Journal of Microbiology & 

Biotechnology 19(8):799-804. ISSN: 0959-3993. 

Elgershuizen, J.H.B.W. and H.A.M. deKruijf. 1976. Toxicity of crude oils and a dispersant to the stony 

coral Madracis mirabilis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 7(2):22-25. 

Energy Resources Co. Inc. (ERCO). 1982. IXTOC oil spill assessment: Executive summary. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA851-CTO-71. Cambridge, MA. 39 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3977.pdf. 

Esler, D., J.A. Schmutz, R.L. Jarvis, and D.M. Mulcahy. 2000. Winter survival of adult female harlequin 

ducks in relation to history of contamination by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 64:839-847. 

Fanning, K., K.L. Carder, and P.R. Betzer. 1982. Sediment resuspension by coastal waters: A potential 

mechanism for nutrient re-cycling on the ocean’s margins. Deep-Sea Research 29:953-965. 

Fingas, M., F. Ackerman, P. Lambert, K. Li, Z. Wang, J. Mullin, L. Hannon, D. Wang, A. Steenkammer, 

R. Hiltabrand, R. Turpin, and P. Campagna. 1995. The Newfoundland offshore burn experiment: 

Further results of emissions measurement. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine 

Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Volume 2, June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 

Pp. 915-995. 

Fischel, M., W. Grip, and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1989. Study to determine the recovery of a Louisiana 

marsh from an oil spill. In: Proceedings, 1989 Oil Spill Conference, February 13-16, 1989, San 

Antonio, TX. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 383-387. 

Flint, P.L., A.C. Fowler, and R.F. Rockwell. 1999. Modeling losses of birds associated with the oil spill 

from the M/V Citrus off St. Paul Island, Alaska. Ecological Modeling 117:261-267. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010. Sea turtle nests to be moved Friday. 

June 22, 2010. 2 pp. Internet website: http://www.myfwc.com/NEWSROOM/10/statewide/

News_10_X_OilSpill34.htm. Accessed September 29, 2010. 

Flynn, D. 2010. NOAA closes Gulf spill area to fishing. Food Safety News. May 3, 2010. Internet 

website: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/05/noaa-closes-spill-area-to-fishing/. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-55 

Ford, R.G., G.W. Page, and H.R. Carter. 1987. Estimating mortality of seabirds from oil spills. In: 

Proceedings of the 1987 Oil Spill Conference. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Pp. 747-751. 

Fowler, A.C. and P.L. Flint. 1997. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of oiled King Eider 

carcasses on beaches of St. Paul Island, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34:522-526. 

Frithsen, J.B., R. Elmgren, and D.T. Rudnick. 1985. Responses of benthic meiofauna to long-term, lowlevel additions of No. 2 fuel oil. Marine Ecology Progress Series 23:1-14. 

Fry, D.M., J. Swenson, L.A. Addiego, C.R. Grau, and A. Kang. 1986. Reduced reproduction of wedgetailed shearwaters exposed to weathered Santa Barbara crude oil. Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 15:453-463. 

George-Ares, A. and J.R. Clark. 2000. Aquatic toxicology of two Corexit® registered dispersants. 

Chemosphere 40(8):897-906. 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. 1990. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press. 

Gesteria, J.L.G. and J.C. Dauvin. 2000. Amphipods are good bioindicators of the impact of oil spills on 

sift-bottom macrobenthic communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(11):1017-1027. 

Gittings, S.R., T.J. Bright, W.W. Schroeder, W.W. Sager, J.S. Laswell, and R. Rezak. 1992. Invertebrate 

assemblages and ecological controls on topographic features in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 50(3):435-455. 

Golet, G.H., P.E. Seisner, A.D. McGuire, D.D. Roby, J.B. Fischer, K.J. Kuletz, D.B. Irons, T.A. Dean, 

S.C. Jewett, and S.H. Newman. 2003. Long-term direct and indirect effects of the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill on pigeon guillemots in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

241:287-304. 

González, J, F.G. Figueiras, M. Aranguren-Gassis, B.G. Crespo, E. Fernández, X.A.G. Morán and 

M. Nieto-Cid. 2009. Effect of a simulated oil spill on natural assemblages of marine phytoplankton 

enclosed in microcosms. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 83(3):265-276. 

Graham, W.M., R.H. Condon, R.H. Carmichael, I. D’Ambra, H.K. Patterson, L.J. Linn, and 

F.J. Hernandez, Jr. 2010. Oil carbon entered the coastal planktonic food web during the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. Environ. Res. Lett. 5 045301:1-6. 

Guzmán, H.M. and I. Holst. 1993. Effects of chronic oil-sediment pollution on the reproduction of the 

Caribbean reef coral Siderastrea siderea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26:276-282. 

Guzman, H.M., J.B.C. Jackson, and E. Weil. 1991. Short-term ecological consequences of a major oil 

spill on Panamanian subtidal reef corals. Coral Reefs 10:1-12. 

Haig, S.M., C.L. Ferland, F.J. Cuthbert, J. Dingledine, J.P. Goossen, A. Hecht, and N. McPhillips. 2005. 

A complete species census and evidence for regional declines in piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 69:160-173. 

Hamilton, P. 1990. Deep currents in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Physical Oceanography 20:1087-

1104. 

Hargreaves, S. 2010. Drilling ban: Jobs at stake. Internet website: http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/24/

news/economy/drilling_jobs_at_stake/index.htm?postversion=2010062410. Accessed June 30, 2010. 

Hazen, T.C., E.A. Dubinsky, T.Z. DeSantis, G.L. Andersen, Y.M. Picento, N. Singh, J.K. Jansson, A. 

Probst, S.E. Borglin, J.L. Fortney, W.T. Stringfellow, M. Bill, M.S. Conrad, L.M. Tom, K.L. 

Chavarria, T.R. Alusi, R. Lamendella, D.C. Joyner, C. Spier, J. Baelum, M. Auer, M.L. Zelma, R. 

Chakraborty, E.L. Sonnenthal, P. D’haeseleer, H.N. Holman, S. Osman, Z. Lu, J.D. Van Nostrand, Y. 

Deng, J. Zhou, and O.U. Mason. 2010. Deep-sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil-degrading 

bacteria. Science Express. August 24, 2010. 
B-56 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Hemmer, M.J., M.G. Barron, and R.M. Greene. 2010. Comparative toxicity of Louisiana sweet crude oil 

(LSC) and chemically dispersed LSC to two Gulf of Mexico aquatic test species. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. July 31, 2010. 

Hemmerling, S.A. and C.E. Colten. 2003. Environmental justice considerations in Lafourche Parish, 

Louisiana: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-038. 348 pp. 

Henry, J.M. and C.L. Bankston III. 1999. Louisiana Cajun ethnicity: Symbolic or structural? 

Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association, 1521-0707, 19(2):223-248. 

Hernandez, D. 2010. Here’s where BP is dumping its oil spill waste. ColorLines. August 4 2010. 

Internet website: http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/08/

heres_where_bp_is_dumping_its_oil_spill_waste.html. 

Hernandez, F.J., S. Powers, and W. Graham. 2010. Seasonal variability in ichthyoplankton abundance 

and seasonal composition in the northern Gulf of Mexico off Alabama. Fish Bull 108:193-207. 

Hiett, R.L. and J.W. Milon. 2002. Economic impact of recreational fishing and diving associated with 

offshore oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2002-010. 98 pp. 

Hing, L.S., T. Ford, P. Finch, M. Crane, and D. Morritt. 2011. Laboratory stimulation of oil-spill effects 

on marine phytoplankton. Aquat. Toxicol. 103(1-2):32-7. 

Hogan, J.L. 2003. Occurrence of the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) at South 

Deer Island in Galveston Bay, Texas, April 2001–May 2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological 

Survey. USGS Open File Report 03-022. 30 pp. 

Howell, K. 2010. Gulf spill roundup. Greenwire, July 2, 2010. 

Hsieh, J.L., J.S. Fries, and R.T. Noble. 2007. Vibrio and phytoplankton dynamics during the summer of 

2004 in a eutrophying estuary. Ecological Applications 17(5):S102-S109. 

Institute of Medicine. 2010. Assessing the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on human health: A 

summary of the June 2010 workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Internet 

website: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Assessing-the-Effects-of-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-Oil-Spillon-Human-Health.aspx. 

Inter-agency. 2010a. BP Deepwater Horizon oil budget: What happened to the oil? 5 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/imported_pdfs/posted/2931/

Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdf. 

Inter-agency. 2010b. Estimating the economic effects of the deepwater drilling moratorium on the Gulf 

Coast economy. 25 pp. Internet website: http://www.esa.doc.gov/drilling_moratorium.pdf. 

Inter-agency. 2010c. Oil budget calculator: Deepwater Horizon. 40 pp. Internet website: http://

www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/OilBudgetCalc_Full_HQPrint_111110.pdf.

Jackson, J.B.C., J.D. Cubit, B.D. Keller, V. Batista, K. Burns, H.M. Caffey, R.L. Caldwell, S.D. Garrity, 

C.D. Getter, C. Gonzalez, H.M. Guzman, K.W. Kaufmann, A.H. Knap, S.C. Levings, M.J. Marshall, 

R. Steger, R.C. Thompson, and E. Weil. 1989. Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian 

coastal marine communities. Science 243:37-44. 

Jernelöv, A. and O. Lindén. 1981. Ixtoc I: A case study of the world's largest oil. Ambio 

10(6):299-306. 

Jindal, Governor Bobby. 2010. Governor Jindal letter to President Obama and Secretary Salazar: Severe 

impacts of moratorium on deepwater drilling. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/

Releases/06032010-letter.html. Accessed June 30, 2010. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-57 

Johansen, O., H. Rye, and C. Cooper. 2001. DeepSpill JIP—field study of simulated oil and gas 

blowouts in deep water. In: Proceedings from the Fifth International Marine Environment Modeling 

Seminar, October 9-11, 2001, New Orleans, LA. 377 pp. 

Joint Analysis Group. 2010. Review of R/V Brooks McCall data to examine subsurface oil. Internet 

website: http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/

JAG_Report_1_BrooksMcCall_Final_June20.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2010. 

Kaplan, M.F. and C. Whitman. Unpublished. Measuring the economic impact of tourism and recreation 

industries on Gulf Coast communities—Relationship between OCS development and coastal 

resources (2008). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 1435-01-99-CA-30951-18261. x + 164 pp. 

Kennedy, C.J., N.J. Gassman, and P.J. Walsh. 1992. The fate of benzo[a]pyrene in the Scleractinian 

corals Favia fragrum and Montastrea annularis. Marine Biology 113:313-318. 

Keithly, W and H. Diop. 2001. The demand for eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica, from the Gulf of 

Mexico in the presence of Vibrio vulnificus. Marine Fisheries Review 63(1):47-53. 

Kingston, P.F., I.M.T. Dixon, S. Hamilton, and D.C. Moore. 1995. The impact of the Braer oil spill on 

the macrobenthic infauna of the sediments off the Shetland Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

30(7):445-459. 

Kirkeleit J., T. Riise, M. Bråtveit and B.E. Moen. 2008. Increased risk of acute myelogenous leukemia 

and multiple myeloma in a historical cohort of upstream petroleum workers exposed to crude oil. 

Cancer Causes Control. 2008 Feb, 19(1):13-23. Epub 2007 Sep 29. Internet website: http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17906934. 

Kirsch, E.M. and J.G. Sidle. 1999. Status of the interior population of least tern. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 63:470-483. 

Knap, A.H. 1987. Effects of chemically dispersed oil on the brain coral, Diploria strigosa. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 18(3):119-122. 

Knap, A.H., J.E. Solbakken, R.E. Godge, T.D. Sleeter, S.C. Wyers, and K.H. Palmork. 1982. 

Accumulation and elimination of (9-14C) phenanthrene in the reef-building coral (Diploria strigosa). 

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:281-284. 

Knap, A.H., S.C. Wyers, R.E. Dodge, T.D. Sleeter, H.R. Frith, S.R. Smith, and C.B. Cook. 1985. The 

effects of chemically and physically dispersed oil on the brain coral, Diploria strigosa (Dana)—a 

summary review. In: Proceedings 1985 Oil Spill Conference, Los Angeles, CA. (USCG/API/EPA) 

API Publ. No. 4385:547-551. 

Knowland Group, The. 2010. Survey data. Internet website: http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/

article46295.html. 

Kushmaro, A., G. Henning, D.K. Hofmann, and Y. Benayahu. 1997. Metamorphosis of Heteroxenia 

fuscescens Plaunlae (Cnidaria: Octocorallia) is inhibited by crude oil: A novel short term toxicity 

bioassay. Marine Environmental Research 43(4):295-302. 

Lange, R. 1985. A 100 ton experimental oil spill at Halten Bank, off Norway. In: Proceedings, 1985 

Oil Spill Conference. . .February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, CA. Washington, DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. 

LeDee, O.E., F.J. Cuthbert, and P.V. Bolstad. 2008. A remote sensing analysis of coastal habitat 

composition for a threatened shorebird, the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal 

Research 24:719-726. 

Leighton, F.A. 1993. The toxicity of petroleum oils to birds. Environ. Rev. 1:92-103. 

Lewis, J.B. 1971. Effects of crude oil and oil spill dispersant on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

2:59-62. 
B-58 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Lin, Q., I.A. Mendelssohn, M.T. Suidan, K. Lee, and A.D. Venosa. 2002. The dose-response 

relationship between No. 2 fuel oil and the growth of the salt marsh grass, Spartina alterniflora. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:897-902. 

Lin Q. and I. Mendlessohn. 2009. Potential of restoration and phytoremediation with Juncus

roemerianus for diesel-contaminated coastal wetlands. Ecological Engineering 8 January 2009, pp. 

85-91. Internet website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFB4V2J6J8-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F08%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=

search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1619317074&_rerunOrigin=

scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=

e4e701499ce803ec8e0d60bf57c2d99c&searchtype=a. Accessed December 16, 2010. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010a. Report on oil sightings throughout coastal Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 17, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

91710Sightings.html. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010b. Report on oil sightings throughout coastal Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 16, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

091610Sightings.html. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010c. Report on oil sightings throughout coastal Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 14, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

91410Sightings.html. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010d. Report on oil sightings throughout coastal Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 13, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

91310Sightings.html. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010e. Report on coastal skimming activities in Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 17, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

91710Skimming.html. 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. 2010. Impact of President Obama’s order halting 

work on 33 exploratory wells in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Internet website: http://

www.lmoga.com/Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Gulf%20Moratorium.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2010. 

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). 2010. 2010 Dead zone—one of the largest ever. 

LUMCON News. Internet website: http://www.lumcon.edu/Information/news/default.asp?

XMLFilename=201008021451.xml. Accessed August 10, 2010. 

Lytle, J.S. 1975. Fate and effects of crude oil on an estuarine pond. In: Proceedings, Conference on 

Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, San Francisco, CA. Pp. 595-600. 

Market Dynamics Research Group. 2010. Importance of leisure travel attributes and perceptions of 

Louisiana. Internet website: http://www.louisianatravel.com/. 

McAuliffe, C.D., A.E. Smalley, R.D. Groover, W.M. Welsh, W.S. Pickle, and G.E. Jones. 1975. 

Chevron Main Pass Block 41 oil spill: Chemical and biological investigation. In: Proceedings, 1975 

Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco, CA. 

Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

McAuliffe, C.D., B.L. Steelman, W.R. Leek, D.F. Fitzgerald, J.P. Ray, and C.D. Barker. 1981. The 1979 

southern California dispersant treated research oil spills. In: Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill Conference. 

March 2-5, 1981, Atlanta, GA. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 269-282. 

McGimsey, C. 2010. Personal communication. Discussion with the State Archaeologist, Louisiana 

Division of Archaeology, Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism with regard to effects of 

the oil spill on cultural resources. 

Mechalas, B.J. 1974. Pathways and environmental requirements for biogenic gas production in the 

ocean. In: Kaplan, I.R., ed. Natural Gases in Marine Sediments. Marine Science, Volume 3. New 

York, NY: Plenum Press. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-59 

Michel, J. 1992. Chapter 2. Oil behavior and toxicity. In: Introduction to coastal habitats and biological 

resources for spill response. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. NOAA Report No. HMRAD 92-4. Internet 

website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/type_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%

28entry_subtopic_type%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,type_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_type)=

275&subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_type)=8&type_id(entry_subtopic_type)=2. 

Mitchell, R. and I. Chet. 1975. Bacterial attack of corals in polluted seawater. Microbial Ecology 

2:227-233. 

Mock, B. 2010. Boats moored by the BP oil spill, a long-threatened community of black fishers fears for 

its future. The Lens: Investigating New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Internet website: http://

www.projectnola.com/component/content/article/86-the-lens/90049-boats-moored-by-the-bp-oilspill-a-long-threatened-community-of-black-fishers-fears-for-its-future. Accessed May 2010. 

Moore, S.F. and R.L. Dwyer. 1974. Effects of oil on marine organisms: A critical assessment of 

published data. Water Research 8:819-827. 

Morton R.A., T.L. Miller, and L.J. Moore. 2004. Historical shoreline changes along the US Gulf of 

Mexico: A summary of recent shoreline. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File 

Report 2004-1089. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1089/references.html. 

Murray, S.P. 1998. An observational study of the Mississippi/Atchafalaya coastal plume: Final report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0040. 513 pp. 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). 2010. NAACP blasts BP for 

oil spill response. July 10, 2010. Internet website: http://www.naacp.org/blog/entry/naacp-blasts-bpfor-oil-spill-response/. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Oil in the sea III: Inputs, fates, and effects (Committee on Oil 

in the Sea: J.N. Coleman, J. Baker, C. Cooper, M. Fingas, G. Hunt, K. Kvenvolden, J. McDowell, 

J. Michel, K. Michel, J. Phinney, N. Rabalais, L. Roesner, and R.B. Spies). Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 265 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Oil spill dispersants: Efficacy and effects. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 377 pp. 

NaturalGas.org. 2010. Background. Internet website: http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/

background.asp. Accessed August 25, 2010. 

Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling 

fluids. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-064. 118 pp. 

Newton, I. 1998. Population limitation in birds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Nodar, J. 2010. Gulf tanker decontaminated before entering Mississippi. T he Journal of Commerce 

Online. May 26, 2010. Internet website: http://www.joc.com/maritime/tanker-requires-cleaningentering-mississippi-river. 

Nolan, B. and A. Good. 2010. Moratorium in wake of Gulf oil spill idles much more than rigs, workers. 

Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/

moratorium_in_wake_of_gulf_oil.html. Accessed July 6, 2010. 

OBIS-SEAMAP. 2 009. Sea turtle nesting sites: OBIS-SEAMAP. State of the World’s Sea Turtles 

(SWOT). 2009. Internet website: http://seamap.env.duke.edu/swot. 

Odess, D. 2010. Personal communication. Telecon regarding Section 106 in relation to response to the 

oil spill. 

Odess, D. 2011. Personal communication. Trustees Meeting January 12, 2011, New Orleans, LA. 
B-60 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Office of the Governor, State of Florida. 2010. Gulf oil spill situation update. Florida Releases. July 18, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/florida-releasesjuly-18-2010-gulf-oil-spill-situation-update-35721.html. 

Operational Science Advisory Team. 2011. Summary report for fate and effects of remnant oil 

remaining in the beach environment. Annex B: Spatial oil distribution. 35 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/u316/OSAT-2%20Report%20no%20ltr.pdf. 

Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Internet website: http://

www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/

Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pdf. 

Patin, S. 1999. Gas impacts on fish and other marine organisms. In: Environmental impact of the 

offshore oil and gas industry. New York, NY: EcoMonitor Publishing. 425 pp. 

PCCI Marine and Environmental Engineering (PCCI). 1999. Oil spill containment, remote sensing and 

tracking for deepwater blowouts: Status of existing and emerging technologies, final report. 

Prepared for U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alexandria, VA. Purchase 

Order Number 1435-01-98-PO-15135. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/311/

311AA.pdf. 

Peterson, C.H., S.D. Rice, J.W. Short, D. Esler, J.L. Bodkin, B.E. Ballachey, and. D.B. Irons. 2003. 

Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302:2082-2086. 

Piatt, J.F. and R.G. Ford. 1996. How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? In: Rice, 

S.D., R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright, eds. Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez oil spill 

symposium. Am. Fisheries Soc. Symposium 18, Bethesda, MD. Pp. 712-719. 

Piatt, J.F., H.R. Carter, and D.N. Nettleship. 1990. Effects of oil pollution on marine bird populations. 

In: White, J., ed. The effects of oil on wildlife: Research, rehabilitation and general concerns. 

Hanover, PA: Sheridan Press. 

Plotkin, P.T., ed. 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status 

reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Powell, J.A. and G.B. Rathbun. 1984. Distribution and abundance of manatees along the northern coast 

of the Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Sci. 7:1-28. 

Pritchard, E.S., ed. 2009. Fisheries of the United States: 2008. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Ragen, T.J. 2010. Testimony of Timothy J. Ragen, Executive Director, U.S. Marine Mammal 

Commission, before the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife, regarding the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its effects on marine mammals. June 10, 2010. 8 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.mmc.gov/testimony/pdf/testimony_061010.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2010. 

Rathbun, G.B., J.P. Reid, and G. Carowan. 1990. Distribution and movement patterns of manatees 

(Trichechus manatus) in northwestern peninsular Florida. FL Mar. Res. Publ. No. 48. 33 pp. 

Ravitz, J. 2010. Vietnamese fishermen in Gulf fight to not get lost in translation. CNN. June 25, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148708. 

Regg, J. 2000. Deepwater development: A reference document for the deepwater environmental 

assessment, Gulf of Mexico OCS (1997 through 2000). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 99-0066. 

Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2000/2000-015.pdf. 

Restrepo, C.E., F.C. Lamphear, C.A. Gunn, R.B. Ditton, J.P. Nichols, and L.S. Restrepo. 1982. IXTOC I 

oil spill economic impact study, executive summary. Report prepared by Restrepo and Associates for 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-61 

the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans OCS Office, New Orleans, 

LA. 

Rhodes, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment relations using sediment 

profile imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the seafloor (RemotsTM

System). Marine Ecology Progress Series 8:115-128. 

Rice, S.A. and C.L. Hunter. 1992. Effects of suspended sediment and burial on Scleractinian corals from 

west central Florida patch reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 51(3):429-442. 

Rogers, C.S. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 62:185-202. 

Rogers, C.S. and V.H. Garrison. 2001. Ten years after the crime: Lasting effects of damage from a 

cruise ship anchor on a coral reef in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science 

69(2):793-803. 

Russell, R.W. 2005. Interactions between migrating birds and offshore oil and gas platforms in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico: Final Report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-009. 348 pp. 

Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hamson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price, and C.C. Jones. 1980. Anatomy 

of an oil spill: Long-term effects from the grounding of the barge Florida off West Falmouth, 

Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Research 38:265-380. 

Savitz, D.A. and L.S. Engel. 2010. Lessons for study of the health effects of oil spills. Annals of 

Internal Medicine. August 23, 2010. Internet website: http://www.annals.org/content/early/2010/08/

23/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00276.full. 

Sathiakumar, N. 2010. Short-term physical effects of oil spills. Presentation, School of Public Health, 

University of Alabama at Birmingham. Internet website: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity

%20Files/PublicHealth/OilSpillHealth/NaliniSathiakumar-6-22-1110am.pdf. 

Schenkman, L. 2010. Gulf cruise raises questions on methane, but much data still to analyze. Science 

Insider. June 23, 2010. Internet website: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/gulfcruise-raises-questions-on-.html. 

Schiro, A.J., D. Fertl, L.P. May, G.T. Regan, and A. Amos. 1998. West Indian manatee (Trichechus 

manatus) occurrence in U.S. waters west of Florida. Presentation, World Marine Mammal 

Conference, 20-24 January, Monaco. 

Schleifstein, M. 2010. Environmental justice concerns arising from Gulf of Mexico oil spill aired. The 

Times-Picayune. June 15, 2010. Internet website : http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/

index.ssf/2010/06/environmental_justice_concerns.html. 

Scholz, D.K., J.H. Kucklick, R.G. Pond, A.H. Walker, A. Bostrom, and P. Fischbeck. 1999. Fate of 

spilled oil in marine waters: Where does it go? What does it do? How do dispersants affect it? An 

information booklet for decision-makers. American Petroleum Institute Publication Number 4691. 

ScienceDaily. 2010. Spawning habitat of bluefin tuna in Gulf of Mexico: Critical area intersects 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. May 31, 2010. Internet website: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/

2010/05/100528210726.htm. 

Sheridan, P. and T.J. Minello. 2003. Nekton use of different habitat types in seagrass beds of lower 

Laguna Madre, Texas. Bulletin of Marine Science 72(1):37-61. 

Shigenaka, G. 2001. Toxicity of oil to reef-building corals: A spill response perspective. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration, 

Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, WA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS 

OR&R 8. 95 pp. Internet website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1_coral_tox.pdf. 
B-62 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Short, F.T. and R.G. Coles, eds. 2001. Global seagrass research methods. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 

Elsevier Science B.V. 473 pp. 

Short, F.T., R.G. Coles, and C. Pergent-Martini. 2001. Global seagrass distribution. In: Short, F.T. and 

R.G. Coles, eds. Global seagrass research methods. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science 

B.V. Pp 5-6, 20. 

St. Aubin, D.J. and V. Lounsbury. 1990. Oil effects on manatees: Evaluating the risks. In: Geraci, J.R. 

and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risk. San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. Pp. 241-251. 

Stumpf, C.H., M.F. Piehler, S. Thompson, and R.T. Noble. 2010. Loading of fecal indicator bacteria in 

tidal creek headwaters: Hydrographic, meteorological, and terrestrial runoff relationships. Journal of 

Water Research 44(16):4704-15. 

Szell, C.C. and M.S. Woodrey. 2003. Reproductive ecology of the least tern along the lower Mississippi 

River. Waterbirds 26:35-43. 

Tasker, M.L., P. Hope-Jones, B.F. Blake, T.J. Dixon, and A.W. Wallis. 1986. Seabirds associated with 

oil production platforms in the North Sea. Ringing and Migration 7:7-14. 

Taylor, H.A., M.A. Rasheed, and R. Thomas. 2006. Port Curtis post oil spill seagrass assessment, 

Gladstone-2006. DPI&F Information Series QI06046 (DPI&F, Cairns). 19 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.seagrasswatch.org/Info_centre/Publications/pdf/meg/

GladstonePostOilSpillReport2006_Final.pdf. 

Thompson, J.H. 1980. Effects of drilling mud on seven species of reef-building coral as measured in 

field and laboratory. Report to the U.S. Dept. of Interior, Geological Survey by Texas A&M 

University, Department of Oceanography, College Station, TX. 

Tokotch, B. 2010. Oil and coral fact sheet. 3 pp. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/

deepwater_horizon/Oil-CoralOnePage.pdf. 

Tolbert, C.M. 1995. Oil and gas development and coastal income inequality: A comparative analysis. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 94-0052. 75 pp. 

Trapido, E.J., Sc.D., F.A.C.E. 2010. Health and the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill. (October 5-6, 

2010). JSOST Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator (PI) Conference, St. Petersburg, 

FL. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010a. Vessel decontamination stations available around Louisiana. 

Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center. June 20, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/679467/. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010b. Ask a responder: Q & A with Coast Guard Task Force leader for 

commercial vessel decontamination. September 29, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/828195/. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010c. Media availability: Media invited to observe commercial-vessel 

decontamination operations. June 23, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/687191/. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010d. Fish and Wildlife report, consolidated Fish and Wildlife collection 

report. Internet website: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doctype/2931/55963/&offset

=0. Accessed September 29, 2010. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010e. Unified Area Command continues to build a sea turtle observer 

program for on-water oil clean-up. Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center. July 2, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/734531/. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010f. Unified Area Command daily report, August 25, 2010. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-63 

U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. 2010. On-shore & off-shore 

PPE matrix for Gulf operations. Internet website: http://www.osha.gov/oilspills/gulfoperations-ppematrix.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. 2010. Keeping workers safe 

during oil spill response and cleanup operations: Gulf oil response and heat. Internet website: http://

www.osha.gov/oilspills/heatstress.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010a. 

NOAA assists with multi-agency effort to decontaminate ships passing through oil spill. Internet 

website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100528_ships.html. Accessed May 28, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010b. 

Administration’s Joint Analysis Group releases first scientific report on subsea monitoring data from 

Gulf spill. Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100623_brooks.html. 

Updated June 23, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010c. 

Second Federal analysis gives further clues about location and movement of subsurface oil. July 23, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100722_jag.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010d. 

No dead zones observed or expected as part of BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. September 7, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100907_jag3.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010e. 

Using booms in response to oil spills. 4 pp. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/

deepwater_horizon/NOAA_boom_fact_sheet.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010f. 

What is an ecosystem? Internet website: http://ecosystems.noaa.gov/what_eco.htm. Accessed 

October 1, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010g. 

NOAA closes commercial and recreational fishing in oil-affected portion of Gulf of Mexico. May 2, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100502_fisheries.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Hazardous 

Materials Response and Assessment Division. 1992. Oil spill case histories, 1967-1991: Summaries 

of significant U.S. and international spills. HMRAD 92-11 to USCG Research and Development 

Center, Seattle, WA. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010a. Sea turtles, dolphins, and whales and the Gulf of Mexico 

oil spill. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill.htm. Accessed June 10, 

2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010b. Fisheries economics of the United States, 2008. U.S. 

Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-109. 177 pp. Internet website: http://

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010c Annual commercial landings by group. 2 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/gc_runc.html. Accessed July 10, 

2010 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010d. Impacts of oil on marine mammals and sea turtles. 2 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/health/oil_impacts.pdf. 
B-64 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Ocean Service (NOS). 2008. Gulf of Mexico at a glance. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Weather Service. 2010a. Tropical cyclone climatology. Internet website: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

pastprofile.shtml. Updated July 14, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Weather Service. 2010b. NOAA’s oil spill response: Hurricanes and the oil spill. Internet website: 

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/hurricanes_oil_factsheet.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA 

Fisheries Service. 2010a. Information about the Federal fishing closure in oil-affected portions of the 

Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

NOAA Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Saint Petersburg, FL. Southeast Fishery 

Bulletin, July 12, 2010. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/deepwater_horizon/

FB_Closure%20info_Eng.pdf

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA 

Fisheries Service. 2010b. Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill: Size and percent coverage of fishing area 

closures due to BP oil spill. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, NOAA Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Saint Petersburg, FL. Internet 

website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ClosureSizeandPercentCoverage.htm. Updated September 21, 

2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA 

Fisheries Service. 2011. Dolphins and whales and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/mammals.htm. Last updated June 29, 2011. Accessed 

July 12, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office of 

Response and Restoration. 2010a. IXTOC I. Internet website: http://www.incidentnews.gov/

incident/6250. Accessed on September 23, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office of 

Response and Restoration. 2010b. Chevron Main Pass Block 41. Internet website: http://

www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6209. Accessed on September 23, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office of 

Response and Restoration. 2010c. Shell Platform 26. Internet website: http://

www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6211. Accessed on September 23, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office of 

Response and Restoration. 2010d. Shoreline threat update: Southern Florida, Florida Keys and East 

Coast Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill, July 30, 2010. Internet website: http://

response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_topic%

29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=

815&subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=2&topic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=1#evolution. 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2010a. Quarterly census of employment and wages. Internet website: http://

data.bls.gov:8080/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=en. 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2010b. QCEW fact sheet. June 2010. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/

cew/gulf_coast_leisure_hospitality.htm. 

U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2010. Fact sheet: Employment in the oil 

and gas well drilling industry. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/oil_gas_drilling.htm. 

Accessed July 1, 2010. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-65 

U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2010a. Internet 

website: http://www.osha.gov/oilspills/index_sampling.html. Accessed on September 22, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2010b. Direct 

reading results by site. Internet website: http://www.osha.gov/oilspills/oil_directreading_bysite.html. 

Updated August 4, 2010. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE). 2010a. Spills ≥50 barrels (2,100 gallons)—1967. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/incidents/SigPoll67.htm. Updated September 17, 2010. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE). 2010b. Gulf of Mexico Region, Spills ≥ 50 barrels (2,100 gallons)—1970. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/SigPoll70.htm. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE). 2010c. Technical Information Management System (TIMS). Accessed September 13, 

2010. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Effects of oil spills on wildlife 

and habitat. December 2004. Internet website: http://alaska.fws.gov/media/unalaska/Oil%20Spill%

20Fact%20Sheet.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. Alabama beach mouse—

revision of critical habitat. January 2007. Daphne Ecological Services Field Office. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/daphne/abm/pdf/ABM-FactSheet-finalCH-1-30-07.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Stock assessment report for the 

West Indian manatee Florida stock. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, 

FL. December 20, 2009. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Manatee/SARS/

20091230_rpt_Final_Florida_Manatee_SAR.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a. Wildlife threatened on the 

Gulf Coast. June 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

NewWildlifeOfGulf.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. Federally listed wildlife and 

plants threatened by Gulf oil spill. June 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/

dhoilspill/pdfs/FedListedBirdsGulf.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010c. Beach-nesting birds of the 

Gulf. May 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

DHBirdsOfTheGulf.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010d. Bird impact data from DOIERDC database download 12 Oct. 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2010122010.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010e. State and Federal wildlife 

agencies, other partners, move to safeguard sea turtle nests; FedEx providing transportation to 

Florida’s Space Coast. News Release, July 9, 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/

news/2010/r10-048.html. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010f. Species report. Internet 

website: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do. Accessed August 30, 2010. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010g. Effects of oil on wildlife and 

habitat. Fact Sheet, June 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

DHJICFWSOilImpactsWildlifeFactSheet.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2000. Gulf of Mexico 

deepwater operations and activities: Environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 
B-66 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2000-001. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2000/2000-001.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2007. Gulf of Mexico 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. 2 vols. 

U.S. Dept. the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-018. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2008. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil 

and gas lease sales: 2009-2012; Central Planning Area Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222; Western 

Planning Area Sales 210, 215, and 218—final supplemental environmental impact statement. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS EIS/EA MMS 2008-041. Internet website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PDFs/2008/2008-

041.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2010. Preliminary revised 

program Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 2007-2012. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/5-year/PDFs/PRP2007-2012.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service (NPS). 2010. Managing sea turtles during the oil 

spill response. 2 pp. Internet website: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/

Managing_Sea_Turtles_During_the_Oil_Spill_Response.786623.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2010. Gulf Coast ports surrounding the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. Fact Sheet, June 2010. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration. Internet website: http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_fact_sheets/

2010_001/pdf/entire.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Coast Guard (USCG). 2010. Dispersants/on-water oil removal 

capacity (CAPS). Internet website: https://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/contentView.do?

contentTypeId=2&channelId=-30095&contentId=125795&programId=114824&programPage=%

2Fep%2Fprogram%2Feditorial.jsp&pageTypeId=13489. Updated April 26, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Coastal condition report III. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. EPA/842-R-08-002. Internet website: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/

assessmonitor/downloads.cfm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010a. Questions and answers about the BP oil spill 

in the Gulf Coast. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/qanda.html#waste19. Accessed 

August 31, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010b. Odors from the BP oil spill. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/odor.html. Accessed October 1, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010c. BP's analysis of subsurface dispersant use. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-bp.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010d. Recovered oil, contaminated materials and 

liquid and solid wastes management directive, Louisiana, June 29, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste/wastemanagementdirective_la.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010e. Recovered oil, contaminated materials and 

liquid and solid wastes management directive, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, June 29, 2010. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste/wastemanagementdirective_msalfl.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Office of Research and Development. 2010a. 

Comparative toxicity of Louisiana sweet crude oil (LSC) and chemically dispersed LSC to two Gulf 

of Mexico aquatic test species. 13 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/reports/updatedphase2dispersant-toxtest.pdf. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-67 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Office of Research and Development. 2010b. 

Analysis of eight oil spill dispersants using in vitro tests for endocrine and other biological activity. 

47 pp. Appendices 61 pp. 

U.S. Travel Association. 2010. The power of travel. Internet website: http://www.poweroftravel.org/

statistics. 

Vandermeulen, J.H. 1982. Some conclusions regarding long-term biological effects of some major oil 

spills. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 

297(1087). 

Velando, A., I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonso, J. Freire, and C. Perez. 2010. EROD activity and stable 

isotopes in seabirds to disentangle marine food web contamination after the Prestige oil spill. 

Environmental Pollution 158(2010):1275-1280. Internet website: http://webs.uvigo.es/cristobal/

papers/8.EROD%20activity%20and%20stable%20isotopes%20in%20seabirds%20to%20disentangle

%20marine%20food%20web%20contamination%20after%20the%20Prestige%20oil%20spill.pdf. 

Accessed October 28, 2010. 

Ward, G.A., B. Baca, W. Cyriacks, R.E. Dodge, and A. Knap. 2003. Continuing long-term studies of the 

TROPICS Panama oil and dispersed oil spill sites. In: Proceedings 2003 International Oil Spill 

Conference, April 6-11, 2003, Vancouver, Canada. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Webb, J.W. 1988. Establishment of vegetation on oil-contaminated dunes. Shore and Beach, October. 

Pp. 20-23. 

Webb, J.W., G.T. Tanner, and B.H. Koerth. 1981. Oil spill effects on smooth cordgrass in Galveston 

Bay, Texas. Contributions in Marine Science 24:107-114. 

Webb, J.W., S.K. Alexander, and J.K. Winters. 1985. Effects of autumn application of oil on Spartina 

alterniflora in a Texas salt marsh. Environ. Poll., Series A 38(4):321-337. 

Wesseling, I., A.J. Uychiaoco, P.M. Aliño, T. Aurin, and J.E. Vermaat. 1999. Damage recovery of four 

Philippine corals from short-term sediment burial. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176:11-15. 

Wetz, J.J., A.D. Blackwood, J.S. Fries, Z.F. Williams, and R.T. Noble. 2008. Trends in total Vibrio spp. 

and Vibrio vulnificus concentrations in the eutrophic Neuse River estuary, North Carolina, during 

storm events. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 53:141-149. 

Widger, W.R., G. Golovko, A.F. Martinez, E.V. Ballesteros, J.J. Howard, Z. Xu, U. Pandya, 

V.Y. Fofanov, M. Rojas, C. Bradburne, T. Hadfield, N.A. Olson, J.L. Santarpia, and Y. Fofanov. 

2011. Longitudinal metagenomic analysis of the water and soil from Gulf of Mexico beaches 

affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Nature Proceedings hdl:10101/npre.2011.5733.1. 

Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettman, A.W. Diamond and J. Linke. 2001. 

Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

42:1285-1290. 

Wiese, F.K. and G.J. Robertson. 2004. Assessing impacts of chronic oil discharges at sea on seabirds: a 

general oiled seabird mortality model applied to Eastern Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 

68:627–638. 

Williams, R., S. Gero, L. Bejder, J. Calambokidis, S. Kraus, D. Lusseau, A. Read, and J. Robbins. 2011. 

Underestimating the damage: interpreting cetacean carcass recoveries in the context of the Deepwater 

Horizon/BP Incident. Conservation Letters, DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263x2011.00168x. 

Wright, S.D., B.B. Ackerman, R.K. Bonde, C.A. Beck, and D.J. Banowetz. 1995. Analysis of 

watercraft-related mortality of manatees in Florida, 1979-1991. In: O’Shea, T.J., B.B. Ackerman, 

and H.F. Percival, eds. Population biology of the Florida manatee. National Biological Service 

Information and Technology Report 1. Pp. 259-268. 

Wyers, S.C., H.R. Frith, R.E. Dodge, S.R. Smith, A.H. Knap, and T.D. Sleeter. 1986. Behavioral effects 

of chemically dispersed oil and subsequent recovery in Diploria strigosa. Marine Ecology 7:23-42. 
B-68 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Zeller, T., Jr. 2010. Drill ban means hard times for rig workers. Internet website: http://

www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/business/18rig.html?_r=1. Accessed June 29, 2010. 

Zieman, J.C., R. Orth, R.C. Phillips, G. Thayer, and A. Thorhaug. 1984. The effects of oil on seagrass 

ecosystems. In: Cairns, J., Jr. and A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of habitats impacted by oil 

spills. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers. 
APPENDIX C 

 

BOEMRE-OSRA CATASTROPHIC RUN
BOEMRE-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-3 

APPENDIX C. BOEMRE-OSRA CATASTROPHIC RUN 

A special Oil-Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) run was conducted in order to estimate the impacts of a 

possible future catastrophic or high-volume, long-duration oil spill. Thus, assuming a hypothetical highvolume, long-duration oil spill occurred, this analysis emphasized modeling a spill that continued for 

90 consecutive days, with each trajectory tracked for up to 120 days. The OSRA for this analysis was 

conducted for only the trajectories of oil spills from five hypothetical spill locations to various land 

segments. The probability of an oil spill contacting a specific land segment within a given time of travel 

from a certain location or spill point is termed a conditional probability; the condition being that a spill is 

assumed to have occurred. Each trajectory was allowed to continue for as long as 120 days. However, if 

the hypothetical spill contacted shoreline sooner than 30 days after the start of the spill, the spill trajectory 

was terminated, and the contact was recorded. Although, overall OSRA is designed for use as a riskbased assessment, for this analysis, only the conditional probability, the probability of contact to the 

resource, was calculated. The probability of a catastrophic spill occurring was not calculated; thus, the 

combination of the probability of a spill and the probability of contact to the resources from the 

hypothetical spill locations were not performed. Results from this trajectory analysis provide input to the 

final product by estimating where spills might travel on the ocean’s surface and what land segments might 

be contacted if and when another catastrophic spill occurs, but it does not provide input on the probability 

of another catastrophic spill occurring. 

OSRA Overview 

The OSRA model, originally developed by Smith et al. (1982) and enhanced by this Agency over the 

years (Ji et al., 2002, 2004a, 2004b), simulates oil-spill transport using model-simulated winds and ocean 

currents in the Gulf of Mexico. An oil spill on the ocean surface moves around by the complex surface 

ocean currents exerting a shear force on the spilled oil from below. In addition, the prevailing wind exerts 

an additional shear force on the spill from above, and the combination of the two forces causes the 

transportation of the oil spill away from its initial spill location. In the OSRA model, the velocity of a 

hypothetical oil spill is the linear superposition of the surface ocean current and the wind drift caused by 

the winds. The model calculates the movement of hypothetical spills by successively integrating time 

sequences of two spatially gridded input fields: the surface ocean currents and the sea-level winds. Thus, 

the OSRA model generates time sequences of hypothetical oil-spill locations—essentially, oil-spill 

trajectories. 

At each successive time step, the OSRA model compares the location of the hypothetical spills against 

the geographic boundaries of shoreline. The frequencies of oil-spill contact are computed for designated 

oil-spill travel times (e.g., 3, 10, 30, or 120 days) by dividing the total number of oil-spill contacts by the 

total number of hypothetical spills initiated in the model from a given hypothetical spill location. The 

frequencies of oil-spill contact are the model-estimated probabilities of oil-spill contact. The OSRA 

model output provides the estimated probabilities of contact to segments of shoreline from the five launch 

points (LP) in the Gulf of Mexico, which are explained below. 

There are factors not explicitly considered by the OSRA model that can affect the transport of spilled 

oil as well as the dimensions, volume, and nature of the oil spills contacting environmental resources or 

the shoreline. These include possible cleanup operations, chemical composition or biological weathering 

of oil spills, or the spreading and splitting of oil spills. The OSRA analysts have chosen to take a more 

environmentally conservative approach by presuming persistence of spilled oil over the selected time 

duration of the trajectories. 

In the trajectory simulation portion of the OSRA model, many hypothetical oil-spill trajectories are 

produced by numerically integrating a temporally and spatially varying ocean current field, and 

superposing on that an empirical wind-induced drift of the hypothetical oil spills (Samuels et al., 1982). 

Collectively, the trajectories represent a statistical ensemble of simulated oil-spill displacements produced 

by a field of numerically derived winds and ocean currents. The winds and currents are assumed to be 

statistically similar to those that will occur in the Gulf during future offshore activities. In other words, 

the oil-spill risk analysts assume that the frequency of strong wind events in the wind field is the same as 

what will occur during future offshore activities. By inference, the frequencies of contact by the 
C-4 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

simulated oil spills are the same as what could occur from actual oil spills during future offshore 

activities. 

Another portion of the OSRA model tabulates the contacts by the simulated oil spills. A contact to 

shore will stop the trajectory of an oil spill; no re-washing is assumed in this model. After specified 

periods of time, the OSRA model will divide the total number of contacts to the coastline segments by the 

total number of simulated oil spills from each of the five LP’s. These ratios are the estimated 

probabilities of oil-spill contact from offshore activities at that geographic location, assuming spill 

occurrence. 

Conducting an oil-spill risk analysis needs detailed information on ocean currents and wind fields 

(Ji, 2004). The ocean currents used are numerically computed from an ocean circulation model of the 

Gulf of Mexico driven by analyzed meteorological forces (the near-surface winds and the total heat 

fluxes) and observed river inflow into the Gulf of Mexico (Oey et al., 2004; Oey, 2005). The models 

used are versions of the Princeton Ocean Model, which is an enhanced version of the earlier constructed 

Mellor-Blumberg Model. 

The ocean model calculation was performed by Princeton University (Oey et al., 2004). This 

simulation covered the 7-year period, 1993 through 1999, and the results were saved at 3-hour intervals. 

This run included the assimilation of sea-surface altimeter observations to improve the ocean model 

results. The surface currents were then computed for input into the OSRA model, along with the 

concurrent wind field. The OSRA model used the same wind field to calculate the empirical wind drift of 

the simulated spills. The statistics for the contacts by the trajectories forced by the currents and winds 

were combined for the average probabilities. 

Catastrophic OSRA Run Overview 

A special OSRA run was conducted in order to estimate the impacts of a possible future catastrophic 

spill. Thus, assuming a hypothetical catastrophic oil spill occurred, this analysis emphasized modeling a 

spill that continued for 90 consecutive days with each trajectory tracked for up to 120 days. The OSRA 

for this analysis was conducted for only the trajectories of oil spills from five hypothetical spill locations 

to various land segments (Figure C-1 and C-2). The probability that an oil spill will contact a specific 

land segment within a given time of travel from a certain location or spill point is termed a conditional 

probability; the condition being that a spill is assumed to have occurred. Each trajectory was allowed to 

continue for as long as 120 days. However, if the hypothetical spill contacted shoreline sooner than 30 

days after the start of the spill, the spill trajectory was terminated, and the contact was recorded. 

Although, overall the OSRA is designed for use as a risk-based assessment, for this analysis, only the 

conditional probability, the probability of contact to the resource, was calculated. The probability of a 

catastrophic spill occurring was not calculated, thus the combination of the probability of a spill and the 

probability of contact to the resources from the hypothetical spill locations was not performed. Results 

from this trajectory analysis provide input to the final product by estimating where spills might travel on 

the ocean’s surface and what land segments might be contacted if and when another catastrophic spill 

occurs, but it does not provide input on the probability of another catastrophic spill occurring. 

Trajectories of hypothetical spills were initiated every 1.0 day from each of the launch points over the 

simulation period from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 1998 (Figure C-1). The chosen number of 

trajectories per site was small enough to be computationally practical and large enough to reduce the 

random sampling error to an insignificant level. Also, the weather-scale changes in the winds are at least 

minimally sampled, with simulated spills started every 1.0 day. 

These launch point locations were developed within the Gulf of Mexico region for the purpose of this 

analysis. Five launch points were identified and encompassed the approximate areas with the possibility 

of finding the largest oil volume within the following regions: 

 Central Gulf of Mexico shelf area west of the Mississippi River; 

 Central Gulf of Mexico shelf area east of the Mississippi River; 

 Central Gulf of Mexico slope area; 

 Western Gulf of Mexico shelf area; and 
BOEMRE-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-5 

 Western Gulf of Mexico slope area. 

Longitude Latitude Launch Point (LP) 

-92.17851 28.98660 1 

-88.15338 29.91388 2 

-90.22203 27.31998 3 

-96.76627 27.55423 4 

-94.51836 27.51367 5 

The methodology used for launch point selection is not part of the OSRA model in the manner it has 

been typically run for this Agency’s spill analyses. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region geologists and engineers 

used the following methodology to select the five points. For each geologic play currently recognized, 

the undiscovered technically recoverable resource volume was allocated throughout the play area based 

on the likelihood of future oil discovery potential. The probability factor used to allocate undiscovered 

oil volumes to areas within the geologic play was based on the density of existing discoveries, the density 

of undrilled prospects on leased acreage, and the results from recent exploration activity. In areas where 

the potential for undiscovered technically recoverable resource volume exists for more than one geologic 

play, the oil volumes were aggregated. Results from the aggregation were used to identify five 

geographic areas of high potential for future oil discoveries: three in the Central Planning Area and two 

in the Western Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico. Although these areas may encompass hundreds of 

square miles, the coordinates for the five launch points were selected qualitatively to correspond with the 

centroid of these areas. After their selection, the five points were given to the OSRA analysts for use with 

the OSRA model. 

Additionally, the total estimated oil-contacted area of water was also determined. The OSRA model 

integrates the spill velocities (a linear superposition of surface ocean currents and empirical wind drift) by 

integrating in time to produce the spill trajectories. The time step selected was 1 hour to fully utilize the 

spatial resolution of the ocean current field and to achieve a stable set of trajectories. The velocity field 

was bilinearly interpolated from the 3-hour grid to get velocities at 1-hour intervals. 

The trajectories simulated by the model represent only hypothetical pathways of oil slicks; they do not 

involve any direct consideration of cleanup, dispersion, or weathering processes that could alter the 

quantity or properties of oil that might eventually contact the environmental resource locations. However, 

an implicit analysis of weathering and spill degradation can be considered by choosing a travel time for 

the simulated oil spills when they contact environmental resource locations that represent the likely 

persistence of the oil slick on the water surface. Therefore, OSRA model trajectories were analyzed up to 

120 days. Any spill contacts occurring during this elapsed time are reported in the probability tables. 

Conditional probabilities of contact with land segments within 120 days of travel time were calculated for 

each of the hypothetical spill sites. 

The probability estimates were tabulated as 90-day groupings of the 120-day trajectories, as averages 

for the 6 years of the analysis from 1993 to 1998. These groupings were treated as seasonal probabilities 

that corresponded with quarters of the year: Winter, Q1 (January, February, and March); Spring, Q2 

(April, May, and June); Summer, Q3 (July, August, and September); and Fall, Q4 (October, November, 

and December). These 3-month probabilities can be used to estimate the average number of land 

segments (counties/parishes) contacted during a spill, treated as one spill occurring each day for 90 days, 

within the quarter. The seasonal quarterly groupings take account of the differing meteorological and 

oceanographic conditions (wind and current patterns) during the year. The latest meteorological and 

oceanographic information in the Gulf of Mexico available to BOEMRE were for the years 1993-1998. 

The area of ocean surface contacted by oil from the hypothetical spills was estimated by creating a 

grid of 1/6 degree longitude by 1/6 degree latitude. As the trajectories were computed, contact to the grid 

cells was tabulated. To estimate the area, the number of grid cells was multiplied by the approximate area 

of 342 square kilometers per grid cell. The number of grid cells and the approximate area of the ocean 

contacted by the spills were summarized at the same time intervals that were used for the land segment 

(county/parish boundary) tables (3, 10, 30, and 120 days). 
C-6 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Catastrophic OSRA Results and Discussion 

It should be noted that the study area only extends somewhat into the Atlantic Ocean, where oil spills 

in the Gulf might be transported via the exiting Loop Current. However, on average, less than 0.5 percent 

of the simulated spills made it across the northern or southern Florida Straits boundary within 30 days, 

and only 1-2 percent within 120 days. The hypothetical spill trajectories from launch points in the 

western Gulf of Mexico (e.g., LP1, LP4, and LP5) have a much less chance of being transported through 

the Florida Straits than those in the central Gulf of Mexico (LP2 and LP3). 

As one might expect, land segments closest to the spill sites had the greatest risk of contact. As the 

model run duration increases, more of the shoreline segments could have meaningful probabilities of 

contact (0.5%) (See Tables C-1 through C-5 for the probabilities expressed as percent chance of one or 

more offshore spills 1,000 bbl contacting the areas noted in Figure C-2.). It should be reiterated that 

these are conditional probabilities; the condition being that a spill is assumed to have occurred. The 

longer transit times up to 120 days allowed by the model enable hypothetical spills to reach the 

environmental resources and the shoreline from more distant spill locations. With increased travel time, 

the complex patterns of wind and ocean currents produce eddy-like motions of the oil spills and multiple 

opportunities for a spill to make contact with shoreline segments. For some launch points and for the 

travel times greater than 30 days, the probability of contact to land decreases very slowly or remains 

constant because the early contacts to land have occurred within 30 days, and the trajectories that have not 

contacted land within 30 days will remain at sea for 120 days or more. 

To summarize the differences between the LP’s, a chart showing the estimated square area of each 

launch point for the 6-day intervals is shown (see Figures C-3 through C-7 corresponding to LP’s 1-5, 

respectively). The differences between the estimated spill areas from each LP can be explained by 

meteorological and oceanographic conditions. 

 LP1—CPA, shelf area, west of the Mississippi River Delta, offshore south-central 

Louisiana, deepwater. Launch Point 1 is located near the Louisiana coast, and the 

fall circulation results in persistent and recurring coastal current from Louisiana 

waters toward Texas waters. 

 LP2—CPA, shelf edge area, east of the Mississippi River Delta, south of the 

Alabama-Mississippi border, ultra-deepwater. Launch Point 2 is located near the 

Mississippi River Delta on the eastern side. The trajectories contact the coastline of 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Many of the trajectories are forced 

offshore by the wind drift and interact with the Loop Current and Loop Current 

eddies. 

 LP3—CPA, shelf area, west of the Mississippi River delta, due south of New 

Orleans, deepwater. Launch Point 3 is located relatively far offshore and west of the 

Mississippi River Delta. The estimated area contacted by the spill is the largest of all 

the selected points, and the trajectories are influenced by the deepwater Loop Current 

eddies and offshore currents. 

 LP4—WPA, shelf area, deepwater. Launch Point 4 is near the Texas coast in the 

western Gulf of Mexico. The trajectories from this launch point frequently contact 

land. The coastal flow near Texas, but to the south of the U.S./Mexico border, has a 

high fraction of northward currents, the wind is relatively persistent with a westward 

component, and the trajectories remain in a relatively smaller area. 

 LP5—WPA, slope area, ultra-deepwater. Launch Point 5 is in the western Gulf of 

Mexico between the coast (LP4) and the central Gulf (LP3). The trajectories are 

forced by the Loop Current eddies that are somewhat weaker in this part of the Gulf 

of Mexico because these eddies dissipate kinetic energy as they drift to the west from 

their original separation zone. 
BOEMRE-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-7 

REFERENCES CITED 

Ji, Z.-G. 2004. Use of physical sciences in support of environmental management. Environmental 

Management 34(2). Pp. 159-169. 

Ji, Z.-G., W.R. Johnson, C.F. Marshall, G.B. Rainey, and E.M. Lear. 2002. Oil-spill risk analysis: Gulf 

of Mexico outer continental shelf (OCS) lease sales, Central Planning Area and Western Planning 

Area, 2003-2007, and Gulfwide OCS program, 2003-2042. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2002-032. 61 pp. 

Ji, Z.-G., W.R. Johnson, and C.F. Marshall. 2004a. Deepwater oil-spill modeling for assessing 

environmental impacts. Coastal Environment V. Southampton, MA: WIT Press. Pp. 349-358. 

Ji, Z.-G., W.R. Johnson, C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 2004b. Oil-spill risk analysis: Contingency 

planning statistics for Gulf of Mexico OCS activities. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2004-026. 62 pp. 

Oey, L.-Y. 2005. Circulation model of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea: Development of the 

Princeton Regional Ocean Forecast (& Hindcast) System—PROFS and Hindcast experiment for 

1992-1999: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Environmental 

Division, Herndon, VA. OCS Study MMS 2005-049. 174 pp. 

Oey, L.-Y., P. Hamilton, and H. C.-Lee. 2004. Modeling and data analyses of circulation processes in 

the Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-074. 129 pp. 

Samuels, W. B., N. E. Huang, and D.E. Amstutz. 1982. An oil spill trajectory analysis model with a 

variable wind deflection angle. Ocean Engineering 9:347-360. 

Smith, R.A., J.R. Slack, T. Wyant, and K.J. Lanfear. 1982. The oil spill risk analysis model of the U.S. 

Geological Survey. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1227. 
C-8 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 









  

 

 

 



 









	









 	











	
 



	






	








	
 




















	









 	
 












  

	
 





   	







	
 


	




	


   	



Figure C-1. Location of Five Hypothetical Oil-Spill Launch Points for OSRA within the Study Area. 















	












 





 





	
























	

  	

 









	

  

 










	

	



	









	


	


 





	









	

	

	 	

		


 



 



 

	 
 

 !


 "


 #$$


 %$
&'

(


%

(


)


('


 *


 +,

 ('


 #$$


(


- 

.& 

 -
*

 /&

	 0


1

(

2



 2&&3

 #&3

44

(

 

	 5

0

(


 6&

 +$

 73

  

 #$$


 %, 

 .

 8

 .3

 91

:
3

	  


 2


(


 &

 

 

2
*'

 (



 %

	 ('


 


 "8,


 %&

 &'

 
5


	 
,





 9

 


!


9,	

:*


 #'

/	

:


(

(


)


(
 

	 0(

	 44(

	%(

	 1(

		 :
(

(

	 !
&
);%,


 <8


 =&


 (4&'

&	

	
 4

1&

%0;

/

Figure C-2. Locations of Parishes, Counties, and Coastlines Examined in the Special OSRA Run Conducted in 

Order to Estimate the Impacts of a Possible Future Catastrophic Spill. 
BOEMRE-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-9 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure C-3. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point One (LP 1) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in Winter, 

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
C-10 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure C-4. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point Two (LP 2) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in Winter, 

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
BOEMRE-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-11 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure C-5. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point Three (LP 3) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in Winter, 

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
C-12 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure C-6. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point Four (LP 4) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in Winter, 

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
BOEMRE-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-13 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure C-7. Estimated Square Area of Launch Point Five (LP 5) for 3, 10, 30, and 120 Days in Winter, 

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
C-14 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table C-1 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point One 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX - - 1 2 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 2

2 Willacy, TX - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

3 Kenedy, TX - - 1 3 - - - - - - 1 1 - - 2 4

4 Kleberg, TX - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 1 - - 1 3

5 Nueces, TX - - 1 4 - - - - - - 1 2 - - 1 3

6 Aransas, TX - - 2 4 - - - - - - 2 2 - - 2 4

7 Calhoun, TX - - 5 10 - - - - - - 4 4 - - 2 3

8 Matagorda, TX - 1 13 17 - - 1 1 - - 3 4 - 1 9 11

9 Brazoria, TX - 1 9 10 - 1 3 3 - - 4 6 - - 6 6

10 Galveston, TX - 2 9 11 - 2 8 9 - 2 12 15 - 1 9 9

11 Chambers, TX - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - -

12 Jefferson, TX - 2 5 6 - 5 9 9 - 2 9 10 - 3 6 6

13 Cameron, LA 2 10 13 15 5 35 41 41 - 7 18 20 2 13 16 19

14 Vermilion, LA 4 9 10 10 8 22 24 24 1 9 12 12 4 8 9 9

15 Iberia, LA 1 2 3 3 1 5 6 6 - 5 7 7 1 2 3 3

16 St. Mary, LA - 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - -

17 Terrebonne, LA - 1 1 1 - 2 2 2 - - 5 6 - 1 1 1

18 Lafourche, LA - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - -

19 Jefferson, LA - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

21 St. Bernard, LA - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

 

62 Texas Coastline - 6 45 68 - 8 23 24 - 5 37 47 - 6 38 52

63 Louisiana Coastline 8 23 28 30 14 64 75 76 2 21 43 49 6 23 30 32

64 Mississippi Coastline - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - - - 1 - - - - - - 2 2 - - 1 3

Note: Values of <0.5% are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons 

are all <0.5% are not shown. See Figure C-1 for the location of Launch Point One. See Figure C-2 for the 

location of the named land areas. 
BOEMRE-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-15 

Table C-2 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point Two 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

2 Willacy, TX - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

3 Kenedy, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1

4 Kleberg, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 Calhoun, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1

8 Matagorda, TX - - - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 2

9 Brazoria, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1

10 Galveston, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

12 Jefferson, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

13 Cameron, LA - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 Vermilion, LA - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -

17 Terrebonne, LA - - 3 4 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1

18 Lafourche, LA - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1

19 Jefferson, LA - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 1

20 Plaquemines, LA 1 14 21 23 - 3 4 6 1 8 20 25 2 21 27 28

21 St. Bernard, LA - 4 5 5 - 1 2 3 1 7 14 16 - 8 9 10

22 Hancock, MS - 1 2 4 - 2 2 2 - 2 3 3 1 3 5 5

23 Harrison, MS 2 3 4 5 - 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 2 3 3

24 Jackson, MS 7 11 11 13 5 11 12 12 1 3 4 4 6 12 13 14

25 Mobile, AL 11 14 14 15 11 16 17 17 4 8 9 10 8 11 12 13

26 Baldwin, AL 4 7 7 9 6 14 16 17 1 8 10 10 1 2 2 3

27 Escambia, FL - 1 1 2 1 5 11 13 1 3 5 6 - - 1 1

29 Okaloosa, FL - - - 1 - 1 2 3 - - 1 1 - - - -

30 Walton, FL - - - - - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 1

31 Bay, FL - - - 1 - 2 3 5 - - 1 2 - - - -

32 Gulf, FL - - - - - 1 3 5 - - 1 1 - - - -

33 Franklin, FL - - - - - - - 3 - - 1 2 - - - -

34 Wakulla, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

36 Taylor, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

38 Levy, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

49 Monroe, FL - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

50 Dade, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

 

62 Texas Coastline - - - 7 - - - - - - - 5 - - 1 6

63 Louisiana Coastline 2 18 29 37 - 4 6 9 1 15 34 43 2 29 39 41

64 Mississippi Coastline 9 15 17 22 5 16 18 19 3 7 11 12 7 16 21 22

65 Alabama Coastline 15 21 21 24 18 30 34 34 5 16 19 20 9 13 14 15

66 Florida Coastline - 2 2 6 1 10 20 36 1 3 10 14 - - 1 2

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1

Note: Values of <0.5% are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons are all <0.5% 

are not shown. See Figure C-1 for the location of Launch Point Two. See Figure C-2 for the location of the named land 

areas. 
C-16 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table C-3 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point Three 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX - - - 2 - - - - - - - 2 - - - 2

2 Willacy, TX - - - 3 - - - - - - - 2 - - - 3

3 Kenedy, TX - - - 8 - - - 1 - - - 9 - - - 5

4 Kleberg, TX - - 1 6 - - - - - - - 4 - - 1 6

5 Nueces, TX - - 1 6 - - - - - - - 2 - - 1 2

6 Aransas, TX - - - 5 - - - 1 - - - 3 - - - 2

7 Calhoun, TX - - 1 6 - - - - - - - 6 - - 1 4

8 Matagorda, TX - - 2 17 - - 3 4 - - - 11 - - 1 6

9 Brazoria, TX - - 3 12 - - 1 3 - - 2 8 - - 1 5

10 Galveston, TX - - 3 10 - - 3 6 - - 2 5 - - 1 4

12 Jefferson, TX - - 1 4 - - 7 9 - - 1 1 - - - 2

13 Cameron, LA - - 1 4 - - 11 12 - 1 1 4 - - - 4

14 Vermilion, LA - - 1 2 - - 5 6 - 1 1 2 - - - -

15 Iberia, LA - - - 1 - - 4 4 - - - - - - - -

17 Terrebonne, LA - 1 2 3 - 4 12 14 - - - 2 - - - -

18 Lafourche, LA - - 1 1 - 2 8 10 - - 1 2 - - - -

19 Jefferson, LA - - - 1 - - 2 2 - - 1 1 - - - -

20 Plaquemines, LA - - - 1 - 2 10 12 - - 1 2 - - - -

24 Jackson, MS - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - -

26 Baldwin, AL - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - -

31 Bay, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

33 Franklin, FL - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

49 Monroe, FL - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1

50 Dade, FL - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

 

62 Texas Coastline - - 12 78 - - 14 24 - - 6 54 - - 4 41

63 Louisiana Coastline - 1 6 14 - 9 52 60 - 1 4 13 - - - 6

64 Mississippi Coastline - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - -

65 Alabama Coastline - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - -

66 Florida Coastline - - - 1 - - 1 4 - - - 2 - - - 2

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - - - 4 - - - 1 - - - 10 - - - 10

68 Veracruz-Llave, Mexico - - - - - - - - - - 1 7 - - - 1

69 Tabasco, Mexico - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

Note: Values of <0.5% are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons 

are all <0.5% are not shown. See Figure C-1 for the location of Launch Point Three. See Figure C-2 for 

the location of the named land areas. 
BOEMRE-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-17 

Table C-4 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point Four 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX 1 3 3 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 3 3

2 Willacy, TX 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 3 7 8 8

3 Kenedy, TX 10 22 23 23 7 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 10 21 22 23

4 Kleberg, TX 9 14 15 16 12 14 14 14 9 17 17 17 7 13 14 14

5 Nueces, TX 10 16 17 18 21 26 26 26 8 17 18 18 11 16 17 17

6 Aransas, TX 11 15 16 16 28 33 33 33 17 26 26 26 9 12 13 13

7 Calhoun, TX 7 12 13 14 12 15 15 15 18 25 26 26 7 11 12 12

8 Matagorda, TX 1 3 3 4 1 2 2 2 - 2 2 2 - 1 2 3

9 Brazoria, TX - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1

 

62 Texas Coastline 51 90 94 98 82 99 100 100 56 98 100 100 48 84 91 93

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - 1 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1

Note: Values of <0.5%.are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons 

are all <0.5% are not shown. See Figure C-1 for the location of Launch Point Four. See Figure C-2 for the 

location of the named land areas. 
C-18 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table C-5 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point Five 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX - - 2 4 - - - - - - 2 3 - - 3 5

2 Willacy, TX - - 1 4 - - - - - - 2 3 - - 2 3

3 Kenedy, TX - 1 8 14 - - 1 1 - - 4 7 - - 6 9

4 Kleberg, TX - - 5 7 - 1 2 2 - - 1 3 - - 4 5

5 Nueces, TX - 1 5 9 - 1 2 2 - - 1 1 - - 3 5

6 Aransas, TX - 1 5 10 - - 3 3 - - 2 3 - - 4 6

7 Calhoun, TX - 2 10 20 - 3 11 12 - - 7 9 - 1 5 7

8 Matagorda, TX - 1 8 14 - 18 29 30 - 2 12 21 - 2 9 15

9 Brazoria, TX - - 3 4 - 9 13 13 - - 7 12 - 1 4 6

10 Galveston, TX - 1 2 4 - 3 11 13 - - 5 12 - 1 2 3

12 Jefferson, TX - - - 1 - - 12 15 - - 1 4 - - - 1

13 Cameron, LA - - - 1 - 1 5 6 - - 6 8 - - - -

14 Vermilion, LA - - - - - - 2 3 - - 1 2 - - - -

20 Plaquemines, LA - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

 

62 Texas Coastline - 7 50 91 - 35 85 90 - 2 43 79 - 5 43 65

63 Louisiana Coastline - - - 1 - 1 8 9 - - 8 11 - - - -

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - - 1 6 - - - - - - 3 7 - - 2 11

68 Veracruz-Llave, Mexico - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

Note: Values of <0.5% are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons 

are all <0.5% are not shown. See Figure C-1 for the location of Launch Point Five. See Figure C-2 for the 

location of the named land areas. 
APPENDIX D 

 

RECENT PUBLICATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 

PROGRAM, GULF OF MEXICO OCS REGION, 2006–PRESENT
Recent Publications of the Environmental Studies Program D-3 

APPENDIX D. RECENT PUBLICATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

STUDIES PROGRAM, GULF OF MEXICO OCS 

REGION, 2006–PRESENT 

Published in 2011 

BOEMRE 2011-001 

(in press) Analysis of the Oil Services Contract Industry in the Gulf of Mexico Region 

BOEMRE 2011-002 

(in press) 

Status and Applications of Acoustic Mitigation and Monitoring Systems for 

Marine Mammals: Workshop Proceedings, November 17-19, 2009, Boston, 

Massachusetts 

BOEMRE 2011-003 

(in press) 

Impact of Recent Hurricane Activity on Historic Shipwrecks in the Gulf of 

Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

BOEMRE 2011-004 

(in press) 

Archival Investigations for Potential Colonial-Era Shipwrecks in UltraDeepwater within the Gulf of Mexico 

BOEMRE 2011-011 

(in press) 

User’s Guide for the 2011 Gulfwide Offshore Activities Data System 

(GOADS-2011) 

BOEMRE 2011-012 

(in press) Literature Synthesis for the North and Central Atlantic Ocean 

BOEMRE 2011-028 

(in press) 

Assessment of Opportunities for Alternative Uses of Hydrocarbon 

Infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico 

Published in 2010 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2010-001 Proceedings: USA-Mexico Workshop on the Deepwater Physical 

Oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico, June 2007 

MMS 2010-002 Proof of Concept for Platform Recruited Reef Fish, Phase 1: Do Platforms 

Provide Habitat for Subadult Red Snapper? 

MMS 2010-007 Assessment of Marginal Production in the Gulf of Mexico and Lost Production 

from Early Decommissioning 

MMS 2010-015 Low-Frequency Variability of Currents in the Deepwater Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico 

MMS 2010-016 Trophic Aspects of Sperm Whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in the Northern 

Gulf of Mexico Using Stable Isotopes of Carbon and Nitrogen 

BOEMRE 2010-039 Bank Erosion of Navigation Canals in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico 

BOEMRE 2010-044 

(in press) 

Full-Water Column Current Observations in the Western Gulf of Mexico 

BOEMRE 2010-045 

(in press) Year 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study 

BOEMRE 2010-046 Multicomponent and Multifrequency Seismic for Assessment of Fluid-Gas 

Expulsion Geology and Gas-Hydrate Deposits: Gulf of Mexico Hydrates 
D-4 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

BOEMRE 2010-052 

BOEMRE 2010-053 

(in press) 

Long-Term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks: 2004-2008

Volume 1: Technical Report 

Volume 2: Appendices 

Published in 2009 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2009-010 Quality Control and Analysis of Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler Data 

Collected on Offshore Platforms of the Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2009-013 Foraminiferal Communities of Bathyal Hydrocarbon Seeps, Northern Gulf of 

Mexico: A Taxonomic, Ecologic, and Geologic Study 

MMS 2009-023 Loop Current Frontal Eddies Based on Satellite Remote Sensing and Drifter 

Data 

MMS 2009-032 Post-Hurricane Assessment of Sensitive Habitats of the Flower Garden Banks 

Vicinity 

MMS 2009-039 Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology 

Study: Final Report 

MMS 2009-043 

Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Use of the Ship/Trinity/Tiger Shoal Complex as 

a Nationally Important Spawning/Hatching/Foraging Ground: Discovery, 

Evaluation, and Sand Mining Recommendations Based on Blue Crab, Shrimp, 

and Spotted Seatrout Findings 

MMS 2009-046 Investigations of Chemosynthetic Communities on the Lower Continental Slope 

of the Gulf of Mexico, Interim Report 2 

MMS 2009-048 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)-Related Pipelines and Navigation Canals in the 

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico: Relative Impacts on Wetlands Habitats 

and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

MMS 2009-050 Observation of the Deepwater Manifestation of the Loop Current and Loop 

Current Rings in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2009-051 Proceedings: Twenty-fifth Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, 

January 2009 

MMS 2009-055 

MMS 2009-056 

MMS 2009-057 

MMS 2009-058 

Synthesis, Analysis, and Integration of Meteorological and Air Quality Data for 

the Gulf of Mexico Region 

Volume I: User’s Manual for the Gulf of Mexico Air Quality Database 

(Version 1.0) 

Volume II: Technical Reference Manual for the Gulf of Mexico Air Quality 

Database 

Volume III: Data Analysis 

Volume IV: Cart Analysis of Modeling Episode Days 

MMS 2009-059 Evaluation of Oil and Gas Platforms on the Louisiana Continental Shelf for 

Organisms with Biotechnology Potential 

MMS 2009-060 Modeling Waves and Currents Produced by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma 
Recent Publications of the Environmental Studies Program D-5 

Published in 2008 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2008-001 Deepwater Currents in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico: Observations at 25.5°N 

and 87°W 

MMS 2008-006 Sperm Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis Report 

MMS 2008-009 Investigations of Chemosynthetic Communities on the Lower Continental Slope 

of the Gulf of Mexico: Interim Report 1 

MMS 2008-012 Proceedings: Twenty-Fourth Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, 

January 2007 

MMS 2008-015 

Lophelia Reef Megafaunal Community Structure, Biotopes, Genetics, Microbial 

Ecology, and Geology (2004-2006) 

NOTE: This study was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for 

the Agency’s Headquarters’ Office, and it was funded by USGS.

MMS 2008-017 Examination of the Development of Liquefied Natural Gas on the Gulf of 

Mexico 

MMS 2008-018 Viosca Knoll Wreck: Discovery and Investigation of an Early NineteenthCentury Wooden Sailing Vessel in 2,000 Feet of Water 

MMS 2008-019 Post-Hurricane Assessment at the East Flower Garden Bank Long-Term 

Monitoring Site: November 2005 

MMS 2008-022 Effects of Subsea Processing on Deepwater Environments in the Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2008-024 Executive Summary: 3rd International Deep-Sea Coral Symposium in Miami 

MMS 2008-027 

MMS 2008-028 

Long-Term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks, 2004-

2005—Interim Report 

Volume I: Technical Report 

Volume II: Appendices 

MMS 2008-029 Five-Year Meteorological Datasets for CALMET/CALPUFF and OCD5 

Modeling of the Gulf of Mexico Region 

MMS 2008-030 

MMS 2008-031 

Study of Deepwater Currents in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico 

Volume I: Executive Summary 

Volume II: Technical Report 

MMS 2008-042 

MMS 2008-043 

MMS 2008-044 

MMS 2008-045 

MMS 2008-046 

MMS 2008-047 

History of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in Southern Louisiana 

Volume I: Papers on the Evolving Offshore Industry 

Volume II: Bayou Lafourche—Oral Histories of the Oil and Gas Industry 

Volume III: Morgan City’s History in the Era of Oil and Gas—Perspectives of 

Those Who Were There 

Volume IV: Terrebonne Parish 

Volume V: Guide to the Interviews 

Volume VI: A Collection of Photographs 

MMS 2008-048 

Platform Debris Fields Associated with the Blue Dolphin (Buccaneer) Gas and 

Oil Field Artificial Reef Sites Offshore Freeport, Texas: Extent, Composition, 

and Biological Utilization 

MMS 2008-050 

MMS 2008-051 

Labor Needs Survey 

Volume I: Technical Report 

Volume II: Survey Instruments 
D-6 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

MMS 2008-052 Benefits and Burdens of OCS Activities on States, Labor Market Areas, Coastal 

Counties, and Selected Communities 

MMS 2008-058 Cumulative Increment Analysis for the Breton National Wilderness Area 

Published in 2007 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2007-015 Archaeological and Biological Analysis of World War II Shipwrecks in the Gulf 

of Mexico; Artificial Reef Effect in Deepwater 

MMS 2007-019 Mixtures of Metals and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons May Elicit 

Complex, Nonadditive Toxicological Interactions 

MMS 2007-022 Full-Water Column Current Observations in the Central Gulf of Mexico: Final 

Report

MMS 2007-030 Incorporation of Gulf of Mexico Benthic Survey Data into the Ocean 

Biogeographic Information System

MMS 2007-031 Idle Iron in the Gulf of Mexico

MMS 2007-033 Cooperative Research to Study Dive Patterns of Sperm Whales in the Atlantic 

Ocean

MMS 2007-034 Competition and Performance in Oil and Gas Lease Sales and Development in 

the U.S. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1983-1999

MMS 2007-035 

Seafloor Characteristics and Distribution Patterns of Lophelia pertusa and 

Other Sessile Megafauna at Two Upper-Slope Sites in the Northeastern Gulf of 

Mexico 

MMS 2007-044 Characterization of Northern Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Hard-Bottom 

Communities with Emphasis on Lophelia Coral

MMS 2007-056 

Full-Water Column Currents Near the Sigsbee Escarpment (91-92o W. 

Longitude) and Relationships with the Loop Current and Associated Warm- and 

Cold-Core Eddies 

MMS 2007-061 Study of Barite Solubility and the Release of Trace Components to the Marine 

Environment

MMS 2007-067 Year 2005 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study

MMS 2007-068 User’s Guide for the 2008 Gulfwide Offshore Activities Data System 

(GOADS-2008)

Published in 2006 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2006-005 Fidelity of Red Snapper to Petroleum Platforms and Artificial Reefs in the 

Northern Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2006-011 Sustainable Community in Oil and Gas Country: Final Report 

MMS 2006-028 Degradation of Synthetic-Based Drilling Mud Base Fluids by Gulf of Mexico 

Sediments, Final Report 

MMS 2006-030 Accounting for Socioeconomic Change from Offshore Oil and Gas: Cumulative 

Effects on Louisiana’s Coastal Parishes, 1969-2000 

MMS 2006-034 Sperm Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico, Summary Report: 2002-

2004 
Recent Publications of the Environmental Studies Program D-7 

MMS 2006-035 Long-Term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary, 2002-2003 

MMS 2006-036 Study to Conduct National Register of Historic Places Evaluations of 

Submerged Sites on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

MMS 2006-037 

Effect of Depth, Location, and Habitat Type, on Relative Abundance and 

Species Composition of Fishes Associated with Petroleum Platforms and 

Sonnier Bank in the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2006-044 

MMS 2006-045 

MMS 2006-046 

Effects of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development at Selected Continental 

Slope Sites in the Gulf of Mexico; 

Volume I: Executive Summary 

Volume II: Technical Report 

Volume III: Appendices 

MMS 2006-063 Economic Effects of Petroleum Prices and Production in the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS on the U.S. Gulf Coast Economy 

MMS 2006-064 Capital Investment Decisionmaking and Trends in Petroleum Resource 

Development in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2006-067 Sperm Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico, Annual Report: Years 3 and 

4 

MMS 2006-071 

Annotated Bibliography of the Potential Environmental Impacts of Chlorination 

and Disinfection Byproducts Relevant to Offshore Liquefied Natural Gas Port 

Facilities 

MMS 2006-072 Mica Shipwreck Project Report: Deepwater Archaeological Investigation of a 

19th Century Shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2006-073 

MMS 2006-074 

Exploratory Study of Deepwater Currents in the Gulf of Mexico 

Volume I: Executive Summary 

Volume II: Technical Report 
APPENDIX E 

 

AGENCY-FUNDED HURRICANE RESEARCH AND STUDIES
Agency-Funded Hurricane Research and Studies E-3 

APPENDIX E. AGENCY-FUNDED HURRICANE RESEARCH AND 

STUDIES 

Project/Study Number Title 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

BOEMRE 2011-003 

(in press) 

Impacts of Recent Hurricane Activity on Historic Shipwrecks in the Gulf of 

Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

MMS 2009-060 Modeling Waves and Currents Produced by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma 

MMS 2009-032 Post-Hurricane Assessment of Sensitive Habitats of the Flower Garden 

Banks Vicinity 

MMS 2008-019 Post-Hurricane Assessment at the East Flower Garden Bank Long-Term 

Monitoring Site: November 2005 

GM-07-x12 Assessing Impact of OCS Activities on Public Infrastructure, Service, and 

Population in Coastal Communities Following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina 

GM-92-42-124 Post-Hurricane Assessment of OCS-Related Infrastructure and Communities 

in the Gulf of Mexico Region 

GM-92-42-125 Spatial Restructuring and Fiscal Impacts in the Wake of Disaster: The Case 

of the Oil and Gas Industry Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

GM-92-42-137 Socioeconomic Responses to Coastal Landloss and Hurricanes: Measuring 

Resilience Among OCS-Related Coastal Communities in Louisiana 

GM-92-42-131 Gulf Coast Subsidence and Wetland Loss: A Synthesis of Recent Research 

Project No. 578 Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita 

Project No. 580 Hindcast Data on Winds, Waves and Currents in Northern Gulf of Mexico 

in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

Project No. 581 Pipeline Damage Assessments from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

Project No. 591 

(completed December 5, 

2007) 

Evaluate Accuracy of Polyester Subrope Damage Detection Performed by 

Remotely-Operated Vehicles (ROV’s) Following Hurricanes and Other 

Events 

Project No. 593 Evaluate and Assess the Performance of Jackup Rigs That Were Subject to 

Hurricanes Katrina or Rita 

Project No. 599 JIP to Quantify Risks in Deepwater Production Facilities and Flowlines in 

the GOM 

Project No. 603 Stability of Tension-Leg Platforms (TLP’s) with Damaged Tendons 
E-4 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Project No. 604 Evaluation of Fatigue Life Models and Assessment Practice for Tension-Leg 

Platforms (Phase 1: Tendon System Fatigue) 

Project No. 605 Cooperative Research on Extreme Seas and Their Impact to Floating 

Structures 

Project No. 609 Reliability vs. Consequence of Failure for API RP 2A Platforms Using 

RP2MET 

Hurricane Ivan 

GM-05-x12 Ocean Currents under Hurricane Ivan on the Mississippi/Alabama Shelf 

Project No. 548 

Examination and Review of Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Loss 

of Station-keeping Ability during Hurricane Ivan and Assessment of Current 

Mooring Standards and Criteria to Prevent Similar Failures 

Project No. 549 Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platforms in Hurricane Ivan, Andrew 

Project No. 550 A Pilot Study for Regionally-Consistent Hazard Susceptibility Mapping of 

Submarine Mudslides, Offshore Gulf of Mexico 

Project No. 551 Assessment of Drilling and Workover Rig Storm Sea Fastenings on 

Offshore Floating Platforms during Hurricane Ivan 

Project No. 552 Mudslides during Hurricane Ivan and an Assessment of the Potential for 

Future Mudslides in the GOM 

Project No. 553 Pipeline Damage Assessment from Hurricane Ivan 

Project No. 559 Offshore Hurricane Readiness and Recovery Conference 

Hurricane Lili 

Project No. 466 Validation and Calibration of API RP2A Using Hurricane Lili to Update the 

Hurricane Andrew JIP Results that Provided the Basis for API Section 17 

Project No. 467 Hindcast Study of Winds, Waves, and Currents in Northern GOM in 

Hurricane Lili (2002) 

Project No. 469 Post-Mortem Failure Assessment of Drilling Rigs during Hurricane Lili 

Project No. 471 Assessment of Performance of Deepwater Floating Production Facilities 

Project No. 503 Evaluate and Compare Hurricane-Induced Damage to Offshore Pipelines for 

Hurricane Lili—Rev. A 

Hurricane Andrew 

Project No. 193 Study and Hindcast of Wind and Wave Fields for Hurricane Andrew 

Project No. 199 Hurricane Andrew Calibration Study 

Project No. 201 Evaluation of Hurricane Pipeline Damage 
Agency-Funded Hurricane Research and Studies E-5 

Project No. 203 

Performance of Safety and Pollution Control Devices in the Aftermath of 

Hurricane Andrew (Part of the Hurricane Andrew OCS Damage Assessment 

Program) 

Project No. 204 Post-Mortem Platform Failure Evaluation Study 

Project No. 206 Shallow-Water Wave and Current Field Study 

Project No. 207 API/Hurricane Foundation Study 

Project No. 209 Development of Acceptance Criteria for Caisson Structures Damaged 

during Hurricane Andrew 

Project No. 210 Hurricane Andrew Effects on Offshore Platforms 

Project No. 224 Dynamic Nonlinear Loading Effects on Offshore Platforms 

Project No. 229 Hurricane Andrew Effects on Offshore Platforms (Phase II – JIP) 
KEYWORD INDEX
Keyword Index Keyword-3 

KEYWORD INDEX 

Air Quality, x, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-25, 1-26, 1-31, 2-6, 2-8, 3-20, 3-22, 4-6, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 

4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-172, 4-174, 4-184, 4-322, 4-327 

Alternative Energy, 4-324 

Annular Preventer, 1-23, 3-47, 3-48 

Archaeological Resources, x, xiii, 1-14, 1-16, 1-17, 1-21, 1-27, 2-6, 2-20, 2-21, 3-5, 3-6, 3-8, 3-26, 4-9, 

4-49, 4-232, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 4-245, 

4-246, 4-322, 4-328, 4-329 

Artificial Reefs, 1-13, 1-30, 2-6, 2-18, 2-20, 3-12, 3-55, 3-60, 3-63, 4-95, 4-198, 4-199, 4-208, 4-215, 

4-217, 4-218, 4-220, 4-221, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-239, 4-240, 4-301, 4-303, 4-304, 4-310, 4-331 

Blowout Preventer, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-19, 1-20, 1-23, 1-25, 3-24, 3-38, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 

3-51, 4-97, 4-304 

Blowouts, viii, xi, xii, xiii, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-16, 1-20, 1-22, 1-23, 1-25, 1-33, 2-8, 2-9, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 

2-15, 2-18, 2-19, 2-24, 3-11, 3-24, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-51, 

4-17, 4-19, 4-23, 4-27, 4-28, 4-36, 4-37, 4-39, 4-67, 4-92, 4-95, 4-97, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 

4-108, 4-109, 4-114, 4-115, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 

4-147, 4-159, 4-160, 4-193, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-210, 4-211, 4-212, 

4-214, 4-215, 4-220, 4-244, 4-247, 4-249, 4-253, 4-258, 4-261, 4-268, 4-277, 4-296, 4-303, 4-305, 

4-309, 4-310, 4-311, 4-312, 4-314, 4-315, 4-318, 4-322, 4-327 

Chemosynthetic Communities, xi, 1-13, 1-14, 2-5, 2-6, 2-13, 2-14, 3-24, 4-6, 4-7, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 

4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134 

Coastal and Marine Birds, x, xii, 1-3, 2-3, 2-17, 3-4, 4-3, 4-5, 4-163, 4-164, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-174, 

4-175, 4-177, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-191, 4-192, 4-322, 

4-328, 5-3 

Coastal Zone Management, x, 1-4, 1-5, 1-21, 1-27, 4-22, 5-8 

Collisions, viii, xiii, 1-33, 2-9, 2-10, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-22, 2-23, 3-32, 3-52, 3-53, 4-27, 4-28, 4-36, 4-39, 

4-50, 4-52, 4-55, 4-67, 4-72, 4-74, 4-80, 4-128, 4-136, 4-140, 4-147, 4-153, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-162, 

4-167, 4-173, 4-176, 4-183, 4-184, 4-189, 4-190, 4-192, 4-247, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-258, 4-261, 

4-268, 4-277, 4-278, 4-282, 4-317, 4-326, 4-327, 4-328 

Commercial Fishing, x, xii, 1-13, 1-23, 2-5, 2-19, 3-11, 3-12, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 4-4, 4-23, 4-106, 4-149, 

4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-212, 4-213, 4-215, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 

4-220, 4-225, 4-230, 4-238, 4-240, 4-263, 4-266, 4-268, 4-273, 4-312, 4-322, 4-329, 4-330 

Consultation and Coordination, viii, 1-4, 1-6, 1-32, 4-270 

Cumulative Activities, viii, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-66, 3-67, 

3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-77, 4-3, 4-75, 4-164, 4-185, 4-191, 4-239, 4-258, 4-262, 4-263, 4-319, 

4-320, 4-321 

Cumulative Impacts, viii, x, 3-54, 3-56, 3-64, 3-66, 3-71, 4-3, 4-4, 4-10, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-29, 

4-30, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-52, 4-57, 4-58, 4-70, 4-75, 4-81, 4-83, 4-106, 4-115, 4-117, 4-118, 4-128, 

4-129, 4-130, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-147, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-170, 

4-182, 4-186, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-202, 4-203, 4-205, 4-212, 4-220, 4-230, 4-232, 4-238, 4-245, 

4-246, 4-247, 4-255, 4-258, 4-261, 4-263, 4-269, 4-282, 4-285, 4-288, 4-289, 4-311, 4-313, 4-315, 

4-319, 4-320, 4-321, 4-323, 4-330 

Deepwater, vii, x, xi, 1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 1-9, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-25, 1-32, 1-33, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 

2-24, 3-4, 3-7, 3-9, 3-11, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-23, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-39, 3-40, 

3-42, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-50, 3-51, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-58, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-71, 3-77, 4-6, 4-13, 4-18, 
Keyword-4 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

4-32, 4-37, 4-46, 4-62, 4-63, 4-77, 4-86, 4-88, 4-91, 4-97, 4-100, 4-118, 4-119, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 

4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-142, 

4-144, 4-155, 4-171, 4-194, 4-199, 4-200, 4-205, 4-209, 4-213, 4-216, 4-217, 4-221, 4-224, 4-228, 

4-233, 4-235, 4-239, 4-247, 4-249, 4-251, 4-254, 4-256, 4-257, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-271, 4-272, 

4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-278, 4-279, 4-283, 4-287, 4-289, 4-291, 4-292, 4-293, 4-297, 4-299, 4-305, 

4-314, 4-316, 4-322, 4-324, 4-325, 4-331, 5-4 

Deepwater Horizon Event, vii, x, xiii, 1-6, 1-7, 1-10, 1-19, 1-22, 1-25, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 2-16, 2-18, 2-19, 

2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 3-3, 3-4, 3-13, 3-18, 3-23, 3-24, 3-27, 3-28, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 

3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-50, 3-51, 3-56, 3-74, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 

4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-25, 4-33, 4-37, 4-42, 4-46, 4-47, 4-50, 4-52, 

4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-65, 4-67, 4-69, 4-75, 4-77, 4-79, 4-80, 4-83, 4-91, 4-100, 4-101, 4-108, 4-112, 

4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-121, 4-122, 4-127, 4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-134, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-140, 

4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 

4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-170, 4-171, 4-177, 4-182, 4-190, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 

4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-204, 4-205, 4-207, 4-210, 4-211, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-219, 

4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-232, 4-237, 4-244, 4-247, 4-249, 

4-250, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 

4-266, 4-267, 4-270, 4-273, 4-274, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-286, 4-287, 

4-288, 4-289, 4-292, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-297, 4-314, 4-316, 4-317, 4-318, 4-319, 4-320, 

4-321, 4-324, 4-325, 4-326, 5-3, 5-8, 5-9 

Demographics, xiii, 2-22, 4-9, 4-258, 4-260, 4-261 

Diamondback Terrapins, x, xiv, 2-25, 4-160, 4-289, 4-315, 4-316, 4-317, 4-318, 4-319, 4-320, 4-321 

Discharges, x, xi, xii, 1-23, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-25, 3-13, 3-20, 3-26, 3-32, 4-22, 4-23, 

4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-29, 4-30, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 4-40, 4-41, 4-92, 4-93, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 

4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-116, 4-117, 4-123, 4-125, 4-126, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 

4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-144, 4-148, 4-157, 4-159, 4-160, 4-172, 4-175, 4-184, 

4-187, 4-191, 4-193, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-202, 4-203, 4-205, 4-208, 4-212, 4-214, 4-215, 4-220, 

4-225, 4-230, 4-279, 4-298, 4-299, 4-300, 4-303, 4-305, 4-312, 4-313, 4-315, 4-322, 4-327, 4-328 

Dispersant, 1-24, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 3-38, 3-39, 3-42, 3-43, 3-52, 4-6, 4-19, 4-21, 4-25, 

4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-41, 4-47, 4-50, 4-52, 4-55, 4-67, 4-69, 4-73, 4-80, 4-97, 

4-98, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-106, 4-112, 4-114, 4-115, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 

4-137, 4-142, 4-148, 4-155, 4-160, 4-178, 4-179, 4-181, 4-194, 4-201, 4-211, 4-237, 4-277, 4-278, 

4-280, 4-281, 4-288, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-305, 4-306, 4-307, 4-319, 4-327, 4-328 

Dispersants, 1-24, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 3-38, 3-39, 3-42, 3-43, 3-52, 4-6, 4-19, 4-21, 4-25, 

4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-41, 4-47, 4-50, 4-52, 4-55, 4-67, 4-69, 4-73, 4-80, 4-97, 

4-98, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-106, 4-112, 4-114, 4-115, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 

4-137, 4-142, 4-148, 4-155, 4-160, 4-178, 4-179, 4-181, 4-194, 4-201, 4-211, 4-237, 4-277, 4-278, 

4-280, 4-281, 4-288, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-305, 4-306, 4-307, 4-319, 4-327, 4-328 

Economic Factors, xiii, 2-23, 4-9, 4-226, 4-251, 4-254, 4-262, 4-263, 4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 4-274, 4-283 

Employment, xiii, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 4-207, 4-222, 4-223, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-248, 4-251, 4-258, 

4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 4-270, 4-274, 4-276, 

4-283 

Environmental Justice, x, xiii, 1-6, 2-23, 3-31, 4-9, 4-252, 4-270, 4-271, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-277, 

4-279, 4-280, 4-282, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288 

Essential Fish Habitats, x, xii, 1-5, 2-18, 4-5, 4-84, 4-97, 4-105, 4-111, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 

4-198, 4-199, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-217, 4-218, 4-322, 5-9 

Explosive Removals, 2-6, 2-12, 3-26, 4-96, 4-108, 4-146, 4-159, 4-203, 4-304 

Fish Resources, x, xii, 2-18, 2-19, 4-193, 4-194, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 

4-204, 4-205, 4-208, 4-211, 4-214, 4-217, 4-220, 4-322, 4-328, 4-329 
Keyword Index Keyword-5 

Fisheries, xii, 1-3, 1-11, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 2-3, 2-19, 2-20, 3-4, 3-29, 3-53, 4-3, 4-5, 4-90, 4-128, 

4-136, 4-139, 4-142, 4-145, 4-154, 4-183, 4-191, 4-193, 4-194, 4-196, 4-199, 4-200, 4-205, 4-206, 

4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-211, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-221, 

4-240, 4-246, 4-252, 4-265, 4-273, 4-277, 4-283, 4-312, 4-328, 4-329, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-9 

Flaring, 1-20, 1-26, 3-22, 3-23, 4-13, 4-14, 4-19, 4-20 

Flower Garden Banks, ix, 1-4, 2-3, 2-6, 2-8, 4-3, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-90, 4-91, 4-98, 

4-99, 4-101, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-199, 4-203, 4-297, 4-322, 4-323 

Gulf Sturgeon, 4-148 

Hurricanes, x, 1-17, 1-19, 2-19, 3-14, 3-15, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-48, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 

3-62, 3-64, 3-73, 3-76, 3-77, 4-3, 4-12, 4-20, 4-29, 4-30, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-48, 4-49, 

4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-58, 4-61, 4-62, 4-66, 4-67, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-81, 4-82, 4-85, 

4-90, 4-91, 4-101, 4-106, 4-107, 4-109, 4-111, 4-116, 4-117, 4-131, 4-152, 4-170, 4-171, 4-190, 4-192, 

4-194, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-206, 4-207, 4-209, 4-212, 4-214, 4-215, 4-218, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 

4-223, 4-224, 4-231, 4-234, 4-238, 4-240, 4-242, 4-246, 4-251, 4-256, 4-263, 4-272, 4-273, 4-275, 

4-276, 4-283, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-292, 4-293, 4-312, 4-314, 4-315, 4-316, 4-320 

Income, xiii, 2-23, 2-24, 4-216, 4-235, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 

4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-282, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 

4-324 

Infrastructure, viii, x, xi, xiii, 2-9, 2-11, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 3-3, 3-5, 3-10, 3-12, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-23, 

3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-34, 3-52, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-61, 3-62, 3-67, 3-74, 3-76, 4-3, 

4-9, 4-20, 4-26, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-54, 4-55, 4-58, 4-62, 4-72, 4-79, 4-92, 4-95, 4-96, 4-173, 4-184, 

4-206, 4-226, 4-231, 4-236, 4-239, 4-243, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 

4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-280, 4-283, 

4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-288, 4-289, 4-298, 4-303, 4-327, 4-330 

Kick, 1-22, 3-50 

Land Use, x, xiii, 2-20, 2-22, 3-54, 3-66, 4-9, 4-227, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 

4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-271, 4-275, 4-284, 4-322 

Live Bottoms, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 4-196, 4-198, 4-199, 4-202, 4-203, 4-205, 4-214, 4-220, 5-9 

Louisiana Highway 1, 2-7, 4-257, 4-275, 4-276, 4-284 

Macondo, 1-3, 1-6, 3-4, 3-23, 3-42, 3-46, 3-49, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-46, 4-52, 4-58, 4-77, 4-91, 4-92, 

4-100, 4-108, 4-121, 4-122, 4-131, 4-132, 4-142, 4-155, 4-170, 4-171, 4-192, 4-194, 4-195, 4-224, 

4-237, 4-279, 4-292, 4-297, 4-314, 4-316, 4-320, 4-321, 5-3, 5-4 

Marine Mammals, x, xii, 1-3, 1-5, 1-13, 1-29, 1-30, 2-3, 2-6, 2-15, 2-16, 3-4, 3-15, 3-19, 3-26, 3-53, 4-3, 

4-7, 4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-158, 

4-162, 4-322, 4-327, 4-328, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6 

Mercury, 4-24, 4-32, 4-33, 4-112, 4-197, 4-205, 4-208, 4-209, 4-214, 4-300 

Meteorological Conditions, 3-34, 4-11, 4-27, 4-30, 4-36, 4-37, 4-41 

Mitigating Measures, vii, ix, 1-11, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-11, 2-12, 2-25, 2-26, 4-5, 4-69, 4-96, 4-106, 

4-107, 4-284, 4-321, 5-10 

NEPA, vii, 1-4, 1-11, 1-12, 1-14, 1-15, 1-18, 1-21, 1-31, 1-32, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 2-19, 3-31, 3-33, 4-4, 

4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-10, 4-109, 4-149, 4-162, 4-202, 4-210, 4-229, 4-241, 4-270, 4-274, 4-288, 4-315, 

4-325, 5-3, 5-4, 5-9 

Noise, 2-16, 2-17, 2-20, 3-12, 3-19, 3-22, 4-139, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-149, 4-150, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 

4-161, 4-162, 4-165, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-176, 4-183, 4-185, 4-187, 4-191, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 

4-231, 4-328 
Keyword-6 Western Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Oil Spills, viii, x, xi, xii, xiii, 1-7, 1-24, 1-25, 1-27, 2-10, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 

2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 3-13, 3-14, 3-18, 3-27, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-41, 3-42, 

3-43, 3-44, 3-48, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, 4-17, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-25, 4-27, 4-28, 4-33, 4-36, 4-37, 4-39, 

4-42, 4-46, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 

4-75, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-91, 4-92, 4-95, 4-97, 4-98, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-105, 4-106, 4-108, 

4-109, 4-114, 4-121, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-141, 4-142, 4-147, 

4-148, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-159, 4-160, 4-164, 4-177, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-186, 

4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-195, 4-199, 4-200, 4-202, 4-205, 4-210, 4-211, 4-212, 4-215, 4-218, 4-219, 

4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-237, 4-239, 4-240, 

4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-268, 4-273, 4-277, 4-278, 4-280, 4-282, 4-283, 

4-286, 4-287, 4-289, 4-292, 4-294, 4-296, 4-297, 4-303, 4-304, 4-305, 4-306, 4-307, 4-308, 4-309, 

4-311, 4-312, 4-314, 4-315, 4-316, 4-318, 4-319, 4-320, 4-322, 4-326, 4-327, 4-328, 4-329, 4-330 

OSRA, 3-35, 3-36, 4-68, 4-79, 4-186 

Physical Oceanography, 3-77, 4-23, 4-31 

Pipelines, ix, 1-14, 1-16, 1-17, 1-20, 1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 1-32, 2-6, 2-10, 2-12, 2-14, 3-11, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-24, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-30, 3-36, 3-37, 3-52, 3-53, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-61, 3-71, 4-6, 

4-20, 4-25, 4-26, 4-34, 4-35, 4-48, 4-51, 4-52, 4-55, 4-57, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 

4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-84, 4-92, 4-96, 4-97, 4-104, 4-133, 4-173, 4-184, 

4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-208, 4-209, 4-235, 4-238, 4-239, 4-243, 4-245, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-251, 

4-253, 4-255, 4-270, 4-298, 4-313, 4-321, 4-328, 4-329 

Port Fourchon, xiii, 2-7, 2-22, 3-29, 4-25, 4-64, 4-74, 4-249, 4-254, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-260, 4-261, 

4-262, 4-271, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-284 

Produced Waters, xii, 2-17, 3-13, 3-20, 4-65, 4-73, 4-74, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-109, 4-113, 4-116, 4-129, 

4-137, 4-176, 4-193, 4-196, 4-202, 4-203, 4-205, 4-212, 4-214, 4-215, 4-220, 4-300, 4-301, 4-312, 

4-313, 4-315, 4-327 

Public Services, x, 2-23, 4-268 

Recreational Resources, x, xii, 2-20, 3-54, 4-9, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 

4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-322 

Resource Estimates, 3-3, 3-4, 3-33 

Sargassum, x, xi, 2-13, 4-88, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-153, 

4-154, 4-196, 4-322, 4-327 

Sea Turtles, x, xii, 1-3, 1-13, 1-29, 1-30, 2-3, 2-6, 2-16, 3-4, 3-26, 4-3, 4-7, 4-110, 4-111, 4-114, 4-145, 

4-148, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 

4-316, 4-319, 4-322, 5-3 

Seagrass Communities, x, xi, 2-11, 4-75, 4-76, 4-79, 4-81 

Service base, 3-19, 3-21, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 4-25, 4-59, 4-74, 4-203, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-256, 

4-257, 4-258, 4-267, 4-270, 4-275 

Site Clearance, 1-29, 2-5, 3-26, 4-96, 4-240, 4-241 

Spill of National Significance, 4-17 

Submerged Vegetation, 2-11, 4-63, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 

4-310 

Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids, xi, 3-20, 3-54, 4-23, 4-33, 4-34, 4-38, 4-298, 4-301 

Topographic Features, ix, x, xi, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-11, 2-12, 2-25, 2-26, 4-6, 4-7, 4-44, 4-83, 4-84, 4-88, 

4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 

4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-141, 4-194, 4-196, 4-198, 4-203, 4-299, 4-303, 4-321, 4-322, 4-323, 5-9 
Keyword Index Keyword-7 

Tourism, x, xiii, 2-20, 2-23, 3-12, 4-23, 4-52, 4-56, 4-75, 4-154, 4-219, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 

4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-258, 4-261, 4-263, 4-265, 4-266, 4-268, 4-269, 

4-273, 4-279, 4-284, 4-330, 5-5 

Trash, x, 1-29, 1-30, 2-24, 3-10, 3-21, 3-22, 4-146, 4-150, 4-159, 4-162, 4-172, 4-175, 4-183, 4-186, 

4-187, 4-192, 4-208, 4-226, 4-286, 4-317, 4-319, 4-320, 4-321, 4-328 

Unified Area Command, 4-155 

Waste Disposal, 2-22, 3-28, 3-31, 4-65, 4-66, 4-175, 4-187, 4-247, 4-249, 4-250, 4-252, 4-253, 4-255, 

4-258, 4-273, 4-276, 4-280, 4-286 

Wastes, xi, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-31, 3-61, 4-29, 4-30, 4-34, 4-35, 4-40, 4-41, 4-58, 4-62, 4-65, 4-66, 4-71, 

4-75, 4-129, 4-137, 4-175, 4-208, 4-227, 4-249, 4-252, 4-255, 4-273 

Water Quality, x, xi, 1-15, 2-8, 2-9, 2-13, 2-17, 3-20, 3-26, 3-34, 4-6, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 

4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-78, 4-93, 4-113, 

4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-144, 4-157, 4-172, 4-175, 4-176, 4-184, 4-187, 4-192, 4-196, 4-197, 

4-199, 4-203, 4-205, 4-208, 4-214, 4-217, 4-220, 4-294, 4-322, 4-327, 4-328, 4-331 

Wetlands, x, xi, 1-6, 2-6, 2-10, 2-18, 3-29, 3-59, 3-71, 3-72, 4-5, 4-7, 4-23, 4-24, 4-28, 4-43, 4-44, 4-48, 

4-49, 4-50, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 

4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-170, 4-172, 4-173, 4-175, 4-185, 4-189, 

4-190, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-199, 4-202, 4-208, 4-212, 4-218, 4-232, 4-248, 4-251, 4-252, 4-256, 

4-257, 4-258, 4-273, 4-287, 4-318, 4-319, 4-322, 4-327, 4-329, 4-331