UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field 

Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of DOCD

Control # - S-07670

Type - Supplemental Development Operations Coordinations Document

Lease(s) - OCS-G11075 Block - 562 Green Canyon Area

Operator - Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Well No. 005

Not Found

Attached is a copy of the subject plan for public comments on issues that 

should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment.

It has been deemed submitted as of this date and is under review for approval.

Chiquita Hill

Plan Coordinator

WELL/NO. 005 G11075/GC/562 7568 FSL, 6940 FWL G11075/GC/562

Site Type/Name Botm Lse/Area/Blk Surface Location Surf Lse/Area/Blk

Description -

Rig Type -

Subject:

From:

May 9, 2014
 

SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT 

OPERATIONS COORDINATION DOCUMENT 

GREEN CANYON BLOCK 562 

OCS-G 11075 

OFFSHORE, LOUISIANA

PUBLIC 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 

1201 Lake Robbins Drive 

The Woodlands, Texas 77380 

Contact: Jill Fowler 

Jill.fowler@anadarko.com 

(832) 636-1554 

1 – Hard Copy Confidential 

1 – CD Confidential 

1 – Hard Copy Public Information 

3 – CDs Public Information 

April, 2014 
 

ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION 

SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS COORDINATION 

DOCUMENT 

GREEN CANYON BLOCK 562 

OCS-G 11075 

 A. Plan Contents 

 B. General Information 

 C. Geological, Geophysical 

D. Hydrogen Sulfide Information 

 E. Mineral Resource Conservation Information 

F. Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information 

G. Wastes and Discharge Information 

 H. Air Emissions Information 

 I. Oil Spill Information 

J. Environmental Monitoring Information 

 K. Lease Stipulations 

 L. Related Facilities and Operations Information 

M. Support Vessels and Aircraft Information 

 N. Onshore Support Facilities Information 

O. Coastal Zone Management Act Information 

P. Environmental Impact Analysis 

Q. Administrative Information 
 

A 

 PLAN CONTENTS

(a) Plan Information Form 

Under this Supplemental DOCD, Anadarko will place one well on production, and install rightof-way and lease term pipelines. Enclosed as Attachment A-1 is Form BOEM-137, OCS Plan 

Information Form. 

(b) Location 

Enclosed as Attachment A-2 is a well location plat at a scale of 1 inch = 2000 feet that depicts 

the surface location and water depth of subsea well 005. 

(c) Safety and Pollution Prevention Features 

Safety features on the platform will include well control, pollution prevention, safe welding procedures, 

and blowout prevention equipment as described in Title 30 CFR Part 250, Subparts C, D, E, G and O; and 

as further clarified by BOEM Notices to Lessees, and applicable regulations of the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard. The appropriate life rafts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc., as 

prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, will be maintained on the facility at all times. 

Per NTL 2008-G04, Anadarko proposes additional measures for safety, pollution prevention, and 

early spill detection beyond those required by 30 CFR 250, as outlined in Anadarko’s Regional 

Oil Spill Response Plan. These additional measures include: 

1. Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan 

2. Operations Manual 

3. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan 

Procedures for fuel transfers and well control programs are also detailed in the Regional Oil Spill 

Response Plan. 
 

 (d) Storage Tanks and Production Vessels 

The Green Canyon Block 562 well will utilize a DP Lay Barge to install right-of-way and lease term 

pipelines. 

Type of Facility Type Of Storage 

Tank 

Tank 

Capacity 

Number 

Of Tanks 

Total 

Capacity 

Fluid 

Gravity 

(Api) 

Total Capacity 

of all Tanks 

for Facility 

Type 

DP Lay Barge Fuel-Oil Strg Tank 4454.4 bbls 1 4454.4 bbls No. 2 Diesel 16 tanks total= 

17,614.3 bbls 

Fuel Oil Strg Tank 4061.3 bbls 1 4061.3 bbls 

No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Strg Tank 

3173.8 bbls 1 3173.8 bbls 

No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Strg Tank 

3772.6 bbls 1 3772.6 bbls 

No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Strg Tank 

717.7 bbls 1 717.7 bbls 

No. 2 Diesel

 Fuel Oil Day Tank 26.4 bbls 2 52.8 bbls No. 2 Diesel 

 Settling Tank 183.0 bbls 3 549.0 bbls No. 2 Diesel 

 Settling Tank 305.7 bbls 1 305.7 bbls 

No. 2 Diesel

 Service Tank 162.9 bbls 2 325.8 bbls 

No. 2 Diesel

 Overflow Tank 44.0 bbls 1 44.0 bbls 

No. 2 Diesel

 Overflow Tank 91.2 bbls 1 91.2 bbls 

No. 2 Diesel

 Drain Tank 66.0 bbls 1 66.0 bbls 

No. 2 Diesel

(e) Pollution Prevention Measures 

Per NTL 2008-G04, Anadarko proposes additional measures for safety, pollution prevention, and 

early spill detection beyond those required by 30 CFR 250, as outlined in Anadarko’s Regional 

Oil Spill Response Plan. These additional measures include: 

1. Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan 

2. Operations Manual 

3. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan 

Procedures for fuel transfers and well control programs are detailed in the Regional Oil Spill 

Response Plan. 

Production from Green Canyon Block 562 will be transported to Anadarko’s Marco Polo TLP in 

Green Canyon Block 608. 
 

The facilities are designed, installed and operated in accordance with current regulations, 

engineering documents incorporated by reference, and industry practice in order to ensure 

protection of personnel, environment and the facilities. When necessary, maintenance or repairs 

that are necessary to prevent pollution of offshore waters shall be undertaken immediately. 

The pollution prevention measures for the Marco Polo Facility include installation of curbs, 

gutters, drip pans, and drains on deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris. 

The facility is designed to produce oil and gas. All equipment, such as separators, tanks and 

treaters, utilized for the handling of hydrocarbons are designed, installed and operated to prevent 

pollution. Necessary maintenance or repair work needed to prevent pollution of offshore waters 

shall be performed immediately. Curbs, gutters, drip pans and drains are installed in deck areas 

in a manner necessary to collect all contaminants not authorized for discharge. Any unexpected 

oil drainage will be piped to an operated and maintained sump system which will automatically 

maintain the oil at a level sufficient to prevent discharge of oil into offshore waters. All gravity 

drains are equipped with a water trap or other means to prevent gas in the sump system from 

escaping through the drains. Sump piles will not be used as processing devices to treat or skim 

liquids, but may be used to collect treated liquids from drip pans and deck drains and as a final 

trap for hydrocarbon liquid in the event of equipment upsets. There will be no disposal of 

equipment, cables, chains, containers or other materials into offshore waters. 

Supervisory and certain designated personnel on-board the facility are familiar with the effluent 

limitations and guidelines for overboard discharges into the receiving waters as outlined in the 

NPDES General Permit for the EPA Region IV. 

Production safety equipment was designed, and is installed, used, maintained, and tested in a 

manner to assure the safety and protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments in 

accordance with 30 CFR 250 Subpart H. Anadarko will perform all installation and production 

operations in a safe and workmanlike manner, and will maintain all equipment in a safe 

condition, thereby ensuring the protection of lease and associated facilities, the health and safety 

of all persons, and the preservation and conservation of property and the environment. The 

appropriate life rafts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc., as prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, will be 

maintained on the facility at all times. 

Any platform production facilities shall be protected with a basic and ancillary surface system 

designed, analyzed, installed, tested, and maintained in operating condition in accordance with 

the provisions of API RP 14C, Recommended Practice for Analysis, Design, Installation and 

Testing of Basic Surface Safety Systems for Offshore Production Platforms. 

The Marco Polo TLP is a manned structure, and will be identified and reported in accordance 

with the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard and BOEM/BSEE. The unit is a floating 

production system of the tension leg platform design using a conventional mooring system. It is 

considered a floating facility and is inspected and constructed to the requirements of 46 CFR 

Parts 107 and 108 as directed by 33 CFR 143.120. 

The pipeline system will be installed by dynamically positioned vessels that do not require 

anchors. No new nearshore or onshore pipelines or facilities will be constructed.
 

(f) Description of Previously Approved Lease Activities 

Anadarko has previously approved well locations in Green Canyon Block 562. Approval was 

granted to drill and complete the following well locations under the Initial Exploration Plan for 

Green Canyon Block 562 (Plan Control No. N-6366) approved on January 15, 1999:

Well 

Location 

Status of Well Location Potential Future Operations 

A Used location to drill GC 562 #004 

well. 

Well is on production 

B Used location to drill GC 562 #001 

well.

Well is on production.

E Used location to drill GC 562 #003 

well.

Well is on production.

F Used location to drill GC 562 #002 

well.

Well is on production.

Approval was granted to drill and complete the following well locations under the Supplemental 

Exploration Plan for Green Canyon Block 562 (Plan Control No. S-5864) approved on February 

28, 2002: 

Well 

Location 

Status of Well Location Potential Future Operations 

E Used location to drill GC 562 #003 

well.

Well is on production.

F Used location to drill GC 562 #002 

well.

Well is on production.

Approval was granted to drill and complete the following well locations under the Supplemental 

Exploration Plan for Green Canyon Block 562 (Plan Control No. S-7589) approved on 

December 20, 2012: 

Well 

Location 

Status of Well Location Potential Future Operations 

AA Approved well location for future 

utility. 

Future drill location. 

AAA Approved well location for future 

utility. 

Future drill location. 

BB Will use location to drill GC 562 

#005 well. 

Place well on production. 

BBB Approved well location for future 

utility. 

Future drill location. 
U.S. Department of the Interior OMB Control Number: 1010-0151

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14

 

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM 

General Information 

Type of OCS Plan: Exploration Plan (EP) Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD) 

Company Name: BOEM Operator Number: 

Address: Contact Person: 

Phone Number: 

E-Mail Address: 

If a service fee is required under 30 CFR 550.125(a), provide the Amount paid Receipt No. 

Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD) Information

Lease(s): Area: Block(s): Project Name (If Applicable): 

Objective(s) Oil Gas Sulphur Salt Onshore Support Base(s): 

Platform/Well Name: Total Volume of WCD: API Gravity: 

Distance to Closest Land (Miles): Volume from uncontrolled blowout: 

Have you previously provided information to verify the calculations and assumptions for your WCD? Yes No 

If so, provide the Control Number of the EP or DOCD with which this information was provided 

Do you propose to use new or unusual technology to conduct your activities? Yes No 

Do you propose to use a vessel with anchors to install or modify a structure? Yes No 

Do you propose any facility that will serve as a host facility for deepwater subsea development? Yes No 

Description of Proposed Activities and Tentative Schedule (Mark all that apply) 

Proposed Activity Start Date End Date No. of Days 

Install lease term pipelines

Hookup GC 562 005 and commence production

Description of Drilling Rig Description of Structure 

Jackup Drillship Caisson Tension leg platform

Gorilla Jackup Platform rig Fixed platform Compliant tower 

Semisubmersible Submersible Spar Guyed tower

DP Semisubmersible Other (Attach Description) 

Drilling Rig Name (If Known): 

Floating production 

system 

Other (Attach Description) 

Description of Lease Term Pipelines 

From (Facility/Area/Block) To (Facility/Area/Block) Diameter (Inches) Length (Feet) 

Form BOEM- 0137 (December 2011- Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 1 of 4
OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) 

Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure 

Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name/Number (If renaming well or 

structure, reference previous name): 

Previously reviewed under an approved EP or 

DOCD? 

Yes No 

Is this an existing well 

or structure? 

Yes No If this is an existing well or structure, list the 

Complex ID or API No. 

Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your proposed activities? Yes No 

WCD info For wells, volume of uncontrolled 

blowout (Bbls/day): 

For structures, volume of all storage and 

pipelines (Bbls): 

API Gravity of 

fluid 

Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) Completion (For multiple completions, 

enter separate lines) 

Lease No. OCS OCS OCS 

OCS 

Area Name 

Block No. 

Blockline 

Departures 

(in feet)

N/S Departure: F____ L N/S Departure: F____ L N/S Departure: F____ L 

N/S Departure: F____ L 

N/S Departure: F____ L 

E/W Departure: F____ L E/W Departure: F____ L E/W Departure: F____ L 

E/W Departure: F____ L 

E/W Departure: F____ L 

Lambert XY 

coordinates 

X: X: X: 

X: 

X: 

Y: Y: Y: 

Y: 

Y: 

Latitude/ 

Longitude

Latitude Latitude Latitude 

Latitude 

Latitude 

Longitude Longitude Longitude 

Longitude 

Longitude 

Water Depth (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): 

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: 

MD (Feet): 

MD (Feet): 

MD (Feet): 

TVD (Feet): 

TVD (Feet): 

TVD (Feet): 

Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary) 

Anchor Name 

 or No. 

Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor 

X = Y = 

X = Y = 

X = Y = 

X = Y = 

X = Y = 

X = Y = 

X = Y = 

X = Y = 

 

Form BOEM- 0137 (December 2011- Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 4

 

B

GENERAL INFORMATION 

(a) Applications and Permits 

Prior to beginning development operations in Green Canyon Block 562, the following 

applications will be submitted for approval. 

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status 

Surface Commingling Application BSEE To be submitted

Lease Term Pipeline Applications BSEE Submitted on 3/4/14; 

Pending approval

Deepwater Operations Plan BOEM To be submitted

Conservation Information Document BOEM To be submitted

(b) Drilling Fluids 

Not applicable as wells will not be drilled under this plan. 

(c) Production 

The following table provides information about each type of anticipated production from the 

wells covered under this plan: 

Discussions regarding geologic information are considered proprietary and have been omitted from this 

section of the public copy DOCD. 

(d) Oil Characteristics 

Not applicable as oil-based drilling fluids will not be utilized. 

(e) New or Unusual Technology 

Anadarko does not propose to use any new or unusual technology to develop the well proposed 

in this plan. Best available and safest technologies as referenced in 30 CFR 250 will be 

incorporated as standard operational procedure. 

(f) Bonding Statement 

The bond requirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this DOCD are satisfied by an 

area-wide bond furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR part 256, subpart I; NTL No. 

2000-G16, “Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bonds,” and National NTL No. 2008-N07, 

“Supplemental Bond Procedures”. 
 

(g) Oil Spill Financial Responsibility (OSFR) 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Company Number 00981) has demonstrated oil spill financial 

responsibility for the facilities proposed in this DOCD according to 30 CFR Part 253, and NTL No. 2008-

N05, “Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Covered Facilities”. 

(h) Deepwater Well Control Statement 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Company Number 00981) has the financial capability to drill a relief 

well and conduct other emergency well control operations if required. 

(i) Suspensions of Production

Should a suspension of production become necessary to hold this lease, an application will be submitted 

to BOEM in accordance with NTL 2000-G17. 

 

(j) Blowout Scenario

The worst-case discharge scenario for this project is defined as an uncontrollable discharge to the seafloor 

during production operations. Mechanically speaking, the scenario assumes that the wellhead fails 

allowing full wellbore fluid to move up the existing tubing, and a blowout occurs at the seabed. Green 

Canyon Block 562 Well #005 is addressed in this blowout scenario since it is the location with the highest 

potential worst case discharge (WCD) within the block. The maximum oil discharge during production is 

calculated to be 21,470 BOPD from the Green Canyon Block 562 Well #005. 

Should a blowout occur, the formation types present in the GOM tend to bridge over in most cases. 

Additional well intervention and time requirements to drill a relief well pursuant to guidance provided in 

NTL No. 2010-N06 were discussed under the approved Exploration Plan (Plan Control No. S-7589). The 

following scenario summarizes the time taken to mobilize a rig and drill a relief well as discussed under 

previously approved Plan No. S-7589: 

An estimate of 7-21 days would be required to suspend operations on a deepwater GOM well and 

begin drilling the relief well. This assumes 0-14 days to suspend current operations on an 

existing well and 7 days to mobilize and be ready to spud the relief well. The estimated time to 

drill the relief well to a blowout originating from the objective zones is 110 days for an estimated 

total of 117-131 days from time of blowout to finishing a relief well. The drilling days were based 

on the proposed days to drill the GC 562 #005 well through the objective sands (interval of 

WCD) with additional time added for ranging. 

The time estimate provided for the plan well is inclusive of 'both' drilling 'and' completion 

operations. As a completion is not typically part of relief well operations no time has been 

included for completion operations in the relief well estimate. In addition, information and 

learning from the drilling of the original well may provide opportunities to optimize drilling 

performance for relief well operations and thus reduce the required drilling time. The maximum 

total volume during a blowout could potentially be 2,812,570 bbl. assuming 131 days for the 

maximum duration of a blowout, multiplied by the worst case daily uncontrolled blowout volume 

of 21,470 bbl.
 

(k) Chemical Products 

Anadarko does not propose to install a new surface or subsea development facility under this plan. 

Therefore, the oil characteristic tables required by NTL No. 2008-G04 are not applicable. 
 

C 

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION 

(a) Geological Description 

Discussions regarding geologic information are considered proprietary and have been omitted from this 

section of the public copy DOCD. 

(b) Structure Contour Maps 

Current structure maps drawn to the top of each productive hydrocarbon sand showing the entire lease 

blocks, the surface location of each well and locations of geological cross-sections, are enclosed as 

Attachment C-1.

(c) Interpreted 2-D and/or 3-D Seismic Lines 

Interpreted 2-D and/or 3-D Seismic Lines are enclosed as Attachment C-2. 

(d) Geological Structure Cross-Sections 

Interpreted geological structure cross-sections showing the location, depth, and expected productive 

formations of each proposed well are enclosed as Attachment C-3.

(e) Shallow Hazards Report 

A Shallow Hazards Report was previously submitted to BOEM with the EP. 

(f) Shallow Hazards Assessment 

A shallow hazards analysis for the well was previously included with the EP.

(g) High-resolution Seismic Lines 

Not required per NTL No. 2008-G04.

(h) Stratigraphic Column 

Not required per NTL No. 2008-G04.

(i) Time Vs. Depth Tables 

The proposed activities under this DOCD are not considered to be in areas where there is no well control. 

Therefore, a seismic travel time versus depth table is not required per NTL No. 2008-G04. 
 

D 

HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION 

The GC 562 #5 will penetrate and test stratigraphic section from the seafloor through the 

objective zones entirely within GC 562. Similar sands have been penetrated by multiple wells in 

multiple fields in GC 518, 562, 561, 606, 608, 652, 653 and 654. The objective section has been 

penetrated in GC 653. None of these penetrations encountered any Hydrogen Sulfide within the 

supra or sub-salt section, and no Hydrogen Sulfide is expected to be encountered in this 

wellbore. Since no (H2S) was encountered in any of these wells we request the area be classified 

as a "zone where the absence of H2s has been confirmed.” 

Additionally, Green Canyon Block 562 was previously determined to be H2S absent in the Initial 

Exploration Plan. 
 

E 

Mineral Resource Conservation Information

(a) Technology & Reservoir Engineering Practices and Procedures 

Anadarko is researching possible artificial lift options in support of enhanced recovery methods 

for future development of this block. Artificial lift will greatly improve ultimate recovery for all 

wells connected to the K2 south system. 

(b) Technology and Recovery Practices and Procedures 

The well will be completed as conventional completions. As applicable, the well will be frac 

packed/gravel packed to maximize recovery. 

(c) Reservoir Development 

The wells will be monitored for performance and assessed for reservoir depletion to ensure 

recovery. Additional development drilling will be taken into account to ensure maximum 

recovery. 

 
 

F 

BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL, AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION 

(a) Chemosynthetic Communities Report 

Not applicable as wells have been and/or will be drilled and completed under an approved Exploration 

Plan. Chemosynthetic information for the proposed lease term pipelines will be submitted with the 

pipeline application. 

Analysis 

No drilling will be conducted under this plan; therefore, features or areas that could support high-density 

chemosynthetic communities are not located within 2000 feet of the proposed muds and cuttings 

discharge location. 

Features or areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic communities are not located within 250 

feet of any seafloor disturbances. 

(b) Topographic Features Map 

The proposed activities are not within 1,000 feet of a no-activity zone or within the 3-mile radius zone of 

an identified topographic feature. Therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2008-G04. 

(c) Topographic Features Statement (Shunting) 

Anadarko does not plan to drill more than two wells from the same surface location within the Protective 

Zone of an identified topographic feature. Therefore, the topographic features statement required by NTL 

No. 2008-G04 is not applicable. 

(d) Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend) Map 

The activities proposed in this plan are not within 200 feet of any pinnacle trend feature with vertical 

relief equal to or greater than 8 feet. Therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2008-G04. 

(e) Live Bottoms (Low Relief) Map 

The activities proposed in this plan are not within 100 feet of any live bottom low relief features. 

Therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2008-G04. 

(f) Potentially Sensitive Biological Features 

The activities proposed in this plan are not within 200 feet of any potentially sensitive biological features. 

Therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2008-G04. 

(g) Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Monitoring Survey Plan 

Green Canyon Block 562 is located within Deepwater Grid Area 13. This grid is considered to have 

“adequate ROV survey coverage”, and therefore, under the guidance set out in NTL No. 2008-G06, a 

Remotely Operated Vehicle Monitoring Survey Plan is not required. 
 

(h) Threatened and Endangered Species Information 

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) all federal agencies must ensure that any actions 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or 

destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. 

In accordance with the 30 CFR 250, Subpart B, effective May 14, 2007, and further outlined in Notice to 

Lessees (NTL) 2008-G04, lessees/operators are required to address site-specific information on the 

presence of federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitat designated under the 

ESA and marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in the area of 

proposes activities under this plan. 

Currently there are no designated critical habitats for the listed species in the Gulf of Mexico Outer 

Continental Shelf; however, it is possible that one or more of these species could be seen in the area of 

our operations. The following table reflects the Federally-listed endangered and threatened species in the 

lease area and along the northern Gulf coast: 

Species Scientific Name Status Potential Presence Critical Habitat Designated in

Lease Area Coastal Gulf of Mexico

Marine Mammals

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E X  ‐‐  None

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris E  ‐‐  X Florida (Peninsular)

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E Xa  ‐‐  None

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E Xa  ‐‐  None

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E Xa  ‐‐  None

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis E Xa  ‐‐  None

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E Xa  ‐‐  None

Sea Turtles

Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta T X X None

Green turtle Chelonia mydas T, E

b X X None

Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E X X None

Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E X X None

Kemp’s ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii E X X None

Birds

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T  ‐‐  X

Coastal Texas, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Alabama, and

Florida (Panhandle)

Whooping Crane Grus americana E  ‐‐  X

Coastal Texas

(Aransas National Wildlife

Refuge)

Fishes

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T  ‐‐  X

Coastal Louisiana, Mississippi,

Alabama, and Florida

(Panhandle)

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E  ‐‐  X Southwest Florida and the

Florida Keys

Invertebrates

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata E  ‐‐  X Flower Garden Banks

Terrestrial Mammals

Beach mice (Alabama,

Choctawhatchee,

Perdido Key, St. Andrew)

Peromyscus polionotus E  ‐‐  X Alabama and Florida

(Panhandle) beaches

Abbreviations:  E = Endangered; T = Threatened.   a

   The blue, fin, humpback, North Atlantic right, and sei whales are rare or extralimital in the Gulf of Mexico and are

unlikely to be present in the lease area. b

   The green sea turtle is threatened, except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as endangered.
 

The Environmental Impact Analysis in Section P of this plan further discusses potential impacts 

and mitigation measures related to threatened and endangered species. 

(i) Archaeological Report 

Green Canyon Block 562 is not located in an area designated as having high archaeological 

potential and, as such, an Archaeological Report is not required per NTL No. 2011-JOINT-G01. 

However, an Archaeological Report prepared by Fugro Geoservices, Inc covering the proposed 

Green Canyon Block 562 well location was submitted with the Supplemental EP, Plan Control 

No. S-7589. The survey was conducted in accordance with the latest guidelines established by 

the BOEMRE in 2011. 

(j) Air and Water Quality Information

This DOCD does not propose activities for which the State of Florida is an affected State. 

Therefore, the discussion required per NTL 2008-G04 is not applicable to this DOCD. 

(k) Socioeconomic Information 

The activities proposed in this plan are not located offshore Florida. Therefore, socioeconomic 

information required per NTL 2008-G04 is not applicable to this DOCD. 
 

G 

WASTE AND DISCHARGE INFORMATION 

The following estimates were prepared utilizing Anadarko’s experience with similar operations. 

Estimated maximum discharge rates are reflected below. Projected amounts may vary during the course 

of operations. 

(a) Projected Generated Wastes 

Type of Waste Composition Projected Amount Treatment/Storage/Disposal 

Cuttings containing 

synthetic-based 

mud 

Cuttings coated with 

ester-based synthetic 

drilling muds 

N/A Re-use and/or transport to shore in 

tanks and/or cutting boxes to 

Fourchon, Louisiana and on to 

Newpark Base. 

Spent drilling fluids Drilling 

fluids/cuttings 

containing waterbased muds/fluids 

N/A Discharge overboard 

Spent drilling fluids Drilling 

fluids/cuttings 

containing syntheticbased muds/fluids 

N/A Treated and discharge overboard 

Water-based 

drilling fluids 

NaCl saturated, 

seawater, freshwater, 

barite 

N/A Discharge overboard 

Chemical product 

waste (well 

treatment fluids) 

Ethylene glycol 

Methanol 

100 bbls total 

25 bbls total 

Transport to shore in barrels to 

Fourchon, Louisiana for pick up. 

Completion Fluids Brine, spent acid, 

prop sand, debris 

3,000 bbls/well Transport to shore in barrels to 

Fourchon, Louisiana and on to 

Newpark Base. 

Non-pollutant 

completion fluids 

Low density 

uninhibited 

completion brines 

5,000 bbls/well Discharge overboard 

Workover fluids Brine, spent acid, 

prop sand, debris 

3,000 bbls/well Transport to shore in barrels to 

Fourchon, Louisiana and on to 

Newpark Base. 

Trash Refuse generated 

during operations 

94 bbls total Transport to shore in disposal bags 

by vessel to shorebase for pickup 

by municipal operations. 

Sanitary Wastes Treated human body 

waste 

44 bbls total Chlorinate and discharge 

overboard 

Domestic Waste Gray water 5409 bbls total Chlorinate and discharge 

overboard 

Deck drainage Platform washings 

and rainwater 

94 bbls total Treat for oil and grease and 

discharge overboard 

Produced water Formation water N/A N/A 

Desalinization Unit Seawater 2516 bbls total Discharge overboard 

Wash water Drill water (fresh) N/A Discharge overboard 

Blowout preventer 

fluid 

Blend (3% Stack 

Magic & Filtered 

Fresh Water) 

N/A Discharge at seafloor 
 

Ballast water Seawater As needed Discharge overboard 

Bilge water Seawater 315 bbls total Discharge overboard through 15 

ppm equipment 

Excess cement at 

the seafloor 

Nitrified cement 

slurry 

N/A Discharge at seafloor 

Fire water Seawater 8,050,958 bbls total Discharge overboard 

Cooling water Seawater 8,050,958 bbls total Discharge overboard 

Produced Sand Formation Sand N/A N/A 

Used oil Excess oil from 

engines 

6.29 bbls total Transport in totes to shore for 

incineration 

NOTE: Total amount assumes 1 well will take 30 days to complete operations 

(b) Projected Ocean Discharges

Type of Waste Total Amount to be 

Discharged 

Discharge Rate Discharge Method 

Sanitary Wastes 44 bbls 44 bbls/month Chlorinate and discharge 

overboard 

Domestic waste 5409 bbls 5409 bbls/month Chlorinate and discharge 

overboard 

Deck drainage 94 bbls 94 bbls/month Treat for oil and grease and 

discharge overboard 

Blowout preventer fluid N/A N/A Discharge at seafloor 

Desalinization Unit 2516 bbls 2516 bbls/month Discharge overboard 

Wash water N/A N/A Discharge overboard 

Ballast water As needed Not continuous Discharge overboard 

Bilge water 315 bbls 315 bbls/month Discharge overboard through 15 

ppm equipment 

Excess cement at the 

seafloor 

N/A N/A Discharge at seafloor 

Fire water 8,050,958 bbls 8,050,958 bbls/month Discharge overboard 

Cooling water 8,050,958 bbls 8,050,958 bbls/month Discharge overboard 

Spent drilling 

fluids/cuttings containing 

water-based muds/fluids 

N/A 1,000 bbls/hr max Discharge overboard 

Water-based drilling 

fluids 

N/A 1,000 bbls/hr max Discharge overboard 

Spent drilling fluids and 

cuttings containing 

synthetic-based mud 

N/A NA Treated and discharge overboard 

Non-pollutant 

completion fluids 

5,000 bbls/well 100 bbl/hour Discharge overboard 

NOTE: Total amount assumes 1 well will take 30 days to complete operations 

(c) Modeling Report 

The proposed activities under this plan do not meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

requirements for an individual NPDES permit. Therefore, modeling report requirements per 

NTL No. 2008-G04 is not applicable to this DOCD. 
 

H 

AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION 

(a) Screening Questions 

Screen Procedures for DOCD’s Yes No 

Is any calculated Complex Total (CT) Emission amount (tons) associated with your 

proposed development activities more than 90% of the amounts calculated using the 

following formulas: CT = 3400D2/3 for CO, and CT = 33.3D for the other air pollutants 

(where D = distance to shore in miles)? 

 X 

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or modified 

emission factors? X 

Does or will the facility complex associated with your proposed development and 

production activities process production from eight or more wells? (See note 1) X 

Do you expect to encounter H2S at concentrations greater than 20 parts per million (ppm)? X 

Do you propose to flare or vent natural gas in excess of the criteria set forth under 

250.1105(a)(2) and (3)? X 

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X 

Are your proposed development and production activities located within 25 miles from 

shore? X 

Are your proposed development and production activities located within 200 kilometers of 

the Breton Wilderness Area? X 

(b) Air Emissions Spreadsheets 

Air Emission Spreadsheets have been prepared and are available upon request.

(c) Summary Information 

Air Pollutant Plan Emission 

Amounts1 (tons)

Calculated 

Exemption 

Amounts2 (tons)

Calculated 

Complex Total 

Emission 

Amounts3

 (tons)

Particulate matter (PM) 5.30 3762.90 90.52 

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 14.74 3762.90 413.94 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 956.14 3762.90 3219.85 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOC)

34.00 3762.90 97.34 

Carbon monoxide (CO) 445.46 79469.02 735.61 

The air emission calculations were calculated by: 

Jill Fowler 

Regulatory Analyst 

(832) 636-1554 

Jill.fowler@anadarko.com 
 

I 

OIL SPILL INFORMATION 

(a) Oil Spill Response Planning 

(i) OSRP Information 

All the proposed activities and facilities in this DOCD are covered by the Regional Oil Spill 

Response Plan (OSRP) approved on September 25, 2013 for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 

and its subsidiaries, Anadarko US Offshore Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company L.P. 

(Company Numbers 00981, 02219 and 00148, respectively) in accordance with 30 CFR Part 

254. 

(ii) Spill Response Sites 

Primary Response Equipment Location(s) Preplanned Staging Location(s) 

Houma, Louisiana 

Harvey, Louisiana 

Venice, Louisiana 

Lake Charles, Louisiana 

Galveston, Texas 

Fourchon, Louisiana 

Harvey, Louisiana 

Venice, Louisiana 

Cameron, Louisiana 

Galveston, Texas 

(iii) OSRO Information 

Anadarko maintains a contract with Clean Gulf Associates (CGA) for spill response equipment. 

Various equipment locations are staged throughout the Gulf of Mexico. CGA equipment can be 

referenced on their website: http://www.cleangulfassoc.com/. Personnel would be obtained from 

the Marine Spill Response Corporation’s (MSRC) STARS network, including a supervisor to 

operate the equipment. 

In addition Anadarko has a contract with the Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) for 

spill response equipment. MSRC stages equipment throughout the Gulf of Mexico and has 

recently completed a large expansion of its resources, with particular focus on deepwater. The expansion 

is known as “Deep Blue”. MSRC capabilities and a complete equipment listing is available on-line 

at: http://www.msrc.org/. 

Anadarko is also a member of the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC), which 

provides access to containment response capabilities and includes subsea dispersant injection 

equipment. 
 

(iv) Worst-Case Scenario Determination 

Category Regional OSRP DOCD 

Type of Activity Production Production 

Facility Location (area/block) GC 680 GC 562 

Facility Designation Platform A Well #005 

Distance to Nearest Shoreline 120 Miles 113 miles 

 Storage Tanks (total) 5,735 bbls NA 

 Flowlines (on facility) 1,892 bbls NA 

 Lease Term Pipelines 1,743 bbls 48 BOPD 

 Uncontrolled Blowout 43,863 BOPD 21,470 BOPD 

Total Volume 53,233 BOPD 21,518 BOPD 

Type of Oil(s) Oil Oil 

API Gravity 30 29.0 

Anadarko has determined that the worst-case scenario from the activities proposed in this 

Supplemental DOCD do not supersede the worst-case scenario for Green Canyon Block 680. 

Since Anadarko has the capability to respond to the worst-case spill scenario included in our 

Regional OSRP approved on September 25, 2013, I hereby certify that Anadarko Petroleum 

Corporation has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case 

discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in our 

DOCD.

(b) Oil Spill Response Discussion

For the purpose of NEPA analysis, the largest spill volume originating from the proposed 

activity would be an uncontrolled blowout of the well during production operations at 21,470 

BOPD with an API gravity of 29.0o

. A discussion of the blowout scenario from this proposed 

activity is included within this Supplemental DOCD under Section B. 

Land Segment and Resource Identification Modeling

Trajectory of a spill and the probability of its impacting a land segment have been projected 

utilizing information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central Gulf 

of Mexico. Additional information may be referenced in the “Oil-Spill Risk Analysis: 
 

Contingency Planning Statistics for Gulf of Mexico OCS Activities” (OCS Report MMS 2004-

026), using the average conditional probability for 3, 10, and 30 day impacts. 

Green Canyon Block 562 is located within Launch Area 46. According to the BOEMRE 

OSRAM, the trajectory indicates a 3% probability of potential impact to the shoreline in 

Cameron and/or Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The results are shown in Table I-2. 

Cameron and/or Plaquemines Parish are identified as the most probable potential impacted parish 

or county within the Gulf of Mexico for this operation. Cameron Parish is located in Louisiana 

and includes Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), East Cove Unit (a part of the 

Cameron Prairie NWR), Lacassine NWR, and Sabine NWR. Plaquemines Parish is also located 

in Louisiana and includes Delta NWR, Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area (WMA), and 

Bohemia State WMA. 

Response 

Anadarko will make every effort to respond to the worst-case discharge as effectively as 

possible. Response equipment available to respond to the worst-case discharge and the estimated 

time of a spill response from oil spill detection to equipment deployment on-site is included in 

Table I-3. The table estimates individual times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to 

the site and deployment. In the event of an actual incident equipment and times can vary. 

For the purpose of response scenario discussion, an uncontrolled blowout of the well would be 

considered the largest potential spill volume at 21,470 BOPD. An ADIOS weathering model was 

run based on a similar type of oil expected to be produced from this well. Based on this 

information, approximately 24% (5,153 bbls) of the initial volume would be 

evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours. 

If approved and appropriate, 4 sorties (8,000 gallons) from the Basler aircraft and 8 sorties 

(9,600 gallons) from two DC-3 aircrafts could disperse approximately 7,540 barrels of oil. 

If the conditions are appropriate, and the necessary approvals and permits have been obtained, 

in-situ burning may be utilized. Based on in-situ burn operations during Deepwater Horizon, 

approximately 5% (1,074 bbls) of the total initial worst case discharge could be burned. 

Although unlikely in a spill lasting thirty (30) days, potential shoreline impact in Cameron and/or 

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana could occur depending on environmental conditions (wind, 

currents and temperature) at the time of an incident. Nearshore response may include the use of 

shoreline boom on beach areas, or protection/sorbent boom on vegetated areas. Surveillance and 

real time trajectories would aide in determining the most appropriate strategies to respond to a 

spill. 

Table I.3 provides an example of offshore and nearshore equipment, response times, and 

personnel to respond to a spill of 16,317 bbls, which is the estimated amount that would remain 

considering natural evaporation/dispersion at 24 hours. This amount could be further reduced 
 

through the application of aerial and subsea dispersants, and in-situ burning provided such 

applications/actions were approved. 

Anadarko’s contingency plan for dealing with this worst-case discharge would be to activate its 

Spill Management Team and equipment resources as described in its Gulf of Mexico Regional 

Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) and provide continuous support for the duration of the event. 

Response resources are activated and supplemented according to need. These resources would 

remain engaged in the response until the incident is deemed complete or until released by 

Unified Command. 

Anadarko is a member of the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC), which provides 

access to containment response capabilities and includes subsea dispersant injection equipment. 

In the event of a blowout, Anadarko may: 

 1. Evacuate personnel, if necessary. Deploy emergency responders in an effort to preserve 

human life, if necessary. 

 2. Assess the damage and attempt to stop the flow at the source, if safe to do so, to reduce 

the amount of oil discharged. 

 3. Notify agencies. 

 4. Assess the amount of oil that has been spilled and calculate additional potential of oil 

flow. A continuous aerial surveillance program would be used to assess the growth of the 

slick and the volume of oil on the water. Observations of the size of the slick on the 

water, combined with observations at the source, would be used to provide a constant 

update. Additional potential to release fuel from the remaining tanks onboard the drilling 

rig would be determined by marine surveyors. Operations and Unified Command would 

continue to assess the adequacy of response equipment capacities based on this 

continually updated mass balance. 

 5. Convene the Spill Management Team (SMT). Organize Unified Command and establish 

objectives and priorities. 

 6. Monitor the oil spill with aerial surveillance and obtain trajectories. If oil is seaward 

bound, going away from land, discuss additional strategies with Unified Command. 

 7. If oil is moving in the direction of a shoreline and weather conditions are favorable, 

request approval to utilize dispersants. 

 a. Prior to commencing application operations, conduct an on-site survey in consultation 

with natural resource specialists to determine if any threatened or endangered species 

are present in the projected application area or otherwise at risk from dispersant 

application. 
 

 b. Upon approval, mobilize one Basler aircraft and two DC-3 aircrafts from Houma, with 

surveillance aircraft and spotter. Rotate aircraft, spraying the leading edge of the spill 

and working back to the source. Monitor/sample for effectiveness (USCG SMART 

Team). Truck additional dispersants from CGA or MSRC stockpile if necessary. 

 c. Dispersants are most effective when applied as soon after discharge as possible, since 

weathering of the oil decreases dispersant effectiveness. The estimated window of 

opportunity for most effective use of dispersants is within 48-72 hours post-release. 

The oil may still be dispersible after 72 hours on the water surface, but the 

effectiveness of dispersant use would likely be diminished after the oil has been on the 

water for more than three days. Ultimately, the USCG SMART monitoring protocol 

will be used to determine whether or not dispersant operations are effective. 

 d. Once the CGA HOSS barge is on location and in the skimming mode, dispersants 

would only be used if required and approved. 

 8. Deploy offshore mechanical oil containment and recovery equipment. Attempt to recover 

as much oil at sea as possible, utilizing: 

 a. The CGA HOSS barge, will be positioned in a stationary mode, will be situated downwind and down-current from location for long-duration, high-volume skimming. 

Based on average travel times, the HOSS barge could be on location within 

approximately 31 hours of the release. The de-rated skimming capacity of the HOSS 

barge is 43,000 bbls per day. However, only the oil encountered by a skimmer can be 

recovered. In order to maximize oil encounter rate, boom will be deployed in a 

V-configuration in front of the HOSS barge to funnel oil to the skimmers. If 

necessary, temporary barges can be activated to support continuous skimming 

operations. (These barges arrive on-site at approximately the same time as the HOSS 

barge.) For an on-going release, multiple barges are deployed to provide for 

continuous off-loading of skimmer storage vessels and shuttling of recovered oil to an 

onshore waste handling facility. Sufficient barges are available to provide enough 

temporary storage for continuous recovery operations. 

 b. CGA’s Fast Response Units (FRU) would arrive on-scene between approximately 

17-25 hours of the initial release. These skimmers operate downstream of the HOSS 

barge and are used to recover pockets and streamers of oil that may move past the 

large stationary skimmer. The FRU’s has approximately 200 barrels of on-board 

storage. Approval will be requested to decant water after gravity separation, through a 

hose forward of the skimmer, to optimize temporary storage capacity. Auto boom will 

be utilized to concentrate oil so that it is thick enough to be skimmed. 

 9. Dispersants, Fast Response Units (FRU), Oil Spill Response Vessels (OSRV or R/V) 

would typically work daylight hours only. The HOSS barge can operate continuously, 

including night operations. Available technology will be considered such as remote 

sensing devices that will enable 24 hour surveillance, trajectories, and planning. All 

response vessels are designed to be able to remain offshore continuously throughout the 
 

response. Even if sea conditions prohibit effective skimming, these resources would 

remain offshore until skimming operations could be commenced again. Safety would 

remain the first priority. 

 10. Prepare site-specific Waste Management Plan, Site Safety Plan, Decontamination Plans, 

Communications and Medical Plans. 

 11. If oil becomes a threat to any shoreline, data from the aerial surveillance, weather reports, 

and trajectories would be used to direct onshore teams to deploy protection/containment 

boom with reference to Area Contingency Plans and in coordination with State and 

Federal On-Scene Coordinators. 

 a. Implement pre-designated strategies. 

 b. Identify resources at risk in spill vicinity. 

 c. Develop/implement appropriate protection tactics. 

 12. Establish site-specific Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Plan. 

The following types of additional support may be required for a blowout lasting 120 days. 

 Additional Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) personnel to relieve equipment 

operators 

 Vessels for supporting offshore operations 

 Field safety personnel 

 Continued surveillance and monitoring of oil movement 

 Helicopter, video cameras 

 Infra red (night time spill tracking) capabilities, X-band radar 

 Barge to transport recovered oil from offshore skimming system, and temporary 

storage barges to onshore disposal sites that are identified in Area Contingency Plans 

(ACP) 

 Logistics needed to support equipment: 

- Staging areas 

- Parts, trailers, and mechanics to maintain skimmers and boom 

- Fueling facilities 

- Decontamination stations 

- Dispersant stockpile transported from Houston to Houma or other potential 

command post locations 

- Communications equipment and technicians 

 Logistics needed to support responder personnel 

- Medical aid stations 

- Safety personnel

- Food 

- Berthing 

- Additional clothing/safety supplies 

- Decontamination stations 
 

Louisiana CZM Containment Response Information 

Anadarko has the capability to respond and contain, to the maximum extent practicable as 

defined in 30 CFR 254.6 and 30 CFR 250.26(d)(1), to the estimated worst case discharge (WCD) 

associated with the proposed activity within 30 days. Deployment time for surface containment 

equipment is subject to availability and location, weather conditions, potential security zones 

around the spill site, and site/well specific assessment data. Personnel safety is always first and 

foremost. Refer to further details on equipment and timing provided in Section I–Oil Spill 

Information and Table I-3 of the EP. 

There will be no new or unusual technology deployed that has not been previously deployed for 

Gulf of Mexico oil spill prevention, control, and/or cleanup. 
 

Table I-1 

Worst Case Discharge Calculation 

(Based on Blowout during Production Operations)

Calculations for Uncontrolled Blowout> 10 miles from shore: Block 562 

 i. Type of Oil (crude, condensate, diesel) Crude 

 ii. API Gravity 29.0 ̊

 iii. DOCD Location Used for GC 562 WCD Well #005 

 iv. Largest Anticipated WCD Rate during blowout 21,470 BOPD 

 v. WCD Total for Production Operations for GC 562(> 10 miles from 

shore): 21,470 BOPD 
 

Table I-2 

Trajectory by Land Segment 

Following are the average conditional probabilities (expressed as percent chance) that an oil spill starting at a particular launch 

area will contact a land segment as included in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central Gulf of 

Mexico. This information can be found on the BOEM website using 3/10/30 day potential impact, as applicable. The results are 

listed below. 

Area/Block OCS-G Launch 

Area Land Segment and/or Resource 

Conditional Probability (%) 

3 

days 

10 

days 

30 

days 

Green Canyon 

Blocks 562 

Drilling 

(113 miles from 

shore) 

G11075 LA 46 

Central 

Planning 

Area 

Matagorda County, TX 

Brazoria County, TX 

Galveston County, TX 

Jefferson County, TX 

Cameron Parish, LA 

Vermilion Parish, LA 

Lafourche Parish, LA 

Terrebonne Parish, LA 

Plaquemines Parish, LA 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 
Table I-3 

WCD Scenario Production Activities – Based on a single well uncontrolled blowout (113 miles from shore) Green Canyon Block 562 21,470 BOPD (initial volume) 16,317 BOPD (after evaporation/dispersion) API Gravity 29.0o 

Offshore Equipment from Spill Detection to Equipment Deployment Response Time: Green Canyon Block 

Offshore Equipment 

Owner/Location Initial Staging 

Hours to 

Staging 

Area 

Time to 

Procure 

(1) 

Time 

to 

Load Out 

(2) 

Tra

Tim

(Stag

Spi

(3

Type 

Derated 

Capacity 

(bbls) 

Storage 

(bbls) 

No. of 

Units/ 

Persons 

Basler Spray Aircraft DC 3 Spray Aircraft Aero Commander 

-- -- 

-- -- 

1 2 2 

ASI/Houma Houma 

0 0 1 1 1 1 

HOSS Barge Operators Tugs 

43,000 4,000 1 

8 3 

CGA/Harvey STARS VOO 

Harvey 

1 2 4 4 0 26 

FRU Operators Utility Boat 

4,251 200 1 

6 1 

CGA/Ingleside STARS VOO 

Ingleside 

0 2 2 1 2 2

FRU Operators Utility Boat 

4,251 200 1 

6 1 

CGA/Galveston STARS VOO 

Galveston 

0 2 2 1 2 19 

FRU Operators Utility Boat 

4,251 200 1 

6 1 

CGA/Lake Charles STARS VOO 

Cameron 

.5 

2 2 1 2 15

FRU Operators Utility Boat 

4,251 200 1 

6 1 

CGA/Morgan City STARS VOO 

Morgan City 

.5 

2 2 1 2 14

FRU Operators Utility Boat 

4,251 100 1 

6 1 

CGA/Harvey STARS VOO 

Harvey 

.5 

2 2 1 2 13 

FRU Operators Utility Boat 

8,502 400 2 

12 

2 

CGA/Leeville STARS VOO 

Leeville 

.5 

2 2 1 2 14 

Spill Team Area Responders (STARS) called out by Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) Vessel of Opportunity=VOO EMS=Enterprise Marine Services K-Sea=K-Sea Operating Partnership 
Offshore Equipment, cont. 

Owner/Location Initial Staging 

Hours to 

Staging 

Area 

Time to 

Procure 

(1) 

Time 

to 

Load Out 

(2) 

Trav

Tim

(Stagi

Spil

(3) 

Type 

Derated 

Capacity 

(bbls) 

Storage 

(bbls) 

No. of 

Units/ 

Persons 

FRU Operators Utility Boat 

8,502 400 2 

12 

2 

CGA/Venice STARS VOO 

Venice 

0 2 2 1 2 15 

Louisiana Responder Transrec 350 + OSRV 6,600' 44” Sea Sentry Boom 5,280' 67” LAMOR 

10,567 4,000 1 

1 

14 crew 

MSRC/Fort Jackson STARS Fort Jackson 

2 2 2 2 2 0 15 

Koseq Skimming Arms Operators Vessel w/ storage/hull 

53,487 65 3 sets 

18 

3 

CGA/Leeville STARS VOO 

Leeville 

0 2 2 1 12 14 

Koseq Skimming Arms Operators Vessel w/ storage/hull 

35,658 249 2 sets 

12 

2 

CGA/Venice STARS VOO 

Venice 

0 2 2 1 12 14 

DBL 101 Operators Tugs 

-- 107,285 1 

20 

4 

K-Sea/Atlantic Venice 

0 2 4 2 4 41 

CTCo 2605 Operators Tug 

-- 20,000 1 

6 1 

EMS/Amelia Amelia

0 2 4 4 0 25 

CTCo 5001 Operators Tug 

-- 47,000 1 

6 1 

EMS/Amelia Amelia

0 2 4 4 0 25 

10,000' Auto Boom VOO 

-- -- 40 

20 crew 

CGA/Harvey STARS Harvey .5 2 1 2 13 

5,000' Auto Boom VOO 

-- -- 20 

10 crew 

CGA/Lake Charles STARS Cameron .5 2 1 2 15.5 

5,000' Auto Boom VOO 

-- -- 20 

10 crew 

CGA/Galveston STARS Galveston 0 2 1 2 19 

2,500' Auto Boom VOO 

-- -- 12 

6 crew 

CGA/Ingleside STARS Ingleside 0 2 1 2 21 

2,500' Auto Boom VOO 

-- -- 12 

6 crew 

CGA/Pascagoula STARS Pascagoula 0 2 1 2 16 

22,400' Boom VOO 

-- -- 80 

25 crew AMPOL/New Iberia New Iberia 0 2 1 2 17 

4,800' Boom VOO 

-- -- 18 

9 crew AMPOL/Harvey Harvey 0 2 1 2 13 

Spotter Helo Surveillance Helo Hand Held Radios 

-- -- -- 

-- -- -- 

1 1 

30 

PHI/Fourchon PHI/Fourchon STARS 

Spill Site Spill Site Fourchon 

1 1 

1.5 

1 1 

1.5 

-- -- -- 

2 2 2 

Total 180,971 184,299 
Nearshore Equipment from Spill Detection to Equipment Deployment Response Time: Green Canyon Bloc

Nearshore Equipment* 

Owner/Location Initial Staging 

Hours to 

Staging 

Area 

Time to 

Procure 

(1) 

Time 

to 

Load Out 

(2) 

Trave

Time 

(Stagin

Spill) 

(3) 

Type 

Derated 

Capacity 

(bbls) 

Storage 

(bbls) 

No. of 

Units/ 

Persons 

Basler Spray Aircraft DC 3 Spray Aircraft Aero Commander 

-- -- 1 

2 2 

ASI/Houma Houma 

0 0 1 1 1 1 

SWS Egmopol Operators 

3,000 100 1 

3 

CGA/Galveston STARS Galveston 0 2 1 2 10 

SWS Egmopol Operators 

3,000 100 1 

3 

CGA/Morgan City STARS Morgan City .5 2 1 2 12 

SWS Marco Operators 

3,588 34 1 

3 

CGA/Leeville STARS Leeville .5 2 1 2 11 

SWS Marco Operators 

3,588 20 1 

3 

CGA/Lake Charles STARS Cameron .5 2 1 2 8 

SWS Marco Operators 

3,588 34 1 

3 

CGA/Venice STARS Venice .5 2 1 2 10 

Trinity SWS Operators 

21,500 249 1 

4 

CGA/Morgan City STARS Morgan City .5 2 1 2 13 

R/V Grand Bay Operators 

5,000 65 1 

3 

CGA/Venice STARS Venice .5 2 2 .5 8 

R/V RW Armstrong Operators 

5,000 249 1 

3 

CGA/Leeville STARS Leeville .5 2 2 .5 7 

R/V Bastian Bay Operators 

5,000 65 1 

3 

CGA/Lake Charles STARS Cameron .5 2 2 .5 11.5 

R/V Timbalier Bay Operators 

5,000 65 1 

3 

CGA/Galveston STARS Galveston 0 2 2 .5 12 

Foilex 250 Skimmer Storage Bladder 

3,977 500 1 

3 

MSRC/Fort Jackson STARS Fourchon 2 2 2 .5 6.5 

Foilex 250 Skimmer Storage Bladder 

3,977 500 1 

3 

MSRC/Lake Charles STARS Cameron 2 2 2 .5 8.5 

CTCo2603 Operators Tug 

-- 25,000 1 

6 1 

EMS/Amelia Amelia

0 2 4 4 0 20 

CTCo 2604 Operators Tugs 

-- 20,000 1 

6 1 

EMS/Amelia Amelia 

0 2 4 4 0 20 

CTCo 2606 Operators Tugs 

-- 20,000 1 

6 1 

EMS/Amelia Amelia 

0 2 4 4 0 20 

CTCo 2608 Operators Tugs 

-- 23,000 1 

6 1 

EMS/Amelia Amelia 

0 2 4 4 0 20 
Nearshore Equipment, cont.* 

Owner/Location Initial Staging 

Hours to 

Staging 

Area 

Time to 

Procure 

(1) 

Time 

to 

Load Out 

(2) 

Trave

Time 

(Stagin

Spill) 

(3) 

Type 

Derated 

Capacity 

(bbls) 

Storage 

(bbls) 

No. of 

Units/ 

Persons 

CTCo 2609 Operators Tugs 

-- 23,000 1 

6 1 

EMS/Amelia Amelia 

0 2 4 4 0 20 

2,000' Beach Boom -- -- 6 CGA/Galveston Galveston 0 1 2 8 1,000' Beach Boom -- -- 4 CGA/Ingleside Ingleside 0 1 2 10 2,000' Beach Boom -- -- 6 CGA/Pascagoula Pascagoula 0 1 2 6 10,000' 18" Boom VOO 

-- -- 10/4 

1 Oil Mop/New Iberia New Iberia 0 2 1 1 4.5 

10,000' 18" Boom VOO 

-- -- 10/4 

1 Oil Mop/Houston Houston 1 2 1 1 8.75 

10,000' 18" Boom VOO 

-- -- 10 

4 crew Oil Mop/Port Arthur Port Arthur 0 2 1 1 7.25 

10,000' 18" Boom VOO 

-- -- 10 

4 crew Oil Mop/Houma Fourchon .5 2 1 1 3.5 

10,000' 18" Boom VOO 

-- -- 10 

4 crew Oil Mop/Port Allen Port Allen 0 2 1 1 4.5 

20,000' 18" Boom VOO 

-- -- 20 

8 crew Oil Mop/Belle Chasse Venice .5 2 1 1 3 

15,000' 18" Boom VOO 

-- -- 14 

6 crew Oil Mop/Gretna Gretna 0 2 1 1 4 

Wildlife Support Trailer -- -- 1/ 2 crew CGA/Harvey Harvey .5 1 2 3 Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 2 CGA/Venice Venice .5 1 2 3.25 Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 2 CGA/Lake Charles Cameron .5 1 2 5.25 Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 2 CGA/Pascagoula Pascagoula .5 1 2 5 Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 2 CGA/Harvey Harvey .5 1 2 4 Spotter Helo Surveillance Helo Hand Held Radios 

-- -- -- 

-- -- -- 

1 1 

30 

PHI/Houma PHI/Houma STARS 

Spill Site Spill Site Fourchon 

1 1 

1.5 

1 1 

1.5 

-- -- -- 

1.5 1.5 

2 

Total 66,218 112,981 

*Some equipment may be used offshore up to approximately 25 miles from shore 
 

I-3 (continued) 

Operational Limitations of Response Equipment 

 HOSS Barge–8 foot seas 

 Fast Response Unit (FRU)–8 foot seas 

 Oil Spill Response Vessel (OSRV and R/V)–4 foot seas 

 Boom–3 foot seas, 20 knot winds 

 Dispersants–winds more than 25 knots, visibility less than 3 nautical miles or ceiling less than 

1,000 feet 
 

J 

Environmental Monitoring Information 

(a) Monitoring Systems 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation will monitor loop currents per NTL 2005-G05. 

Anadarko subscribes to Wilkens Weather Service which provides real-time weather 

conditions such as tropical depressions, storms and/or hurricanes entering the Gulf. 

 

(b) Incidental Takes 

Although marine mammals may be seen in the area, Anadarko does not believe that its 

operations proposed under this EP will result in the harassment, capture, collection or 

killing of any mammals covered by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Anadarko will operate in accordance with applicable regulations and guidance, including: 

*NTL No. 2007-G02 – “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures 

and Protected Species Observer Program” 

*BSEE NTL No. 2012-G01 “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and 

Elimination”, and 

*JOINT NTL No. 2012-G01 “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead 

Protected Species Reporting” 
 

K 

LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION 

One lease stipulation is attached to Green Canyon Block 562. 

Lease Sale # 118: 

Military Area: Green Canyon Block 562 is located within Military Warning Area W-92. 

Anadarko will contact the Naval Air Station, Air Operations Department, New Orleans, 

Louisiana in order to coordinate and control the electromagnetic emissions during these 

proposed operations. 
 

L 

RELATED FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS INFORMATION

(a) Related OCS Facilities and Operations 

Subsea wells in GC 562 are tied back to the existing Marco Polo TLP in GC Block 608. 

The GC 562 SS005 will be equipped with a 15k subsea wellhead and subsea tree. The 

subsea tree with be tied into the existing lease term pipeline system (S-14855/18456) to 

Marco Polo via a well jumper to a new PLET which will be connected to a new PLEM 

which will be connected to the existing West PLEM hub on existing pipeline S14855/18456. The pipeline will shut-in according to the approved DWOP for GC 562. 

The maximum flow-rate the pipelines are designed for is 10,000 BOPD. The boarding 

shut down valves will close in 45 seconds. The well will be controlled via a step out 

umbilical. No modifications to the Marco Polo TLP are proposed as a part of this plan. 

(b) Transportation System 

Oil and gas from the GC 562 development departs the Marco Polo TLP via the existing 

export pipelines. The oil export pipeline (S-14003) is operated by Enterprise Field 

Services, LLC and transports gas from the Marco Polo TLP to a subsea tie-in in GC 164. 

The gas export pipeline (S-14002) is operated by Enterprises Field Services, LLC and 

transports gas from the Marco Polo TLP to a subsea tie-in in GC 235. No changes to the 

transportation system are proposed as a part of this plan. 

(c) Produced Liquid Hydrocarbons Transportation Vessels 

No produced liquid hydrocarbons are anticipated to be transported by means other than a 

pipeline for the activities proposed as a part of this plan. 

(d) Decommissioning Information 

Subsequent to applicable lease expirations, abandonment activities will be conducted in 

accordance with all state and federal regulations. 
 

M 

Support Vessels and Aircraft Information 

(a) General 

Type Max. Total Fuel 

Tank Storage 

Capacity 

Max. No. in Area 

at any Time 

Trip Frequency or 

Duration 

Supply Vessel 336,227 gallons 1 2 trips/week 

Helicopter 735.3 gallons 1 5 trips/week 

Crew Vessel 70,000 gallons 1 3 trips/week 

Pipe Lay Vessel 1,101,576 gallons 1 Duration of operation 

Tug Boat N/A N/A N/A 

Anchor Handling Vessel N/A N/A N/A 

(b) Diesel Oil Supply Vessels 

Fuel for the rig will be transported via a supply vessel as follows: 

a. Size of fuel supply vessel: 230 feet 

b. Carrying capacity of fuel supply vessel: 336,227 gallons 

c. Frequency that fuel supply vessel will visit the 

facilities: twice per week 

d. Routes the fuel supply vessel will use to travel 

between the onshore support base and proposed 

facility: 

6 miles from Port Fourchon to the mouth of 

Bayou Lafourche, then approximately 118 

miles to GC 562. 

(c) Solid and Liquid Wastes Transporation 

Type of 

Waste 

Composition Total 

Projected 

Amount 

Rate Transport 

Method 

Name/Location of Facility Disposal 

Method 

Produced 

Sand 

Oil-contaminated 

formation sand 

N/A N/A Transport in 

drums by 

vessel to 

shorebase for 

pickup. 

Waste - Port Fourchon, LA and 

on to Newpark Fourchon 

Transfer Station #1 & #2. 

Newpark Transfer Station 

Morgan City. Newpark 

Transfer Station Port Arthur. 

USLL Galveston and Fourchon 

Transfer Station. If recycled, 

returned to vendor (Bariod or 

MI). 

Disposed of at 

Newpark 

(injection 

disposal 

facility) or 

USLL 

(landfarm). 

Chemical 

product waste 

(well 

treatment 

fluids) 

Ethylene glycol 

Methanol 

100 bbls 

25 bbls 

100 

bbls/month 

25 

bbls/month 

Transport to 

shore in 

barrels for 

pick up 

Chemwaste in Sulphur, LA 

and Veolia Port Arthur, TX or 

to Newpark, Port Arthur as 

non-hazardous waste. 

Disposed 
 

Completion 

fluids 

Brine, spent acid, 

prop sand, debris 

3,000 bbls 3,000 

bbls/well 

Transport to 

shore in 

barrels for 

pick up 

Sent to Port Fourchon, LA and 

on to Newpark Fourchon 

Transfer Station #1 & #2. 

Newpark Transfer Station 

Morgan City. Newpark 

Transfer Station Port Arthur. 

USLL Galveston and Fourchon 

Transfer Station 

Disposed 

Workover 

fluids 

Brine, spent acid, 

prop sand, debris 

3,000 bbls 3,000 

bbls/well 

Transport to 

shore in 

barrels for 

pick up 

Sent to Port Fourchon, LA and 

on to Newpark Fourchon 

Transfer Station #1 & #2. 

Newpark Transfer Station 

Morgan City. Newpark 

Transfer Station Port Arthur. 

USLL Galveston and Fourchon 

Transfer Station 

Disposed 

Trash and 

debris 

Refuse generated 

during 

operations 

94 bbls 94 

bbls/month 

Transport to 

shore in 

disposal bags 

by vessel to 

shorebase for 

pickup by 

municipal 

operations 

Recycled Material in ARC, 

New Iberia, LA. Trash 

disposed of at SWDI landfill. 

Recycled 

and/or 

disposed in 

landfill. 

Used oil Excess oil from 

engines 

6.29 bbls 6.29 

bbls/month 

Transport in 

totes to shore 

for disposal 

American Recovery Fourchon, 

LA 

Incinerated 

 *Total amount assumes 1 well will take 30 days to complete operations 

(d) Vicinity Map 

A vicinity map is included in this section as Attachment M-1. 
Green Canyon Block 562 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan 

Figure 1. Location of Green Canyon 562.
 

N 

ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

(a) General 

Per NTL No. 2008-G04, the following tables reflect the onshore facilities Anadarko may utilize 

to provide supplies and service support for the activities proposed in this DOCD. 

Name Primary Location Existing/New/Modified 

Anadarko Service Base Fourchon, Louisiana Existing 

Name *Alternate Locations Existing/New/Modified 

Anadarko Service Base Galveston, TX Existing 

Anadarko Service Base Cameron, LA Existing 

Anadarko Service Base Lake Charles, LA Existing 

Anadarko Service Base Houma, LA Existing 

Anadarko Service Base Pascagoula, MS** Existing 

*In the unlikely event Anadarko’s primary service base cannot be utilized Anadarko will exercise the 

  use of an alternate service base during drilling and/or completion operations.

**Helicopter base only 

(b) Support Base 

No support base construction or expansion is planned for these activities. 

(c) Waste Disposal 

Disposed wastes describe those wastes generated by the proposed activity that are 

disposed of by means other than by release into the water of the GOM at the site where 

they are generated. These wastes can be disposed of by offsite release, injection, 

encapsulation, or placement at either onshore or offshore permitted locations for the 

purposes of returning them back to the environment. 

Type of 

Waste 

Composition Total 

Projected 

Amount 

Rate Transport 

Method 

Name/Location of Facility Disposal 

Method 

Produced 

Sand 

Oil-contaminated 

formation sand 

N/A N/A Transport in 

drums by 

vessel to 

shorebase for 

pickup. 

Waste - Port Fourchon, LA and 

on to Newpark Fourchon 

Transfer Station #1 & #2. 

Newpark Transfer Station 

Morgan City. Newpark 

Transfer Station Port Arthur. 

USLL Galveston and Fourchon 

Transfer Station. If recycled, 

returned to vendor (Bariod or 

MI). 

Disposed of at 

Newpark 

(injection 

disposal 

facility) or 

USLL 

(landfarm). 

Chemical 

product waste 

(well 

treatment 

fluids) 

Ethylene glycol 

Methanol 

100 bbls 

25 bbls 

100 

bbls/month 

25 

bbls/month 

Transport to 

shore in 

barrels for 

pick up 

Chemwaste in Sulphur, LA 

and Veolia Port Arthur, TX or 

to Newpark, Port Arthur as 

non-hazardous waste. 

Disposed 
 

Completion 

fluids 

Brine, spent acid, 

prop sand, debris 

3,000 bbls 3,000 

bbls/well 

Transport to 

shore in 

barrels for 

pick up 

Sent to Port Fourchon, LA and 

on to Newpark Fourchon 

Transfer Station #1 & #2. 

Newpark Transfer Station 

Morgan City. Newpark 

Transfer Station Port Arthur. 

USLL Galveston and Fourchon 

Transfer Station 

Disposed 

Workover 

fluids 

Brine, spent acid, 

prop sand, debris 

3,000 bbls 3,000 

bbls/well 

Transport to 

shore in 

barrels for 

pick up 

Sent to Port Fourchon, LA and 

on to Newpark Fourchon 

Transfer Station #1 & #2. 

Newpark Transfer Station 

Morgan City. Newpark 

Transfer Station Port Arthur. 

USLL Galveston and Fourchon 

Transfer Station 

Disposed 

Trash and 

debris 

Refuse generated 

during 

operations 

94 bbls 94 

bbls/month 

Transport to 

shore in 

disposal bags 

by vessel to 

shorebase for 

pickup by 

municipal 

operations 

Recycled Material in ARC, 

New Iberia, LA. Trash 

disposed of at SWDI landfill. 

Recycled 

and/or 

disposed in 

landfill. 

Used oil Excess oil from 

engines 

6.29 bbls 6.29 

bbls/month 

Transport in 

totes to shore 

for disposal 

American Recovery Fourchon, 

LA 

Incinerated 

*Total amount assumes 1 well will take 30 days to complete operations 
 

O 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT INFORMATION 

Issues identified in the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program include the 

following: general coastal use guidelines, levees, linear facilities (pipelines); dredged soil 

deposition; shoreline modifications, surface alterations, hydrologic and sediment 

transport modifications, waste disposal; uses that result in the alteration of waters 

draining into coastal waters; oil, gas, or other mineral activities; and air and water quality. 

Relevant enforceable policies were considered in certifying consistency for Louisiana. 
 

TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

The following is an evaluation that includes findings relating the coastal effects of the proposed 

activities and associated facilities to the relevant enforceable policies of the Texas’ Coastal 

Management Program (TCMP), Title 31, Part 16, Chapter 501, Subchapter B:

(Category 2) 

Construction, Operation & Maintenance of Oil & Gas Exploration & Production 

Facilities 

No operations are proposed in or near any critical areas. The proposed activities are explorative in 

nature, so no facility construction is proposed. The proposed activities are located approximately 

268 miles from the Texas shoreline; therefore we expect no adverse impacts to CNRAs or beach 

access and use rights of the public. All activities shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes 

significant impacts to coastal resources. No adverse effects to Texas’ coastal area are expected in 

association with the proposed activities. 

(Category 3) 

Discharges of Wastewater and Disposal of Waste from Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Production Activities 

No discharge of wastewater or disposal of waste from the proposed activities will occur in the 

Texas’ coastal zone; therefore no impact to Texas’ coastal waters is expected. 

(Category 4) 

Construction and Operation of Solid Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal 

Facilities 

No construction of solid waste facilities or expansion of existing facilities in the coastal zone are 

proposed in the attached plan, therefore, no adverse effects on any features of Texas’ coastal cone 

are expected. 

(Category 5) 

Prevention, Response, and Remediation of Oil Spills 

The proposed activities will be covered under an approved Regional Oil Spill Response Plan. The 

plan is in place, practiced, and updated as necessary. The best practical techniques shall be 

utilized to prevent the release of pollutants or toxic substances into the environment. All involved 

vessels and facilities are designed to be capable of prompt response and adequate removal of 

accidental discharges of oil. In addition, the proposed activities are 268 miles from shore; 

therefore no damages to natural resources are expected as the result of an unauthorized discharge 

of oil into coastal waters. 

(Category 6) 

Discharge of Municipal and Industrial Waste Water to Coastal Waters 

No discharges from the proposed activities will occur in coastal waters. The proposed activities 

are 268 miles from shore; therefore there will be no effect on coastal waters. 
 

(Category 8) 

Development in Critical Areas 

None of the proposed activities will occur in a critical area; therefore no effects to Texas’ coastal 

zone are expected. The activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as 

endangered or threatened, and will not result in likelihood of the destruction or adverse 

modification of a habitat determined to be a critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. 

The activity will not cause or contribute to violation of any applicable surface water quality 

standards. The activity will not violate any requirement imposed to protect a marine sanctuary. 

(Category 9) 

Construction of Waterfront Facilities and Other Structures on Submerged lands 

No waterfront facilities or other structures are proposed on submerged lands in the Texas coastal 

zone, therefore the proposed activities are not expected to have any adverse impacts on 

submerged lands. 

(Category 10) 

Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal and Placement 

No dredging or disposal/placement of dredged material is proposed; therefore no adverse effects 

to coastal waters, submerged lands, critical areas, coastal shore areas, or Gulf beaches are 

expected. 

(Category 11) 

Construction in the Beach / Dune System 

The proposed activities do not include any construction projects in critical dune areas or areas 

adjacent to or on Gulf beaches, therefore, no impact to Texas’ beach or dune systems are 

expected. 

(Category 15) 

Alteration of Coastal Historic Areas 

The proposed activities do not include any alteration or disturbance of a coastal historic area; 

therefore, no impacts are expected to adversely affect any historical, architectural, or 

archaeological site in Texas’ coastal zone. 

(Category 16) 

Transportation 

The proposed activities do not include any transportation construction projects within the coastal 

zone; therefore, no impacts to Texas’ coastal zone are expected. 

(Category 17) 

Emission of Air Pollutants 

The proposed activities shall be carried out in conformance with applicable air quality laws, 

standards, and regulations. Emissions from the proposed activities are not expected to have 

significant impacts on onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, 
 

emission heights, emission rates, and the distance of these emissions from the coastline. The 

proposed activities will occur approximately 268 miles from shore and will be within the 

exemption limits set by BOEM, therefore, no impacts to Texas’ coastal zone is expected. 

(Category 18) 

Appropriations of Water 

The proposed activities do not include the impoundment or diversion of state water, therefore, no 

impacts to Texas’ coastal zone is expected. 

(Category 20) 

Marine Fishery Management 

The proposed activities are located approximately 268 miles from shore and are not expected to 

have any effect on marine fishery management or fishery migratory patterns within waters in the 

coastal zone of Texas. 

(Category 22) 

Administrative Policies 

The necessary information for applicable agencies to make an informed decision on the proposed 

activities has been provided In conclusion, all activities shall be consistent with Texas’ coastal 

management program and shall comply with all relevant rules and regulations. No activities are 

planned within any critical areas. Activities will be carried out avoiding unnecessary conflicts 

with other uses of the vicinity. 

 

MISSISSIPPI COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT INFORMATION 

As authorized by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), The State of 

Mississippi developed a Coastal Management Program (CMP) to allow for the review of 

proposed Federal license and permit activities affecting any coastal use or resources, in or 

outside of the Mississippi Coastal Zone. 

The OCS related oil and gas exploratory and development activities having potential 

impact on the Mississippi Coastal Zone are based on the location of the proposed 

facilities, access to those sites, best practical techniques for drilling locations, drilling 

equipment guidelines for the prevention of adverse environmental effects, effective 

environmental protection, emergency plans and contingency plans. 

Below are goals identified by the State of Mississippi and our comments and/or 

corresponding cross references: 

Goal 1: To provide for reasonable industrial expansion in the coastal area and to 

ensure the efficient utilization of waterfront industrial sites so that suitable sites are 

conserved for water dependent industry. 

The activities proposed in this plan are based out of Fourchon, Louisiana. The activities 

will not provide any industrial expansion on the coastal area of Mississippi. Therefore 

Mississippi coastal areas will be conserved for water dependent industry. 

Goal 2: To favor the preservation of the coastal wetlands and ecosystems, except 

where a specific alteration of specific coastal wetlands would serve a higher public 

interest in compliance with the public purposes of the public trust in which the 

coastal wetlands are held. 

Goal 2 is addressed in Section P, Environmental Impact Analysis. The nearest proposed 

activities will be 198 miles from the Mississippi coast. 

Goal 3: To protect, propagate and conserve the state’s seafood and aquatic life in 

connection with the revitalization of the seafood industry of the State of Mississippi. 

Goal 3 is addressed in Section P, Environmental Impact Analysis. Little impact to the 

seafood industry can be expected due to the activities occurring 198 miles from the 

Mississippi coast. 

Goal 4: To conserve the air and waters of the state, and to protect, maintain and 

improve the quality thereof for public use, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and 

aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other 

legitimate beneficial uses. 

Goal 4 is addressed in Section B, General Information, Section H, Air Emissions 

Information, and Section P, Environmental Impact Analysis. 
 

Goal 5: To put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable the 

water resources of the state, and to prevent the waste, unreasonable use, or 

unreasonable method of use of water. 

The activities proposed in this plan are based in Fourchon, Louisiana. As such, 

Mississippi’s water resources should not be impacted by the proposed activities. 

Activities occurring at the sites in the OCS will be conducted in accordance with our 

Regional Oil Spill Response Plan referenced in Section I of this plan. 

Goal 6: To preserve the state’s historical and archaeological resources, to prevent 

their destruction, and to enhance these resources wherever possible. 

Goal 6 is addressed in Section F, Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information, 

and Section P, Environmental Impact Analysis. 

Goal 7: To encourage the preservation of natural scenic qualities in the coastal area. 

Goal 7 is addressed in Section G, Waste Discharges Information, Section I, Oil Spill 

Information, Section H, Air Emissions Information, and Section P, Environmental Impact 

Analysis. 

Goal 8: To assist local governments in the provision of public facilities services in a 

manner consistent with the coastal program. 

As the proposed activities are located 198 miles from the Mississippi coast and are based 

out of a shorebase in Fourchon, Louisiana, local governments should not be affected. 

 

P 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 
Environmental Impact Analysis

Supplemental Development Operations Coordination Document

for

Green Canyon Block 562 (OCS-G 11075) 

Offshore Louisiana

February 2014 

Prepared for:

Jill Fowler 

Regulatory Analyst

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

1201 Lake Robbins Drive

The Woodlands, Texas 77380

Telephone: (832) 636-1694

Prepared by:

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue

Stuart, Florida 34997

Telephone: (772) 219-3000
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page ii

Contents

Page

Introduction ................................................................................................................1

A. Impact-Producing Factors .......................................................................................5

A.1 Dynamic Positioning Lay Barge Presence (including noise and lights)...........................................5

A.2 Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor..............................................................................................5

A.3 Air Pollutant Emissions...................................................................................................................5

A.4 Effluent Discharges.........................................................................................................................8

A.5 Water Intake...................................................................................................................................8

A.6 Onshore Waste Disposal.................................................................................................................8

A.7 Marine Debris................................................................................................................................. 8

A.8 Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic ............................................................................................9

A.9 Accidents ........................................................................................................................................9

A.9.1 Types of Accidents Evaluated .............................................................................................9

A.9.2 Small Fuel Spill ....................................................................................................................9

A.9.3 Crude Oil Spill (Worst Case Discharge) .............................................................................10

A.9.4 Other Accidents Not Analyzed in Detail............................................................................16

B. Affected Environment...........................................................................................16

C. Impact Analysis.....................................................................................................19

C.1 Physical/Chemical Environment...................................................................................................19

C.1.1 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................19

C.1.2 Water Quality....................................................................................................................21

C.2 Seafloor Habitats and Biota..........................................................................................................22

C.2.1 Soft Bottom Benthic Communities...................................................................................23

C.2.2 High-Density Deepwater Benthic Communities...............................................................24

C.2.3 Designated Topographic Features....................................................................................26

C.2.4 Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms....................................................................................27

C.2.5 Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms................................................................................................. 27

C.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Critical Habitat........................................27

C.3.1 Sperm Whale (Endangered)..............................................................................................30

C.3.2 West Indian Manatee (Endangered).................................................................................33

C.3.3 Endangered Mysticete Whales.........................................................................................34

C.3.4 Non-Endangered Marine Mammals (Protected)..............................................................34

C.3.5 Sea Turtles (Endangered/Threatened) .............................................................................38

C.3.6 Piping Plover (Threatened)...............................................................................................41

C.3.7 Whooping Crane (Endangered) ........................................................................................43

C.3.8 Gulf Sturgeon (Threatened)..............................................................................................44

C.3.9 Smalltooth Sawfish (Endangered).....................................................................................44

C.3.10 Beach Mouse (Endangered)..............................................................................................45

C.3.11 Elkhorn Coral (Threatened)...............................................................................................46

C.4 Coastal and Marine Birds..............................................................................................................46
Contents

(Continued)

Page

Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page iii

C.4.1 Marine Birds......................................................................................................................46

C.4.2 Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds...............................................................................49

C.5 Fisheries Resources ......................................................................................................................51

C.5.1 Pelagic Communities and Ichthyoplankton ......................................................................51

C.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat........................................................................................................53

C.6 Archaeological Resources.............................................................................................................56

C.6.1 Shipwreck Sites.................................................................................................................56

C.6.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites........................................................................................57

C.7 Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas..........................................................................................58

C.8 Socioeconomic and Other Resources...........................................................................................61

C.8.1 Recreational and Commercial Fishing ..............................................................................61

C.8.2 Public Health and Safety ...................................................................................................62

C.8.3 Employment and Infrastructure .......................................................................................63

C.8.4 Recreation and Tourism....................................................................................................64

C.8.5 Land Use............................................................................................................................65

C.8.6 Other Marine Uses............................................................................................................65

D. Environmental Hazards.........................................................................................66

D.1 Geologic Hazards..........................................................................................................................66

D.2 Severe Weather............................................................................................................................66

D.3 Currents and Waves .....................................................................................................................66

E. Alternatives ..........................................................................................................67

F. Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................67

G. Consultation .........................................................................................................67

H. Preparers..............................................................................................................67

I. References.............................................................................................................67
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page iv

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) applicable to this Environmental Impact 

Analysis (EIA) .........................................................................................................................3

2 Matrix of impact-producing factors and affected environmental resources........................6

3 Conditional probabilities expressed as percent chance that an oil spill starting at 

Launch Point 3 will contact a certain parish, county, or coastline within 120 days 

(Modified from: BOEM, 2012).............................................................................................13

4 Benthic community data from stations near the lease area (Adapted from: 

Wei, 2006; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009)...............................................................................23

5 Federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the 

lease area and along the northern Gulf Coast ....................................................................28

6 Wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and State and National parks within the 

geographic range of the potential shoreline contacts after 120 days (From: 

BOEM, 2012)........................................................................................................................59

List of Figures 

Figure Page

1 Location of Green Canyon 562 ..............................................................................................2

2 Bathymetric map of the lease area showing the surface hole location of Green 

Canyon Block 562 Well #005 ...............................................................................................18

3 Location of selected environmental features in relation to the lease area........................42
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page v 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADIOS2 Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills 2 

Anadarko Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

BLPD barrels of liquid per day

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement

BOP blowout preventer

BOPD barrels of oil per day

B.P. Before Present

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement

CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGA Clean Gulf Associates

DD Destin Dome

DOCD Development Operations Coordination 

Document

DP dynamic positioning 

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIA Environmental Impact Analysis

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAD fish-attracting device

Fugro Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc.

GC Green Canyon

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council

H2S hydrogen sulfide

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern

HOSS high-volume open sea skimmer

IPF impact-producing factor

MARPOL International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MMC Marine Mammal Commission

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service

MP Main Pass

MSRC Marine Spill Response Corporation

MWCC Marine Well Containment Company

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NOx nitrogen oxides

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System

NPS National Park Service

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NTL Notice to Lessees and Operators

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OBM oil-based mud

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OSRA Oil Spill Risk Analysis

OSRP Oil Spill Response Plan

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PM particulate matter

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

SBM synthetic-based mud

SOx sulfur oxides

SWSS Sperm Whale Seismic Study

ST South Timbalier

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC volatile organic compound

WCD worst case discharge
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 1 

Introduction

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) is submitting a Supplemental Development 

Operations Coordination Document (SDOCD) for Green Canyon (GC) Block 562. The 

Supplemental DOCD will only cover placing Well #005 onto production and installation of lease 

term pipelines; no drilling will take place under this Supplemental DOCD. 

The lease area is 113 miles (183 km) south of the nearest shoreline (Louisiana), 117 miles 

(189 km) from the onshore support base at Port Fourchon, Louisiana, and 152 miles (246 km) 

from the helicopter support base at Houma, Louisiana (Figure 1). Water depth at the proposed 

wellsite ranges from 1,196 to 1,224 m (3,925 to 4,015 ft). A dynamic positioning (DP) lay barge 

will be used to install the lease-term pipelines; there will be no anchoring impacts on the 

seafloor. 

This Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) was prepared for submittal to the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM) in accordance with applicable regulations, including 30 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 550.212(o) and 550.227. The EIA is a project- and site-specific analysis 

of Anadarko’s planned activities under this EP. This EIA complies with guidance provided in 

existing Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) issued by the former Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE), including NTL 2008-G04 and NTL 2014-G03. Potential impacts have been analyzed at 

a broader level in the Environmental Impact Statement (EISs) for the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program (MMS, 2007a; BOEM, 2012a) and in multi-lease-sale EISs for 

the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b; BOEM, 2012b, 2013). The 

analyses from these documents are incorporated here by reference. 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 2 

Figure 1. Location of Green Canyon Block 562. 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 3 

All the proposed activities and facilities discussed in this SDOCD are covered by the Regional Oil 

Spill Response Plan (OSRP) approved on 25 September 2013 for Anadarko and its subsidiaries, 

Anadarko U.S. Offshore Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company L.P. (Company Numbers 

00981, 02219, and 00148, respectively), in accordance with 30 CFR Part 254.

The OSRP details Anadarko’s plan for response to rapidly and effectively manage oil spills that 

may result from drilling and production operations. Anadarko has designed its response 

program based on a regional capability of response to spills ranging from small operational spills 

to a worst case discharge (WCD) from a well blowout. Anadarko’s spill response program meets 

the response planning requirements of the relevant coastal states and applicable Federal oil spill 

planning regulations and also includes information regarding Anadarko’s regional oil spill 

organization and dedicated response assets, potential spill risks, and local environmental 

sensitivities. The OSRP describes personnel and equipment mobilization, the incident 

management team organization, and an overview of actions and notifications to be taken in the 

event of a spill.

This EIA is organized into Sections A through I corresponding to the information required by 

NTL 2008-G04. The main impact-related discussions are in Section A (Impact-Producing Factors) 

and Section C (Impact Analysis). Table 1 lists and summarizes the NTLs applicable to this EIA.

Table 1. Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) applicable to this Environmental Impact 

Analysis (EIA). 

NTL Title Summary

2014-G03 Extension of Prior Notices to 

Lessees

Extends the effective date of NTLs 2008-G04 and 2008-G05 (and 

one other NTL) until 30 June 2014.

2012-N06

Guidance to Owners and 

Operators of Offshore Facilities 

Seaward of the Coast Line 

Concerning Regional Oil Spill 

Response Plans 

Provides clarification, guidance, and information for preparation 

of regional Oil Spill Response Plans. Recommends description of 

response strategy for worst case discharge (WCD) scenarios to 

ensure capability to respond to oil discharges is both efficient 

and effective. 

2012-BSEE-G01 Marine Trash and Debris 

Awareness and Elimination

Instructs operators to exercise caution in the handling and 

disposal of small items and packaging materials; requires the 

posting of placards at prominent locations on offshore vessels 

and structures; and mandates a yearly marine trash and debris 

awareness training and certification process.

2012-JOINT-G01

Vessel Strike Avoidance and 

Injured/Dead Protected Species 

Reporting

Recommends protected species identification manuals on all 

Gulf of Mexico vessels; recommends that vessel operators and 

crews maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and slow 

down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species; 

and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead 

protected species.

2012-JOINT-G01

Revisions to the List of OCS Blocks 

Requiring Archeological Resources 

Surveys and Reports

Provides new information about which Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) blocks require archeological surveys and reports and 

required line spacing in each block. This NTL augments

NTL 2005-G07. 
Table 1. (Continued).

Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 4 

NTL Title Summary

2010-N10

Statement of Compliance with 

Applicable Regulations and 

Evaluation of Information 

Demonstrating Adequate Spill 

Response and Well Containment 

Resources

Informs operators using subsea blowout preventers (BOPs) or 

surface BOPs on floating facilities that applications for well 

permits must include a statement signed by an authorized 

company official stating that the operator will conduct all 

activities in compliance with all applicable regulations, including 

the increased safety measures regulations (75 FR 63346). 

Informs operators that BOEMRE will be evaluating whether each 

operator has submitted adequate information demonstrating 

that it has access to and can deploy containment resources to 

promptly respond to a blowout or other loss of well control.

2010-N06

Information Requirements for 

Exploration Plans, Development 

and Production Plans, and 

Development Operations 

Coordination Documents on the 

OCS

Rescinds the limitations set forth in NTL 2008-G04 regarding a 

blowout scenario and worst case discharge scenario, and 

provides guidance regarding the information required in 

blowout scenario and worst case discharge scenario 

descriptions.

2009-G40 Deepwater Benthic Communities

Guidance for avoiding and protecting high-density deepwater 

benthic communities (including chemosynthetic and deepwater 

coral communities) from damage caused by OCS oil and gas 

activities in water depths greater than 300 m (984 ft). 

Prescribes separation distances of 610 m (2,000 ft) from each 

mud and cuttings discharge location and 76 m (250 ft) from all 

other seafloor disturbances.

2009-G39 Biologically Sensitive Underwater 

Features and Areas

Guidance for avoiding and protecting biologically sensitive 

features and areas (i.e., topographic features, pinnacles, low 

relief live bottom areas, and other potentially sensitive 

biological features) when conducting OCS operations in water 

depths less than 300 m (984 ft) in the Gulf of Mexico.

2009-G06 Military Warning and Water Test 

Areas

Provides contact links to individual command headquarters for 

the military warning and water test areas in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Lease stipulations require lessees or designated operators to 

enter into an agreement with the appropriate individual military 

command headquarters concerning the control of 

electromagnetic emissions and use of boats and aircraft in the 

applicable warning area or water test area before commencing 

such traffic.

2008-G04

Information Requirements for 

Exploration Plans and 

Development Operations 

Coordination Documents

Guidance on the information requirements for OCS plans, 

including EIA requirements and information regarding 

compliance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act 

and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

2005-G07 Archaeological Resource Surveys 

and Reports

Provides guidance on regulations regarding archaeological 

discoveries, specifies requirements for archaeological resource 

surveys and reports, and outlines options for protecting 

archaeological resources.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 5 

A. Impact-Producing Factors

Table 2 is a matrix of impact-producing factors (IPFs) and potentially affected environmental 

resources adapted from Form BOEM-142. An “X” indicates that an IPF could reasonably be 

expected to affect a certain resource, and a dash (--) indicates no impact or negligible impact. 

Where there may be an effect, an analysis is provided in Section C. Potential IPFs for the 

proposed activity are listed below and briefly discussed in the following sections. 

• DP lay barge presence (including 

noise and lights)

• Physical disturbance to the seafloor

• Air pollutant emissions

• Effluent discharges

• Water intake

• Onshore waste disposal

• Marine debris

• Support vessel and helicopter traffic

• Accidents

A.1 Dynamic Positioning Lay Barge Presence (including noise and lights)

The DP lay barge proposed in this SDOCD will be on site for an estimated 30 days. The physical 

presence of the vessel in the ocean can attract pelagic fishes and other marine life, as discussed 

in Section C.5.1. 

Pipe laying operations produce noise that includes strong tonal components at low frequencies, 

and in some cases infrasonic frequencies (MMS, 2000). Sound and vibration paths to the water 

flow either through the air or through the pipes being deployed (MMS, 2000). The DP lay barge 

will also maintain exterior lighting for navigational and aviation safety in accordance with 

applicable Federal safety regulations.

A.2 Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

The DP lay barge will not disturb sediments on the seafloor. The only disturbance of seafloor 

sediments will occur when the lease-term pipelines are placed on the bottom. These 

disturbances will be very small and localized.

A.3 Air Pollutant Emissions

Air pollutant emissions are calculated in Supplemental DOCD Section H and are estimated to be 

insignificant. Offshore air pollutant emissions will result from operations of the DP lay barge, as 

well as service vessels and helicopters. These emissions occur mainly from combustion of diesel 

fuel. The combustion of fuels occurs on diesel-powered generators, pumps, or motors and from 

lighter fuel motors. Primary air pollutants typically associated with OCS activities are suspended 

particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), and carbon monoxide (CO).

The Air Quality Emissions Report prepared in accordance with BOEM requirements 

demonstrates that the projected emissions are below exemption levels set by the applicable 

regulations in 30 CFR 250.303. Based on this and the distance from shore, it can be concluded 

that the emissions will not significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for any of the 

criteria pollutants. No further analysis or control measures are required.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental SDOCD Page 6 

Table 2. Matrix of impact-producing factors and affected environmental resources. X = potential impact; dash (--) = no impact or negligible impact.

Environmental Resources

Impact-producing Factors

DP Lay Barge

Presence (incl. 

noise & lights)

Physical 

Disturbance 

to Seafloor

Air 

Pollutant 

Emissions

Effluent 

Discharges

Water 

Intake

Onshore 

Waste 

Disposal

Marine 

Debris

Support 

Vessel/Helo 

Traffic

Accidents

Small Fuel 

Spill

Oil Spill 

(WCD)

Physical/Chemical Environment

Air quality and greenhouse gases -- -- --X(9) -- -- -- -- -- X(6) X(6)

Water quality -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- X(6) X(6)

Seafloor Habitats and Biota

Soft bottom benthic communities -- X -- X -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

High-density deepwater benthic communities -- --(4) -- --(4) -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Designated topographic features -- --(1) -- --(1) -- -- -- -- -- --

Pinnacle trend area live bottoms -- --(2) -- --(2) -- -- -- -- -- --

Eastern Gulf live bottoms -- --(3) -- --(3) -- -- -- -- -- --

Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Critical Habitat

Sperm whale (endangered) X(8) -- -- -- -- -- -- X(8) X(6,8) X(6,8)

West Indian manatee (endangered) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(8) -- X(6,8)

Endangered mysticete whales -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Non-endangered marine mammals (protected) X -- -- -- -- -- -- X X(6) X(6)

Sea turtles (endangered/threatened) X(8) -- -- -- -- -- -- X(8) X(6,8) X(6,8)

Piping Plover (threatened) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Whooping Crane (endangered) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Gulf sturgeon (threatened) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Smalltooth sawfish (endangered) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Beach mice (endangered) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Elkhorn coral (endangered) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Coastal and Marine Birds

Marine birds X -- -- -- -- -- -- X X(6) X(6)

Shorebirds and coastal nesting birds -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X -- X(6)

Fisheries Resources

Pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton X -- -- X X -- -- -- X(6) X(6)

Essential Fish Habitat X -- -- X X -- -- -- X(6) X(6)

Archaeological Resources

Shipwreck sites -- --(7) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Prehistoric archaeological sites -- --(7) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas

Beaches -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Wetlands and seagrass beds -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Coastal wildlife refuges and wilderness areas -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Socioeconomic and Other Resources

Recreational and commercial fishing X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6) X(6)

Public health and safety -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Employment and infrastructure -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Recreation and tourism -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Land use -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

Other marine uses -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X(6)

WCD = worst case discharge.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 7 

Table 2 Footnotes and Applicability:

(1) Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topographic feature. Specifically, if the well, rig site, or any 

anchors will be on the seafloor within the following:

(a) 4-mile zone of the Flower Garden Banks, or the 3-mile zone of Stetson Bank;

(b) 1,000-m, 1-mile, or 3-mile zone of any topographic feature (submarine bank) protected by the 

Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease;

(c) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) criteria of 500 ft from any no-activity zone; or

(d) Proximity of any submarine bank (500-ft buffer zone) with relief greater than 2 m that is not protected by 

the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

• Not applicable. The lease is not within or near a marine sanctuary, topographic feature, or 

no-activity zone. There are no submarine banks in the blocks.

(2) Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS lease block protected through the Live Bottom 

(Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

• The Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation is not applicable to the lease area.

(3) Activities within any Eastern Gulf OCS block where seafloor habitats are protected by the Live Bottom 

(Low-Relief) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 

• The Live Bottom (Low-Relief) Stipulation is not applicable to the lease area.

(4) Activities on blocks designated by the BOEM as being in water depths 300 m or greater.

• No impacts on high-density deepwater benthic communities are anticipated. There are no features 

indicative of high-density chemosynthetic communities or coral communities within 610 m (2,000 ft) of 

any well production activities. 

(5) Exploration or production activities where H2S concentrations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered. 

• Green Canyon Block 562 was determined to be H2S absent under the Initial EP. 

(6) All activities that could result in an accidental spill of produced liquid hydrocarbons or diesel fuel that you 

determine would impact these environmental resources. If the proposed action is located a sufficient distance 

from a resource that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two.

• Accidental hydrocarbon spills could affect the resources marked (X) in the matrix, and impacts are 

analyzed in Section C. 

(7) All activities that involve seafloor disturbances, including anchor emplacements, in any OCS block designated 

by the BOEM as having high-probability for the occurrence of shipwrecks or prehistoric sites, including such 

blocks that will be affected that are adjacent to the lease block in which your planned activity will occur. If the 

proposed activities are located a sufficient distance from a shipwreck or prehistoric site that no impact would 

occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two.

• No impacts on archaeological resources are expected. The lease area is not on the list of archaeology 

survey blocks (BOEM, 2012c) and is well beyond the 60-m depth contour used by the BOEM as the 

seaward extent for prehistoric archaeological site potential in the Gulf of Mexico.

(8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals 

or sea turtles or their critical habitats. 

• IPFs that may affect marine mammals, sea turtles, or their critical habitats include dynamic positioning 

(DP) lay barge presence, support vessel and helicopter traffic, and accidents. See Section C. 

(9) Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle tankers or barges.

• Not applicable.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 8 

A.4 Effluent Discharges

Effluent discharges are summarized in Supplemental DOCD Section G. All offshore discharges 

will be in accordance with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) General Permit No. GMG290000 issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA). Any discharges will be in compliance with the permit terms and monitored as required 

by the permit.

Effluent discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit will include non-contact cooling water, 

treated sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, desalination unit brine, uncontaminated 

fresh water and seawater, and ballast water.

A.5 Water Intake

Seawater will be drawn from the ocean for once-through, non-contact cooling of machinery on 

the DP lay barge. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits to ensure that 

the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the 

best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact from impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic organisms. The current NPDES General Permit No. GMG290000 does 

not specify requirements for existing facilities (those that started construction before 

16 July 2006). The DP lay barge ultimately selected for this project will be in compliance with all 

cooling water intake regulations. 

A.6 Onshore Waste Disposal

Wastes generated during project activities are tabulated in Supplemental DOCD Section G. 

Approximately 94 bbl of trash will be generated over the life of this project. The trash will be 

transported in disposal bags to shore where it will be picked up by municipal operators for final 

disposal in accordance with applicable regulations.

A.7 Marine Debris

Anadarko will comply with all regulations relating to solid wastes handling and disposal, 

including the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL 73/78) Annex V requirements and USEPA and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulations, as 

well as those of the BOEM. For example, BOEM regulations at 30 CFR 250.300(a) and 

(b)(6) prohibit operators from deliberately discharging containers and other similar materials 

(i.e., trash and debris) into the marine environment, and 30 CFR 250.300(c) requires durable 

identification markings on equipment, tools, and containers (especially drums), and other 

material. USEPA and USCG regulations require operators to become proactive in avoiding 

accidental loss of solid waste items by developing waste management plans, posting 

informational placards, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as 

covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. In addition to the 

regulations in 30 CFR 250, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforecement (BSEE) issued 

NTL 2012-BSEE-G01, which instructs operators to exercise caution in the handling and disposal 

of small items and packaging materials, requires the posting of placards at prominent locations 

on offshore vessels and structures, and mandates a yearly marine trash and debris awareness 

training and certification process.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 9 

A.8 Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Anadarko will use existing shorebase facilities at Port Fourchon, Louisiana, for onshore support 

for vessel activities. Air transportation (helicopters) will be based at facilities in Houma, Louisiana. 

No terminal expansion or construction is planned at either location. 

The project will be supported by one crew boat and one supply vessel. The crew boat will make 

three round-trips per week, and the supply vessel will make two round-trips per week. The 

boats typically will move to the project area via the most direct route from the shorebase.

A helicopter will make approximately five round-trips per week between the DP lay barge and 

the heliport. The helicopter will be used to transport personnel and small supplies and will 

normally take the most direct route of travel between the shorebase and the lease area when 

air traffic and weather conditions permit. Helicopters typically maintain a minimum altitude of 

213 m (700 ft) while in transit offshore, 305 m (1,000 ft) over unpopulated areas or across 

coastlines, and 610 m (2,000 ft) over populated areas and sensitive habitats such as wildlife 

refuges and park properties. Additional guidelines and regulations specify that helicopters 

maintain an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) within 91 m (300 ft) of marine mammals (BOEM, 

2012d).

A.9 Accidents 

A.9.1 Types of Accidents Evaluated

The analysis in this EIA focuses on two potential accidents:

• A small fuel spill, which is the most likely type of spill during OCS exploration activities; and

• the WCD for this SDOCD, which is an oil spill resulting from an uncontrolled blowout.

The following subsections summarize assumptions about the sizes and fates of these spills, as 

well as Anadarko’s spill response plans. Impacts are analyzed in Section C. 

MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012b) analyze three other types of accidents: chemical spills, vessel 

collisions, and loss of well control. These types of accidents are discussed briefly in 

Section A.9.4. 

A.9.2 Small Fuel Spill

Spill Size. According to the analyses in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a), the most likely type of 

small spill (<1,000 bbl) as a result of OCS activities is a minor diesel fuel spill. Historically, most 

diesel spills have been <1 bbl, and this size is predicted to be the most common in ongoing and 

future OCS activities in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. As the spill size 

increases, the incident rate declines dramatically (MMS, 2007b; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM 2012b). 

The median size for spills <1 bbl is 0.024 bbl, and the median size for spills of 1 to 10 bbl is 3 bbl 

(BOEM, 2012a). For this analysis, a small diesel fuel spill of 3 bbl is assumed. Operational 

experience suggests that the most likely cause of such a spill would be a hose rupture resulting 

in the loss of the contents of a fuel transfer hose, which is less than 3 bbl.

Spill Fate. The fate of a small fuel spill in the lease area would depend on meteorological and 

oceanographic conditions at the time, as well as the effectiveness of spill response activities. 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 10 

However, given the open ocean location of the lease area and response actions, it is expected 

that impacts from a small spill would be minimal (BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b). 

The water-soluble fractions of diesel are dominated by two- and three-ringed polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are moderately volatile (National Research Council, 

2003a). The constituents of these oils are light to intermediate in molecular weight and can be 

readily degraded by aerobic microbial oxidation. Due to its light density, diesel will not sink to 

the seafloor. Diesel dispersed in the water column can adhere to suspended sediments, but this 

generally occurs only in coastal areas with high suspended solids loads (National Research 

Council, 2003a) and would not be expected to occur to any appreciable degree in offshore 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Diesel oil is readily and completely degraded by naturally 

occurring microbes (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2006).

For purposes of this EIA, the fate of a small diesel fuel spill was estimated using NOAA’s 

Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills 2 (ADIOS2) model. This model uses the physical properties 

of oils in its database to predict the rate of evaporation and dispersion over time, as well as 

changes in the density, viscosity, and water content of the product spilled. It is estimated that 

over 90% of a small diesel spill would be evaporated or dispersed within 24 hours. The area of 

the sea surface with diesel fuel on it during this 24-hour period would range from 0.5 to 5 ha 

(1.2 to 12 ac), depending on sea state and weather conditions.

The ADIOS2 results, coupled with spill trajectory information discussed below for a large spill,

indicate that a small fuel spill would not have any impacts on coastal or shoreline resources. 

The lease area is 113 miles (183 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana). Modeling results 

indicate that a spill in the lease area would have a 4% or less probability of reaching the coastal 

areas of Louisiana within 10 days after a spill. By that time, essentially 100% of a small fuel spill 

would have been dispersed or evaporated by natural processes, without taking into account 

Anadarko’s response measures. Slicks from spills are expected to persist for relatively short 

periods of time ranging from minutes (<1 bbl) to hours (<10 bbl) to a few days (10 to 1,000 bbl) 

and rapidly spread out, evaporate, and disperse into the water column (BOEM, 2012b). Because 

of the distance of these potential spills on the OCS and their lack of persistence, it is unlikely 

that a spill would make landfall prior to dissipation (BOEM, 2012b).

Spill Response

A.9.3 Crude Oil Spill (Worst Case Discharge)

. In the unlikely event the shipboard prevention procedures fail to prevent a fuel 

spill, response equipment and trained personnel would be activated so that any spill effects 

would be localized and would result only in short-term environmental consequences. 

Supplemental DOCD Section H provides a detailed discussion of Anadarko’s response to a spill.

Spill Size

Should a blowout occur, the formation types present in the GOM tend to bridge over in most 

cases. Additional well intervention and time requirements to drill a relief well pursuant to 

guidance provided in NTL 2010-N06 were discussed under the approved Exploration Plan 

. The worst-case discharge scenario for this project is defined as an uncontrollable 

discharge to the seafloor during production operations. Mechanically speaking, the scenario 

assumes that the wellhead fails allowing full wellbore fluid to move up the existing tubing, and a 

blowout occurs at the seabed. GC 562 Well #005 is addressed in this blowout scenario since it is 

the location with the highest potential WCD within the block. The maximum oil discharge 

during production is calculated to be 21,470 barrels of oil per day from GC 562 Well #005. 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 11 

(Plan Control No. S-7589). The following scenario summarizes the time taken to mobilize a rig 

and drill a relief well as discussed under previously approved Plan No. S-7589. 

An estimate of 7 to 21 days would be required to suspend operations on a deepwater Gulf of 

Mexico well and begin drilling the relief well. This assumes 0 to 14 days to suspend current 

operations on an existing well and 7 days to mobilize and be ready to spud the relief well. The 

estimated time to drill the relief well to a blowout originating from the M10 through M20 

hydrocarbon zones is 110 days, for an estimated total of 117 to 131 days from time of blowout 

to completion of a relief well. The drilling days were based on the proposed days to drill GC 562 

Well #005 through the objective sands (interval of WCD), with additional time added for 

ranging.

The time estimate provided for the plan well is inclusive of both “drilling” and “completion” 

operations. As a completion is not typically part of relief well operations, no time has been 

included for completion operations in the relief well estimate. Additionally, information and 

learnings gained from drilling of the original well may provide opportunities to optimize drilling 

performance for relief well operations, thereby reducing the required drilling time. The 

maximum total volume during a blowout could potentially be 2,812,570 bbl, assuming 131 days 

for the maximum duration of a blowout, multiplied by the worst case daily uncontrolled 

blowout volume of 21,470 bbl. 

Historically, blowouts are rare events and most do not result in oil spills. Holand (1997) 

estimated a probability of 0.0021 for a deep drilling blowout during exploration drilling based on 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico data. An updated analysis using the SINTEF database estimates a blowout 

frequency of 0.0017 per exploratory well for non-North Sea locations (International Association 

of Oil & Gas Producers, 2010). As noted by MMS (2007b), from 1992 to 2005, half of blowouts 

lasted less than half a day, and fewer than 10% of blowouts resulted in spilled oil. BOEM is in 

the process of updating these spill frequency estimates to include the Macondo event; however, 

significant changes to the spill rates for the entire OCS are not anticipated (BOEMRE, 2011a; 

BOEM, 2012d). As noted in the Introduction, the baseline risk of a catastrophic blowout is 

estimated to be once every 26 years (BOEMRE Interim Final Drilling Safety Rule, 75 FR 63365, 

10 October 2010).

Included in Supplemental DOCD Section I are Anadarko’s calculations and information as 

required by NTL 2010-N06, including descriptions of measures to prevent a blowout, reduce the 

likelihood of a blowout, and conduct effective and early intervention in the event of a blowout. 

Anadarko will also comply with NTL 2010-N10 and the Interim Final Drilling Safety Rule, which 

specifies additional safety measures for OCS activities. 

Spill Trajectory. The fate of a large oil spill in the lease area would depend on meteorological 

and oceanographic conditions at the time. The Oil Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) model is a 

computer simulation of oil spill transport that uses realistic data for winds and currents to 

predict spill fate. Although this model has received some criticism recently (Earthjustice, 2011), 

it is still the most widely scientifically accepted model for estimating the fate of small fuel spills. 

The primary criticism of the OSRA model results as provided in Ji et al. (2004) was that the 

model did not evaluate the fate of a spill over time periods longer than 30 days, nor does it 

predict the fate of a release that continues over a period of weeks or months, as in the Macondo 

incident. Also as noted by Ji et al. (2004), the OSRA model does not take into account the 

chemical composition or biological weathering of oil spills, the spreading and splitting of oil 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 12 

spills, or spill response activities. The model does not assume a particular spill size but has 

generally been used by the BOEM to evaluate contact probabilities for spills greater than 

1,000 bbl.

To address this criticism, a special OSRA run was conducted for the recent BOEM Western and 

Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Supplemental EISs (BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b) in 

order to estimate the impacts of a possible future catastrophic long-duration oil spill. In this 

OSRA model run a hypothetical high volume, long-duration oil spill was assumed to have 

occurred, and the analysis emphasized modeling a spill that continued for 90 consecutive days, 

with each trajectory tracked for up to 120 days.

The OSRA model run for this revised analysis was conducted for five hypothetical launch points 

in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. These launch points were 

deliberately located in areas identified as having a high possibility of containing large oil 

reserves.

The five launch point areas were as follows:

1. Central Gulf of Mexico shelf area west of the Mississippi River (28.98660°

N latitude, 92.17851° W longitude);

2. Central Gulf of Mexico shelf area east of the Mississippi River (29.91388° N latitude, 

88.15338° W longitude);

3. Central Gulf of Mexico slope area (27.31998° N latitude, 90.22203° W longitude);

4. Western Gulf of Mexico shelf area (27.55423° N latitude, 96.76627° W longitude); and

5. Western Gulf of Mexico slope area (27.51367° N latitude, 94.51836° W longitude).

The results for Launch Point 3, which are the most applicable to the project area and within the 

Central Planning Area, are presented in Table 3. 

OSRA is a preliminary risk assessment model. In the event of an actual oil spill, real-time 

monitoring and trajectory modeling would be conducted using current and wind data available 

from the rigs and permanent production structures in the area. Satellite and aerial monitoring 

of the plume and real-time trajectory modeling using wind and current data would continue on 

a daily basis to help position equipment and human resources throughout the duration of any 

major spill or uncontrolled release.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 13 

Table 3. Conditional probabilities expressed as percent chance that an oil spill starting at 

Launch Point 3 will contact a certain parish, county, or coastline within 120 days 

(Modified from: BOEM, 2012b, Appendix C). 

Season Winter Spring Summer Fall

Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

County or Parish, State Percent Chance

Cameron, Texas -- -- -- 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 -- -- -- 2

Willacy, Texas -- -- -- 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 -- -- -- 3 

Kenedy, Texas -- -- -- 8 -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 9 -- -- -- 5

Kleberg, Texas -- -- 1 6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 -- -- 1 6 

Nueces, Texas -- -- 1 6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 -- -- 1 2

Aransas, Texas -- -- -- 5 -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 3 -- -- -- 2 

Calhoun, Texas -- -- 1 6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 -- -- 1 4

Matagorda, Texas -- -- 2 17 -- -- 3 4 -- -- -- 11 -- -- 1 6 

Brazoria, Texas -- -- 3 12 -- -- 1 3 -- -- 2 8 -- -- 1 5

Galveston, Texas -- -- 3 10 -- -- 3 6 -- -- 2 5 -- -- 1 4 

Jefferson, Texas -- -- 1 4 -- -- 7 9 -- -- 1 1 -- -- -- 2

Cameron, Louisiana -- -- 1 4 -- -- 11 12 -- 1 1 4 -- -- -- 4 

Vermilion, Louisiana -- -- 1 2 -- -- 5 6 -- 1 1 2 -- -- -- --

Iberia, Louisiana -- -- -- 1 -- -- 4 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Terrebonne, Louisiana -- 1 2 3 -- 4 12 14 -- -- -- 2 -- -- -- --

Lafourche, Louisiana -- -- 1 1 -- 2 8 10 -- -- 1 2 -- -- -- --

Jefferson, Louisiana -- -- -- 1 -- -- 2 2 -- -- 1 1 -- -- -- --

Plaquemines, Louisiana -- -- -- 1 -- 2 10 12 -- -- 1 2 -- -- -- --

Jackson, Mississippi -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Baldwin, Alabama -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Bay, Florida -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Franklin, Florida -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Monroe, Florida -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 

Miami-Dade, Florida -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- --

“--” = Values <1.0%. Areas where there is <0.5% chance of contact within 120 days are not shown.

Weathering

Weathering decreases the concentration of oil and produces changes in its chemical 

composition, physical properties, and toxicity. The more toxic, light aromatic and aliphatic 

hydrocarbons are lost rapidly by evaporation and dissolution from a slick on the water surface. 

Evaporated hydrocarbons are degraded rapidly by sunlight. Biodegradation of oil on the water 

surface and in the water column by marine bacteria removes first the n-alkanes and then the 

light aromatics from the oil. Other petroleum components are biodegraded more slowly. 

Photo-oxidation attacks mainly the medium and high molecular weight PAHs in the oil on the 

water surface.

. Following an oil spill, several physical, chemical, and biological processes, 

collectively called weathering, interact to change the physical and chemical properties of the oil, 

influencing potential effects to marine organisms and ecosystems. The most important 

weathering processes include spreading, evaporation, dissolution, dispersion into the water 

column, formation of water-in-oil emulsions, photochemical oxidation, microbial degradation, 

adsorption to suspended PM, and stranding on shore or sedimentation to the seafloor (National 

Research Council, 2003a).
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 14 

Spill Response. BOEM has issued recent NTLs following the Macondo spill that clarify additional 

oil spill prevention and response planning requirements. These NTLs are summarized in Table 1, 

and additional BOEM (2012b) guidance is provided below. 

NTL 2012-N06 – Guidance to Owners and Operators of Offshore Facilities Seaward of the 

Coast Line Concerning Regional Oil Spill Response Plans: This NTL, effective 10 August 2012, 

provides clarification, guidance, and information on the preparation and submittal of 

regional OSRPs for owners and operators of oil handling, storage, or transportation facilities, 

inclusive of pipelines, located seaward of the coastline. It states that lessees, designated 

operators, and pipeline right-of-way holders are responsible for preparation and submission 

of these plans. Some of the clarifications and recommended practices in the NTL are based 

on lessons learned from the Macondo oil spill response.

NTL 2010-N10 – Statement of Compliance with Applicable Regulations and Evaluation of 

Information Demonstrating Adequate Spill Response and Well Containment Resources: 

This NTL, effective 8 November 2010, applies only to operators conducting operations using 

subsea or surface blowout preventers (BOPs) on floating facilities. It requires lessees and 

operators to submit a statement signed by an authorized company official with each well 

permit application indicating that they will conduct all of their authorized activities in 

compliance with all applicable regulations, including the Increased Safety Measures 

Regulations at 75 FR 63346. The NTL also informs lessees that BOEMRE will evaluate

whether the operator has submitted adequate information demonstrating that it has access 

to and can deploy surface and subsea containment resources that would be adequate to 

promptly respond to a blowout or other loss of well control. The NTL notifies the operator 

that BOEMRE intends to evaluate the adequacy of each operator to comply in the operator’s 

current OSRP; therefore, there is an incentive for voluntary compliance.

NTL 2010-N06 – Information Requirements for Exploration Plans, Development and 

Production Plans, and Development Operations Coordination Documents on the OCS

Anadarko submitted a Regional OSRP, which was approved on 25 September 2013. The OSRP 

provides a detailed plan for Anadarko to respond to rapidly and effectively manage oil spills that 

may result from drilling and production operations. The OSRP contains detailed information on 

“Quick Response” procedures, including: 

: 

This NTL, effective 18 June 2010, explains the procedures for the lessee or operator to 

submit supplemental information for new or previously submitted EPs, Development and 

Production Plans, or Development Operations Coordination Documents. The required 

supplemental information includes the following: (1) a description of the blowout scenario 

as required by 30 CFR 254(b) and 254(h); (2) a description of their assumptions and 

calculations used in determining the volume of the WCD required by 30 CFR 254.26; and 

(3) a description of the measures proposed that would enhance the ability to prevent a 

blowout, to reduce the likelihood of a blowout, and to conduct effective and early 

intervention in the event of a blowout, including the arrangements for drilling relief wells 

and any other measures proposed. The early intervention methods of the third 

requirement could actually include the surface and subsea containment resources that 

BOEM announced in NTL 2010-N10, which states that BOEM will review to ensure that the 

measures are adequate to promptly respond to a blowout or other loss of well control.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 15 

• responsibilities of all Anadarko and contract personnel to report any observed discharge 

from known or unknown sources;

• procedures to locate and determine the size of a discharge; and 

• contact information for alerting the spill management team complete with names, phone 

numbers, and locations.

In the event of a WCD, Anadarko has access to surface and subsea response/containment 

capabilities that could be implemented through various organizations under contract. 

Anadarko's primary spill response equipment provider is Clean Gulf Associates (CGA).

CGA has four skimming vessels capable of operating in shallow waters, nearshore areas, and 

offshore areas. These vessels have oleophilic brush pack skimming systems operating in troughs 

built into the hulls; below deck storage; and marine electronics packages that include marine, 

aircraft, and company-frequency radios, radar, moving map plotters, GPSs, satellite phones, and 

depth finders. In addition, there are three Marco skimmers and two Egmopol skimmers that can 

be used for inland or nearshore skimming. CGA also has 9 fast-response vessels staged 

throughout the Gulf of Mexico equipped with Lamor side mounted skimmers with 249 bbl of 

storage capacity. These vessels are designed to operate out to 200 miles offshore and are 

equipped with x-band radar and infrared oil detection systems.

The CGA high-volume open sea skimmer (HOSS) barge consists of a skimming system built into 

an oil recovery barge. There are four 1,000-bbl recovered oil storage tanks built into the hull 

where oil can be separated and offloaded. Skimming operations are conducted from the control 

room overlooking the skimmer deck. The estimated daily recovery capacity for the HOSS barge 

is approximately 43,000 bbl. 

CGA acquired 11 sets of Koseq skimming arms and two Aqua Guard skimmers. In addition, an 

x-band radar/infrared tracking system is installed on the HOSS barge. Additional CGA 

equipment can be referenced on the website: www.cleangulfassoc.com/equipment. 

Anadarko also has a contract with the Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) for additional 

spill response equipment. MSRC has a dedicated fleet for the Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico region and 

additional available equipment staged throughout the U.S. MSRC staged equipment throughout 

the Gulf of Mexico includes seven oil spill response vessels, 2 fast-response vessels, 5 oil spill 

response barges, 5 platform supply vessels, and 15 shallow water barges. Various equipment is 

outfitted with x-band and infrared technology.

MSRC recently completed a large expansion of its resources and capability in the Gulf of Mexico, 

with particular focus on deepwater. The expansion is known as “Deep Blue.” Additional MSRC 

capabilities and a complete equipment listing are available online at: www.msrc.org/. 

Anadarko also is a member of the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC). In the event of 

an incident, MWCC can provide a 15,000-psi single ram capping stack and dispersant injection 

capability. MWCC can also install and operate the interim containment system, including subsea 

flowlines, manifold, and risers. The interim system is engineered to be used in depths up to 

3,048 m (10,000 ft) and has the capacity to contain 60,000 barrels of liquid per day (and

120 million standard cubic feet per day of gas) with potential for expansion.

See Supplemental DOCD Section I for a detailed description of Anadarko’s site-specific response 

to the WCD for this plan.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 16 

A.9.4 Other Accidents Not Analyzed in Detail

Chemical Spills. Chemicals are stored and used to condition drill muds during production and in 

well completions, stimulation, and workover procedures. The relative quantity of their use is 

reflected in the largest volumes spilled. Completion fluids are the largest quantity used and 

comprise the largest releases. Between 5 and 15 chemical spills are anticipated each year, with 

the majority being <50 bbl in size. The most common chemicals spilled are methanol, ethylene 

glycol, and zinc bromide. Additional production chemicals are needed in deepwater operations 

where gas hydrates tend to form. Spill volumes are anticipated to remain about the same, but 

spill frequency can be expected to decrease because of advances in subsea processing 

(BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b). 

Riser Disconnect SBM Spills. In deepwater drilling, synthetic-based muds (SBMs) are preferred 

over petroleum oil-based muds (OBMs) due to the superior environmental properties of SBMs. 

The synthetic base fluid used in SBMs are less toxic to the marine environment and have the 

potential to biodegrade. SBMs have been used in the Gulf of Mexico since the mid-1990s, and 

between 5 and 20 SBM releases are anticipated each year as a result of offshore drilling 

programs. The majority of these releases are <50 bbl in size, but accidental riser disconnects 

may result in the release of medium (238 to 2,380 bbl) to large (>2,381 bbl) quantities of drilling 

fluids. Riser disconnect accidents are of particular concern when SBMs are in use (BOEMRE, 

2011b).

Vessel Collisions. BOEM data show that from 1996 to 2009 there were 226 OCS-related 

collisions. Most collision mishaps are the result of service vessels colliding with platforms or 

vessel collisions with pipeline risers. Approximately 10% of vessel collisions with platforms in 

the OCS resulted in diesel spills, and in several collision incidents fires resulted from 

hydrocarbon releases. To date, the largest diesel spill associated with a collision occurred in 

1979 when an anchor-handling boat collided with a drilling platform in the Main Pass lease area, 

spilling 1,500 bbl. Diesel fuel is the product most frequently spilled, but oil, natural gas, 

corrosion inhibitor, hydraulic fluid, and lube oil have also been released as the result of vessel 

collisions. Human error accounted for approximately half of all reported vessel collisions from 

2006 to 2009. As summarized in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012b), vessel collisions occasionally 

occur during routine operations. Some of these collisions have caused spills of diesel fuel or 

chemicals. Anadarko will comply with all USCG- and BOEM-mandated safety requirements to 

minimize the potential for vessel collisions.

H2S Release. GC 562 was determined as “H2S absent” under a previously approved Initial EP. 

Anadarko has requested that BOEM classify GC 562 as a "zone where the absence of H2S has 

been confirmed.”

B. Affected Environment

The lease area is in the central Gulf of Mexico, 113 miles (183 km) from the nearest shoreline 

(Louisiana), and 117 miles (189 km) from the onshore support base at Port Fourchon, Louisiana 

(Figure 1).
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 17 

Based on the site clearance letter by Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. (Fugro) (2014) the depth at 

wellsite # 5 is 1,223 m (4,014 ft) and the seafloor is smooth, featureless, and appears stable. A 

series of southwesterly trending surface faults with associated headscarps, very shallow buried 

faults and seafloor and shallow marine slides are the notable seafloor and near seafloor features 

identified within a 610 m (2,000 ft) radius around the proposed wellsite. Seafloor slopes 

associated with the surface faults scarps are inferred to be stable under present natural 

conditions and there is negligible potential for large-scale slope failure events occurring during 

temporary occupation drilling operations. There is no evidence fluid expulsion features or 

high-density deepwater benthic communities near the wellsite. 

According to Fugro (2014), several existing Anadarko pipelines are present within a 610 m 

(2,000 ft) radius of the proposed wellsite. The pipelines traverse south-southeasterly and are 

located more than 457 m (1,500 ft) southeast of the proposed wellsite. Therefore, these 

existing pipelines would not impact drilling operations at the proposed wellsite. Ten sonar 

contacts were recorded within 610 m (2,000 ft) of the proposed wellsite with the closest located 

around 198 (651 ft) northeast from the proposed wellsite.

A detailed description of the regional affected environment, including meteorology, 

oceanography, geology, air and water quality, benthic communities, threatened and 

endangered species, biologically sensitive resources, archaeological resources, socioeconomic 

conditions, and other marine uses is provided in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012b, 2013). These 

regional descriptions remain valid and are incorporated by reference. Brief descriptions of each 

potentially affected resource, including site-specific and/or new information if available, are 

presented in Section C.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for SupplementalDOCD Page 18 

Figure 2. Bathymetric map of the lease area showing the surface hole location of Green Canyon Block 562 Well #005. 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 19 

C. Impact Analysis

This section analyzes the potential direct and indirect impacts of routine activities and accidents. 

Impacts have been analyzed extensively in recent lease sale EISs for the Western and Central

Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b; BOEM, 2012b, 2013). The information in these 

documents is incorporated by reference. Potential site-specific issues are addressed in this 

section.

C.1 Physical/Chemical Environment

C.1.1 Air Quality

There are no site-specific air quality data for the project area due to the distance from shore. 

Because of the distance from shore-based pollution sources and the lack of sources offshore, air 

quality at the wellsites is expected to be good. The attainment status of Federal OCS waters is 

unclassified because there is no provision in the Clean Air Act for classification of areas outside 

state waters (MMS, 2007b). 

Impacts of Air Pollutant Emissions

Air pollutant emissions are the only routine IPF likely to affect air quality. Offshore air pollutant 

emissions will result from the DP lay barge operations, helicopters, and service vessels. These 

emissions occur mainly from combustion or burning of diesel fuel. The combustion of fuels 

occurs primarily on diesel-powered generators, pumps, or motors and from lighter fuel motors. 

Primary air pollutants typically associated with OCS activities are suspended PM, SOx, NOx, VOCs, 

and CO. Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from these activities are not projected to 

have significant effects on onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, 

emission rates and heights, and resulting pollutant concentrations. The incremental 

contribution to cumulative impacts from activities similar to Anadarko’s proposed activities is 

not significant and will not cause or contribute to a violation of any National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) (MMS, 2007b, 2008). Since the BOEM completed the lease sale EISs, the 

USEPA has adopted a new short-term NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The standard has not 

yet been implemented in the Gulf Coast states, but given the levels of expected emissions and 

the distance of the project from shore, emissions from the activities described in Anadarko’s 

proposed SDOCD are not likely to contribute to violations of any NAAQS onshore.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions from the project would constitute a small 

incremental contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from all OCS activities. According to the 

Programmatic EIS (MMS (2007a) estimated CO2 emissions from all OCS activities in the 

2007-2012 leasing program are about 0.08% to 0.016% of the global CO2 emissions from fossil 

fuel combustion. Greenhouse gas emissions may contribute to climate change, with important 

effects on temperature, rainfall, frequency of severe weather, ocean acidification, and sea level 

rise (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Greenhouse gas emissions from this 

proposed project represent a negligible contribution to the total greenhouse gas emissions from 

reasonably foreseeable activities in the Gulf of Mexico area and would not significantly alter any 

of the climate change impacts evaluated in MMS (2007a,b). 

Because to the distance from shore, routine operations in the project area are not expected to 

have any impact on air quality conditions along the coast, including nonattainment areas. As 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 20 

noted in MMS (2007b), emissions of air pollutants from routine activities in the Central Gulf of 

Mexico Planning Area are projected to have minimal impacts to onshore air quality because of 

the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emission rates, and the distance of 

these emissions from the coastline. The Air Quality Emissions Report (see Supplemental 

DOCD Section H) prepared in accordance with BOEM requirements shows that the projected

emissions are below exemption levels; therefore, according to 30 CFR 250.303, the emissions 

will not significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for any of the criteria pollutants. 

No further analysis or control measures are required. 

The Breton Wilderness Area, which is part of the Breton National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), is 

designated under the Clean Air Act as a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I air 

quality area. The BOEM is required to notify the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) if emissions from proposed projects may affect the Breton Class I area. 

Additional review and mitigation measures may be required for sources within 186 miles 

(300 km) of the Breton Class I area that exceed emission limits agreed upon by the administering 

agencies (NPS, 2010). The lease area is approximately 155 miles (250 km) from the Breton 

Wilderness Area, so air quality impacts on the Wilderness Area are not expected, but Anadarko

will comply with any emissions requirements as directed by the BOEM. 

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential impacts of a small spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with those analyzed 

and discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012b,d, 2013). The probability of a small spill would 

be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during routine operations, including fuel 

transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko’s OSRP will reduce the

potential impacts. Supplemental DOCD Section I includes a detailed discussion of the spill 

response measures that would be employed. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, 

the extent and duration of air quality impacts from a small spill would not be significant.

A small fuel spill would affect air quality near the spill site by introducing VOCs through 

evaporation. The ADIOS2 model (see Section A.9.2) indicates that over 90% of a small diesel 

spill would be evaporated or dispersed within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on 

it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac) depending on sea state and weather conditions.

A small fuel spill would not affect coastal air quality because the spill would not be expected to 

make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2).

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential impacts of a large oil spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with those 

analyzed and discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012b,d, 2013). 

A large oil spill (WCD) could potentially affect air quality by introducing VOCs through 

evaporation from the slick. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the 

meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response 

measures. Real-time wind and current data from the project area would be available at the 

time of a spill and would be used to assess the fate and effects of VOCs released. Additional air 

quality impacts could occur if response measures included in situ burning of the floating oil. 

Burning would generate a plume of black smoke and result in emissions of NOx, SOx, CO, and 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 21 

PM, as well as greenhouse gases. However, in situ burning would occur only after authorization 

from the USEPA.

Due to the lease area’s location (113 miles [183 km]) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana), 

most air quality impacts would occur in offshore waters with minimal chance to affect onshore 

air quality.

C.1.2 Water Quality

There are no site-specific water quality data for the lease area. Due to the lease location in

deep, offshore waters, water quality is expected to be good, with low levels of contaminants. 

As noted in MMS (2007b), deepwater areas in the northern Gulf of Mexico are relatively 

homogeneous with respect to temperature, salinity, and oxygen. Kennicutt (2000) noted that 

the deepwater region has little evidence of contaminants in the dissolved or particulate phases 

of the water column. However, there are localized occurrences of natural seepage of oil, gas, 

and brines in near-surface sediments and up through the water column.

The lease area is located approximately 147 miles (236 km) from the Macondo spill site. Based 

on the general circulation pattern seen in the Gulf of Mexico and satellite imagery, the surface 

slick from that discharge did not extend over the lease area during the spill, and the existing 

water quality in the lease area is not expected to have been affected by the Macondo release. 

IPFs potentially affecting water quality are effluent discharges and two types of accidents - 

a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).

Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Treated sanitary and domestic wastes, including those from support vessels, may have a slight 

transient effect on water quality in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. All NPDES permit 

limitations and requirements and USCG regulations (as applicable) will be met, therefore, little 

or no impact on water quality is anticipated.

Deck drainage includes all effluents resulting from rain, deck washings, and runoff from curbs, 

gutters, and drains, including drip pans in work areas. Rainwater that falls on uncontaminated 

areas of the DP lay barge will flow overboard without treatment. However, rainwater that falls 

on the DP lay barge deck and other areas such as chemical storage areas and places where 

equipment is exposed will be collected and oil and water separated to meet NPDES permit 

requirements. Based on adherence to permit limits and applicable regulations, little or no 

impact on water quality is anticipated.

Other discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit, such as desalination unit brine and 

uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water are expected to be diluted rapidly, 

resulting in little or no impact on water quality.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential impacts of a small spill on water quality are expected to be consistent with those 

analyzed and discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b, 2013). The probability of a small 

spill would be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during routine operations, 

including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko’s OSRP will 

potentially help mitigate and reduce the impacts. Supplemental DOCD Section I provides detail
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 22 

on spill response measures in addition to the summary information provided in this EIA. Given 

the open ocean location of the lease area, the extent and duration of water quality impacts from 

a small spill would not be significant.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the 

concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and 

persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at 

the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. However, it is estimated that over 

90% of a small diesel spill would be evaporated or dispersed within 24 hours (see Section A.9.2). 

The area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac) 

depending on sea state and weather conditions.

The water-soluble fractions of diesel are dominated by two- and three-ringed PAHs, which are 

moderately volatile (National Research Council, 2003a). The constituents of these oils are light 

to intermediate in molecular weight and can be readily degraded by aerobic microbial oxidation. 

Because the density of diesel is less than the density of seawater, diesel will not sink and pool on 

the seafloor. Diesel dispersed in the water column can adhere to suspended sediments, but this 

generally occurs only in coastal areas with high suspended solid loads (National Research 

Council, 2003a) and would not be expected to occur to any appreciable degree in offshore 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Diesel oil is readily and completely degraded by naturally 

occurring microbes (NOAA, 2006).

A small fuel spill would not affect coastal water quality because the spill would not be expected 

to make landfall or reach coastal waters due to both response efforts that would be undertaken 

as well as natural attenuation (see Section A.9.2).

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential impacts of a large oil spill on water quality are expected to be consistent with those 

analyzed and discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012b,d, 2013). A large spill would affect 

water quality by producing a slick on the water surface and increasing the concentrations of 

petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts 

would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the 

effectiveness of spill response measures. Most of the oil would be expected to form a slick at 

the surface, although new information from the Macondo spill indicates that plumes of 

submerged oil droplets can be produced when subsea dispersants are applied at the wellhead 

(Camilli et al., 2010; Hazen et al., 2010; Joint Analysis Group, 2010a,b,c). However, dispersants 

would be applied only after approval from the USEPA. Small droplets in the water may adhere 

to suspended sediment and be removed from the water column (Operational Science Advisory 

Team, 2010).

Due to the lease area’s location (113 miles or 183 km from the nearest shoreline [Louisiana]), it 

is expected that most water quality impacts would occur in offshore waters, especially in the 

event of a spill lasting less than 30 days (Table 3).

C.2 Seafloor Habitats and Biota

Water depth at the proposed project area is approximately 1,223 m (4,014 ft). The seafloor at

the proposed project area is smooth, featureless, and appears stable. Notable features seen 

during the site clearance survey were a series of southwesterly trending surface faults with 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 23 

associated headscarps, some very shallow buried faults, and evidnence of seafloor shallow 

marine slides within a 610 m (2,000 ft) radius around the proposed project are (Fugro, 2014). 

Based on the absence of hard bottom areas determined by side-scan sonar during the 

site clearance survey, the seafloor is expected to consist mainly of soft bottom communities. 

The site clearance survey did not identify any features that could support high-density 

deepwater benthic communities within 610 m (2,000 ft) of the proposed project area. No areas 

of gaseous sediments or possible hydrocarbon seepage were defined in the study area, and the 

potential for chemosynthetic communities is considered negligible (Fugro, 2014).

C.2.1 Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

There are no site-specific benthic community data from the lease area. However, data from the 

Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology Study (Wei, 2006; 

Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009) can be used to describe typical benthic communities in the area. 

Table 4 summarizes data from nearby stations in water depth similar to the proposed project

area. 

Table 4. Benthic community data from stations near the proposed project area (Adapted from: 

Wei, 2006; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). 

Station

Water 

Depth

(m)

Abundance

Meiofauna

(individuals/m2) 

Macroinfauna

(individuals/m2) 

Megafauna

(individuals/ha)

C7 1,066 273,585 3,293 1,022

C4 1,463 542,119 3,045 1,446

Meiofaunal and megafaunal abundances from Rowe and Kennicutt (2009); macroinfaunal abundance from 

Wei (2006). 

Densities of meiofauna (animals passing through a 0.5-mm sieve but retained on a 0.062-mm 

sieve) in water depths representative of the lease area (1,779 m [5,837 ft]) typically range from 

approximately 200,000 to 550,000 individuals/m2 (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Nematodes, 

nauplii, and harpacticoid copepods were the three dominant meiofaunal groups, accounting for 

about 90% of total abundance.

The benthic macroinfauna is characterized by small mean individual sizes and low densities, 

both of which reflect the meager primary production in Gulf of Mexico surface waters 

(Wei, 2006). Densities decrease exponentially with water depth. Based on an equation 

presented by Wei (2006), macroinfaunal densities in the water depths of the lease area are 

expected to be about 2,800 individuals/m2 or lower than the numbers for the closest locations 

listed in Table 4. 

Polychaetes are typically the most abundant macroinfaunal group on the northern Gulf of 

Mexico continental slope, followed by amphipods, tanaids, bivalves, and isopods. Wei (2006) 

recognized four depth-dependent faunal zones (1 through 4), two of which are divided 

horizontally. The lease area is in Zone 2E. This zone, with stations in water depths of 

625 to 1,828 m (2,051 to 5,997 ft), had the polychaetes Litocorsa antennata, Aricidea suecica, 

Tharyx marioni and Paralacydonia paradoxa; and the bivalve Heterodonta sp. D as the most 

abundant taxa.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 24 

Megafaunal densities from nearby Station C7 was 1,022 individuals/ha (Table 4). Densities of 

200 to 3,000 individuals/ha were reported from other stations located at a depth range similar 

to that of the lease area. Common megafauna included motile groups such as decapods, 

ophiuroids, holothurians, and demersal fishes, as well as sessile groups such as sponges and 

anemones.

Bacteria also are an important component in terms of biomass and cycling of organic carbon 

(Cruz-Kaegi, 1998). Bacterial biomass at the depth range of the proposed project area typically 

is about 1 to 2 g C/m2 in the top 15 cm of sediments (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

The only IPFs affecting benthic communities from this project are the physical disturbance to the 

seafloor as the pipeline is placed and a large oil spill (WCD) resulting from a well blowout at the 

seafloor. Effluent discharges at the surface and a small fuel spill would not affect benthic 

communities because both would float and dissipate on the sea surface.

Impacts of Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

The areal extent of impacts from the DP lay barge will be small compared to the size of the lease 

area itself, and such soft bottom communities are ubiquitous along the northern Gulf of Mexico 

continental slope (Gallaway, 1988; Gallaway et al., 2003; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Pipe laying 

activities will have no significant impact on soft bottom benthic communities in the region. 

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

The most likely effects of a subsea blowout on benthic communities would be within a few 

hundred meters of the wellsite. The MMS (2007b) estimated that a severe subsurface blowout 

could resuspend and disperse sediments within a 300-m (984-ft) radius. While coarse sediments 

(sands) would probably settle at a rapid rate within 400 m (1,312 ft) from the blowout site, fine 

sediments (silts and clays) could be resuspended for more than 30 days and dispersed over a 

much wider area. Based on previous studies, surface sediments at the project area are assumed 

to largely be silt and clay (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

Discussions in MMS (2007a, 2008) and BOEM (2013) indicated that oil spills would be unlikely to 

affect benthic communities beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to physical 

impacts of a blowout) because the oil would rise quickly to the sea surface directly over the spill 

location. However, during the Macondo spill, subsurface plumes were reported at a water 

depth of about 1,100 m (3,600 ft), extending at least 22 miles (35 km) from the wellsite and 

persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes apparently 

resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c; Spier et al., 

2013). While the behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface 

plume could contact the seafloor and affect benthic communities beyond the 300-m (984-ft) 

radius estimated by MMS (2007a, 2008), depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. 

This contact could result in smothering and/or toxicity to benthic organisms. The affected area 

would be recolonized by benthic organisms over a period of months to years (National Research 

Council, 2003a).

C.2.2 High-Density Deepwater Benthic Communities

As defined by NTL 2009-G40, high-density deepwater benthic communities are features or areas 

that could support chemosynthetic communities, deepwater corals, and other associated hard 

bottom communities. Chemosynthetic communities were discovered in the central Gulf of 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 25 

Mexico in 1984 and have been studied extensively (MacDonald, 2002). Deepwater coral 

communities are also known from numerous locations in the Gulf of Mexico (Brooke and 

Schroeder, 2007; CSA International, Inc., 2007). These communities occur almost exclusively on 

authigenic carbonates created by chemosynthetic communities.

The nearest known chemosynthetic community is located in GC 293, approximately 23 miles 

(36 km) northwest of the lease area. The nearest deepwater coral community is in GC 600 

located 18 miles (30 km) west of the lease area.

There are no features or areas that could support significant deepwater benthic communities

within a 2,000-ft radius around the proposed project area. Therefore, the potential for 

high-density chemosynthetic communities within 2,000 ft of the proposed locations is 

considered negligible (Fugro, 2014). 

IPFs potentially affecting high-density deepwater benthic communities include physical 

disturbance of the seafloor and a large oil spill (WCD) from a well blowout at the seafloor. 

A small fuel spill would not affect benthic communities because the diesel fuel would float and 

dissipate on the sea surface.

Impacts of Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

The areal extent of impacts from the pipeline will be small, and NTL 2009-G40 requires that 

high-density deepwater benthic communities and features or areas that could support 

high-density chemosynthetic communities or deepwater corals communities be avoided. Based 

on the Fugro (2014) report, there will be no impacts on chemosynthetic or deepwater coral 

communities from this project. 

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Previous analyses (MMS, 2007a, 2008; BOEM, 2012d) concluded that oil spills would be unlikely 

to affect benthic communities beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to 

physical impacts of a blowout) because the oil would rise quickly to the sea surface directly over 

the spill location. However, during the Macondo spill, subsurface plumes were reported at a 

water depth of about 1,100 m (3,600 ft), extending at least 22 miles (35 km) from the wellsite 

and persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes apparently 

resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c). While the 

behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface plume could have 

the potential to contact high-density deepwater benthic communities beyond the 300-m 

(984-ft) radius estimated by MMS (2007a, 2008), depending on its extent, trajectory, and 

persistence. Oil plumes that contact sensitive benthic communities before degrading could 

potentially impact the resource (BOEM, 2012b). Potential impacts on sensitive resources would 

be an integral part of the decision and approval process for the use of dispersants, and such 

approval would be obtained from the USEPA prior to the use of dispersants. 

The biological effects and expected fate of the oil remaining in the Gulf of Mexico from the 

blowout are still unknown due to the depth and magnitude of this event. Hazen et al. (2010) 

reported changes in plume hydrocarbon composition with distance from the source. Incubation 

experiments with environmental isolates demonstrated faster than expected hydrocarbon 

biodegradation rates at 5°C. Based on these results, Hazen et al. (2010) suggested the potential 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 26 

exists for intrinsic bioremediation of the oil plume in the deepwater column without substantial 

oxygen drawdown.

Potential impacts of oil on high-density deepwater benthic communities are discussed in 

MMS (2007b). Although chemosynthetic communities live among hydrocarbon seeps, natural 

seepage is very constant and occurs at low rates compared to the potential rates of oil release 

from a blowout. In addition, seep organisms also require unrestricted access to oxygenated 

water at the same time as exposure to hydrocarbon energy sources (MacDonald, 2002). Oil 

droplets or oiled sediment particles could come into contact with chemosynthetic organisms or 

deepwater corals. As discussed by MMS (2007b), impacts could include loss of habitat, 

biodiversity, and live coral coverage; destruction of hard substrate; change in sediment 

characteristics; and reduction or loss of one or more commercial and recreational fishery 

habitats. Sublethal effects could be long-lasting and affect the resilience of coral colonies to 

natural disturbances (e.g., elevated water temperature and diseases) (BOEM, 2012d). 

The potential for a spill to affect deepwater corals is indicated by preliminary findings from an 

October 2010 survey of deepwater coral habitats near the Macondo spill site (BOEMRE, 2010). 

Government and academic researchers were working at a site 1,400 m (4,600 ft) deep and 

approximately 7 miles (11 km) southwest of the Macondo wellhead when they observed dead 

and dying corals with sloughing tissue and discoloration. Much of the soft coral observed in an 

area measuring about 15 x 40 m (50 x 130 ft) was covered by what appeared to be a brown 

flocculent substance (floc). Out of 40 large corals, 90% were heavily affected and showed dead 

and dying parts and discoloration. Another site 400 m (1,312 ft) farther away had a colony of 

stony corals similarly affected and partially covered with a similar brown substance. Based on 

hopanoid petroleum biomarkers from the floc, researchers concluded that it contained oil from 

the Macondo spill. The injured and dead corals were in an area where a subsea plume of oil had 

been documented during the spill in June 2010; corals elsewhere in the GOM outside the area 

affected by the plume did not appear to be experiencing higher mortality. The research team 

concluded that the observed coral injuries likely resulted from exposure to the subsurface oil 

plume (White et al., 2012). The study location is about 140 miles (225 km) southwest of the 

activities discussed in this EIA.

C.2.3 Designated Topographic Features

The block is not within or near a designated topographic feature or a no-activity zone as 

identified in NTL 2009-G39. The nearest designated topographic feature is Diaphus Bank 

52 miles (84 km) north-northwest of the lease area in South Timbalier (ST) Block 317. 

There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause 

impacts to designated topographic features due to the distance from the lease area. A small 

fuel spill would float and dissipate on the surface and would not reach these seafloor features.

In the event of an oil spill from a well blowout, a surface slick would not contact these seafloor 

features. If a subsurface plume were to occur, impacts on these features would be unlikely due 

to the distance and the difference in water depth. Near-bottom currents in the region are 

predicted to flow along the isobaths (Nowlin et al., 2001) and typically would not carry a plume 

up onto the continental shelf edge. 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 27 

C.2.4 Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

The lease area is not covered by the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation. As defined by 

NTL 2009-G39, the nearest pinnacle trend is area is in Main Pass (MP) Block 290, which lies 

168 miles (270 km) northeast of the lease area.

There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause 

impacts to pinnacle trend area live bottoms due to the distance from the lease area. A small 

fuel spill would float on the surface and would not reach these seafloor features.

In the event of an oil spill from a well blowout, a surface slick would not contact these seafloor 

features. If a subsurface plume were to occur, impacts on these features would be unlikely due 

to the distance and the difference in water depth. Near-bottom currents in the region are 

predicted to flow along the isobaths (Nowlin et al., 2001) and typically would not carry a plume 

up onto the continental shelf edge. 

C.2.5 Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

The lease area is not covered by the Live Bottom (Low-Relief) Stipulation, which applies to 

Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area leases in water depths of 100 m (328 ft) or less. The 

nearest block covered by the live bottom stipulation, as defined by NTL 2009-G39, is 

Destin Dome (DD) Block 573, approximately 205 miles (330 km) northeast of the lease area.

There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause 

impacts to live bottom areas due to the distance from the lease area. A small fuel spill would 

float and dissipate on the surface and would not reach these seafloor features.

In the event of an oil spill from a well blowout, a surface slick would not contact these seafloor 

features. If a subsurface plume were to occur, impacts on these features would be unlikely due 

to the distance and the difference in water depth. Near-bottom currents in the region are 

predicted to flow along the isobaths (Nowlin et al., 2001) and typically would not carry a plume 

up onto the continental shelf. 

C.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Critical Habitat

This section discusses species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). In addition, it includes all marine mammal species in the region, which are protected 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 28 

Endangered or threatened species that may occur in the project area and/or along the northern 

Gulf Coast are listed in Table 5. The table also indicates the location of critical habitat 

(if designated in the Gulf of Mexico). Critical habitat is defined as (1) specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or 

biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special 

management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for 

conservation. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction for ESA-listed 

cetaceans, sea turtles, and fishes in the Gulf of Mexico. The USFWS has jurisdiction for 

ESA-listed birds and the West Indian manatee.

Table 5. Federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the lease 

area and along the northern Gulf Coast.

Species Scientific Name Status

Potential Presence Critical Habitat Designated 

in

Gulf of Mexico

Lease 

Area Coastal

Marine Mammals

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E Xa -- None

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E Xa -- None

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E Xa -- None

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis E Xa -- None

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E Xa -- None

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E X -- None

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris E -- X Florida (Peninsular)

Sea Turtles

Green turtle Chelonia mydas T, Eb X X None

Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E X X None

Kemp’s ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii E X X None

Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E X X None

Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta T X X None

Birds

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T -- X 

Coastal Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and 

Florida (Panhandle)

Whooping Crane Grus Americana E -- X 

Coastal Texas 

(Aransas National 

Wildlife Refuge)

Fishes

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T -- X 

Coastal Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and 

Florida (Panhandle)

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E -- X Southwest Florida and 

the Florida Keys

Invertebrates

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmate E -- X Flower Garden Banks

Terrestrial Mammals

Beach mouse (Alabama, 

Choctawhatchee, 

Perdido Key, St. Andrew)

Peromyscus polionotus E -- X Alabama and Florida 

(Panhandle) beaches

Abbreviations: E = endangered; T = threatened. a

 The blue, fin, humpback, North Atlantic right, and sei whales are rare or extralimital in the Gulf of Mexico and are unlikely 

to be present in the lease area. b

 The green sea turtle is threatened, except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as endangered.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 29 

As mandated by the ESA, BOEMRE consulted NMFS and the USFWS on possible and potential 

impacts from the proposed leasing in the Gulf of Mexico on endangered/threatened species and 

their designated critical habitat (MMS, 2007a,b). A Biological Assessment was prepared for each 

consultation. The formal ESA consultation with NMFS was concluded with receipt of the 

Biological Opinion on 3 July 2007 (NMFS, 2007). The Biological Opinion concludes that the 

proposed lease sales and associated activities in the Five-Year Leasing Plan for Western and 

Central Planning Areas 2007-2012 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 USFWS was concluded with a 

letter dated 14 September 2007. The USFWS concurred with MMS’s determination that 

proposed actions of the current Five-Year Leasing Plan were not likely to adversely affect 

threatened/endangered species or designated critical habitat under USFWS jurisdiction. 

Following the Macondo spill, BOEMRE requested to reinitiate an ESA consultation with both 

NMFS and USFWS on 30 July 2010. The NMFS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on 

24 September 2010, and the USFWS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on 27 September 2010. 

At present, the NMFS and USFWS have placed the consultation process on hold because they 

feel the environmental baseline information needs to be updated for the post-Macondo spill 

environment based on the results of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process. 

The NRDA data have yet to be released, and the existing consultation remains in effect

(BOEM, 2012b). The existing consultation recognizes that BOEM-required mitigations and other 

reasonable and prudent measures should reduce the likelihood of impacts from all 

BOEM-authorized activities in the Gulf of Mexico.

Coastal endangered or threatened species that may occur along the northern Gulf Coast include 

the West Indian manatee, Piping Plover, Whooping Crane, Gulf sturgeon, and four subspecies of 

beach mouse. Critical habitat has been designated for all of these species as indicated in Table 5

and discussed in individual sections.

Two other coastal species (Bald Eagle and Brown Pelican) are discussed in the MMS (2007b) and 

BOEM (2012b) are no longer listed as endangered or threatened. These are discussed in 

Section C.4.2, Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds. 

There are five sea turtle and six marine mammal species known to occur within OCS and slope 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico that are currently listed as endangered and threatened by the ESA. 

The listed sea turtles include the leatherback turtle, Kemp's ridley turtle, hawksbill turtle, 

loggerhead turtle, and green turtle. Listed marine mammal species include one odontocetes 

(sperm whale) and five mysticetes (blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right 

whale, and sei whale) (Pritchard, 1997; Würsig et al., 2000). No critical habitat has been 

designated for these species in the Gulf of Mexico.

The sperm whale and five species of sea turtles are the only endangered or threatened species 

likely to occur in or near the lease area. No critical habitat has been designated for these 

species in the Gulf of Mexico.

The five endangered mysticetes listed previously also have been reported to occur in the Gulf of 

Mexico but are considered rare or extralimital there (Würsig et al., 2000). No critical habitat has 

been designated for these species in the Gulf of Mexico.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 30 

C.3.1 Sperm Whale (Endangered)

The only endangered marine mammal likely to be present at or near the project area is the 

sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Resident populations of sperm whales occur within the 

Gulf of Mexico; a species description is presented MMS (2007b). Gulf of Mexico sperm whales 

are classified as an endangered species and a “strategic stock” (defined as a stock that may have 

unsustainable human-caused impacts) by NOAA Fisheries (Waring et al., 2013). No critical 

habitat for the sperm whale has been designated in the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2013, the NMFS conducted a status review to consider designating the Gulf of Mexico 

population of the sperm whale as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) under the ESA. The 

designation would list the Gulf of Mexico population as a separate endangered or threatened 

population that is “significant to the species and faces additional unique threats to its survival.” 

On 13 November 2013, NMFS concluded that the designation of a Gulf of Mexico DPS for sperm 

whales is not warranted (78 FR 68032).

The distribution of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico is correlated with mesoscale physical 

features such as eddies associated with the Loop Current (Jochens et al., 2008). Sperm whale 

populations in the north-central Gulf of Mexico are present there throughout the year

(Davis et al., 2000). Results of a multi-year tracking study show female sperm whales typically 

concentrated along the upper continental slope between the 200- and 1,000-m (656- and 

3,280-ft) depth contours (Jochens et al., 2008). Male sperm whales were more variable in their 

movements and were documented in water depths greater than 3,000 m (9,843 ft). Generally, 

groups of sperm whales sighted in the Gulf of Mexico during the MMS-funded Sperm Whale 

Seismic Study (SWSS) consisted of mixed-sex groups comprising adult females and immatures, 

and groups of bachelor males. Typical group size for mixed groups was 10 individuals 

(Jochens et al., 2008). SWSS results show that sperm whales transit through the vicinity of the 

lease area. Movements of satellite-tracked individuals suggest that this area of the Gulf 

continental slope is within the home range of the Gulf of Mexico population (within the 

95% utilization distribution) (Jochens et al., 2008).

IPFs potentially affecting sperm whales include DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights; support 

vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill 

(WCD). Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on sperm whales due to rapid 

dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, the intermittent nature of the discharges, and the 

mobility of these marine mammals. Compliance with NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 will minimize the 

potential for marine debris-related impacts on sperm whales. 

Current threats to sperm whale populations worldwide are discussed in a final recovery plan for 

the sperm whale recently published by NOAA (NMFS, 2010a). Threats are defined as “any factor 

that could represent an impediment to recovery,” and include fisheries interactions, 

anthropogenic noise, vessel interactions, contaminants and pollutants, disease, injury from 

marine debris, research, predation and natural mortality, direct harvest, competition for 

resources, loss of prey base due to climate change and ecosystem change, and cable laying. 

In the Gulf of Mexico, the impacts from many of these threats are identified as either low or 

unknown (BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b). 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 31 

Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights

Noise from routine DP lay barge activities has the potential to disturb sperm whales. Sperm 

whales appear to have good low-frequency hearing, but the available data do not indicate a 

consistent response to anthropogenic noise (Jochens et al., 2008). Noise intensity associated 

with pipeline installation is relatively weak, and the noise exposure of an individual animal 

would be transient. There are other OCS facilities and activities near the lease area, and the 

region as a whole has a large number of similar noise sources. Due to the limited scope and 

short duration of the project, it would represent a small temporary contribution to the overall 

noise regime.

NMFS analyzed the potential for impacts of drilling-related noise on sperm whales in its 

Biological Opinion for the Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities: Five-Year Leasing Plan for 

Western and Central Planning Areas 2007-2012 (NMFS, 2007). The analysis noted that 

semisubmersible drilling rigs emit low sound source levels and concluded that drilling is not 

expected to produce amplitudes sufficient to cause hearing or behavioral effects in sperm 

whales; therefore, these effects are insignificant (NMFS, 2007).

DP lay barge lighting and vessel presence are not identified as IPFs for sperm whales (MMS, 

2007b; BOEM, 2012a,b,d, 2013; NMFS, 2007). 

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic has the potential to disturb sperm whales, and there is also a risk of vessel 

strikes, which are identified as a threat in the recovery plan for this species (NMFS, 2010a). Data 

concerning the frequency of vessel strikes are presented in MMS (2007b). To reduce the 

potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 2012-JOINT-G01, which recommends 

protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant 

watch for marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected 

species, and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species. 

When whales are sighted, vessel operators and crews are required to attempt to maintain a 

distance of 91 m (300 ft) or greater whenever possible. Vessel operators are required to reduce 

vessel speed to 10 knots or less, when safety permits, when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large 

assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel. Compliance with this NTL will 

minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes as well as reduce the chance for disturbing sperm 

whales.

NMFS (2007) analyzed the potential for vessel strikes and harassment of sperm whales. With 

implementation of the mitigation measures in NTL 2012-JOINT-G01, NMFS concluded that the 

likelihood of collisions between vessels and sperm whales would be reduced to insignificant 

levels. NMFS concluded that the observed avoidance of passing vessels by sperm whales is an 

advantageous response to avoid a potential threat and is not expected to result in any 

significant effect on migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering to individuals, 

or have any consequences at the population level. With implementation of the vessel strike 

avoidance measures requirement to maintain a distance of 91 m (300 ft) from sperm whales, 

the NMFS concluded that the potential for harassment of sperm whales would be reduced to 

discountable levels.

Helicopter traffic also has the potential to disturb sperm whales. Smultea et al. (2008) 

documented responses of sperm whales offshore Hawaii to fixed wing aircraft flying at an 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 32 

altitude of 245 m (800 ft). A reaction to the initial pass of the aircraft was observed during 

3 (12%) of 24 sightings. All three reactions consisted of a hasty dive and occurred at less than 

360 m (1,180 ft) lateral distance from the aircraft. Additional reactions were seen when aircraft 

circled certain whales to make further observations. Based on other studies of cetacean 

responses to sound, the authors concluded that the observed reactions to brief overflights by 

the aircraft were short-term and probably of no long-term biological significance.

While flying offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, helicopters maintain altitudes above 213 m (700 ft) 

during transit to and from the working area. In the event that a whale is seen during transit, the 

helicopter will not approach or circle the animals. Although responses are possible 

(Smultea et al., 2008), the NMFS (2007) and BOEM (2012d) concluded that this altitude would

minimize the potential for disturbing sperm whales. Therefore, no significant impacts are 

expected. 

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals including sperm whales are discussed in MMS 

(2007b), (NMFS, 2007), and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013). Oil impacts on marine mammals are 

discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific 

issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals that were not analyzed in the previous 

documents. 

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during 

routine operations, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of 

Anadarko’s OSRP will mitigate and lessen the potential for impacts on sperm whales. Given the 

open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts 

to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the 

concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and 

persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at 

the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate 

of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally 

within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 

12 ac), depending on sea state and weather conditions.

Direct physical and physiological effects of exposure to diesel fuel could include skin irritation, 

inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of 

toxic fumes; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and 

noise of response vessels and aircraft (Marine Mammal Commission [MMC], 2011). However, 

due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts from a small fuel 

spill, as well as the mobility of sperm whales, no significant impacts would be expected.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals including sperm whales are discussed in MMS 

(2007b), NMFS (2007), and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique 

site-specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 33 

Impacts of oil spills on sperm whales can include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as 

indirect impacts due to response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, noise, and 

dispersants) (MMC, 2011). Direct physical and physiological effects can include skin irritation, 

inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of 

toxic fumes; ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from 

the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. The level of impact of oil exposure 

depends on the amount, frequency, and duration of exposure; route of exposure; and type or 

condition of petroleum compounds or chemical dispersants (Waring et al., 2013). Complications 

of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, physiological stress, 

declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include displacement of 

animals from prime habitat, disruption of social structure, changing prey availability and 

foraging distribution and/or patterns, changing reproductive behavior/productivity, and 

changing movement patterns or migration (MMC, 2011). Ackleh et al. (2012) hypothesized that 

sperm whales may have temporarily relocated away from areas near the Macondo spill in 2010.

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response 

could disturb sperm whales and potentially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury 

or stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 to reduce 

the potential for striking or disturbing these animals.

C.3.2 West Indian Manatee (Endangered)

Most of the Gulf of Mexico manatee population is located in peninsular Florida (USFWS, 2001). 

Manatee sightings in Louisiana have increased as the species extends its presence farther west 

of Florida in the warmer months (Wilson, 2003). A species description is presented in MMS 

(2007b), BOEM (2013), and in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS, 2001).

IPFs potentially affecting manatees include support vessel and helicopter traffic and a large oil 

spill (WCD). A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect manatees, as the lease 

area is approximately 113 miles (183 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana). As explained in 

Section A.9.2, a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters 

prior to breaking up. Compliance with NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 will minimize the potential for 

marine debris-related impacts on manatees.

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic has the potential to disturb manatees, and there is also a risk of vessel 

strikes, which are identified as a threat in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS, 2001). 

To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 2012-JOINT-G01, which 

recommends protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews 

maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid 

striking protected species, and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead 

protected species. Compliance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 will minimize the likelihood of vessel 

strikes, and no significant impacts on manatees are expected.

Helicopter traffic also has the potential to disturb manatees. Rathbun (1988) reported that 

manatees were disturbed more by helicopters than by fixed-wing aircraft; however, the 

helicopter was flown at relatively low altitudes of 20 to 160 m (66 to 525 ft). Helicopters used in 

support operations maintain a minimum altitude of 213 m (700 ft) while in transit offshore, 

305 m (1,000 ft) over unpopulated areas or across coastlines, and 610 m (2,000 ft) over 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 34 

populated areas and sensitive habitats such as wildlife refuges and park properties. In addition, 

guidelines and regulations specify that helicopters maintain an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) 

within 91 m (300 ft) of marine mammals (BOEM, 2012a,d). This mitigation measure will 

minimize the potential for disturbing manatees, and no significant impacts are expected.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) 

In the event that manatees were exposed to oil, effects could include direct impacts from oil 

exposure, as well as indirect impacts due to response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, 

noise, and dispersants) (MMC, 2011). Direct physical and physiological effects can include skin 

irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; 

inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contaminated 

vegetation; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. 

Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, 

physiological stress, declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include 

displacement of animals from prime habitat, disruption of social structure, changing prey 

availability and foraging distribution or patterns, changing reproductive behavior/productivity, 

and changing movement patterns or migration (MMC, 2011).

In the event that a large spill reached coastal waters where manatees were present, the level of 

vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response could disturb manatees and potentially 

result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury or stress. Response vessels would operate 

in accordance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 to reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these 

animals, and therefore no significant impacts are expected. 

C.3.3 Endangered Mysticete Whales

Five endangered mysticete whales (blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right 

whale, and sei whale) also have been reported from the Gulf of Mexico but are considered rare 

or extralimital there (Würsig et al., 2000). No critical habitat has been designated for these 

species in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Due to the rare occurrence of these whales in the Gulf of Mexico and the limited scope and 

duration of the project, it is highly unlikely that any endangered mysticete would come into 

contact with any project activities, either routine operations or accidents. NMFS did not include 

any of these mysticete whales as affected species in its Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2007). 

Potential impacts are analyzed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013), and those 

analyses are incorporated by reference. If any of these whales were present in the area, 

potential impacts would be the same as those discussed below in Section C.3.4. 

C.3.4 Non-Endangered Marine Mammals (Protected)

Excluding the seven endangered species that have been cited previously, there are 22 additional 

species of marine mammals that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico. This includes two 

mysticete whales, the dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, four species of beaked whales, and 

14 species of delphinids. All marine mammals are protected species under the MMPA. The 

most common non-endangered cetaceans in the deepwater environment are odontocetes such 

as the pantropical spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, and Clymene dolphin. A brief summary is 

presented in the following subsections, and additional information on these groups is presented 

in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013). 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 35 

Mysticete whales. Two species of non-endangered mysticete whales are known from the Gulf 

of Mexico. The Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) has been sighted most frequently along the 

100-m (328-ft) isobath (Davis and Fargion, 1996; Davis et al., 2000). Most sightings have been 

made in the DeSoto Canyon region and off western Florida, although there have been some in 

the west-central portion of the northeastern Gulf. The minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata) is considered rare in the Gulf of Mexico, with the only confirmed records coming 

from strandings (Würsig et al., 2000). Based on the available data, it is possible that Bryde’s 

whales could occur in the lease area.

Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales. At sea, it is difficult to differentiate dwarf sperm whales 

(Kogia sima) from pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps), and sightings are often grouped 

together as Kogia spp. Both species have a worldwide distribution in temperate to tropical 

waters. In the Gulf of Mexico, both species occur primarily along the continental shelf edge and 

in deeper waters off the continental shelf (Mullin et al., 1991; Waring et al., 2013). Either 

species could occur in the lease area.

Beaked whales. Four species of beaked whales are known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico: 

Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), 

Sowerby’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens), and Gervais’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

europaeus). Stranding records in the Gulf of Mexico suggest that Gervais’ beaked whale is the 

most common and Sowerby’s is extralimital. Due to the difficulties of at-sea identification, 

beaked whales in the Gulf of Mexico are identified either as Cuvier’s beaked whales or are 

grouped into an undifferentiated complex (Mesoplodon spp. and Ziphius spp.). In the northern 

Gulf of Mexico, they are broadly distributed in water depths greater than 1,000 m (3,281 ft) over 

lower slope and abyssal landscapes (Davis et al., 2000). Any of these species could occur in the 

lease area (Waring et al., 2013). 

Delphinids. Fourteen species of delphinids are known from the Gulf of Mexico, including 

Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), Clymene 

dolphin (Stenella clymene), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), Fraser’s dolphin

(Lagenodelphis hosei), killer whale (Orcinus orca), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra), 

pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), 

short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus), 

rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis), spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), and striped 

dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba). Any of these species could occur in the lease area. The most 

common non-endangered cetaceans in the deepwater environment are the pantropical spotted 

dolphin, spinner dolphin, and Clymene dolphin.

Bottlenose dolphins. The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is a common inhabitant of the 

northern Gulf of Mexico, particularly within continental shelf waters. There are two ecotypes of 

bottlenose dolphins, a coastal form and an offshore form, which are genetically isolated from 

each other (Waring et al., 2013). The offshore form of the bottlenose dolphin may occur within 

the lease area. Inshore populations of coastal bottlenose dolphins in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico are separated into 37 geographically distinct population units, or stocks, for 

management purposes by NMFS (Waring et al., 2013). NMFS has classified the Gulf of Mexico 

Northern Coastal Stock, Western Coastal Stock, and all 32 of the Bay, Sound, and Estuarine 

Stocks as strategic stocks (Waring et al., 2013). A “strategic” stock is defined by the MMPA as a 

marine mammal stock
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 36 

1. for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological 

removal level;

2. which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed 

as a threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; or

3. which is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as 

depleted under the MMPA.

The strategic stock designation in this case was based primarily on the occurrence of an 

“unusual mortality event” of unprecedented size and duration that has affected these stock 

areas. This unusual mortality event began in February 2010 and, as of late 2013, the event was 

still considered to be ongoing (Waring et al., 2013). Carmichael et al. (2012) hypothesized that 

the unusual number of bottlenose dolphin strandings in the northern Gulf of Mexico during this 

time may have been associated with environmental perturbations including sustained cold 

weather and the Macondo spill in 2010 as well as large volumes of cold freshwater discharge in 

the early months of 2011.

IPFs potentially affecting non-endangered marine mammals include DP lay barge presence, 

noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents - a small fuel 

spill and a large oil spill (WCD). Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on 

marine mammals due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, the intermittent 

nature of the discharges, and the mobility of marine mammals. Compliance with NTL 

2012-BSEE-G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris-related impacts on marine 

mammals.

Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights

Noise from routine DP lay barge activities has the potential to disturb marine mammals. Most 

odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins) use higher frequency sounds than those produced 

by OCS activities (Richardson et al., 1995). Noise intensity associated with pipeline laying is 

relatively weak, and the noise exposure of an individual animal would be transient. There are 

other OCS facilities and activities near the lease area, and the region as a whole has a large 

number of similar sources. Due to the limited scope and short duration of pipeline laying 

activities, this project would represent a small temporary contribution to the overall noise 

regime, and any short-term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to marine 

mammal populations.

DP lay barge lighting and vessel presence are not identified as IPFs for marine mammals in MMS 

(2007b, 2008), BOEMRE (2011a), and BOEM (2012a,b,d).

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic has the potential to disturb marine mammals, and there is also a risk of 

vessel strikes. Data concerning the frequency of vessel strikes are presented in MMS (2007b). 

To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 2012-JOINT-G01, which 

recommends protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews 

maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid 

striking protected species, and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead 

protected species. Vessel operators and crews are required to attempt to maintain a distance of 

91 m (300 ft) or greater when whales are sighted and 45 m (150 ft) when small cetaceans are 

sighted. When cetaceans are sighted while a vessel is underway, vessels must attempt to 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 37 

remain parallel to the animal’s course and avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction 

until the cetacean has left the area. Vessel operators are required to reduce vessel speed to 

10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed 

near an underway vessel, when safety permits. Compliance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 will 

minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes as well as reduce the chance for disturbing marine 

mammals and therefore no significant impacts are expected. 

Aircraft traffic also has the potential to disturb marine mammals (Würsig et al., 1998). However, 

while flying offshore, helicopters maintain altitudes above 213 m (700 ft) during transit to and 

from the working area. In addition, guidelines and regulations specify that helicopters maintain 

an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) within 91 m (300 ft) of marine mammals (BOEM, 2012a,d). 

Maintaining this altitude will minimize the potential for disturbing marine mammals, and no 

significant impacts are expected (BOEM, 2012a,d).

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals are discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b, 

2013). Oil impacts on marine mammals in general are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). 

For this DOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these 

animals.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures, including

fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko’s OSRP is expected to 

lessen the potential for impacts on marine mammals. Supplemental DOCD Section I provides 

detail on spill response measures, along with a summary of those measures in this EIA. Given 

the open ocean location of the lease area, the limited duration of a small spill and response 

efforts, it is expected that any impacts would be brief and minimal. 

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the 

concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and 

persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at 

the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate 

of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally 

within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 

12 ac), depending on sea state and weather conditions.

Direct physical and physiological effects of exposure to diesel fuel could include skin irritation, 

inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of 

toxic fumes; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and 

noise of response vessels and aircraft (MMC, 2011). However, due to the limited areal extent 

and short duration of water quality impacts from a small fuel spill, as well as the mobility of 

marine mammals, no significant impacts would be expected.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals are discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b, 

2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues. Impacts of oil spills on marine 

mammals can include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as indirect impacts due to 

response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, noise, and dispersants) (MMC, 2011). 

Direct physical and physiological effects can include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 38 

chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil 

(and dispersants) directly or via contaminated prey (or contaminated vegetation, in the case of 

manatees); and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. 

Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, 

physiological stress, declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include 

displacement of animals from prime habitat, disruption of social structure, changing prey 

availability and foraging distribution and/or patterns, changing reproductive 

behavior/productivity, and changing movement patterns or migration (MMC, 2011).

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response 

could disturb marine mammals and potentially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other 

injury or stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 to 

reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these animals, and therefore no significant 

impacts are expected. 

C.3.5 Sea Turtles (Endangered/Threatened)

Five species of endangered or threatened sea turtles may be found near the lease area. 

Endangered species are the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys 

kempii), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles. The DPS of loggerhead turtle (Caretta 

caretta) that occurs in the Gulf of Mexico is listed as threatened, although other DPSs are 

endangered. In March 2013, the USFWS proposed to designate critical habitat for this DPS 

including beaches in Jackson County, Mississippi; Baldwin County, Alabama; and Bay, Gulf, and 

Franklin Counties in the Florida Panhandle, as well as several counties in southwest Florida and 

the Florida Keys (78 FR18000). The green turtle (Chelonia mydas) is listed as threatened, except 

for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as endangered. Species descriptions are 

presented in BOEM (2012a, 2013).

Leatherbacks and loggerheads are the most likely species to be present near the lease area as 

adults. Green, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley turtles are typically inner shelf and nearshore 

species, unlikely to occur near the lease area as adults. Hatchlings or juveniles of any of the sea 

turtle species may be present in deepwater areas, including the lease area, where they may be 

associated with Sargassum and other flotsam.

All five sea turtle species in the Gulf of Mexico are migratory and use different marine habitats 

according to their life stage. These habitats include high-energy beaches for nesting females 

and emerging hatchlings and pelagic convergence zones for hatchling and juvenile turtles. 

As adults, green, hawksbill, and loggerhead turtles forage primarily in shallow, benthic habitats. 

Leatherbacks are the most pelagic of the sea turtles, feeding primarily on jellyfish.

Sea turtle nesting in the northern Gulf of Mexico can be summarized by species as follows:

• Loggerhead turtles – Loggerheads nest in significant numbers along the Florida Panhandle 

(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2013a) and, to a lesser extent, from 

Texas through Alabama (NMFS and USFWS, 2008). The nearest significant nesting area of 

loggerhead turtles is found in Louisiana, on beaches within the Breton NWR;

• Green and leatherback turtles – Green and leatherback turtles infrequently nest on Florida 

Panhandle beaches (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2013b,c);

• Kemp’s ridley turtles – The main Kemp’s ridley nesting site is Rancho Nuevo Beach in

Tamaulipas, Mexico (NMFS et al., 2011). Approximately 150 Kemp’s ridley turtles nested on 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 39 

Texas beaches in 2013 (Sea Turtle Restoration Project, 2013). Kemp’s ridley turtles typically 

do not nest anywhere near the project area, although there have been occasional reports of 

Kemp’s ridleys nesting in Alabama (Share the Beach, 2013); and

• Hawksbill turtles – Hawksbills typically do not nest anywhere near the project area.

IPFs potentially affecting sea turtles include DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights; support 

vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill 

(WCD). Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on sea turtles due to rapid 

dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, and the intermittent nature of the discharges. 

Compliance with NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris-related 

impacts on sea turtles.

Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights

Offshore DP lay barge activities produce a broad array of sounds at frequencies and intensities 

that may be detected by sea turtles (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1987). Potential impacts may include 

behavioral disruption and temporary or permanent displacement from the area near the sound 

source. Certain sea turtles, especially loggerheads, may be attracted to offshore structures 

(Lohoefener et al., 1990) and, thus, may be more susceptible to impacts from sounds produced 

during routine operations. Helicopters and service vessels may also affect sea turtles due to 

machinery noise and/or visual disturbances. The most likely impacts would be short-term 

behavioral changes such as diving and evasive swimming, disruption of activities, or departure 

from the area. Due to the limited scope and short duration of DP lay barge activities, these 

short-term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to sea turtle populations.

Artificial lighting can disrupt the nocturnal orientation of sea turtle hatchlings (Witherington, 

1997; Tuxbury and Salmon, 2005). However, hatchlings may rely less on light cues when they 

are offshore than when they are emerging on the beach (Salmon and Wyneken, 1990). The 

NMFS (2007) concluded that the effects of lighting from offshore structures on sea turtles are 

insignificant.

Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic has the potential to disturb sea turtles, and there is also a risk of vessel 

strikes. Data show that vessel traffic is one cause of sea turtle mortality in the Gulf of Mexico 

(Lutcavage et al., 1997). While adult sea turtles are visible at the surface during the day and in 

clear weather, they can be difficult to spot from a moving vessel when resting below the water 

surface, during nighttime, or during periods of inclement weather. To reduce the potential for 

vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 2012-JOINT-G01, which recommends protected 

species identification training and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for 

sea turtles and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species, and requires 

operators to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species. When sea turtles are 

sighted, vessel operators and crews are required to attempt to maintain a distance of 45 m 

(150 ft) or greater whenever possible. Compliance with this NTL will minimize the likelihood of 

vessel strikes as well as reduce the chance for disturbing sea turtles (NMFS, 2007).

Helicopter traffic also has the potential to disturb sea turtles. However, while flying offshore, 

helicopters maintain altitudes above 213 m (700 ft) during transit to and from the working area. 

This altitude will minimize the potential for disturbing sea turtles, and no significant impacts are 

expected.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 40 

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on sea turtles are discussed in MMS (2007b), (NMFS, 2007), and BOEM 

(2012a,b, 2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to spill 

impacts on these animals.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during fuel 

transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko’s OSRP is expected to

minimize potential impacts on sea turtles. Supplemental DOCD Section I provides detail on spill 

response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small 

spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the 

concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and 

persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at 

the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate 

of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally 

within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 

12 ac), depending on sea state and weather conditions.

Direct physical and physiological effects of exposure to diesel fuel could include skin irritation, 

inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of 

toxic fumes; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and 

noise of response vessels and aircraft (MMS, 2007b; BOEM, 2012b,d, 2013). However, due to 

the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts from a small fuel spill, no 

significant impacts would be expected.

A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect sea turtle nesting beaches, as the 

lease area is 113 miles (183 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana). As explained in 

Section A.9.2, a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters 

prior to breaking up. 

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Impacts of oil spills on sea turtles can include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as 

indirect impacts due to response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, noise, and 

dispersants). Direct physical and physiological effects can include skin irritation, inflammation, 

or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes and 

smoke (e.g., from in situ burning of oil); ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via 

contaminated food; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. 

Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, 

physiological stress, declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include 

displacement of animals from prime habitat, disruption of social structure, changing food 

availability and foraging distribution and/or patterns, changing reproductive 

behavior/productivity, and changing movement patterns or migration. In the unlikely event of a 

spill, implementation of Anadarko’s OSRP is expected to minimize the potential for these types 

of impacts on sea turtles. Supplemental DOCD Section I provides detail on spill response 

measures. 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 41 

Studies of oil effects on loggerheads in a controlled setting (Lutcavage et al., 1995) suggest that 

sea turtles show no avoidance behavior when they encounter an oil slick, and any sea turtle in 

an affected area would be expected to be exposed. Sea turtles’ diving behaviors also put them 

at risk. Sea turtles rapidly inhale a large volume of air before diving and continually resurface 

over time, which may result in repeated exposure to volatile vapors and oiling (NMFS, 2007).

Spilled oil reaching sea turtle nesting beaches could have effects on nesting sea turtles and egg 

development (NMFS, 2007). An oiled beach could affect nest site selection or result in no 

nesting at all (e.g., false crawls). Upon hatching and successfully reaching the water, hatchlings 

are subject to the same types of oil spill exposure hazards as adults. Hatchlings that contact oil 

residues while crossing a beach can exhibit a range of effects, from acute toxicity to impaired 

movement and normal bodily functions (NMFS, 2007).

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response 

could disturb sea turtles and potentially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury or 

stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 to reduce the 

potential for striking or disturbing these animals, and therefore no significant impacts are 

expected. 

The extent and scope of the Macondo spill represents new information not assessed in the 

existing ESA Section 7 consultation under the current Five-Year Program. As a result of this new 

information, BOEMRE reinitiated ESA Section 7 consultation on the existing Gulf of Mexico lease 

sale EIS with NMFS and the USFWS on 30 July 2010. NMFS responded with a letter to BOEMRE 

on 24 September 2010, and the USFWS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on 27 September

2010. However, NMFS and the USFWS have placed the consultation process on hold pending 

the results of the NRDA post-Macondo spill data review, which has yet to be released. The

existing consultation currently remains in effect (BOEM, 2012b). 

BOEMRE (2011a) and BOEM (2012b) reexamined the impacts analyses presented in MMS 

(2007b, 2008) for the five sea turtle species that inhabit the Gulf of Mexico based on additional 

information and in consideration of the Macondo spill. No new information was found that 

would alter the potential impacts on sea turtles described in previous EISs. In most foreseeable 

cases, exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil slick will 

result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity; and 

increased vulnerability to disease) to sea turtles.

C.3.6 Piping Plover (Threatened)

The Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) is a migratory shorebird that overwinters along the 

southeastern U.S. and Gulf of Mexico coasts. This threatened species is in decline as a result of 

hunting, habitat loss and modification, predation, and disease (USFWS, 2003). Critical 

overwintering habitat has been designated, including beaches in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Alabama, and Florida (Figure 3). Piping Plovers inhabit coastal sandy beaches and mudflats, 

feeding by probing for invertebrates at or just below the surface. They use beaches adjacent to 

foraging areas for roosting and preening (USFWS, 2010a). A species description is presented in 

MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2013). 

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting Piping Plovers. There are no IPFs 

associated with routine project activities that could affect these birds. A small fuel spill in the 

lease area would be unlikely to affect Piping Plovers because a small fuel spill would not be 

expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see explanation in 

Section A.9.2). 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 42 

Figure 3. Location of selected environmental features in relation to the lease area.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 43 

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

The lease area is 113 miles (183 km) from the nearest shoreline that is designed as critical 

habitat for Piping Plovers (Figure 3). The revised OSRA results (BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012) 

summarized in Section A.9.3 (Table 3) predict that during the spring there is a 4% probability 

that an oil spill from the lease area would reach a shoreline designated as critical habitat for the 

Piping Plover within 10 days. Plovers could physically oil themselves while foraging on oiled 

shores or secondarily contaminate themselves through ingestion of oiled intertidal sediments 

and prey (MMS, 2007b). Plovers congregate and feed along tidally exposed banks and 

shorelines, following the tide out and foraging at the water’s edge. It is possible that some 

deaths of Piping Plovers could occur, especially if spills occur during winter months when 

plovers are most common along the coastal Gulf or if spills contacted critical habitat. Impacts 

could also occur from vehicular traffic on beaches and other activities associated with spill 

cleanup. Anadarko has extensive resources available to protect and rehabilitate wildlife in the 

event of a spill reaching the shoreline, as detailed in the OSRP.

C.3.7 Whooping Crane (Endangered)

The Whooping Crane (Grus americana) is an omnivorous wading bird and an endangered 

species. There are three wild populations in North America (Whooping Crane Eastern 

Partnership, 2010). One population winters along the Texas coast at Aransas NWR and 

summers at Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada; this population represents the majority of 

the world’s population of free-ranging Whooping Cranes and reached a record population of 

270 at Aransas NWR in December 2008 (Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership, 2010). 

A nonmigrating population has been reintroduced in central Florida, and another reintroduced 

population summers in Wisconsin and migrates to the southeastern U.S. for the winter. 

Whooping Cranes breed, migrate, winter, and forage in a variety of habitats, including coastal 

marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows and rivers, and agricultural 

fields (USFWS, 2007). About 9,000 ha (22,240 ac) of salt flats on Aransas NWR and adjacent 

islands comprise the principal wintering grounds of the Whooping Crane. Aransas NWR is 

designated as critical habitat for the species. A species description is presented in MMS (2007b) 

and BOEM (2012a, 2013). 

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting Whooping Cranes. A small fuel spill in 

the lease area would also be unlikely to affect Whooping Cranes, due to the distance from 

Aransas NWR. As explained in Section A.9.2, a small fuel spill would not be expected to make 

landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up. 

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

A large oil spill is unlikely to affect Whooping Cranes as the lease area is approximately 

383 miles (617 km) from its critical habitat designated in the Aransas NWR. The revised 

OSRA modeling (BOEM, 2012b) predicts that there is a 3% or less probability that an oil spill 

originating in the lease area would reach the Aransas NWR within 30 days and a 17% probability 

of oil reaching that area in 120 days.

In the event of oil exposure, Whooping Cranes could physically oil themselves while foraging in 

oiled areas or secondarily contaminate themselves through ingestion of contaminated shellfish, 

frogs, and fishes. It is possible that some Whooping Crane deaths could occur. In the event of a 

spill, Anadarko would work with the applicable State and Federal agencies to prevent impacts 

from a spill. 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 44 

C.3.8 Gulf Sturgeon (Threatened)

The Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) is a threatened fish species that inhabits major 

rivers and inner shelf waters from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, Florida 

(Barkuloo, 1988; Wakeford, 2001). An anadromous fish that migrates from the sea upstream 

into coastal rivers to spawn in freshwater, it historically ranged from the Mississippi River to 

Charlotte Harbor, Florida (Wakeford, 2001). Today, this range has contracted to encompass 

major rivers and inner shelf waters from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, Florida. 

Populations have been depleted or even extirpated throughout this range by fishing, shoreline 

development, dam construction, water quality changes, and other factors (Barkuloo, 1988; 

Wakeford, 2001). These declines prompted the listing of the Gulf sturgeon as a threatened 

species in 1991. The best known populations occur in the Apalachicola and Suwannee Rivers in 

Florida (Carr, 1996; Sulak and Clugston, 1998), the Choctawhatchee River in Alabama (Fox et al., 

2000), and the Pearl River in Mississippi/Louisiana (Morrow et al., 1998). Critical habitat in the 

Gulf extends from Lake Borgne, Louisiana (St. Bernard Parish), to Suwannee Sound, Florida 

(Levy County) (NMFS, 2010b) (Figure 3). A species description is presented in MMS (2007b) and 

in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS et al., 1995). 

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting Gulf sturgeon. There are no IPFs 

associated with routine project activities that could affect these fish. A small fuel spill in the 

lease area would be unlikely to affect Gulf sturgeon because a small fuel spill would not be 

expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see explanation in 

Section A.9.2). 

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on Gulf sturgeon are discussed in MMS (2007b), NMFS (2007), and BOEM 

(2012a,b, 2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to this 

species. 

The lease area is approximately 173 miles (279 km) from the nearest Gulf sturgeon critical 

habitat. The revised OSRA modeling (BOEM, 2012b) predicts that a spill in the lease area has 

1% or less probability of contacting any coastal areas inhabited by Gulf sturgeon within 

30 or 120 days.

In the event of oil reaching Gulf sturgeon habitat, the fish could be affected by direct ingestion, 

ingestion of oiled prey, or the absorption of dissolved petroleum products through the gills. 

Based on the life history of this species, subadult and adult Gulf sturgeon would be most 

vulnerable to an estuarine or marine oil spill, and would be vulnerable only from 

1 September through 30 April when this species is foraging in estuarine and shallow marine 

habitats (NMFS, 2007).

C.3.9 Smalltooth Sawfish (Endangered)

Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) are found in the tropical and subtropical Atlantic Ocean. 

In the Western Atlantic they have historically ranged from New York to Brazil, including the Gulf 

of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This sawfish primarily occurs in estuarine and coastal habitats 

such as bays, lagoons, and rivers. The smalltooth sawfish was listed as endangered under the 

ESA on 1 April 2003. Its critical habitat consists of two units: the Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit, 

which comprises approximately 89,621 ha (221,459 ac) of coastal habitat, and the Ten Thousand 

Islands/Everglades Unit, which comprises approximately 250,506 ha (619,013 ac) of coastal 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 45 

habitat. The two units are located along the southwestern coast of Florida between Charlotte 

Harbor and Florida Bay.

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting smalltooth sawfish. There are no IPFs 

associated with routine project activities that could affect these fish. A small fuel spill in the 

lease area would be unlikely to affect smalltooth sawfish because a small fuel spill would not be 

expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2). 

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on smalltooth sawfish are similar to those discussed for other coastal and 

estuarine species in MMS (2007b), NMFS (2007), and BOEM (2012a, 2013). For this SDOCD, 

there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to smalltooth sawfish. 

In the event of oil reaching smalltooth sawfish habitat, the fish could be affected by direct 

ingestion, ingestion of oiled prey, or the absorption of dissolved petroleum products through 

the gills.

C.3.10 Beach Mouse (Endangered)

Four subspecies of endangered beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) occur on the barrier 

islands of Alabama and the Florida Panhandle: the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, Perdido Key, and 

St. Andrew beach mouse. Critical habitat has been designated for all four subspecies; Figure 3

shows the critical habitat combined for all four subspecies. Species descriptions are provided in 

MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2013). 

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting the beach mouse. There are no IPFs 

associated with routine project activities that could affect these animals due to the distance 

from shore and the lack of any onshore support activities near their habitat. A small fuel spill in 

the lease area would not affect the beach mouse because a small fuel spill would not be 

expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2). 

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on the beach mouse are discussed in MMS (2007b, 2008), BOEMRE 

(2011a), and BOEM (2012a, 2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with 

respect to these species that were not analyzed in these documents.

The lease area is about 237 miles (381 km) southwest from the nearest beach mouse critical 

habitat. The revised OSRA modeling summarized in Section A.9.3 predicts that a spill in the 

lease area has a 1% or less probability of reaching either the Alabama or Florida shorelines 

inhabited by the beach mouse within 120 days.

In the event of oil contacting these beaches, the beach mouse could experience several types of 

direct and indirect impacts. Contact with spilled oil could cause skin and eye irritation and 

subsequent infection; matting of fur; irritation of sweat glands, ear tissues, and throat tissues; 

disruption of sight and hearing; asphyxiation from inhalation of fumes; and toxicity from 

ingestion of oil and contaminated food. Indirect impacts could include reduction of food supply, 

destruction of habitat, and fouling of nests. Impacts could also occur from vehicular traffic and 

other activities associated with spill cleanup. However, any such impacts are unlikely due to the 

distance from shore and response actions that would occur in the event of a spill.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 46 

C.3.11 Elkhorn Coral (Threatened) 

Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) is found primarily in shallow waters with temperatures ranging 

between 26°C and 30°C (79°F and 86°F) and significant water movement. Elkhorn coral was 

once one of the most abundant coral species in waters ranging from 1 to 5 m (3.3 to 16 ft) deep

in tropical and subtropical waters. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, elkhorn coral has been found 

within the coral cap region of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 2011).

There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect this species in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. A small fuel spill would not affect elkhorn coral colonies because the 

oil would float and dissipate on the sea surface. A WCD would be unlikely to affect the coral cap 

region of the Flower Garden Banks because of the water depth of the area. Although 

subsurface plumes were reported following the Macondo spill, these plumes resulted from the 

use of subsea dispersants at the seafloor.

C.4 Coastal and Marine Birds

C.4.1 Marine Birds

Marine birds include seabirds and other species that may occur in the pelagic environment of 

the project area (Clapp et al., 1982a,b, 1983; Peake, 1996; Hess and Ribic, 2000). Seabirds spend 

much of their lives offshore over the open ocean, except during breeding season when they nest 

along the coast. In addition, other birds such as waterfowl, marsh birds, and shorebirds may 

occasionally be present over open ocean areas. No endangered or threatened bird species are 

likely to occur at the project area due to the distance from shore. For a discussion of shorebirds 

and coastal nesting birds, see Section C.4.2. 

Seabirds of the northern Gulf of Mexico were surveyed from ships during the GulfCet II program. 

Hess and Ribic (2000) reported that terns, storm-petrels, shearwaters, and jaegers were the 

most frequently sighted seabirds in the deepwater area. From these surveys, four ecological 

categories of seabirds were documented in the deepwater areas of the Gulf: summer migrants 

(shearwaters, storm petrels, boobies); summer residents that breed in the Gulf (Sooty Tern, 

Least Tern, Sandwich Tern, Magnificent Frigatebird); winter residents (gannets, gulls, jaegers); 

and permanent resident species (Laughing Gulls, Royal Terns, Bridled Terns) (Hess and Ribic, 

2000). The GulfCet II study did not estimate bird densities; however, Powers (1987) indicated 

that seabird densities over the open ocean typically are <10 birds/km2

. 

The distributions and relative densities of seabirds within the deepwater areas of the Gulf of 

Mexico, including the project area, vary temporally (i.e., seasonally) and spatially. In GulfCet II 

studies, species diversity and densities varied by hydrographic environment and by the presence 

and relative location of mesoscale features such as Loop Current eddies that may enhance

nutrient levels and productivity of surface waters where these seabird species forage (Hess and 

Ribic, 2000).

Common seabird species include Wilson’s Storm-Petrel (Oceanites oceanicus), Magnificent 

Frigatebird (Fregata magnificens), Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus), Masked Booby 

(Sula dactylatra), Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster), Cory’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), 

Greater Shearwater (Puffinus gravis), and Audubon’s Shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri). Seabirds 

are distributed Gulf-wide and are not specifically associated with the lease area.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 47 

Trans-Gulf migrant birds including shorebirds, wading birds, and terrestrial birds may also be 

present in the lease area. Migrant birds may use offshore structures and rigs for resting, 

feeding, or as temporary shelter from inclement weather (Russell, 2005). Some birds may be 

attracted to offshore structures because of the lights and the fish populations that aggregate 

around these structures.

IPFs potentially affecting marine and pelagic birds include DP lay barge presence, noise, and 

lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents – a small fuel spill and a 

large oil spill (WCD). Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on the birds due to 

rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, the intermittent nature of the discharges, and 

the mobility of these animals. Compliance with NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 will minimize the potential 

for marine debris-related impacts on birds.

Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights

Birds that frequent rigs may be exposed to contaminants including air pollutants and routine 

discharges, but significant impacts are unlikely due to rapid dispersion. Birds migrating over 

water have been known to strike offshore structures, resulting in death or injury (Wiese et al., 

2001; Russell, 2005). Mortality of migrant birds at tall towers and other land-based structures 

has been reviewed extensively, and the mechanisms involved in rig collisions appear to be 

similar. In some cases, migrants simply do not see a part of the rig until it is too late. In other 

cases, navigation may be disrupted by noise (Russell, 2005). On the other hand, offshore 

structures are suitable stopover habitats for most trans-Gulf migrant species, and most of the 

migrants that stop over on rigs probably benefit from their stay, particularly in spring 

(Russell, 2005). Due to the limited scope and short duration of activities described in this 

SDOCD, any impacts on populations of either seabirds or trans-Gulf migrant birds are not 

expected to be significant.

A recent study in the North Sea indicated that rig lighting causes circling behavior in various 

birds, especially on cloudy nights; apparently the birds’ geomagnetic compass is upset by the 

red part of the spectrum from the lights currently in use (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, 

2007). The numbers varied greatly, from none at all to some tens of thousands of birds per 

night per rig, with an apparent effect radius of up to 3 miles (5 km). A study in the Gulf of 

Mexico also noted the phenomenon but did not recommend mitigation (Russell, 2005). Factors 

to consider in evaluating this impact in the Gulf of Mexico would include the lower incidence of 

cloudy and foggy days in the Gulf of Mexico versus the North Sea. In laboratory experiments, 

Poot et al. (2008) found the magnetic compass of migratory birds to be wavelength dependent. 

Migratory birds require light from the blue-green part of the spectrum for magnetic compass 

orientation, whereas red light (visible long-wavelength) disrupts their magnetic orientation. 

They designed a field study to test if and how changing light color influenced migrating birds 

under field conditions. During field studies they found that nocturnally migrating birds were 

disoriented and attracted by red and white light (containing visible long-wavelength radiation), 

whereas they were clearly less disoriented by blue and green light (containing less or no visible 

long-wavelength radiation) (Poot et al., 2008). Due to the limited scope and short duration of 

activities proposed in this SDOCD, lighting impacts, collisions, or other adverse effects are 

unlikely, and no significant impacts are expected.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 48 

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessels and helicopters are unlikely to significantly disturb pelagic birds in open offshore 

waters. It is likely that individual birds would experience, at most, only short-term behavioral 

disruption, and the impact would not be significant.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine birds are discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 

2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to spill impacts on 

these animals.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during 

routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of 

Anadarko’s OSRP will reduce the potential for impacts on marine and pelagic birds. 

Supplemental DOCD Section I provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open 

ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to 

occur would be very brief. 

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the 

concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and 

persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at 

the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate 

of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally 

within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 

12 ac), depending on sea state and weather conditions.

Birds exposed to oil on the sea surface could experience direct physical and physiological effects 

including skin irritation; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; and inhalation of 

toxic fumes. Due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts from a 

small fuel spill, secondary impacts due to ingestion of oil via contaminated prey or reductions in 

prey abundance are unlikely. Due to the low densities of birds in open ocean areas, the small 

area affected, and the brief duration of the surface slick, no significant impacts on pelagic birds 

would be expected.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on marine and pelagic birds are discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM 

(2012a,b,d, 2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to spill 

impacts on these animals.

BOEM has reexamined the analyses for coastal and marine birds presented in MMS (2007b, 

2008) and determined that no new information was found that would alter the potential 

impacts on marine and pelagic birds (BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b).

Pelagic seabirds could be exposed to oil from a spill at the project area. Hess and Ribic (2000) 

reported that terns, storm-petrels, shearwaters, and jaegers were the most frequently sighted 

seabirds in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (>200 m). Powers (1987) indicates that seabird 

densities over the open ocean typically are <10 birds/km2

. The number of pelagic birds that 

could be affected in open, offshore waters would depend on the extent and persistence of the 

oil slick.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 49 

Data following the Macondo spill provided relevant information about the species of pelagic 

birds that may be affected in the event of a large oil spill. Birds that have been treated for oiling 

include several pelagic species such as the Northern Gannet, Magnificent Frigatebird, and 

Masked Booby (USFWS, 2011). The Northern Gannet is among the species with the largest 

numbers of birds affected by the spill.

C.4.2 Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds

Threatened and endangered bird species (Piping Plover and Whooping Crane) have been 

discussed previously in Section C.3. Various species of non-endangered birds are also found 

along the northern Gulf Coast, including diving birds, shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and 

waterfowl. Gulf Coast marshes and beaches also provide important feeding grounds and 

nesting habitats. Species that breed on beaches, flats, dunes, bars, barrier islands, and similar 

habitats include the Sandwich Tern, Brown Pelican, Wilson’s Plover, Black Skimmer, Forster’s 

Tern, Gull-billed Tern, Laughing Gull, Least Tern, Royal Tern, and Snowy Plover (UFSWS, 2010b). 

Additional information is presented in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a, 2013). 

The Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) was delisted from Federal endangered status in 2009 

(USFWS, 2010c). However, this species remains listed as endangered on the Louisiana list of 

Endangered Species (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2013), is listed as a species 

of greatest conservation need by the State of Mississippi (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries and Parks, 2005), and as a species of special concern by the State of Florida (Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2013d). Brown Pelicans inhabit coastal habitats and 

forage within both coastal waters and waters of the inner continental shelf. Aerial and 

shipboard surveys, including GulfCet and GulfCet II, indicate that Brown Pelicans do not occur in 

deep offshore waters (Fritts and Reynolds, 1981; Peake, 1996; Hess and Ribic, 2000). Nearly half 

the southeastern population of Brown Pelicans lives in the northern Gulf Coast, generally 

nesting on protected islands (USFWS, 2010b).

The Southern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted from its threatened status in 

the lower 48 states on 28 June 2007. The Bald Eagle is a terrestrial raptor widely distributed 

across the southern U.S., including coastal habitats along the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf Coast is 

inhabited by both wintering migrant and resident Bald Eagles (Johnsgard, 1990; Ehrlich et al., 

1992).

IPFs potentially affecting shorebirds and coastal nesting birds include support vessel and 

helicopter traffic and a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely 

to affect shorebirds or coastal nesting birds, as the lease area is 113 miles (183 km) from the 

nearest shoreline (Louisiana). As explained in Section A.9.2, a small fuel spill would not be 

expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up. Compliance with 

NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris-related impacts on shorebirds.

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessels and helicopters will transit coastal areas near Port Fourchon and Houma, 

Louisiana, where shorebirds and coastal nesting birds may be found. These activities could 

periodically disturb individuals or groups of birds within sensitive coastal habitats (e.g., wetlands 

that may support feeding, resting, or breeding birds).
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 50 

Vessel traffic may disturb some foraging and resting birds. Flushing distances vary between 

species and between individuals (Rodgers and Schwikert, 2002). The disturbances will be 

limited to flushing birds away from vessel pathways; known distances are from 20 to 49 m 

(65 to 160 ft) for personal watercraft and 23 to 58 m (75 to 190 ft) for an outboard-powered 

boat (Rodgers and Schwikert, 2002). Flushing distances may be similar or less for the support 

vessels to be used for Anadarko’s project, and some species such as gulls are attracted to boats. 

Support vessels will not approach nesting or breeding areas on the shoreline, so disturbances to 

nesting birds, eggs, and chicks are not expected. Vessel operators will use designated navigation 

channels and comply with posted speed and wake restrictions while transiting sensitive inland 

waterways. Due to the limited scope and short duration of DP lay barge activities, any 

short-term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to coastal bird populations.

Aircraft traffic can cause some disturbance to birds onshore and offshore. Responses are highly 

dependent on the type of aircraft, the bird species, the activities that animals were previously 

engaged in, and previous exposures to overflights (Efroymson et al., 2000). Helicopters seem to 

cause the most intense responses over other human disturbances for some species (Bélanger

and Bédard, 1989). However, Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No. 91-36D 

recommends that pilots maintain a minimum altitude of 610 m (2,000 ft) when flying over 

noise-sensitive areas such as wildlife refuges, parks, and areas with wilderness characteristics. 

This is greater than the distance (slant range) at which aircraft overflights have been reported to 

cause behavioral effects on most species of birds studied (Efroymson et al., 2000). With these 

guidelines in effect, it is likely that individual birds would experience, at most, only short-term 

behavioral disruption.

Impacts of Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Coastal birds can be exposed to oil as they float on the water surface, dive during foraging, or 

wade in oiled coastal waters. Oiled birds can lose the ability to fly, dive for food, or float on the 

water, which could lead to drowning (USFWS, 2010d). Oil interferes with the water repellency 

of feathers and can cause hypothermia in the right conditions. As birds groom themselves, they 

can ingest and inhale the oil on their bodies. Scavengers such as Bald Eagles and gulls can be 

exposed to oil by feeding on carcasses of contaminated fish and wildlife. While ingestion can kill 

animals immediately, more often it results in lung, liver, and kidney damage, which can lead to 

death. Bird eggs may be damaged if an oiled adult sits on the nest.

As noted previously, the Brown Pelican was recently removed from the Federal endangered 

species list. Brown Pelicans are especially at risk from direct and indirect impacts from spilled oil 

within inner shelf and inshore waters, such as embayments. The range of this species is 

generally limited to these waters and surrounding coastal habitats. Brown Pelicans feed on midsized fish that they capture by diving from above (“plunge diving”) and then scooping the fish 

into their expandable gular pouch. This behavior makes them susceptible to plumage oiling if 

they feed in areas with surface oil or an oil sheen. They may also capture prey that has been 

physically contaminated with oil or has ingested oil. Issues for Brown Pelicans include direct 

contact with oil, disturbance from cleanup activities, and long-term habitat contamination. The 

Bald Eagle may also be at risk from direct and indirect impacts from spilled oil. This species 

often captures fish within shallow water areas (snatching prey from the surface or wading into 

shallow areas to capture prey with their bill) and so may be susceptible to plumage oiling and, as 

with the Brown Pelican, they may also capture prey that has been physically contaminated with 

oil or has ingested oil.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 51 

C.5 Fisheries Resources

C.5.1 Pelagic Communities and Ichthyoplankton

Biggs and Ressler (2000) reviewed the biology of pelagic communities in the deepwater 

environment of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The biological oceanography of the region is 

dominated by the influence of the Loop Current, whose surface waters are among the most 

oligotrophic in the world’s oceans. Superimposed on this low-productivity condition are 

productive "hot spots" associated with entrainment of nutrient-rich Mississippi River water and 

mesoscale oceanographic features. Anticyclonic and cyclonic hydrographic features play an 

important role in determining biogeographic patterns and controlling primary productivity in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (Biggs and Ressler, 2000).

Most fishes inhabiting shelf or oceanic waters of the Gulf of Mexico have planktonic eggs and 

larvae (Ditty, 1986; Ditty et al., 1988; Richards et al., 1989, 1993). Pelagic eggs and larvae 

become part of the planktonic community for various lengths of time (10 to 100 days, 

depending on the species) (MMS, 2007b).

IPFs potentially affecting pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton include DP lay barge 

presence, noise, and lights; effluent discharges; water intakes; and two types of accidents - 

a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).

Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights

The DP lay barge, as a floating structure in the deepwater environment, will act as a 

fish-attracting device (FAD). In oceanic waters, the FAD effect would be most pronounced for 

epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and jacks, which are commonly attracted to 

fixed and drifting surface structures (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994; Relini et al., 1994; MMS, 

2000, 2007b, 2008). This FAD effect could possibly enhance the feeding of epipelagic predators 

by attracting and concentrating smaller fish species. Because the DP lay barge is a single, 

temporary structure, impacts on fish populations, whether beneficial or adverse, are considered 

minor.

Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Treated sanitary and domestic wastes may have a slight effect on the pelagic environment in the 

immediate vicinity of these discharges. These wastes may have elevated levels of nutrients, 

organic matter, and chlorine, but should be diluted rapidly to undetectable levels within tens to 

hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impacts on water quality, plankton, and nekton 

are anticipated.

Deck drainage may have a slight effect on the pelagic environment in the immediate vicinity of 

these discharges. Deck drainage from contaminated areas will be passed through an 

oil-and-water separator prior to release, and discharges will be monitored for visible sheen. The 

discharges may have slightly elevated levels of hydrocarbons but should be diluted rapidly to 

undetectable levels within tens to hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impacts on 

water quality, plankton, and nekton are anticipated.

Other discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit, such as desalination unit brine and 

uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water, are expected to be diluted rapidly 

and have little or no impact on water column biota.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 52 

Impacts of Water Intakes

Seawater will be drawn from the ocean for once-through, non-contact cooling of machinery 

on the DP lay barge. The DP lay barge ultimately selected for this project will be in compliance 

with all applicable cooling water intake regulations. The intake of seawater for cooling water 

will entrain plankton. The low intake velocity should allow most strong-swimming juvenile 

fishes and smaller adults to escape entrainment or impingement. However, drifting plankton 

would not be able to escape entrainment with the exception of a few fast-swimming larvae of 

certain taxonomic groups. Those organisms entrained may be stressed or killed, primarily 

through changes in water temperature during the route from cooling intake structure to 

discharge structure and mechanical damage (turbulence in pumps and condensers). Due to the 

limited scope and short duration of DP lay barge activities, any short-term impacts of 

entrainment are not expected to be biologically significant to plankton or ichthyoplankton 

populations. 

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on fisheries resources are discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,d, 

2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to spill impacts.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during 

routine operations, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of 

Anadarko’s OSRP will mitigate the potential for impacts on pelagic communities, including 

ichthyoplankton. Supplemental DOCD Section I provides detail on spill response measures. 

Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for 

impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the 

concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and 

persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at 

the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate 

of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally 

within 24 hours. The area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha 

(1.2 to 12 ac), depending on sea state and weather conditions.

A small fuel spill could have localized impacts on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and nekton. Due 

to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts, a small fuel spill would 

be unlikely to produce detectable impacts on pelagic communities.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton are discussed in 

BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues.

A large oil spill could affect water column biota including phytoplankton, zooplankton, 

ichthyoplankton, and nekton. A large spill that persisted for weeks or months would be more 

likely to affect these communities. While adult and juvenile fishes may actively avoid a large 

spill, planktonic eggs and larvae would be unable to avoid contact. Eggs and larvae of fishes are 

especially vulnerable to oiling because they inhabit the upper layers of the water column, and 

they will die if exposed to certain toxic fractions of spilled oil. Impacts potentially would be 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 53 

greater if local-scale currents retained planktonic larval assemblages (and the floating oil slick) 

within the same water mass.

C.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, as amended, Federal agencies are required to consult on 

activities that may adversely affect EFH designated in Fishery Management Plans developed by 

the regional Fishery Management Councils.

The BOEM (2012b) has reexamined the analysis for fish resources and EFH presented in MMS 

(2007a,b) in consideration of the Macondo event. No substantial new information was found 

that would alter the impact conclusions for fish resources and EFH presented in MMS (2007a,b).

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) has prepared Fishery Management 

Plans for corals and coral reefs, shrimps, stone crab, spiny lobster, reef fishes, coastal migratory 

pelagic fishes, and red drum. In 2005, the EFH for these managed species was redefined in 

Generic Amendment No. 3 to the various Fishery Management Plans (GMFMC, 2005). The EFH 

for most of these GMFMC-managed species is on the continental shelf in waters shallower than 

183 m (600 ft). The shelf edge is the outer boundary for coastal migratory pelagic fishes, reef 

fishes, and shrimps. EFH for corals and coral reefs includes some shelf-edge topographic 

features on the Texas-Louisiana OCS, the nearest of which is 48 miles (77 km) north of the lease 

area. 

Highly migratory pelagic fishes, which occur as transients in the lease area, are the only 

remaining group for which EFH has been identified in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Species in 

this group, including tunas, swordfishes, billfishes, and sharks, are managed by NMFS. Highly 

migratory species with EFH at or near the lease area include the following species and life stages

(NMFS, 2009): 

• Atlantic bluefin tuna (spawn, eggs, 

larvae, adults) 

• Bigeye thresher shark (all)

• Bigeye tuna (juveniles, adults)

• Blue marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Longfin mako shark (all)

• Longbill spearfish (juveniles, adults)

• Oceanic whitetip shark (all)

• Silky shark (all)

• Skipjack tuna (spawn)

• Swordfish (larvae, juveniles, adults)

• Whale shark (all) 

• White marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Yellowfin tuna (spawn, juveniles, 

adults)

Research indicates the central and western Gulf of Mexico may be important spawning habitat 

for Atlantic bluefin tuna, and NMFS (2009) has designated a Habitat Area of Particular Concern 

(HAPC) for this species. The HAPC covers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, including the 

lease area (Figure 3). The areal extent of the HAPC is approximately 300,000 km2 (15,830 mi2

). 

The prevailing assumption is that Atlantic bluefin tuna follow an annual cycle of foraging in June 

through March off the eastern U.S. and Canadian coasts, followed by migration to the Gulf of 

Mexico to spawn in April, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 54 

On 27 May 2011, after an extensive scientific review, NOAA announced that Atlantic bluefin 

tuna currently do not warrant species protection under the ESA. However, NOAA did classify 

the bluefin tuna as a species of concern, effectively placing the species on a watch list as the 

agency awaits new data on the impact of a stricter international management regimen. 

A new amendment to the original EFH Generic Amendment was finalized in 2005

(GMFMC, 2005). One of the most significant proposed changes in this amendment reduced the 

extent of EFH relative to the 1998 Generic Amendment by removing the EFH description and 

identification from waters between 100 fathoms and the seaward limit of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ). The Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan was amended 

in 2009 to update EFH and HAPC to include the bluefin tuna spawning area (NMFS, 2009).

There are current NTLs (2009-G39 and 2009-G40) that provide guidance and clarification of the 

regulations with respect to biologically sensitive underwater features and areas and benthic 

communities that are considered EFH (MMS, 2009a,b). A new EFH consultation has been 

initiated between BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico Region and NOAA’s Southeastern Region. Some 

EFH requirements may change with the new agreement. Until the new agreement is in place, 

the 1999 Programmatic Consultation with the elements described above will be followed 

(BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012).

Other HAPCs have been identified by the GMFMC (2005). These include the Florida Middle 

Grounds, Madison-Swanson Marine Reserve, Tortugas North and South Ecological Reserves, 

Pulley Ridge, and several individual reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico 

(Figure 3). The nearest HAPC is Jakkula Bank, located approximately 88 miles (141 km)

west-northwest of the lease area.

IPFs potentially affecting EFH include DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights; effluent 

discharges; water intakes; and two types of accidents – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill 

(WCD).

Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights 

The DP lay barge, as a floating structure in the deepwater environment, will act as an FAD. In 

oceanic waters, the FAD effect would be most pronounced for epipelagic fishes such as tunas, 

dolphin, billfishes, and jacks, which are commonly attracted to fixed and drifting surface 

structures (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994; Relini et al., 1994; MMS, 2000, 2007b, 2008). 

This FAD effect would possibly enhance feeding of epipelagic predators by attracting and 

concentrating smaller fish species. Because the DP lay barge is a single, temporary structure, 

any impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are considered minor.

Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Other effluent discharges affecting EFH by diminishing ambient water quality include treated 

sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, and miscellaneous discharges such as desalination 

unit brine and uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water. Impacts on water 

quality have been discussed previously. No significant impacts on EFH for highly migratory 

pelagic fishes are expected from these discharges.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 55 

Impacts of Water Intakes

As noted previously, cooling water intake will cause entrainment and impingement of plankton, 

including fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton). Due to the limited scope and short duration of 

DP lay barge activities, any short-term impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are not 

expected to be biologically significant.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during 

routine operations, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of 

Anadarko’s OSRP will help diminish the potential for impacts on EFH. Supplemental DOCD

Section I provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease 

area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013). For 

this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to spill impacts.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the 

concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and 

persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at 

the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate 

of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally 

within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 

12 ac), depending on sea state and weather conditions.

A small fuel spill could have localized impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes, 

including tunas, swordfishes, billfishes, and sharks. These species occur as transients in the 

lease area. A spill would also produce short-term impact on water quality in the HAPC for 

spawning bluefin tuna, which covers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The affected area 

would represent a negligible portion of the HAPC, which covers approximately 115,830 mi2 

(300,000 km2) of the Gulf of Mexico. 

A small fuel spill would not affect EFH for corals and coral reefs, as the nearest EFH is located 

48 miles (77 km) north of the lease area. A small fuel spill would float and dissipate on the sea 

surface and would not contact these features.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,d, 2013). For 

this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to EFH.

An oil spill in offshore waters would temporarily increase hydrocarbon concentrations on the 

water surface and potentially the subsurface as well. Given the extent of EFH designations in 

the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC, 2005; NMFS, 2009), some impact on EFH would be unavoidable.

A large spill could affect the EFH for many managed species including shrimps, stone crab, spiny 

lobster, reef fishes, coastal migratory pelagic fishes, and red drum. It would result in adverse 

impacts on water quality and water column biota including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and 

nekton. In coastal waters, sediments could be contaminated and result in persistent 

degradation of the seafloor habitat for managed demersal fish and shellfish species.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 56 

The lease area is within the HAPC for spawning Atlantic bluefin tuna (NMFS, 2009). A large spill 

could temporarily degrade the HAPC due to increased hydrocarbon concentrations in the water 

column, with the potential for lethal or sublethal impacts on spawning tuna. Potential impacts 

would depend in part on the timing of a spill, as this species migrates to the Gulf of Mexico to 

spawn in April, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).

The topographic features located 48 miles (77 km) north of the lease area are designated as EFH 

under the corals and coral reefs management plan. An accidental spill would be unlikely to 

affect this area, since a surface slick would not reach these features due to their depth.

C.6 Archaeological Resources

C.6.1 Shipwreck Sites

BOEM (2012b) reexamined the analyses for archaeological resources presented in MMS (2007b, 

2008), based on additional information available since the publication of these two documents 

and in consideration of the Macondo oil spill. Substantial new information that alters the 

impact conclusion for archaeological resources presented in MMS (2007b, 2008) has come to 

light as a result of BOEM-sponsored studies and industry surveys. Specifically, evidence of 

damage to significant cultural resources (i.e., historic shipwrecks) has been shown to have 

occurred because of an incomplete knowledge of seafloor conditions in lease areas >200 m 

(656 ft) deep that have been exempted from high-resolution surveys. Because significant 

historic shipwrecks have recently been discovered outside the previously designated 

high-probability areas (some of which show evidence of impacts from permitted activities prior 

to their discovery), a survey is now required for exploration and development projects. 

The lease area is not on the list of OCS blocks with a high potential for historic shipwrecks

(BOEM, 2012c). Fugro (2011, 2012) site clearance letters in the original Supplemental EP

indicated no evidence of shipwrecks or other archaeological resources near the proposed 

surface hole locations. No manmade features were identified within 610 m (2,000 ft) of the 

proposed wellsite or production activities in the site clearance survey (Fugro, 2014). Anadarko 

will abide by the applicable requirements of NTL 2005-G07, which stipulate that work be 

stopped at the project site should any previously undetected archaeological resource be 

discovered after work has begun until appropriate surveys and evaluations have been 

completed.

Because there are no shipwreck sites in the lease area, there are no routine IPFs that are likely 

to affect shipwrecks. Impacts of a large oil spill (WCD) are the only IPFs considered. A small fuel 

spill would not affect shipwrecks because the oil would float and dissipate on the sea surface.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

MMS (2007b) estimated that a severe subsurface blowout could resuspend and disperse 

sediments within a 300-m (984-ft) radius. Because there are no historic shipwrecks in the lease 

area, this impact would not be relevant.

Previous analyses (MMS, 2007a, 2008) concluded that oil spills would be unlikely to affect 

archaeological sites beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to physical impacts 

of a blowout) because the oil would rise quickly to the sea surface directly over the spill location. 

However, during the Macondo spill, subsurface plumes were reported at a water depth of 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 57 

approximately 1,100 m (3,600 ft), extending at least 22 miles (35 km) from the wellsite and 

persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes apparently 

resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c). While the 

behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface plume could have 

the potential to contact shipwreck sites beyond the 300-m (984-ft) radius estimated by MMS 

(2007a, 2008), depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. If oil from a subsea spill 

should come into contact with wooden shipwrecks on the seafloor, it could adversely affect 

their condition or preservation. Should there be any indication that potential shipwreck sites 

could be affected, in accordance with NTL 2005-G07, Anadarko will immediately halt operations, 

take steps to ensure that the site is not disturbed in any way, and contact the BOEM Regional 

Supervisor, Leasing and Environment, within 48 hours of its discovery. Anadarko would cease all 

operations within 305 m (1,000 ft) of the site until the Regional Supervisor provides instructions 

on steps to take to assess the site’s potential historic significance and protect it.

A spill entering shallow coastal waters could conceivably contaminate an undiscovered 

shipwreck site. As noted by MMS (2007b), should an oil spill contact a coastal historic site, such 

as a fort or a lighthouse, the major impact would be a temporary, reversible visual impact from 

oil contact and contamination of the site and its environment.

C.6.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

Available evidence suggests that sea level in the northern Gulf of Mexico was at least 90 m 

(295 ft), and possibly as much as 130 m (427 ft), lower than present sea level during the period 

20,000 to 17,000 years Before Present (B.P.) (Nelson and Bray, 1970). Sea level in the northern 

Gulf reached its present stand around 3,500 years B.P. (Pearson et al., 1986).

During periods that the continental shelf was above sea level, the area was open to habitation 

by prehistoric peoples. The advent of early man into the Gulf of Mexico region is currently 

accepted to be around 12,000 years B.P. (Aten, 1983). The sea-level curve for the northern Gulf 

of Mexico proposed by Coastal Environments, Inc. suggests that sea level at 12,000 years B.P. 

would have been approximately 45 to 60 m (148 to 197 ft) below present-day sea level (Coastal 

Environments, Inc., 1977, 1982). On this basis, the continental shelf shoreward of the 45- to 

60-m (148- to 197-ft) bathymetric contours has potential for prehistoric sites dating after 

12,000 years B.P. Because of inherent uncertainties in both the depth of sea level and the entry 

date of prehistoric man into North America, MMS adopted the 60-m (197-ft) water depth as the 

seaward extent for archaeological site potential in the Gulf of Mexico region.

With a water depth between 1,196 to 1,224 m (3,925 to 4,015 ft), the lease area is well beyond 

the 60-m (197-ft) depth contour used by the BOEM as the seaward extent for prehistoric 

archaeological site potential in the Gulf of Mexico. Because prehistoric archaeological sites are 

not found in the lease area, the only relevant IPF is a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill 

would not affect prehistoric archaeological resources because the oil would float and dissipate 

on the sea surface.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Because prehistoric archaeological sites are not found in the lease area, they would not be 

affected by the physical effects of a subsea blowout. The MMS (2007b) estimates that a severe 

subsurface blowout could resuspend and disperse sediments within a 300-m (984-ft) radius.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 58 

Along the northern Gulf Coast, prehistoric sites occur frequently along the barrier islands and 

mainland coast and along the margins of bays and bayous (MMS, 2007b). If a spill did reach a 

prehistoric site along these shorelines, it could coat fragile artifacts or site features and 

compromise the potential for radiocarbon dating organic materials in a site (although other 

dating methods are available and it is possible to decontaminate an oiled sample for 

radiocarbon dating). Coastal prehistoric sites could also be damaged by spill cleanup operations 

(e.g., by destroying fragile artifacts and disturbing the provenance of artifacts and site features).

C.7 Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas

Coastal habitats in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico that may be affected by oil and gas activities 

are described in MMS (2007b), BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013), and in a literature review by Collard 

and Way (1997). Coastal habitats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes, 

wetlands, and submerged seagrass beds. Most of the northeastern Gulf is fringed by barrier 

beaches, with wetlands and/or submerged seagrass beds occurring in sheltered areas behind 

the barrier islands and in estuaries.

Due to the distance from shore, the only IPF associated with routine activities in the lease area 

that potentially may affect beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass beds, coastal wildlife refuges, 

wilderness areas, or any other managed or protected coastal area is related to support vessel 

traffic. The primary support bases at Port Fourchon and Houma, Louisiana, are not in wildlife 

refuges or wilderness areas. Potential impacts of support vessel traffic are addressed briefly 

below.

A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect coastal habitats, as the lease area is 

113 miles (183 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana). As explained in Section A.9.2, a small 

fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up.

Impacts of Support Vessel Traffic

For OCS activities in general, support operations, including crew boats and supply boats, may 

have a minor incremental impact on coastal habitats. Over time with a large number of vessel 

trips, vessel wakes can erode shorelines along inlets, channels, and harbors. Support 

operations, including crew boats and supply boats as detailed in Supplemental 

DOCD Section M, may have a minor incremental impact on coastal habitats or protected areas. 

Impacts will be minimized by following the speed and wake restrictions in harbors and channels.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on coastal habitats are discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 

2013). Coastal habitats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, 

and submerged seagrass beds. For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with 

respect to coastal habitats.

The revised OSRA modeling summarized in Table 3 predicts that during winter there is a 

17% probability of oil from a spill in the lease area reaching shorelines in Texas within 120 days, 

and a 14% probability in spring of oil reaching Louisiana shorelines within 120 days.

The shorelines within the geographic range predicted by the OSRA modeling (Table 3) include 

extensive barrier beaches and wetlands, with submerged seagrass beds occurring in sheltered 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 59 

areas behind the barrier islands and in estuaries. NWRs and other protected areas along the 

coast are discussed in MMS (2007b), BOEM (2012b), and Anadarko’s OSRP. Coastal and near 

coastal wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and State and National parks within the geographic 

range of the potential shoreline contacts after 120 days are presented in Table 6. 

Table 6. Wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and State and National parks within the geographic 

range of the potential shoreline contacts after 120 days (From: BOEM, 2012b). 

County or Parish, State Wildlife Refuge, Wilderness Area, or

State/National Park

Cameron County, Texas

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge

Padre Island National Seashore

Isla Blanca Park

Andy Bowie County Park 

Laguna Madre Estuarine and Coastal Marine Area

Willacy County, Texas

Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Reserve

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Reserve 

Padre Island National Seashore

Laguna Madre Estuarine And Coastal Marine Area

Kenedy County, Texas Padre Island National Seashore

Laguna Madre Estuarine and Coastal Marine Area

Kleberg County, Texas Padre Island National Seashore

Laguna Madre Estuarine and Coastal Marine Area

Nueces County, Texas

Laguna Madre Estuarine and Coastal Marine Area

Mustang Island State Park

Lake Corpus Christi State Park

Port Aransas Park

Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve

Aransas County, Texas 

Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge

Goose Island State Park

Calhoun County, Texas

Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge

Matagorda Island State Park

Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area

Welder Flats Coastal Preserve

Matagorda County, Texas 

Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge

Mad Island Wildlife Management Area

San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge

Brazoria County, Texas

San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge

Peach Point Wildlife Management Area

Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge

Christmas Bay Coastal Preserve and Christmas Bay State Park 

Galveston County, Texas

Galveston Island State Park

Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge 

Apffel Park

Seawolf Park

Old Fort Travis Park

Atkinson Island Wildlife Management Area

Ft. Anahuac Park

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge

McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge

Jefferson County, Texas McFaaddin National Wildlife Refuge

Sea Rim State Park
Table 6. (Continued).

Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 60 

County or Parish, State Wildlife Refuge, Wilderness Area, or

State/National Park

Murphree Wildlife Management Area

Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge

Cameron Parish, Louisiana 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge

Little Pecan Island Natural Area

Peveto Woods Natural Area

Lower Neches Wildlife Management Area

Rockefeller Wildlife Management Area

Vermilion Parish, Louisiana Louisiana Rockefeller Wildlife Management Area

Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Management Area

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana 

Salvador Wildlife Management Area

Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve

Delta National Wildlife Refuge

Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area

Breton National Wildlife Refuge

St. Bernard State Park

The level of impacts from oil spills on coastal habitats depends on many factors, including the oil 

characteristics, the geographic location of the landfall, and the weather and oceanographic 

conditions at the time (MMS, 2007b). Oil that makes it to beaches may be either liquid 

weathered oil, an oil-and-water mousse, or tarballs (MMS, 2007b). Oil is generally deposited on 

beaches in lines defined by wave action at the time of landfall. Oil that remains on the beach 

will thicken as its volatile components are lost. Thickened oil may form tarballs or aggregations 

that incorporate sand, shell, and other materials into its mass. Tar may be buried to varying 

depths under the sand. On warm days, both exposed and buried tarballs may liquefy and ooze. 

Oozing may also serve to expand the size of a mass as it incorporates beach materials. Oil on 

beaches may be cleaned up manually, mechanically, or both. Some oil can remain on the beach 

at varying depths and may persist for several years as it slowly biodegrades and volatilizes.

Wetlands are highly sensitive to oiling. The MMS (2007b) predicted that for every 50 bbl of oil 

contacting wetlands, approximately 2.7 ha (6.7 ac) of wetland vegetation will experience 

dieback. Thirty percent of these damaged wetlands are assumed to recover within 4 years, and 

85% within 10 years. Approximately 15% of the contacted wetlands are expected to be 

converted permanently to open-water habitat. The critical concentration of oil is that 

concentration above which impacts to wetlands will be long-term and recovery will take longer 

than two growing seasons, and which causes plant mortality and some permanent wetland loss. 

Critical concentrations of various oils are expected to vary broadly for wetland types and 

wetland plant species. Louisiana wetlands are assumed to be more sensitive to oil contact than 

elsewhere in the Gulf because of high cumulative stress (MMS, 2007b). In addition to the direct 

impacts of oil, cleanup activities in marshes may accelerate rates of erosion and retard recovery 

rates, which have been reported to require from years to decades following a spill (MMS, 

2007b; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b).
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 61 

C.8 Socioeconomic and Other Resources

C.8.1 Recreational and Commercial Fishing

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational and commercial fishing presented in 

MMS (2007b, 2008) based on additional information and in consideration of the Macondo spill. 

No new information was found that would alter the potential impacts on commercial fishing

(BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b, 2013). 

The main commercial fishing activity in deep waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico is pelagic 

longlining for tunas, swordfishes, and other billfishes (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). 

Pelagic longlining has occurred historically in the project area, primarily during spring and 

summer. In August 2000, the Federal government closed two areas in the northeastern Gulf of 

Mexico to longline fishing (65 FR 47214, 1 August 2000). The lease is outside of the closure 

areas.

Longline gear consists of monofilament line deployed from a moving vessel and generally 

allowed to drift for 4 to 5 hours (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). As the mainline is put 

out, baited leaders and buoys are clipped in place at regular intervals. It takes 8 to 10 hours to 

deploy a longline and about the same time to retrieve it. Longlines are often set near 

oceanographic features such as fronts or downwellings, with the aid of sophisticated onboard 

temperature sensors, depth finders, and positioning equipment. Vessels typically are 10 to 30 m 

(33 to 98 ft) long, and their trips last from 1 to 3 weeks. The main Gulf of Mexico homeports for 

longlining vessels are in Louisiana (Dulac and Venice) and Florida (Destin, Madeira Beach, and 

Panama City).

It is unlikely that any commercial fishing activity other than longlining will occur in or near the 

project area. Benthic species targeted by commercial fishers occur on the upper continental 

slope, well inshore of the project area. Royal red shrimp (Pleoticus robustus) are caught by

trawlers in water depths of approximately 250 to 550 m (820 to 1,804 ft). Tilefishes (primarily 

Lophalotilus chamaeleonticeps) are caught by bottom longlining in water depths from about 

165 to 450 m (540 to 1,476 ft) (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002).

Most recreational fishing activity in the region occurs in water depths less than 200 m (656 ft) 

(Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1997, 2002). In deeper water, the main attraction to 

recreational fishers would be petroleum rigs offshore Texas and Louisiana. Due to the distance 

from shore, it is unlikely that recreational fishing activity is occurring in the lease area.

The only routine IPF potentially affecting fisheries is the DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights. 

Two types of potential accidents are also addressed below – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill 

(WCD).

Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights 

There is a slight possibility of pelagic longlines becoming entangled in the DP lay barge. For 

example, in January 1999, a portion of a pelagic longline snagged on the acoustic Doppler 

current profiler of a drillship working in the Gulf of Mexico (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 

2002). The line was removed without incident. Generally, longline fishers use radar and are 

aware of offshore structures and ships when placing their sets. Therefore, little or no impact on 

pelagic longlining is expected.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 62 

Because it is unlikely that any recreational fishing activity is occurring in the project area, no 

adverse impacts are anticipated. Other factors such as effluent discharges are likely to have 

negligible impacts on commercial or recreational fisheries due to rapid dispersion, the small 

area of ocean affected, and the intermittent nature of the discharges.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during 

routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of 

Anadarko’s OSRP will potentially mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. Supplemental 

DOCD Section I provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of 

the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very 

brief.

Pelagic longlining activities in the lease area, if any, could be interrupted in the event of a small 

fuel spill. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac), 

depending on sea state and weather conditions. Fishing activities could be interrupted due to 

the activities of response vessels operating in the lease area. A small fuel spill would not affect 

coastal water quality because the spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal 

waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2).

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on fishing activities are discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012b,d, 

2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect to this activity.

Pelagic longlining activities in the lease area and other fishing activities in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico could be interrupted in the event of a large oil spill. A spill may or may not result in 

fishery closures, depending on the duration of the spill, the oceanographic and meteorological 

conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Data following the 

Macondo spill provided information about the maximum potential extent of fishery closures in 

the event of a large oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, 2010c). At its peak on 12 July 2010, 

closures encompassed 217,821 km2 (84,101 mi2

), or 34.8% of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico EEZ.

C.8.2 Public Health and Safety

There are no IPFs associated with routine operations that are expected to affect public health 

and safety. Impacts of a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD) are addressed below.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during 

routine operations, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of 

Anadarko’s OSRP will potentially alleviate the potential for impacts. Supplemental 

DOCD Section I provides detail on spill response measures.

A small fuel spill would not have any impacts on public health and safety because it would affect 

only a small area of the open ocean 113 miles (183 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana), 

and nearly all of the diesel fuel would evaporate or disperse naturally within 24 hours. 

Response crews would be equipped with appropriate safety equipment to avoid injury and 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 63 

health effects. A small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters 

prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2).

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

In the event of a large spill from a blowout, the main safety and health concerns are those of the 

offshore personnel involved in the incident and those responding to the spill. The DP lay barge 

maintains a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan as required under MARPOL 73/78.

Depending on the spill rate and duration, the physical/chemical characteristics of the oil, 

meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response 

measures, the public could be exposed to oil on the water and along the shoreline, including 

skin contact or breathing VOCs. Crude oil is a highly flammable material, and any smoke or 

vapors from a crude oil fire can cause irritation, and in large quantities may pose a health 

hazard.

Data following the Macondo spill provided relevant information about the types of health issues 

that may occur in the event of a large oil spill (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

2010a). Wildlife cleaning and rehabilitation workers have reported concerns including scrapes 

and cuts, itchy or red skin or rash, and symptoms of headache or feeling faint, dizzy, or fatigued. 

Hand, shoulder, or back pain was also reported by some wildlife-cleaning workers. Personnel 

working on offshore vessels or providing direct oversight to offshore vessels, including 

USCG personnel, civilian contractors, and other responders who were exposed to oil and 

dispersants, had a 7 to 12 times higher prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms and cough 

than those not exposed (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010b). Another potential 

occupational hazard for spill response workers in general was heat stress from work in a hot and 

humid environment. Initial symptoms from cleanup workers who sought medical care in 

Louisiana were typical of acute exposure to hydrocarbons or H2S, e.g., headaches, dizziness, 

nausea, vomiting, cough, respiratory distress, and chest pain (Solomon and Janssen, 2010).

C.8.3 Employment and Infrastructure

There are no IPFs associated with routine operations that are expected to affect employment 

and infrastructure. The project involves pipe-laying with support from existing shorebase 

facilities in Louisiana. No new or expanded facilities will be constructed, and no new employees 

are expected to move permanently into the area. The project will have a negligible impact on 

socioeconomic conditions such as local employment, existing offshore and coastal infrastructure 

(including major sources of supplies, services, energy, and water), and minority and lower 

income groups. Impacts of a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD) are addressed in the 

following subsections. 

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during 

routine operations, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of 

Anadarko’s OSRP will potentially mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. Supplemental 

DOCD Section I provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of 

the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very 

brief.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 64 

A small fuel spill that is dissipated within a few days would have little or no economic impact, as 

the spill response would use existing facilities, resources, and personnel.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential socioeconomic impacts of an oil spill are discussed in MMS (2007b) and 

BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect 

to employment and coastal infrastructure. A large spill could cause economic impacts in several 

ways: it could result in extensive fishery closures that put fishermen out of work; it could result 

in temporary employment as part of the response effort; it could result in adverse publicity that 

affects employment in coastal recreation and tourism industries; and it could result in another 

suspension of OCS drilling activities, including service and support operations that are an 

important part of local economies.

In addition to the analyses presented by MMS (2007b, 2008) and BOEM (2012b), a recent study 

explored the economic impacts of the Macondo spill on oil and gas industry employment due to 

suspension of deepwater drilling (Inter-Agency Economic Report, 2010). The study indicates 

that during the moratorium, the number of oil industry workers in the Gulf of Mexico fell by 

approximately 2,000 and may have indirectly caused a temporary loss of 8,000 to 12,000 jobs 

along the Gulf Coast. Total spending by drilling operators is estimated to have declined by 

$1.8 billion over a six-month period; this direct reduction in spending affected employment in 

the industries that supply the Gulf drilling industry and in all other industries affected by 

declines in consumer and business spending (Inter-Agency Economic Report, 2010). 

C.8.4 Recreation and Tourism

BOEM has reexamined the analyses for recreation and tourism presented in MMS (2007b, 2008) 

based on additional information and in consideration of the Macondo oil spill event. No new 

information was found that would alter the potential impacts on recreation and tourism 

(BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b, 2013).

There are no known recreational uses of the lease area. Recreational resources and tourism in 

coastal areas would not be affected by any routine activities due to the distance from shore. 

Compliance with NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 will minimize the chance of trash or debris being lost 

overboard from the DP lay barge and subsequently washing up on beaches. Potential impacts of 

a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD) are discussed below.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s preventative measures during 

routine operations, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of 

Anadarko’s OSRP will potentially help mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. 

Supplemental DOCD Section I provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open 

ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to 

occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect recreation and tourism. There are 

no known recreational or tourism activities occurring in the lease area, and as explained in 

Section A.9.2, a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters 

prior to breaking up.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 65 

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential impacts of an oil spill on recreation and tourism are discussed in MMS (2007b) and 

BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013). For this SDOCD, there are no unique site-specific issues with respect 

to these impacts.

Impacts on recreation and tourism would vary depending on the duration of the spill and its fate 

including the effectiveness of response measures. A large spill that reached coastal waters and 

shorelines could adversely affect recreation and tourism by contaminating beaches and 

wetlands, resulting in negative publicity that encourages people to stay away. Based on the 

revised OSRA modeling (BOEM, 2012b) as summarized in Section A.9.3 (Table 3), there is a 

17% probability in winter of oil from a spill in the lease area reaching shorelines in Texas and a 

14% chance in spring of contacting shorelines in Louisiana within 120 days.

In addition to the analysis presented in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013), recent and 

ongoing studies have explored the economic impacts of the Macondo spill including tourism and 

“brand” damage (IEM, 2010; Oxford Economics, 2010). The U.S. Travel Association has 

estimated the economic impact of the Macondo spill on tourism across the Gulf Coast over a 

three-year period at $22.7 billion (Oxford Economics, 2010). 

C.8.5 Land Use

Land use along the northern Gulf Coast is discussed in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 

2013). There are no routine IPFs potentially affecting land use. The project will use existing 

onshore support facilities in Louisiana. The land use at the existing shorebase sites is industrial. 

The project will not involve any new construction or changes to existing land use and, therefore, 

will not have any impacts. Levels of boat and helicopter traffic, as well as demand for goods and 

services including scarce coastal resources, will represent a small fraction of the level of activity 

occurring at the shorebases. 

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only relevant IPF. A small fuel spill would not have any impacts on 

land use, as the response would be staged out of existing shorebases and facilities.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

The initial response for a large oil spill would be staged out of existing facilities, with no effect on 

land use. A large spill could have limited temporary impacts on land use along the coast if 

additional staging areas were needed. For example, during the Macondo spill, temporary 

staging areas were established in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida for spill response 

and cleanup efforts. In the event of a large spill in the lease area, similar temporary staging 

areas could be needed. These areas would eventually return to their original use as the 

response is demobilized.

C.8.6 Other Marine Uses

The lease area is located within Military Warning Area W-92 and Anadarko will comply with 

BOEM requirements and lease stipulations to avoid impacts on military vessels and aircraft

operating in or near the lease site. There are existing wells and Anadarko pipelines within 610 m 

(2,000 ft) of the proposed wellsite (Fugro, 2014) and Anadarko will avoid these. 
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 66 

There are no IPFs from routine project activities that are likely to affect other marine uses of the 

lease area. A large oil spill (WCD) is the only relevant accident IPF. A small fuel spill would not 

have any impacts on other marine uses because spill response activities would be mainly within 

the lease area and the duration would be brief.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

An accidental spill would be unlikely to significantly affect shipping or other marine uses. The 

block is not located within any USCG-designated fairway or shipping lane. In the event of a large 

spill requiring numerous response vessels, coordination would be required to manage the vessel 

traffic for safe operations. Anadarko will comply with BOEM requirements and lease 

stipulations to avoid impacts on uses of the area by military vessels and aircraft.

In the event of a large spill requiring numerous vessels in the area, coordination would be 

required to ensure that no anchoring or seafloor-disturbing activities occur near the existing 

pipelines and flowlines.

D. Environmental Hazards

D.1 Geologic Hazards

A wellsite clearance letter prepared by Fugro (2014) concluded that the wellsite is free of any 

significant geological hazards and suitable for the proposed activities. See Supplemental 

DOCD Section C for supporting geological and geophysical information.

D.2 Severe Weather

Under most circumstances, weather is not expected to have any effect on the proposed 

activities. Extreme weather, including high winds, strong currents, and large waves, was 

considered in the design criteria for the DP lay barge under consideration for this project. High 

winds and limited visibility during a severe storm could disrupt support activities (vessel and 

helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on the DP lay barge for 

safety reasons until the storm or weather event passes. In the event of a hurricane, procedures 

as outlined in the Hurricane Evacuation Plan would be adhered to.

D.3 Currents and Waves

Metocean conditions such as sea states, wind speed, ocean currents, etc. will be continuously 

monitored. Under most circumstances, physical oceanographic conditions are not expected to 

have any effect on the proposed activities. Strong currents (e.g., caused by Loop Current eddies 

and intrusions) and large waves were considered in the design criteria for the DP lay barge 

under consideration for this project. High waves during a severe storm could disrupt support 

activities (i.e., vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on 

the DP lay barge for safety reasons until the storm or weather event passes.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 67 

E. Alternatives

No formal alternatives were evaluated in this EIA for a Supplemental DOCD. However, various 

technical and operational options, including the location of the wellsite and the selection of a DP 

lay barge unit, were considered by Anadarko in developing the proposed action.

F. Mitigation Measures

The proposed action includes numerous mitigation measures required by laws, regulations, and 

BOEM lease stipulations and NTLs. The project will comply with all applicable Federal, State, 

and local requirements concerning air pollutant emissions, discharges to water, and solid waste 

disposal. All project activities will be conducted under guidance by Anadarko’s OSRP and will 

include the measures described in Supplemental DOCD Section I. 

G. Consultation

No persons or agencies were consulted during the preparation of this EIA.

H. Preparers

The EIA was prepared by CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. Contributors included

• M. John Thompson (Senior Scientist); 

• Patrick Connelly (Project Scientist); 

• Keith VanGraafeiland (GIS/Remote Sensing Specialist);

• Kristen L. Metzger (Library and Information Services Director); and

• LeslieAnn Weekes (Technical Editor).

I. References 

Ackleh, A., G.E. Loup, J.W. Loup, B. Ma, J.J. Newcomb, N. Pal, N.A. Sidorovskaia, and C. Tiemann. 2012. Assessing 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact on marine mammal population through acoustics: Endangered sperm 

whales. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(3): 2,306-2,314.

Aten, L.E. 1983. Indians of the upper Texas coast. New York, NY: Academic Press. 370 pp.

Barkuloo, J.M. 1988. Report on the conservation status of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus 

desotoi. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 33 pp.

Bélanger, L. and J. Bédard. 1989. Responses of Staging Greater Snow Geese to Human Disturbance. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 53:713-719.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 68 

Biggs, D.C. and P.H. Ressler. 2000. Water column biology, pp. 141-187. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

Deepwater Program: Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Information Resources Data Search and Literature Synthesis. 

Volume I: Narrative Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-049.

Brooke, S., and W.W. Schroeder. 2007. State of deep coral ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico region: Texas to the 

Florida Straits, pp. 271-306. In: S.E. Lumsden, T.F. Hourigan, A.W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (eds.), The State of 

Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Tech. Memo. CRCP-3. Silver Spring, MD. 365 pp.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012a. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017. Western 

Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248. Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, 

and 247. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-019. 3 vol.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012b. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012. Central Planning 

Area Lease Sale 216/222. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA 

BOEM 2012-058. 2 vol. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012c. Archaeology Survey Blocks. Website accessed on 19 February

2014. http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Archaeology/surveyblocks-pdf.aspx. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012d. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017. 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean

Energy Management. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-030.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2013. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013-2014. Western 

Planning Are Lease Sale 233. Central Planning Area 231. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS 

EIS/EA BOEM 2013-0118.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010. Federal & Academic Scientists Return 

from Deep-sea Research Cruise in Gulf of Mexico: Scientists Observe Damage to Deep-sea Corals. Online news 

dated 4 November 2010. Website accessed 19 February 2014. 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20101104_coralcruise.html

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement. 2011a. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease 

Sale: 2011. Western Planning Area Lease Sale 218 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. 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. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2011b. Spills Statistics and Summaries 

1996-2011. Website accessed 19 February 2014. http://www.boem.gov/EnvironmentalStewardship/Environmental-Assessment/Oil-Spill-Modeling/spills-1996-2011.aspx

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. 

Science 330(6001):201-204. 

Carmichael, R.H., W.M. Graham, A. Aven, G.Worthy, and S. Howden. 2012. Were multiple stressors a ‘perfect 

storm’ for northern Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in 2011? PLoS ONE 7(7): e41155.

Carr, A. 1996. Suwannee River sturgeon, pp. 73-83. In: M.H. Carr (ed.), A Naturalist in Florida. Yale University 

Press, New Haven, CT.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010a. Deepwater Horizon response: NIOSH Health Hazard 

Evaluation. Website updated 24 August 2011, accessed 19 February 2014. 

<http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/gulfspillhhe.html>

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010b. Health Hazard Evaluation of Deepwater Horizon Response 

Workers, HETA 2010-0115. Interim Report #6A. 11p.

Clapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan-Jacobs, and W.A. Hoffman. 1982a. Marine birds of the southeastern United 

States and Gulf of Mexico. Part I. Gaviiformes through Pelicaniformes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/01. 637 pp.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 69 

Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan-Jacobs, and R.C. Banks. 1982b. Marine birds of the southeastern United States and Gulf of 

Mexico. Part II. Anseriformes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. 

FWS/OBS-82/20. 492 pp.

Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan-Jacobs, and R.C. Banks. 1983. Marine birds of the southeastern United States and Gulf of 

Mexico. Part III. Charadriiformes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. 

FWS/OBS-83/30. 853 pp.

Coastal Environments, Inc. 1977. Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Office of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation, Interagency Archaeological Services, Baton Rouge, LA. 4 vol.

Coastal Environments, Inc. 1982. Sedimentary Studies of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites. Prepared for the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of State Plans and Grants, Baton Rouge, LA.

Collard, S.B. and C. Way. 1997. Chapter 5 – The biological environment. In: Science Applications International 

Corporation (ed.), Northeastern Gulf of Mexico Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Program: Data Search and 

Synthesis; Synthesis Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources 

Division and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

USGS/BRD/CR-1997-0005. OCS Study MMS 96-0014. 313 pp.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1997. Characterization and trends of recreational and commercial fishing from 

the Florida panhandle. U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. USGS/BRD/CR-1997-0001 and OCS Study MMS 97-0020. 333 pp.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2002. Deepwater Program: Bluewater fishing and OCS activity, interactions 

between the fishing and petroleum industries in deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 2002-078.

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.

CSA International, Inc. 2007. Characterization of northern Gulf of Mexico deepwater hard- bottom communities 

with emphasis on Lophelia coral. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-044. 169 pp. + app.

Davis, R.W. and G.S. Fargion. 1996. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the north-central and western 

Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Davis, R.W., J.G. Ortega-Ortiz, C.A. Ribic, W.E. Evans, D.C. Biggs, P.H. Ressler, J.H. Wormuth, R.R. Leben, K.D. Mullin, 

and B. Würsig. 2000. Cetacean habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 217-253. In: R.W. Davis, 

W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig (eds.), Cetaceans, sea turtles, and seabirds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 

Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-0006 and U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-003. 346 pp. 

Ditty, J.G. 1986. Ichthyoplankton in neretic waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana: Composition, 

relative abundance, and seasonality. Fish. Bull. 84(4):935-946.

Ditty, J.G., G.G. Zieske, and R.F. Shaw. 1988. Seasonality and depth distribution of larval fishes in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico above 26°00’N. Fish. Bull. 86:811-823.

Earthjustice. 2011. Comments on Shell Exploration Plan S-7445, Document ID: BOEM-2011-0006-0001, 

Docket ID: BOEM-2011-0006, 6 February 2011. 18 pp.

Efroymson, R.A., W.H. Rose, S. Nemeth, and G.W. Suter II. 2000. Ecological risk assessment framework for low 

altitude overflights by fixed-wing and rotary-wing military aircraft. Report prepared by Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ORNL/TM-2000/289: ES-5048.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: The Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United 

States and Canada, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. 261 pp.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013a. Loggerhead nesting in Florida. Website accessed 

17 February 2014. http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/loggerhead/
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 70 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013b. Green turtle nesting in Florida. Website accessed 

17 February 2014. http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/green-turtle/

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013c. Leatherback nesting in Florida. Website accessed 

17 February 2014. http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/leatherback/

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013d. Florida's endangered species, threatened species, and 

species of special concern. http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/Threatened_Endangered_Species.pdf

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. 2011. Cnidarian species. Website revised 19 February 2014, 

accessed 13 October 2011. <http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/about/cnidarianlist.html> 

Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Paruka. 2000. Gulf sturgeon spawning migration and habitat in the 

Choctawhatchee River system, Alabama-Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129:811-826.

Fritts, T.H. and R.P. Reynolds. 1981. Pilot study of the marine mammals, birds, and turtles in OCS areas of the Gulf 

of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. 

FWS/OBS-81/36.

Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. 2011. Wellsite Clearance Letters. Proposed Wellsites GC 562-AA and GC 562-BB, Green 

Canyon Area. OCS-G-11075. Letter Reports No. 27.2011-2460-1 and 27.2011-2460-2 

Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. 2012. Wellsite Clearance Letters. Proposed Wellsites GC 562-AAA and GC 562-BBB. 

Block 562, Green Canyon Area. OCS-G-11075. Letter Reports No. 27.2012-2482-1 and 27.2012-2482-2. 

Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. 2014. Wellsite Clearance Letter. Proposed Wellsite GC 562-BB, Block 562, Green 

Canyon Area. OCS-G-11075. Letter Report No. 27.2011-2460-2.

Gallaway, B. (ed.). 1988. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope study, final report: Year 4. Volume II: 

Synthesis report. Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14-12-0001-30212. 

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 Study, 1983-1988. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS Study MMS 2003-072.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1987. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine mammals and turtles, 

pp. 587-617. In: D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais (eds.), Long Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and 

Gas Development. Elsevier Applied Science Publ. Ltd., London and New York.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1990. Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic Press, San Diego.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 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.

Hazen, T.C., E.A. Dubinsky, T.Z. DeSantis, G.L. Andersen, Y.M. Piceno, 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. Zemla, 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 330(6001):204-208. 

Hess, N.A. and C.A. Ribic. 2000. Seabird ecology, pp. 275-315. In: R.W. Davis, W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig (eds.), 

Cetaceans, sea turtles, and seabirds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat 

associations. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

USGS/BRD/CR-1999-0006 and U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-003. 346 pp.

Higashi, G.R. 1994. Ten years of fish aggregating device (FAD) design and development in Hawaii. Bull. Mar. 

Sci. 55(2-3):651-666.

Holand, P. 1997. Offshore Blowouts: Causes and Control. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 71 

Holland, K.R., R.W. Brill, and R.K.C. Chang. 1990. Horizontal and vertical movements of yellowfin and bigeye tuna 

associated with fish aggregating devices. Fish. Bull. 88:493-507.

IEM. 2010. A Study of the Economic Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Prepared for Greater 

New Orleans, Inc. October 2010. Website accessed 19 February 2014.

http://gnoinc.org/wp-content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_I_-_Full_Report.pdf

http://gnoinc.org/wp-content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_II_-_Moratoria_FINAL.pdf

http://gnoinc.org/wp-content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_III_-_Public_Perception_FINAL.pdf

Inter-Agency Economic Report. 2010. Estimating the effects of the deepwater drilling moratorium on the Gulf 

coast economy. September 2010. 

http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/drillingmoratorium.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of 

Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Geneva, Switzerland. 104 pp.

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. 2010. Risk assessment data directory: Blowout frequencies. 

OGP Report No. 434-2. Website accessed 19 February 2014. http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434-02.pdf

Ji, Z-G., W.R. Johnson, C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 2004. Oil-Spill Risk Analysis: Contingency Planning Statistics 

for Gulf of Mexico OCS Activities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region. OCS Report MMS 2004-026.

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. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. 341 pp.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America; Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian 

Institute Press, Washington. 403 pp.

Joint Analysis Group. 2010a. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) review of preliminary data to examine subsurface oil in 

the vicinity of MC252#1 May 19 to June 19, 2010. Website accessed 17 February 2014. 

<

Joint Analysis Group. 2010b. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) review of R/V Brooks McCall data to examine subsurface 

oil. Website accessed 17 February 2014. 

<

http://gomex.erma.noaa.gov/layerfiles/7229/files/JAG_Data_Report_2_Subsurface%20Oil_Final.pdf>

Joint Analysis Group. 2010c. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) review of preliminary data to examine oxygen levels in the 

vicinity of MC252#1 May 8 to August 9, 2010. Website accessed 17 February 2014. 

<

http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/files/JAG%20Report%20Brooks%20McCall%20final.pdf>

Kennicutt, M.C. II. 2000. Chemical Oceanography, pp. 123-139. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Deepwater 

Program: Gulf of Mexico deepwater information resources data search and literature synthesis. Volume I: 

Narrative report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-049.

http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/JAG_Oxygen_Report%20%28FINAL%20090410%29.pdf>

Lohoefener, R., W. Hoggard, K. Mullin, C. Roden, and C. Rogers. 1990. Association of sea turtles with petroleum 

platforms in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 90-0025. 90 pp.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2013. Tracking List and Fact Sheets. Website accessed 17 

February 2014. http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wildlife/rare-animals-fact-sheets

Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart, and D.M. Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and clinicopathologic effects of crude 

oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:417-422.

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival, 

pp. 387-409. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

MacDonald, I.R. (ed.). 2002. Stability and Change in Gulf of Mexico Chemosynthetic Communities. Volume II: 

Technical Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002-036. 456 pp.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 72 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2011. Assessing the long-term effects of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill on

marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico: A statement of research needs. (Website accessed 17 February 2014.) 

<http://www.mmc.gov/reports/workshop/pdf/longterm_effects_bp_oilspil.pdf> 

Minerals Management Service. 2000. Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Operations and Activities: Environmental 

Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000-001.

Minerals Management Service. 2007a. Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, 

VA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-003. April 2007.

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. U.S. Deptartment of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-018. April 2007.

Minerals Management Service. 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. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2008-041. September 2008.

Minerals Management Service. 2009a. NTL No. 2009-G39: Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Minerals Management Service. 2009b. NTL No. 2009-G40: Deepwater Benthic Communities. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 2005. Appendix VIII: Mississippi’s species of greatest 

conservation need by ecoregion, pp. 375-380. In: Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

2005-2015, Version 1. Website accessed 19 February 2014. http://www.mdwfp.com/media/63792/cwcs.pdf

Morrow, J.V., Jr., J.P. Kirk, K.J. Killgore, H. Rugillio, and C. Knight. 1998. Status and recovery of Gulf sturgeon in the 

Pearl River system, Louisiana-Mississippi. N. Am. J. Fish Manage. 18:798-808.

Mullin, K., W. Hoggard, C. Roden, R. Lohoefener, C. Rogers, and B. Taggart. 1991. Cetaceans on the upper 

continental slope in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. OCS Study/MMS 910027. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. 108 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation – Biological Opinion. 

Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities: Five-Year Leasing Plan for Western and Central Planning Areas 

2007-2012. 29 June 2007.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Final Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species Fishery Management Plan Essential Fish Habitat. Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 

Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. June 2009. 

<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/EFH/Final/FEIS_Amendment_Total.pdf> 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010a. Final Recovery Plan for the Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus). 

Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD. December 2010. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/final_sperm_whale_recovery_plan_21dec.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010b. Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). Website accessed 

17 January 2014, updated 19 February 2014. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/gulfsturgeon.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010c. Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill: size and percent coverage of fishing 

area closures due to BP oil spill. Website accessed 17 January 2014. 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon/size_percent_closure/index.html

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Recovery Plan for the 

Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), Second Revision. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_loggerhead_atlantic.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos 

Naturales (SEMARNAT). 2011. Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp‘s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys 

kempii), Second Revision. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/kempsridley_revision2.pdf
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 73 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. Fact Sheet: Small Diesel Spills (500-5,000 gallons). 

NOAA Scientific Support Team, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Seattle, Washington. 2 pp.

National Park Service. 2010. Breton Wilderness 300 km Radius. Website accessed 19 February 2014. 

<

National Research Council. 2003a. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academies Press, 

Washington, DC. 182 pp. + app.

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/AirQuality/docs/Breton_WA300km.pdf>

National Research Council. 2003b. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Ocean Studies Board, National Academies 

Press, Washington, DC. 204 pp.Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij. 2007. Green light to birds: Investigation 

into the effect of bird-friendly lighting. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, Assen, The Netherlands.

Nelson, H.F. and E.E. Bray. 1970. Stratigraphy and History of the Holocene Sediments in the Sabine-High Island 

Area, Gulf of Mexico. In: Morgam, J.P. (ed.) Deltaic Sedimentation; Modern and Ancient. Special Publn. 

No. 15. Tulsa, OK: SEPM.

Nowlin, W.D., Jr., A.E. Jochens, S.F. DiMarco, R.O. Reid, and M.K. Howard. 2001. Deepwater Physical 

Oceanography Reanalysis and Synthesis of Historical Data: Synthesis Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-064. 

528 pp.

Operational Science Advisory Team. 2010. Summary report for sub-surface and sub-sea oil and dispersant 

detection: Sampling and monitoring. Prepared for Paul F. Zukunft, U.S. Coast Guard Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator, Deepwater Horizon MC252. December 17, 2010. 

http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/OSAT_Report_FINAL_17DEC.pdf

Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Report prepared for the U.S. Travel 

Association. Website accessed 29 September 2011. 

http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pd

f 

Peake, D.E. 1996. Bird surveys, pp. 271-304. In: R.W. Davis and G.S. Fargion (eds.), Distribution and abundance of 

cetaceans in the north-central and western Gulf of Mexico, Final report. Volume II: Technical report. 

Prepared by the Texas Institute of Oceanography and the National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 96-0027. 357 pp.

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. Department of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Reston, VA. OCS Study MMS 86-0119. 314 pp.

Poot, H., B.J. Ens, H. de Vries, M.A.H. Donners, M.R. Wernand, and J.M. Marquenie. 2008. Green light for 

nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13(2):47. Website accessed December 2, 2011. 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art47/

Powers, K. 1987. Seabirds, pp. 194-201. In: J.D. Milliman and W.R. Wright (eds.), The Marine Environment of the 

U.S. Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise. Jones and Bartlett Publ., Inc. Boston/Woods Hole, MA. 275 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1997. Evolution, phylogeny, and current status.pp. 1-28. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The

Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Rathbun, G.B. 1988. Fixed-wing airplane versus helicopter surveys of manatees. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 4(1):71-75.

Relini, M., L.R. Orsi, and G. Relini. 1994. An offshore buoy as a FAD in the Mediterranean. Bull. Mar. Sci. 

55(2-3):1,099-1,105.

Richards, W.J., T. Leming, M.F. McGowan, J.T. Lamkin, and S. Kelley-Farga. 1989. Distribution of fish larvae in 

relation to hydrographic features of the Loop Current boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. 

Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 191:169-176.

Richards, W.J., M.F. McGowan, T. Leming, J.T. Lamkin, and S. Kelley. 1993. Larval fish assemblages at the Loop 

Current boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 53(2):475-537.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic 

Press, San Diego. 576 pp.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 74 

Rodgers, J., Jr, and S. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer Zone Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing Waterbirds from 

Disturbances by Personal Watercraft and Outboard-Powered Boats. Conserv. Biol. 16:216-224.

Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II. 2009. Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology 

Study. Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-039. 456 pp.

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, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-009. 348 pp.

Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken. 1990. Do swimming loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) use light cues for 

offshore orientation? Mar. Freshw. Behav. Phy. 17(4): 233-246.

Sea Turtle Restoration Project. 2013. Kemp’s ridley protection campaign. Website accessed 19 February 2014. 

http://www.seaturtles.org/article.php?list=type&type=41. 

Share the Beach. 2013. Nesting season statistics. Website accessed 17 January 2014. 

http://www.alabamaseaturtles.com/nesting-season-statistics/

Smultea, M.A., J.R. Mobley, Jr., D. Fertl, and G.L. Fulling. 2008. An unusual reaction and other observations of 

sperm whales near fixed wing aircraft. Gulf. Carib. Res. 20:75-80.

Solomon, G.M. and S. Janssen. 2010. Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill. JAMA 304(10):1,118-1,119. 

Spier, C., W. T. Stringfellow, T.C. Hazen, and M. Conrad. 2013. Distribution of hydrocarbons released during the 

2010 MC252 oil spill in deep offshore waters. Environmental Pollution 173: 224-230.

Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. Early life history stages of Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, Florida. 

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127:758-771.

Todd, V. L. G., W.D. Pearse, N.C. Tregenza, P.A. Lepper, and I.B. Todd. 2009. Diel echolocation activity of harbour 

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) around North Sea offshore gas installations. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 66: 734–745.

Tuxbury, S.M. and M. Salmon. 2005. Competitive interactions between artificial lighting and natural cues during 

seafinding by hatchling marine turtles. Biol. Conserv. 121: 311-316.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida manatee recovery plan (Trichechus manatus latirostris), Third 

Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Fort 

Snelling, Minnesota. September 2003.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. International Recovery Plan: Whooping Crane (Grus americana), Third 

Revision. Albuquerque, New Mexico. March 2007.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. All about piping plovers. Website accessed 18 February 2014. 

<http://www.fws.gov/plover/facts.html> 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Beach-nesting Birds of the Gulf. Website accessed 18 February 2014. 

<http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHBirdsOfTheGulf.pdf> 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010c. Find endangered species. Website accessed 18 February 2014. 

<

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010d. Effects of oil on wildlife and habitat. Website accessed 18 February 2014. 

<

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/>

http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHJICFWSOilImpactsWildlifeFactSheet.pdf> 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. FWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response. Bird Impact Data and 

Consolidated Wildlife Reports. Deepwater Horizon Bird Impact Data from the DOI-ERDC NRDA Database 

12 May 2011. Website accessed 19 February 2014. 

http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2005122011.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 

1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Plan. 170 pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_gulf.pdf> 

Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida conservation plan for Gulf sturgeon (Acipencer oxyrinchus desotoi). Florida 

Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-8. St. Petersburg, FL.
Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 75 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel (eds.). 2013. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments – 2012. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NE 223. 419 pp. 

Wei, C-L. 2006. The bathymetric zonation and community structure of deep-sea macrobenthos in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University. Website accessed 29 September 2011. 

<http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/4927> 

White, H.K., P. Hsing, W. Cho, T.M. Shank, E.E. Cordes, A.M. Quattrini, R.K. Nelson, R. Camilli, A.W.J. Demopoulous, 

C.R. German, J.M. Brooks, H.H. Roberts, W. Shedd, C.M. Reddy and C.R. Fisher. 2012. Impact of the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep-water coral community in the Gulf of Mexico. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 

109(50):20,303-20,308. 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/23/1118029109.full.pdf+html?sid=56e8cdfe-2830-43f8-9d08-

8eca0efd27e2

Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership. 2010. Technical Database. Whooping Crane Recovery Reports. Website 

accessed 19 February 2014. 

http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/technicaldatabase/index.html#RecoveryReports

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. Mar. Poll. Bull. 42(12):1,285-1,290.

Wilson, J. 2003. Manatees in Louisiana. Louisiana Conservationist. July/August 2003, pp. 4-7. 

http://www.lamer.lsu.edu/pdfs/Manatees_LaConservArticle.pdf

Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals, pp. 303-328. 

In: J.R. Clemmons and R. Buchholz (eds.), Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, England.

Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquat. Mamm. 24: 41-50.

Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidly. 2000. The Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M 

University Press, College Station, TX. 232 pp.
 

Q 

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 

(a) Proprietary Information 

Proprietary copies of this plan contain information not available to the public and include 

structure maps, seismic information, cross sections, depths of wells, etc. 

(b) Bibliography 

1. Initial DOCD, Green Canyon Block 562. 

2. Shallow Hazards Report 

3. Final Sale Package for Central Gulf of Mexico Sale Number 118.